.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Bird's Blog

Poetry, musings, observations, commentary, rants, confessions...and who knows what else!

My Photo
Name:
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Teacher, writer, poet, grandmother, lover, wine-drinker, chocolate eater, beach comber, hiker, traveler, Giants fan, San Franciscan. All work on this blog is copyrighted material.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Sexual Politics and Family Values – A Bird Rant

I originally wrote what follows as a comment in response to comments on yesterday's post, but determined to post it as a regular blog entry. You all might want to check out yesterday's post on Nancy Pelosi and the comments on family values and sexual politics that post provoked.

Jack - you are welcome to take up any amount of space here any time you like. And AB, even though I abhor your thinking and think you a homophobe, you have similar privileges – within reason. After all, I will brook no insult to those I love. As you know, the gloves come off when my family is attacked. And so, with this rant, I begin to take off the gloves. I prefer civility – so let’s hope I don’t get the gloves off completely and move to fisticuffs.

From this point on, readers beware - the text may become graphic and sexually explicit.

AB: but your truth is not truth.

It is made up of falsifications and isolated facts strung together to create a case, without inclusion of the refuting facts. In short, you're full of bullshit on this topic. We've been down this road before, and frankly, the so-called facts and perspective you take (recently and in past discussions) remind me of the pseudo-science that was employed decades ago to prove that the black man was intellectually inferior and inherently immoral. Again I say, bullshit.

Let’s take a look at this word "sodomy." This word carries a weight of judgment and negative connotations – because of its biblical roots. Objections to sodomy and the case that its immoral, as well as the drive to keep it illegal in some states, and make it illegal in others, are rooted in religious belief - not in facts. Many people who object to homosexuality and claim sodomy is so horrible do so because of their religious beliefs. And they would like to force those beliefs on the rest of us. They would like to force this term, “sodomy” and all its religious baggage, on the rest of us.

Let’s use a different term: anal intercourse.

If you don't want that kind of sex, it shouldn't be forced upon you- and if it is - that's called RAPE – regardless of gender or sexual orientation. But anal intercourse is a sexual preference or predilection nothing more or less.

Whether a person is “wired” biologically to desire anal intercourse or just plain likes it is irrelevant. It is no more inherently immoral or wrong than coitus in the missionary position. And mind you, all forms of sex carry with them inherent medical risks. The risks of sexual activity can be mitigated. And honorable, caring people, regardless of what kind of sexual activity they engage in, take steps to mitigate those risks for each other. Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Anal intercourse is not the only way for gay men to have sex (and by the way, male/female couples and female/female couples engage in anal sex as well). Some heterosexual women enjoy anal sex. Some don’t. I would imagine that some homosexual men enjoy it and some don’t. I bet some heterosexual men enjoy it too – - their female lovers may insert a finger into their anus whilst licking their balls or sucking their dicks, and a heterosexual man may like that quite a bit- and some may not. A heterosexual woman may like her male lover’s finger inserted in her anus whilst he is licking her clit. And perhaps dildoes come into play, or fruit. Or ...? Who knows? Who cares?).

Granted – a lot of anal sex can stretch that orifice. Too much coitus can be bad for you too. But I trust people to figure out how far they can take a good thing. Again, all sex comes with risks and honorable, caring people mitigate those risks for their partners.

Ingesting feces? That’s so ridiculous it's laughable. Yeah, there are some couples, both homo and hetero that lick each other's anuses - some people find that to be a turn on. No "dirtier" than cunnilingus and fellatio - if you're a clean person. Besides, what business is it of anyone’s where your tongue goes? Where my tongue goes? Do you want to follow me around in bed and see what I do? Or have me catalogue it here? I bet if I did, quite a few readers would get turned on – and I bet some of those would be folks who claim such sexual activity is unclean, or deviant, or immoral. And quite a few folk would think anything but the man on top with his dick in the woman’s cunt is unacceptable. Gosh, what an impoverished sex life that must be! But if that’s your thing – have at it.

But if you did follow me about, and you did disapprove of my sexual behavior – and you did find it to be deviant and immoral and nasty and distasteful – does that give you the right to prohibit loving, dedicated, committed gay and lesbian couples from uniting in matrimony? I think not. Prohibiting such unions seems so contrary to family values. Prohibiting such unions forces loving couples to live outside the law and in a precarious situation. Prevents loving couples from enjoying the rights and privileges other married couples enjoy –it’s blatant discrimination – and in no way supports family or marriage. It undermines those things. It makes married life and familial life more difficult.

The state grants civil unions to heterosexual couples all the time. I see no reason not to grant such unions to homosexual couples.

About divorce rates – Jack – I recall reading somewhere that the divorce rate is higher than 50%. Not sure though. But with regards to homosexual couples - maybe they would have a higher rate or a lesser, or the same. Who knows. I do know this – I know many same sex couples who have been together for decades. They are loving and committed couples. They are productive members of their communities, caring and strong members of their nuclear and extended families. And I suspect that because they have managed to maintain their union even though they receive less support from the community for their unions, they are stronger, better, more loving and dedicated folks than many of us. Their unions have survived and blossomed despite the odds stacked against them by both overt and covert homophobes, by both overt and covert homophobic governmental policies.

Those couples know the true meaning of FAMILY VALUES. They do indeed, as you say Jack, live well and serve not only each other fully,but the rest of us as well. They provide us with examples and role models of what it means to live your life true to your love, to hold fast to your truth, your love, your family, with dedication and care, despite the roadblocks and challenges bigots and homophobes and a hostile world throws at you.

So once again, I tip my hat to SAN FRANCISCO VALUES.

17 Comments:

Blogger /t. said...

AWESOME!
&
BRAVO!

"it's ok so long as i say so" attittude fries me -- God save us from those who would save us

/t.

January 06, 2007 1:13 PM  
Blogger Percival said...

I may only hope and trust there was an opportunity to call your opponent "asinine".

January 06, 2007 1:27 PM  
Blogger boneman said...

Well, there is another completely different factor, fleeting though it may be, about homosexual partners that seems to always get lost in the rant and rave of things.
Say, a couple who only live together, no sex.
Hmmm. Actually, I got even money on a few marriages already being like that...at least after the first couple of decades, eh?

So, I don't know who "AB" is, but then, don't worry 'bout folks who use the bible to condemn other folks. They will indeed find a "reward" though it probably ain't what they thought it would be.
AB sounds like someone interested in body building, y'know. Like abs or pecs. When someone can set fire to yer fuse so easily then there are three possibilities...

#1 they been workin' on ya fer a while, and they're gettin' to ya.
#2 they hit the nail on the head about something yer embarrassed about
#3 y'all been holdin' back yer feelings and thoughts t'be "nice" t'folks like friends and family but then somebody stepped on yer toes and there weren't any friends or family around t'help guard yer tongue.

Maybe it's all three.
Maybe it ain't none of the three and it's something entirely different, which would make me just another bozo writing about things I have no idea about.
But, it does bring to fore one of the questions that I've pondered over the years....
When used in that context, should I capitalize "bozo"?

Being a teacher and all, maybe y'could shed some light on that...

January 06, 2007 1:44 PM  
Blogger boneman said...

And, as I read further down yer posts, I find that "AB" is Auntie Belle....

Always in life and all over this here earth and during all the times that mankind, oops....humankind
has been here there has been someone somewhere telling others what they HAVE to do to be.
Why is it that some folks feel THEIR words are all anybody needs to live a better, more fruitful life?

If I went much further in this thought, the "all time/all places" thing, I would have to bring up the apple story, too. And, while it fits in the genre of telling others what to do and all, well, I would hardly want to compare Auntie with the snake, eh? She's on her porches and she's happy tellin' folks things. Responses are not called for.

In fact, I read with avid interest on Percival's blog as she continually slammed an entire religion and all it's followers while never once facing up to the fact that our own religiousness in this country is way shy of reason, logic, or even, for that matter, love.

I'll let you in on a secret.
OK, it ain't much of a secret.
We can't measure how fast an electron goes and we can only guesstimate it's weight.
Both quantifications are impossible because
we have to interact with the particle and that would botch up the measurement.
If y'all stoop t'blasting at Auntie, you have become one of those you detest.

DANG!


DOUBLE DANG!

(that would be dang dang, I guess)

She has chosen a haughty seat in which to sit, and maybe one of these days, the LORD she so adamnantly worships will bring her a big basket of rocks with which to throw at the rest of us sinners.
(yeah, I spell it wrong sometimes....fits better)
Me? Heck yeah! So, I'll tell y'what I'm doing...
lookin' fer a good trash can lid. If y'hold it just right, the rocks won't sting so much.

January 06, 2007 2:10 PM  
Blogger Riki D said...

One cannot discuss marriage and gender equality without defining gender. For the last century or two, males (in terms of sexual bodily function) have been defined as having a penis of 2.5 or larger centimenters, whereas females are defined as having a clitoris 0-0.9 centimeters. That leaves anyone with a clitoris/penis (the two organs are essentially the same but differentiate in the womb) between 0.9 and 2.5 centimeters considered “not quite male or female” or “intersex”. These measurements were done by scientists in the traditional “classification” tradition using the bell curve to establish “norms”. This despite a person’s ability to bear children (I myself would fall into the femalish intersex category with ability to bear children) and despite the chromosomes (xx, xy, xxx--as sometimes occurs) that are part of one’s genetic makeup. This definition of female/male also doesn’t count as how one sees oneself (self-image). So, despite our socially constructed norms of maleness or femaleness, such definition can be seen in terms of a range rather than a duality (please see the wonderful scale by the Center for Gender Sanity). http://www.gendersanity.com/diagram.shtml

So, if we can’t necessarily define what is male and what is female, how can we possibly define that marriage is between a man and a woman, whether or not the Bible says this is the acceptable state of marriage? If we accept the idea that we are all made in “his” image—we still must accept the fact that no one has proven what this image is. And given the fact that I, myself can be considered “not acceptably female” in ascetic and cultural terms, can my marriage with my husband and our ensuing blessing with a child via natural means be considered a heterosexual marriage? Is it a “sham” to those who propose such strict guidelines? How far does one take the male-female argument? Must we measure penis and clitoris size to determine whether a marriage follows the law? This sounds kind of like the arguments made for mixed-race marriages in which one had to prove that one was less than 1/16 or 1/32 African American to “qualify” as white. What ridiculousness! Why is it so difficult to say that a marriage is between two souls and (possibly) God? A marriage is about souls and commitment to a union of being, and souls are genderless.

January 06, 2007 9:41 PM  
Blogger Jack K. said...

Damn, woman, you sure can write a right on RANT. HUZZAH!

I wish that I were that articulate and learned.

boneman, I dig your comments. btw, no matter how you wish to spell bozo, I don't think it applies to you in this case. The real Bozo was the late clown on Chicago television. lol

I know, we all get eat up with the dumbass once in a while.

bird, you do know how to tern the words. I'm proud to know you.

January 07, 2007 9:09 AM  
Blogger Aunty Belle said...

Ah Birdy.....Bird.....sugar, sigh...BIG sigh...Aunty did not refer to religion or morals--why do youse feel the need to introduce that in yore comments?

For the sake of clarity and objectivity, this could have been an' exchange free of subjective perspectives, like morals or religion.

When a position cannot be defended medically, scientifically, note how quickly those with less factual data ( you & Jack) try to reject the scientific reality and truth by attempting to consign it to a moral or religious debate.

Whatever yore Aunty Belle's religious beliefs may or may not be are immaterial to the statistical/medical realities of homosexual practice. Yore vituperation toward the messenger (Yores truly) will not change the realty even a wee bit, honey.

The life span of a gay man or bisexual in the the WEST is tragically short. A Canadian study reported that half, yes, 50 % --of gay men will not make it to age 65. This is a broad spectrum study, not one confined to deaths from AIDS. Is that what you want fer yore brother? Son? Co-worker? Neighbor? I doan.

American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry report that gay men report a 40% partner violence rate, up to 55 for lesbians. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence report similar findings. You want that fer yore loved ones? Looky. darlin' this here is a hurtful topic, I knows that.

But iffin' those homosexuals you know is "safer" than than most, well and good, but THAT is what's "isolated," for the overwhelming future for most homosexuals is a life of disease, violence and early death.

Now, hang wif' me fer a second, Bird. Is you fair? I mean --how is it that you want to hurl "homophobe " at me? I have not said or inferred one thang that is against a person's worth or importance.

My one observation is that homosexual practice is deadly--and that ain't opinion or "isolated" facts. That is a statistical, medical truth.

A true truth, Bird, not a "I wish what I thought was true so I'll say it is even when it ain't" sorta truth.

I git that you have loved ones that are homosexual and that yore rant is in defense of them and the whole idea of loving others who are pursuing their own way of being--fair enough--but to defend them as persons of dignity and worth does not require you to blindfold yoreself on the reality of the danger of homosexual practice.

To make this point less tense, consider that we all know people that we love and admire, but who smoke-- so we do not love them less or value their humanity any less because they smoke, but we sure wish and advise them to stop--'cause it will kill them. We counsel them to stop smoking because we love them, care for them--not because we 's smokeophobes.

Last point, Bird, youse talkin' 'bout what you wish, not what you know. You have no data to confirm your wishful thinkin', chile. The AIDS virus is small enough to get through the miniscule perforations in a latex condom. The "mitigation" you hope can make homosexual sex safe sex is not really much help---this is above and beyond the truth (as reported by gays themselves) of the thrill they seek in risky sex.

Bird, Aunty is real real fond of you. I think youse sincere. Youse talented, insightful and creative--lots to admire. I ain't 'spectin' us to see eye to eye on a whole lot--but that doan change my fondness fer ya'.

All the same, Sugar, I does wanna ask ya to think hard on this matter, cause it ain't about agreein' or disagreein', ain't remotely about "tolerance"....it is about saving lives.

When you try ter make it about "tolerance" you obscure the truth none of us can change: Homosexual practice is life threatening.

You'll feel you want to respond to this, and fair enough. But it really ain't my intent to deflect yore blog into a rantin' match, so I'll hang back on the porch i hopes this will die down and youse back soon ter yore more creative offerings.

Still love ya' Bird Beauty.

January 07, 2007 12:51 PM  
Blogger firebird said...

"San Francisco values"--they are exactly what Jesus taught:

TOLERANCE for those different from ourselves--

A NONJUDGMENTAL ATTITUDE, not condemning whole groups of people, nor holding yourself up as a moral judge of someone's personal life.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS, as God loves us just the way God made us, not the way some people would like to change us into.

Jesus gave his life for these principles.
If he were alive today, he would be very comfortable in San Francisco...might be run out of town in many places I can think of!

January 07, 2007 8:45 PM  
Blogger Bird said...

A few quick comments:

/t. - thanks!
boneman - intersting perspective, solid advice.

ab: sigh. you and i do better on the "creative" ground - that's where we can meet in agreement, but your advice to stick to creative postings is a bit patronizing. perhaps you too should stick to "creative" postings and not trouble yourself with these larger issues.

consider: statistics are fine and dandy, but understanding what makes a statistic is more quite important as well. for example: the health and well-being of lesbians often suffers because "statistically" lesibans are often reluctant to be upfront with their health care providers. why? because not all healthcare providers can set their own biases aside and treat lesbians (this also goes for gay men) with respect. not all are willing to work with lesbians or gays on their particular health issues - and not from any sound,medical stance - simply from ignorance and lack of understanding.

sort of like - we know from statistics that single-parent households headed by women have less income and more financial difficulties than single-parent households headed by men. but the solution is not to say no single-parent households headed by women - the solution is ensure that WOMEN have opportunities to train for and work in professions that earn good money - and that we start paying women the same as men (we still make less when you compare training, experience, and professions).

risky behaviors - less so now than in the 60s and 70s - why? because it's just a tad bit easier to be openly gay. when a society makes it shameful to be gay - gays go underground, or in the shadows - they cannot live openly, they seek out furtive relationships and they develop a less than postive and healthful attitude. but we're in a second, or maybe it's even a third wave of consciousness-raising - and as more gays and lesbians pursue their lives openly - the more healthful their lives become.

i reccomend a gay/lesbian studies course for you AB - that may help you see the truth of the other side of the coin.

firebird- that's it - sf values = jesus's values - i like it.

January 07, 2007 9:46 PM  
Blogger Bird said...

oops,forgot to say
riki d - interesting argument. we can't really define gender - how then can we define marraige.

but this makes me think about ... the biological argument in support of gays and lesbians - the argument that gays and lesbians can't help themselves, because it's not a choice- it's a biological imperative.

but i don't like that arugment - though i see its usefulness. homoseuality should be acceptable as a CHOICE. IM humble O. haha!

January 07, 2007 9:50 PM  
Blogger bronxbt said...

happiness comes in all forms.
love IS blind. (thank gawd)

and, in regard to your comment on my fuzziechadsrule site -- can birdee's even say "homie?"... giggle

B

January 08, 2007 7:18 AM  
Blogger ThursdayNext said...

Two of my best friends, a gay couple, just adopted a little African-American girl whose parents were no more than 14 a piece. God Bless America where there is an opportunity for every child to have a loving home in any shape or form...isnt that what family values is all about? Love?

January 08, 2007 7:41 AM  
Blogger Mr Q said...

I can't help but smile. What pour of emotions, word power and literacy. Wish I had some of those at work. I can only admire the debate and encourage that it is continued with no personal attacks though, those can escalate into "other" things that I wish that I could avoid but that I must work with.
I know why we can not "get along", because if we did, what would be the purpose of my/our existence? I just say, Let's not get hurt, by any means.

January 08, 2007 2:35 PM  
Blogger Bird said...

Mr. Q
You are a diplomat extraordinaire!

January 08, 2007 10:21 PM  
Blogger Jack K. said...

And, as Leo Buscaglia once said, "At least don't hurt them."

January 10, 2007 6:38 AM  
Blogger Peaches said...

Wowzers Bird.
Beautifully, honestly, masterfully written. Love your use of the vernacular to express the truth.

As MP says all the time...
"Why is it that some people are so obsessed with the actual sexual positions that homosexuals take? Why are they so caught up in the sex act of a group of people they propose to despise and hate? What could it be that they need to contemplate the 'way' gay people copulate? Their curiosity makes for suspicions that would shock them."

Where you put what in a loving mutual relationship is far from being as important as where you put your trust and heart.

Love this piece so much.
Great stuff.
You are wonderful.

January 11, 2007 4:07 AM  
Blogger Pete Bogs said...

man, I missed this, too... HOT! I will have to visit more often... btw, I made up a name for a sexual act you mention in here: bunnilingus...

January 30, 2007 1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home