Pages

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

End of November...novel is not done.

Ok. So there is the big news about the Pope's opinion on gay priests.
I have a question about priests. Aren't they supposed to be celibate?
So wouldn't that make them neither gay or straight? I'm just curious. So if you are a priest or a nun, you remain celibate and are therefore "married to the church" so you shouldn't have ANY sexual urges of any kind.
I'm just asking...anyone have an answer? If you respond and say that it's impossible for humans to have NO urges, I disagree. There are many people out there who have no interest in it. And if you think that it's impossible to ask that of someone, then I agree maybe the Roman Catholic church should change it's rules about priest and marriage.
I think that they should encourage family and faith. Like some of those other religions out there.

They say you shouldn't talk about politics and religion in polite company. But I think that makes things more interesting. And check it out, I'm updating my blog for those who wanted an update. At least it gave me a topic to discuss. :)

I do apologize for not updating.
I blame the following three things:
1. New boyfriend. I tell him all the interesting things in my head. And he talks back. Which is way more interesting than a blog.
2. I'm tring to write a book. I was supposed to have 50,000 words by the end of the month. I'm not even close.
3. I'm trying to get through my pile of reading. I'm actually reading 2-3 books at a time on an effort to get through all of it. :)

Ok...I'll write some more later.

Ok, it's now later. Not that you can tell by my post.

So remember my post about Oprah for President?
Apparently there is a fan club out there that would like her to win the Nobel Peace Prize. oprah4peaceprize.org

Crazy huh? Go sign the petition. :)

Remember in my same post I think I might have told of my support for Hillary Clinton if she were to run for president as well. Well, someone I know who I thought was a fan of the Clinton's is against Hillary for President because she "lies and hides her lifestyle". Apparently this person thinks that Hillary is a lesbian, and shouldn't be condemned because she is a lesbian, but should be condemned because she is married and "hides" her true life. I disagree. Who cares if she is or if she isn't? We have way more problems in this world to solve.
Like over 2000 American soldiers dead in Iraq. And homeless and hungry people on our VERY OWN SMALL TOWN STREETS. And how about all of the kids with no parents?

Besides, it's none of my business or your business what someone does when the bedroom door is shut. (which in my opinion is where all of that "gay" and "lesbian" stuff actually happens right?)

I mean, so we are okay with someone in office who is straight, but "hides" his true life by not admitting he has to have his toes licked or he isn't attracted to his wife. Who cares? I don't. Anyway, I had to ask this person "who said Hilary is a lesbian?" and the person replied that they had insider information. I told this person that if they had insider information, then someone else must have it as well, which would mean it would have been leaked all over to the National Enquirer by now....

Besides that I have one other point. I don't blame anyone for keeping any of their private sexual attractions a secret (yes people, it should be private, I don't know why if you are gay or lesbian your life is all of a sudden someone else's business) It's no one's business.
And why would I not blame someone for keeping it a secret if they were gay or a lesbian? Because the rest of us make it so hard for them to live a normal, not persecuted, no feelings hurt, normal life. If I were a lesbian, I might be too afraid to discuss it or be open. I might be in the closet. Married to a man. Having his children, and all way too afraid to be me.
Simply because we can't accept people for who they are.
Sometimes this world stinks. But then I stop and remember, it's only the people that stink. :)

So...enjoying my blog updates yet? haha...I know I have a few lurkers who are happy I finally updated.

But who are you? Do I know all of you?

I should post a picture.... I'm going to post pictures of internet lurkers.



For now you can have this one his name is Mickey. I'm pretty sure he isn't an internet lurker. But he is definitely the best dog ever. He unfortunately passed away a while back.

2 comments:

TC said...

Ok, a big blog entry requires a bit response. :)

1) Gay Priests:
First off, anyone who has no sexual urges or attractions of any type is asexual and therefore not gay/straight/bi whatever. Secondly, while not acting on a sexual urge is the point of celibacy it doesn't remove the underlying attraction between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman. This is why people usually end up coming out at some point in their life or self-destructing, because who you are cannot be suppressed forever.
The church has actually totally reversed their stated position on gay priests. It used to be as part of their patronizing attitude towards homosexuals that they stated that being gay was a calling to be celibate and to serve the church. That only acting upon those nasty, unnatural urges were sinful.
The current policy is based on desperation due to in parts the child abuse scandal and the losing battle on keeping homosexuals inside a nice little box where its ok to attack them and make them second class citizens. They are trying to take the issue off of the systematic coverup by the bishops of this country to protect child molesters and put it squarely on the false idea that these predators were "gay priests". While that may be true in some circumstances, sexually based offenses are more often than not based on an idea of power and domination rather than a specific gender attraction. Also most child molesters who go after boys still identify as straight.

Here's an oped piece from the LA Times about this whole issue: http://tinyurl.com/9gjoh.

2) Public/Private lives of Gays
These days its very public when someone is gay simply because its so persecuted. If it wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be so big a deal, although to some extent your sexuality can not fully be private if you at all discuss your attractions to friends and family. If you like a boy, and you are one, simply put you are not straight. Of course making it known, you are gay, bi or simply some degree of not straight is different than announcing to the world at large exactly what acts you perform with your partner in the bedroom and how often.

Also there are some very "gay" and "lesbian" stuff that is very much not in the bedroom. Its more than sex. Simple bits of PDA (public displays of affection) that straights take for granted, such as a kiss, hug, holding hands, holding each other, are considered unacceptable to some. To completely leave the realm of the sexual is also things like marriage, health issues such as visitation rights, inheritance laws, spousal social security income, as well as a dizzying array of other benefits that are denied to gay couples.

Ok, I think that pretty much sums up my response and removes me from lurker status ;)

PS - I could care less if Hillary is or isn't gay/straight or whatever. The closet cases that really piss me off are people who are actively working against rights for gays and who are secretly gay themselves. I find it akin to someone who is Jewish who aligned themselves with Hitler's regime, or a person who is black who joins the KKK.

KJ said...

Thanks for the update!

Gay Priests? Who cares, they won't even let women be priests and as long as they are living in the dark ages, they will be a dying religion. It's the 'good old boy' network at it's worst. What kind of women could belong to a religion that considers them to be second class and not worthy of "priesthood"?

Hilary, I also heard she was a "lesbian", but as you said, who cares. I don't vote for or against a person based on their sexual preference. I base my vote on their "honesty and integrity", which I believe Hilary lacks totally. I would vote for GWB again, before Hilary Clinton. Besides, I wouldn't put Bill Clinton back in the White House, even as First Lady.

KJ

Post a Comment