*puzzled*

[labellementeuse]

So my mother got me a Listener subscription, which is fabulous and kind and has made some people very jealous. But, er, I don't think I got last week's edition, simply because I think I would remember a cover that screamed "GAY PARENTS" at the top of its lungs.

Anyway. It doesn't seem to have been an especially well-researched article, so it doesn't bother me too much. But you guys should read some of the letters in this week's Listener and write snarky responses. Unusually for this area, though, every single writer has made a strong attempt to say nice things about gay people- not nice enough, obviously, but never mind. However one letter in particular... well, y'all just read it, and see if you can guess the one that makes me spit, huh?

I would do it myself, but I want to write them a letter about this week's feature: Tamaki and The Abstainers. *sporks* Okay, now look, abstinence is wonderful. But it is not sensible and it is not realistic. The article quotes statistics showing that, while an abstinence pledge may delay loss of virginity, kids who abstain nevertheless have the same rate of STDs- in other words, the rate of contraction of STDs is much higher among kids who have pledged. Why? because along with abstinence pledges come the inability to be prepared. What are we really worried about for our kids? the contraction of STDs. Your kids are at risk from this policy, and I'm goddamn going to write the Listener and tell them so.

I mean, forget the Gay Agenda- the Destiny Church openly admits to wanting to infiltrate school boards to put gorward their plans for abstinence. >:O

Comments

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Hello, I'm going to come and random up your LJ with a long post, because these two are things I feel particularly strongly about - two of my pet issues.

Ack. I think it's disgusting that Destiny Church are apparently trying to get into school boards and thus force their opinions through. I have no problem with them promoting abstinence, but I do have a problem with them drowning out all the other options.

I think sex ed is extremely important. As people have mentioned, we do have shocking disease rates here, and something needs to be done about that. I will continue to believe that the most effective way to make things change is to start with education - if kids are taught what safe sex is and how important it is, then hopefully that attitude will filter through into the community once they start having kids. That's a somewhat idealistic view and probably not particular pragmatic, but probably the best option we have. If kids are going to have sex, they should be doing it safely, and if they've been bombarded with nothing but Absolute Abstinence that's doing them a big wrong - nobody should be denied knowledge of other options. Sure, if they want to promote abstinence, then promote it. But as one option among many. Obviously Destiny won't take that view, but anyway.

Abstinence until marriage is obviously something I don't personally agree with - considering that non-heterosexuals can't even get married. Well we can get civil unionised, but I don't think the catchphrase is 'abstinence until marriage/civil union'. Also, I don't think marriage really changes anything. A relationship is either going to work or it is not; it is either committed or it is not. A piece of paper and 'God's sanction' aren't going to change anything. I do not understand how sex can go from being bad, immoral, sinful, evil etc to wonderful, amazing, beautiful, God's gift etc just because a formality has been gone through. However, I think Judeo-Christian attitudes to sex in general are not particularly helpful and do not like the fact that sex is considered wrong - that has a lot of implications for society. I don't mean to deny the validity of the views of anyone reading who may be Christian. It's just that I personally don't like a number of views which are commonly held under a morality influenced by the Bible/Judeo-Christian tradition. It doesn't fit me.

As for the gay marriage letters, yep I think I can see which one you hated! Hmmm. 'Their way of life, whether intended or not, tends to have a homoerotic influence. Surely gay couples... should not encroach on the long established practice of family life.' *rage* Something I've never understood throughout this whole thing is why gay people are not considered part of family! Do we not also have brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, mothers and fathers, and even children, god forbid? It's like these people think gays just cloister themselves off into little private sects or something and don't have families! Crikey dick, we're there at all the family occasions that anyone else is at (unless we've been kicked out or something ridiculous). Why can't they just accept that gay people are family as well? Oh, how dare we encroach on family life. Blah. What's with the argument from tradition anyway? Do these people not realise that tradition is not Always Right? Do they not acknowledge that traditions have changed? Throughout most of Western history, women were second class citizens. Should we go back to this? Come on, logic, people.

Secondly, 'their way of life having a homoerotic influence'. Hmmmmmmmm. Letter writer, dear, does not your way of life have a heteroerotic influence that could be uncomfortable for your children if they turn out to be gay? WHY is homoeroticism bad? Oh, that's right, because sexuality is bad. Attraction towards other human beings can be a very good thing, regardless of gender, and does not the impression that its parents are in love and show this towards one another affect a child positively, again regardless of gender? It comes back to the old argument - better two loving gay parents than two distant or abusive straight ones!

Apologies for the length of this, but when I get going I get going! I'm also adding you to my friends, hope there's no objection!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:D Hey, randomness! Right on.

As for your comment- wow. I would return the compliment with something equally thoughtful, right this second, but I think I will leave it till tomorrow because it's eleven and I have an eight am lecture tomorrow. >.< But I did want to say, right now, RIGHT ON. *thumbs up* And you hit the exact letter.

Also? Frankly, I think anyone suggesting that their parents' sex lives have any "erotic" influence, whether it be homoerotic or heteroerotic, needs to have their head examined and ask actual people who were actually children how much they thought of their parents having sex. *SIGH*

[kitsunerei88]

then you have to ask yourself how old you were before you even knew what sex WAS. . .

I mean, depending on who you ask and stuff, the kid could just be like "What's 'sex?'" At least, I would have been like that until I was like, ten or something. . .

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

... not too old, actually, because some older kid told me. I know that's usually my responsibility, as an oldest child, but when I was little my family hung around a lot with people who had kids up to ten years older than me so, er, I picked up a lot of the facts of life quite young. ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

So a more detailed analysis:

Ack. I think it's disgusting that Destiny Church are apparently trying to get into school boards and thus force their opinions through. I have no problem with them promoting abstinence, but I do have a problem with them drowning out all the other options. So do I. Actually, I'm seriously concerned to the extent I'm vaguely thinking about writing a letter and X-posting it all over the shop and sending it in to newspapers and stuff because, hey, this is uncool, and although me writing a letter probably won't make much difference, who knows? it might. But if I wanted to do that i'd have to call Destiny Church and confirm that they want to get involved with school boards and that would suck a lot, so. :P Also it would probably be quite difficult.

And of course, you're right about disease and education. One of my worst concerns in that area, actually, is the probable impending demise of the FPA (http://www.livejournal.com/community/kiwi_ljs/85600.html). The FPA provides so much of our sexual health resources- every girl's school I know has had most of their informative sex ed classes from FPA nurses going around schools; plus, they're just generally available to help with that kind of thing and it's such a shame that they're so at risk. :(

Hmm, somehow I don't think a lot of the people who are pro-abstinence are really all that concerned with gay people having sex. ;) But I know what you mean- the Biblical idea seems to me to be that any sex you have that isn't about procreation is Bad, Bad, Bad- which is a shame, and kind of sad. :(

As for the letter- you got it in one and what's worse is that she actually sounds like she thinks she's being really liberal, the sort of person who'd preface an argument with "Now, I'm not homophobic, but..." Unfortunately I can't find her letter online to quote from but man, that kind of thing ANNOYS me. Although I suppose it's better than flat-out "gay people are going to hell, muahahah, and we're not, muahahah, we wear black t-shirts of doom, muahahah, watch us pervert the minds of little children, muahaha."

And I sort or wanted to write a letter saying exactly what you said: gay people are part of families too. Everyone is part of a family and, yeah, because it is traditional, no-one should be denied it. :(

And finally, EXACTLY. >:O Apart from the total bullshit opinion that's implied in this, she proceeds to almost beging that hideous "gay recruitment drive" theory. Uh, what EVER.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

mean- the Biblical idea seems to me to be that any sex you have that isn't about procreation is Bad, Bad, Bad

Which leads to strange situations, such as Lot(?)'s daughters getting him drunk and shagging him so they could have babies...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*chokes* See, the Bible is Bad, Bad, Bad. Or, you know, very, very obscene. >.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

That is not good about the FPA. Why is it that organisations like that are in danger, while people like Destiny flourish? There is no god, I say, except knowledge...

What do you mean there's no gay recruitment? I personally was cornered in a dark alley by a butch feminazi lesbian who cajoled me to cut off men's dangly bits in exchange for a toaster. I could not resist the toaster, I'm afraid. The next gay agenda meeting, by the way, is next Tuesday at 4. Spread the word to all homos.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:( It is pretty terrible. I'm nto sure I would agree about knowledge, but hey.

*laughing* Why a toaster? :P And thanks for the tip. :D

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

The knowledge thing was somewhat facetious, as is much of what I appear to say seriously. I haven't yet worked out what god there is or isn't.

I have no idea why it's a toaster. Maybe you should ask the weird paranoid people who made up that particular myth...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:P Ah, fair enough. I'm fairly sure there isn't, myself, up to and including knowledge, but you know. :)

*snickering* maybe I will.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I just realised that comment made me sound agnostic or religious in some way. I don't believe in any gods, in the sense of omnipotent beings. No way. The world doesn't work like that. What I do think, however, is that there is possibly something beyond what we see, not something that is caused by a god, but some common thread that ties humanity together. It's hard to express. I sometimes identify with pantheism, but either way, I don't think there is a god, so I guess I'm an atheist. I identify to a large extent with humanism, rationalism, science.

But I like to keep an open mind and consider other arguments, even if I don't agree with them. I think atheism sometimes places too much stock in scientific empiricism, when it's possible that such things deceive us, and there is so much we don't understand. Sometimes, it's nice to just give up your science and logic and let yourself be taken in by the world in all its strangeness, and admit that some things are just beyond our ken.

Philosophy courses also do strange things to your thinking.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm humanist and a Bright and atheist. *puts self in boxes* I know what you mean, though- sometimes absolute pure fact-ism can get a bit much. I think humanism, as I understand it, fills that for me- that it's the human responsibility to care about or for other people, ultimately. I guess Secular Philosophical Humanism (http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html) as defined by that page, although I also like the sound of Cultural and Renaissance Humanism. ;)

Great essay, actually. Very informative.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

Piker. I have two toasters. Bwahahaha!

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Aw, no fair. What'd you get another one for? *sulks*

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

When you're bi you operate a double recruitment scheme.

That's one of the advantages of versatility ;-)