1. Saith Ruth Gledhill, the BBC will air, as part of its Sunday worship programming, a recording of a "gay mass" from San Francisco's church of the Most Holy Redeemer, a Catholic congregation in the Castro. The event happened last October. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco denied that it was a "gay mass," but rather merely a prayer service. Oh. That changes everything.
2. A conservative Anglican missionary in Africa was poisoned in Malawi, after he successfully campaigned against a liberal London cleric from being appointed bishop there. There is no doubt that the priest, Canon Rodney Hunter, died from poisoning. The question is, who did it? The priest's family say that supporters of the liberal Londoner had spent the last few months making Canon Hunter's life hell. TMatt wonders how come nobody outside the blogosphere is paying attention to this story.
3. Courage Man makes a great point about how the dirty rotten way ex-New Jersey Gov. Jim "I Am a Gay American" McGreevey treated his wife and family in the course of carrying on his affair with a male paramour has gotten a pass from the media culture -- a pass that was (quite rightly) denied to Newt Gingrich for the way he treated one of his wives at the break-up. CM also notes other double standards being applied to McGreevey concerning his conduct -- stuff that if a straight politician were doing it, would be cause for outrage -- concluding that the media are giving the sleazy love guv a break because of his membership in the Oppressed Americans demographic.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Ah - the spectre of "objective reality" rears its ugly head once again. "Objectively, homosexuality is morally wrong," is a subjective statement. If you conservatives wish to have your bugaboos and scapegoats, please feel free to do so - just stop pretending that it's based on anything other than your own subjective prejudices. You'd get a hell of a lot more respect if you'd just be honest about it.
How 'bout... "Objectively, homosexual activity is physically wrong." ? In any event, TV, methinks you're engaging in some subjective Freudian Projection.
"Ah - the spectre of 'objective reality' rears its ugly head once again." [low chuckles] Get used to it. [low chuckles] It's not going away.
How 'bout, "objectively, homosexual activity is physically identical to acts that many heterosexual males greatly enjoy when performed by them upon females"? I can't be more specific due to the family nature of this blog, but I think everyone knows what I mean. Even the most controversial of these acts--and again, I think you probably know what I mean--is merrily engaged in by a significant minority of heterosexuals. (And by the way, a significant minority of homosexuals never engage in said act, so does that make them okay now?) As for oral sex, which I will mention because others have done so on other topics without reprimand, so I assume that's fair game, I know that some conservative religious believers think it is morally wrong--at least, when carried out to its, ahem, logical conclusion. However, even the Catholic Church and people like Tim LaHaye think it's quite all right when used as foreplay. So, how is that an act that a man is willing to have his wife do for him becomes disgusting, gross and degrading when he thinks about a man doing it for another man? Doesn't seem to show a very high respect for women if some acts are so demeaning that they're suitable only for women to perform. Head-scratching here.
Sigaliris, Talked about conflated and confused. The "acts" you elliptically refer to would be physically wrong regardless of the gender of the participants. Nota bene the word "phyically". It is a recognition of teleology. Regarding why one might consider the act gross if engaged in by men, it is because IT IS ENGAGED IN BY MEN. The same reaction can be expected in seeing men kiss passionately. This doesn't require one to see one kisser as less than another kisser. The male and female kissers are equal. Two guys kissing is just gross. Well, not "just" gross. There is much more to be said of it. Why is it that so many do not find men and women engaged in the sexual acts you mentioned disgusting as well? Because disorder comes in degrees.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.