The Catholic Church and Accountability...

I originally posted this here:


http://www.queerattitude.com/blogs/viewentry.php?id=9673


Then, I read this blog, which inspired me to post mine to a wider audience. Here's the blog that inspired me:


http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html

Anyway, here's my post.


I'm pretty much of the view that people can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others, or enforce their beliefs on the unwilling. To be honest, extreme atheism irritates me just as much as religious fundamentalism.

Lately though, I've just become more and more pissed off with what I see as institutionalised religion. It's all very well to say 'People can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt others', but the fact is, a lot of the time, the line seems to become blurred. That is, the line between what is considered damaging and what is not. Generally, it would be considered that voicing one's belief would not hurt anyone, but simple statement of one's belief can be harmful in and of itself, especially if it's said enough times, if it becomes ingrained. Lives are destroyed. Families are torn apart, friends are lost. People kill themselves out of an inability to reconcile their beliefs and their sexuality, or their family members' sexuality. 

Many major Christian denominations come out and say things like 'We love homosexuals, we just don't love their actions'. Now, on the surface, that sort of statement is miles away from the sort of thing that the Westbro Church does. It *seems* innocuous. But the thing is that there is just as much narrow-mindedness underlying that kind of statement as there is underlying the actions of people like Fred Phelps. For example, Pope Benedict even went so far as to brand homosexuality as an 'objective disorder', saying 'Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.' An 'intrinsic moral evil'? Sounds me like a nicer way of saying 'God hates fags'. Also, the very phrasing of Benedict's statement, referring to 'the homosexual person' is impersonal, and is a blatant example of 'othering'. 

But do we question these sorts of statements enough? No. Because it's considered freedom of religion. And sure, freedom of religion is a right I think people should be afforded. That said, what about the responsibilities that come with having rights? The responsibilities we *all* have to treat one another with respect and dignity, and to embrace *everything* about a person, not just those we deem acceptable. And people like Benedict are in a position of authority, with an ability of influence the masses. They, more than anyone have a responsibility to promote acceptance of ALL people, and to do away with centuries-old rhetoric that has no place in modern society.

I am *sick* of the fact that these religious authorities are allowed to say such prejudiced things simply on the basis that they're 'just expressing their beliefs'. If I 'just expressed my belief' that I thought all people with brown skin were innately inferior and possessed by the devil, I would be branded a racist and probably socially rejected. And rightly so. I think that people who openly voice discrimination against another group have no place in societies.

Sadly, though, men of cloth remain virtually untouchable. Not only is there voiceless acceptance of continuing discrimination of LGBT people, the masses have also 'turned the other cheek' to the countless incidences of paedophilia that have happened, not only in the Catholic Church, but in others as well. In addition, the Catholic Church's continuing stance against condom use has doubtless contributed to the rampant spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries. Benedict has even stated that condoms *cause* AIDS. I have never heard so much crap in my life.

Yet Pope Benedict is allowed to continue his reign of lies in the name of religion.

And I continue to sit here, tearing out my hair and wondering why. 

OCD: Not Exactly a Laugh

I have OCD. There, I’ve said it, and I’m going to publish my ‘confession’ in a blog for all to see.

I’m publishing this because I want people to understand. Obsessive-compulsive disorder isn’t just about being neat. It isn’t just about being a little too liberal with the Ajax.

When it’s bad, it can be hell. It can take over a person’s life.

So what is OCD?

The ‘obsessive’ part of the name refers to, you guessed it, obsessive thoughts. These thoughts are unbidden, unwanted, irrational, pervasive, and distressing. The thoughts are about harm. Harm to oneself, harm to loved ones, even harm to humanity as a whole. The idea of ‘harm’ can take a variety of forms – it can be getting sick, dying, or a smaller life event, like losing a job.

People with OCD are often sensitive and loving individuals, which is why the thoughts of harm cause such distress and fear. They also tend to obsess about things (surprise surprise!), which is why thoughts take such a strong hold. Instead of just letting go of a strange or disturbing thought, people with OCD will allow the thought to run around in their heads until it’s carved a deep groove. And that groove, along with the fear which accompanies the thought, is a big part of why OCD can be so difficult.

Another element of the disorder that contributes to its potency is that those with OCD become distressed not only by the content of the obsessive thoughts, but also the fact the thoughts exist, and have such a hold over the person.

This is because the thoughts and feelings experienced as part of the OCD are often in deep conflict with the person’s logical mind. On one level, the person knows that the thought is simply…well, a thought, and there is no reason why it should cause such a strong emotional response. On another level, the distress the thought causes disarms logic, allowing emotion to take over. To be a (mostly) logical person who is constantly struggling against irrational thoughts can be very frustrating. The result is, at least for me, a constant battle between what I know and what I feel.

It’s a little like when you have a bar of chocolate in the fridge. You know that it’s your fifth bar in the last hour, and you really, really shouldn’t have another one, especially since you're on Weight Watchers, but you just feel like you need it. And then you spend 15 minutes dithering over whether to have the bar or not.

As I said, the conflict that comes with OCD can be like that, except the pleasant thought of a chocolate bar is rarely involved.

The second part of OCD is akin to giving in and finally gobbling the chocolate bar, even though you know it’s not really the right way of dealing with your craving.

The ‘compulsive’ part of the name refers to the compulsions a person with OCD might perform to ‘get rid of’ the obsessive thought, and/or to stop the ‘bad thing’ they fear. The ‘bad thing’ can really be anything, depending on the situation.

For example, in my case, if it’s exam time, the ‘bad thing’ I fear might be failing my exams. If I’ve just seen something on TV about cancer, I might feel afraid that cancer will affect me or my family. Other people with OCD have fears that they will unwillingly hurt or kill themselves or a loved one. They could have thoughts that the doors or windows aren’t locked, even though they’ve been checked a zillion times.

As I said above, people with OCD will perform compulsions to ‘stop’ the distressing thoughts and/or prevent the occurrence of feared events.These compulsions,

like the thoughts, can take many forms. The classic one is hand washing, but
there are all sorts of ‘things’ (shrinks love the word ‘behaviours’) that
people with OCD will (or won’t) do. Excessive prayer, constantly checking locks, not touching bannisters…the list goes on.

Like the thoughts, the performance of compulsions can cause a great deal of frustration and internal conflict. The same issue of logic vs. emotion applies. There are times when I’ve been walking towards the bathroom to wash my hands for the 60,000^th time, stomach churning with fear, while the logical part of my brain screams at me to go back to bed. 

There’s also the fact that the performance of compulsions can take a great deal of time and effort, and really interfere with a person’s life. The amount of times I’ve been late for something because I’ve had to wash my hands ‘just one more time’ is far too
great. Other people can’t even get out of the house, bound by their fear, and
the overwhelming need to wash all their (already clean) clothes.

So, that’s OCD. I hope I’ve helped people without OCD see that it can quite a bit more than just being too fond of hand sanitiser. It can be overwhelming, distressing, and frustrating.

On the bright side, we definitely keep the cleaning industry in business!

P.S.

If I get enough good feedback from this, I’ll write more, if people would be interested.

Not happy, Dan! (Rewritten)

EDIT: I realised after I published this the first time that my post kind of implies that it's Dan's fault there's few 'It Gets Better' videos for bi kids. Of course, it's not. As Dan himself said, the campaign is only as diverse as those who choose to participate in it. So I just wanted to clarify that I don't hold Dan responsible for the lack of videos in the campaign that relate to bisexuality. I don't. However, I still take issue with his attitude towards bisexuality. 


What you see below is an amended version of my original post.

I was inspired to write this blog post after reading this article: http://www.afterelton.com/oysters-04-28-2011-dan-savage-biphobic?page=0%2C0


Basically, it talks about well-known gay activist, Dan Savage, and some of the comments he's made about bisexuality in the past. For those of you who don't know, the 'It Gets Better' campaign was the brainchild of Mr Savage. The campaign is aimed at teens and young people who are feeling alone because of their sexuality. It involves older members of the LGBT community telling their younger peers that 'it gets better'. The campaign was launched in response to the recent rash of suicide seen among gay teens. Of course, the 'It Gets Better' campaign is a wonderful thing, and I don't know any statistics, but from what I've heard, it's largely been a roaring success.

Suddenly, kids who've felt alone and depressed can see a light at the end of the tunnel. Up until recently, I've believed that this campaign is the best thing since sliced bread.

Lately, though, I've begun to feel differently. That's not to say I've stopped thinking the campaign is a good thing. I haven't. It's just that I'm starting to doubt whether Dan takes the struggles of all LGBT youth seriously. It started when I realised something about Dan's attitude. At first I thought maybe I was being a little harsh. But I don't think so. It seems that bi activist, Kyle Schickner, and the author of the above article agree with me; Dan Savage is biphobic.

This is a suspicion I've long held, and, quite frankly, it really puts me off.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's pretty sad that Mr Savage, the champion of voiceless and suicidal gay youth, can't find it within himself to extend the same olive branch to bi kids.

Recently, I listened to one of his podcasts in which he made jokes about bi invisibility, claiming that none of his bi friends were transparent. Hardy-har-har, Dan. Really funny.

Not.

Let me just ask you a question - how would you feel if people made jokes about the kids your campaign is aimed at? Like, you know, really trivialised what they might be going through?

My guess is you'd find it pretty tasteless and insensitive.

Well, there are people who feel the same way about your attitude towards bisexuality.

Because, Dan, bisexual invisibility is a real issue, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.


When I realised I was bi, I freaked out. It wasn't because my parents were homophobic. It wasn't because I had any moral objections to liking girls. It wasn't because I'd gone to a school where people never even mentioned 'the gays'. It was because the possibility that I might be bisexual had never crossed my mind. I'd thought about what it might mean if I were gay. I'd imagined finding a husband one day. But bisexuality? That wasn't even on my radar.



I sure could've used someone telling me it would get better. That I was normal. That it wasn't a phase. That it was ok to like boys and girls.



I'm well aware that, as far as coming out goes, I couldn't have asked for better conditions. But even though I was secure in a way that lots of kids who come out aren't, it was still difficult for me.



The hardest thing was feeling caught between two worlds. I wasn't gay, and I wasn't straight, so where did that leave me?



Despite knowing that loving and supportive people surrounded me, I felt utterly alone. I told my parents nothing, and my friends little. I didn't know any other bi people. I was so confused. I wished it would go away. I wished I could choose. I even felt jealous of my gay friends for having a community all of their own.



I was even a bit scared that, when the Queer Collective at my uni found out I was bi, they'd kick me out for not being 'gay enough'.



So imagine how much worse things must be for bi kids who aren't as lucky as I am. Whose families, churches, schools and communities make it clear to them that their sexuality is wrong. Imagine going through all that and then hearing someone like you, Dan, one of the most prominent members of the gay community, saying some of the things you've said about bisexuality. Imagine discovering that you think that, as a group, bisexuals are 'mostly straight'.

It'd be a pretty big slap in the face, wouldn't it?


Really, knowing the things you say about bisexuality makes me so mad. Can someone please tell me why it's ok for you to make some of the comments you do? Especially when these comments are coming from the man who launched a project letting people know how damaging it is for young people's sexuality to be dismissed, ridiculed, ignored and invalidated.



Yesterday, I was listening to one of your podcasts, and, as usual, you launched into an impassioned diatribe about how hard it is for gay kids to have their sexuality treated as something that doesn't really exist, or that can be changed.



Hypocrite, much, Dan? How is it ok for you to say that bisexuality is simply transitional, or that we're 'mostly straight', or that we 'mostly end up' in straight relationships? You're effectively invalidating our experiences, whilst (as we all should be) getting mad at parents who force their kids to stay in the closet because they don't believe in the validity of homosexuality. In other words, you're calling those parents out for doing to their gay kids exactly what you do to bisexuals.


Oh, and another thing? Even you have admitted to being attracted to at least one woman in the past, which just goes to show that people who identify as completely gay, or completely straight, may actually be just the tiniest bit bi. And that makes your criticism even worse.


You know what, Mr Savage? When it comes to the situation for bi kids, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Biphobia, and bi invisibility, just like homophobia, has to stop. And prominent members of the LGBT community, like you, are perfectly placed to make sure that bisexuality, transsexuality, and other deviations from the gay/straight, male/female binaries do not get left behind.







So come on Dan. Step up to the plate and show us that you're with us. Make it better for everyone in the LGBT community, not just the gay kids.


Sources: 


http://www.afterelton.com/oysters-04-28-2011-dan-savage-biphobic

http://bisocialnetwork.com/dan-savage-its-gets-better-the-mel-gibson-of-bisexuality/

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2006/06/if_you_believe_.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY39HHzxu58&feature=channel_video_title

No justice for former High Court Justice...

The role of a High Court Justice is pretty obvious from the title. These men and women are appointed to ensure, to the best of their ability, that no Australian suffers an injustice at the hands of our common law system, and/or because of laws made by parliament. 

Michael Kirby served as a Justice of the High Court for 13 years. He is probably Australia's best known judge, especially to those not working in connection with, or studying, the law. He is renowned for his liberal and compassionate viewpoints, as well as his commitment to human rights.

He also happens to be Australia's first openly gay judge, and has lived with his partner for 42 years.

I don't know about anyone else, but it strikes me as a great injustice when a person who has committed his life to upholding and advancing justice himself is still effectively seen as a second-class citizen in the eyes of a system he has dedicated his life to serving, and shaping .

While Australia's legal system continues to discriminate against same-sex attracted citizens, it cannot truly be seen as a just system.

Bi the way, what about us?: A rant on the invisibility of bi people in the fight for rights of same-sex couples...

Today, I saw this ad which both touched and irritated me. The aim of the ad is one with which I completely agree; to bridge the gap between opposite- and same-sex couples in people's minds. It's something that, in my opinion, cannot be stressed enough.


What gets me, though, is the consistent oversight committed by those heading the gay rights movement. Amidst all the stories of families who have gay and straight children, amidst all the parallels drawn between gay and straight couples, there is a group of people whose stories are overlooked. People like me.


Imagine that someone is treated as an equal citizen one day, and a second-class citizen the next. Seems ridiculous, doesn't it? And yet, that's exactly the situation faced by bisexual people under current Australian law, and to varying degrees in the US.


If I were to fall in love with a man, he and I would be given full legal and social recognition, under either US or Australian law. We'd be able to visit each other in hospital if one of us were sick, and be able to make one another's medical wishes known, if need be. Under US law, if he or I were to serve in the army, we'd be able to do so openly, without fear. DADT, which has only just been repealed, would have no effect on us.


But, if I were in a same-sex partnership, it'd be a different story. Marriage wouldn't be an option, in Australia, nor in many US states. Only too recently, under DADT, if either, or both of us, were in the US army, we'd be at risk of being discharged.


These are contradictions which the gay lobbyists seek time and time again to illustrate, through encouraging families with gay members to tell their stories, through ads comparing gay and straight couples; the list goes on. And yet, it seems to me that the most *obvious* illustration of the hypocritical, damaging and negative nature of these policies has not been fully utilised.


It's easy for people who want to distance themselves from 'the gays' to do so, by dismissing them as 'the other', but when it comes to bi people, this isn't so easily done. We're here, and we're in the middle, and it's harder to ignore that. In a lot of ways, bi people, I think, have the potential to be a 'bridge' between gay and straight.  


But instead of being upheld, applauded and supported by the gay rights movement, we are still, for the most part, ignored, by both gay and straight people. And why? Because the gay rights movement, in its own way, actually reinforces a binary that need not exist. By jumping up and down, and asserting their existence, gay people have, inadvertently, cut out 'the middle man', as it were.


That said, of course I'm not denying that there was, and continues to be, a need for gay people to jump up and down. As with any minority, asserting itself is the only way the gay community will get recognition. I just think that bi people could be an essential part of the act, too, and so far, they've not been.


So, if you're out there, and you're bi, speak up! Come on! This is the time! We alone can bridge the gap between heterosexual and homosexual people. We are the ones who can see things from both sides, and that is a rare gift. Let's use it.

Value your friends...

In my life, I am incredibly lucky to have several good friends. I can't imagine my life without them, and it's occurred to me recently, not for the first time, that friendship is grossly undervalued. So much of the time, I think that the bond of friendship is considered to be less valuable than the bond between partners, and even the bonds within families. You only have to look at TV shows, movies, books, poems, song lyrics etc, to see what I'm talking about. What's the main theme there? Romantic love, of course, and occasionally family ties. But the thing is that a real, and close friendship can satisfy us in ways that romantic relationships and familial relationships can't.

For most people, romance comes and goes; the intensity, the expectations, the complications, can become too much, which leads to relationships ending. Romance brings with it so many questions. 'Is this person "the one"?', 'What if they're not?', 'What if they are?', 'Am I making a huge mistake?', and so on, and so forth. Then there's the idea of living with a person, of having to live with all of them, not just the bits you like.

But that's not the case with a friend. There's no worrying about whether you will or won't spend the rest of your life with them, or whether they're the right person for you. And, if it drives you crazy that they always leave the milk out, well, most of the time, you don't have to live with it. You can enjoy the person, and who they are, you can be close to them, without having that extra pressure. And, as I said, in the majority of cases, you don't have to put up with your friends 24/7. That said, there are, of course, many wonderful things about being in a romantic relationship. It's just that, in some ways, I think that a friendship provides a lot of the same things that a romantic relationship can; closeness, companionship, etc, without that extra intensity. And that can sometimes be a good thing.

When it comes to families, well, you can't choose them, can you? If you're lucky, that's not a bad thing, but if you're unlucky, it can be horrible. Even loving families have cracks, and growing up, you can't avoid them. Your family is your family, for better or for worse. You have to live with them, for at least some of your life. When it comes to friends, however, you can choose them. You don't have to put up with someone you don't get on with, 'cause there's no obligation to do so.

So, next time you're talking to a good friend, just remember how lucky you are to have them in your life, and tell them so. Trust me, they'll love you for it.