(Queer) News Roundup

[robinturner]

The big news is, of course, the Iraqi election, votes for which are being counted as I write. I'm hoping for a big Shiite majority just so that Bush can go down as the American president who put a bunch of mullahs in power, but I'll refrain from further comment, as this has already been blogged to death, and shall instead concentrate on less heterophallogocentric issues.

February is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month (thanks to ankh156 for alerting me to this fact). Try getting that into a festive greeting: "All the best for Lesbian, Gay, er, Transvestite, no sorry, Transgender and what was the other one?" This attempt to get as many groups as possible into the same sentence must have been the result of many hours of heated arguments in the relevant committees, and I bet that even after the shortlist was narrowed down to four (after the S/M delegates walked out in protest) there was still much shouting about the order ("Why do bisexuals always get put in the middle?" "Because that's where you are, traitor!"). Couldn't they have just called it "Kinky Sex History Month"? That sounds snappier and much more enjoyable. Personally I don't blame the Left for providing conservatives with such an ideological windfall (as Nick Cohen points out). I reckon it's a conspiracy by historians to make history sound more interesting. Florence Nightingale? Lesbian. Shakespeare? At least bi-curious. Napoleon? He said "Not tonight, Josephine," because he had a hot date with Marshal Ney. Catherine the Great? Oh hang on, is bestiality politically correct or is it a violation of animal rights?

Just to show that in terms of history, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights are still in the Dark Ages, at least in Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley Jr. has criticised David Trimble for having an advisor who is in a gay marriage. Ian Paisley Sr. is remembered for his "Save Ulster From Sodomy" campaign, as well as his view that the Pope was the Antichrist. (Of course liberal theologians would interpret this as meaning that while the Pope may not be the literal Antichrist, he represents a principle which might be symbolised by the Antichrist.) I suspect Paisley the Younger is mainly worried that gay marriage is the thin end of the wedge: if we start by allowing gays to run the country, they will be followed by Catholics.

While Ulster Protestants are divided on gay rights, those who dig with the other foot are starting to show some division over condoms. Cardinal Georges Cottier, theologian of the pontifical household, has argued that condoms could be used to help prevent AIDS. If his views are adopted, it would not be a sin to use a condom if you were having sex with a high-risk partner (say, a drug-using prostitute), but would only be sinful if you were doing so in order to avoid having children by them. Personally, I am confused by the term "pontifical household". Doesn't conservative morality state that a household consists of a man and a woman bound in wedlock, plus their children (which in the case of Catholics, should be numerous)? I don't see a Mrs. John Paul in evidence, nor are the corridors of the Vatican filled with the pattering of tiny feet.

Comments

"pontifical household"

[ankh156.livejournal.com]

Makes you wonder who does the washing up, and who wears the underpants (in the bath)...

[chr0me-kitten.livejournal.com]

It's not necessarily a windfall for conservatives, per se. Certain kinds of conservatives will call any push for "tolerance" (which is not exactly a high standard) "political correctness", whether it has a month or not. And perhaps, contrary to Mr. Cohen's article, the problem isn't political correctness as much as it's the tendency of certain conservatives to call the pointing out of "-isms" of any kind "PC" in order not to deal with them.

In the States, February is Black History Month (GLBT History Month is in October here). BHM came from Negro History Week, which was started by Dr. Carter G. Woodson to counter the prevailing early 20th-century belief amongst white academia that black folk had no history. The purpose of BHM is to showcase history that pretty much (still) gets ignored the other 11 months out of the year. Some would say that the various history months isolate the histories of certain groups. But the reality is that the history of various marginalized groups tends to be considered quite ignorable by majorities that don't want to bother, and that alone is enough of a reason for [fill in the blank] months.

[solri.livejournal.com]

the problem isn't political correctness as much as it's the tendency of certain conservatives to call the pointing out of "-isms" of any kind "PC" in order not to deal with them.

I think the problem is a bit of both. Conservatives are, by definition, attached to the status quo, and thus are likely to react against any suggestion that it is not ideal. For this reason, it is important not to give them more material with which to win over the middle ground. The problem with the whole PC thing is that it can be used as a brush to tar more serious concerns. If people insist that pets be called "animal companions", it becomes harder to explain why black people should not be called coons.

[alienghic.livejournal.com]

is bestiality politically correct or is it a violation of animal rights?

Might that hinge on whether or not the animal is capable of informed consent?

apologies in advance

[trochee.livejournal.com]

I always heard the horse said "neigh".

Re: apologies in advance

[alienghic.livejournal.com]

GOL (Groan-out-loud)

(that was funny.)

Re: apologies in advance

[trochee.livejournal.com]

hah. I like you: you laugh at my jokes, even when they're in very poor taste.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Heterophallogocentric. That's a new word to me!

That's because I just invented it.

Over here the abbreviation is GLBT

That sounds like a sandwich to my British ears.

Why don't they just let priests, etc. be married??

Because then they'd be Protestants?

[solri.livejournal.com]

To be fair, they were there first, so perhaps we should ask why the Protestants want to be different. There agaişn, the Jews were there before either of them, and Rabbis are not only allowed to marry, AFAIK they have to be married (one argument given for Jesus having been married is that he was addressed as "Rabbi", though of course we don't know if the title was meant literally). I'm not sure what caused the early Church to go for celibacy. It could be an influence from Eastern mystery religions, or it could be just part of the anti-family attitude of many early Christians.