That's so weird!

Earlier today I published a rant on the the term "extremism" and it's variants. This evening I would like to treat you to a very similar rant on the use of the words "odd" "strange" "different" "weird" etc.

It saddens me that such words have been so intrinsically linked with badness. Why is judging something to be different so decidedly negative? When did we decide this?

There are two ways in which this problem manifests. One is when people declare that you or something you have done is "weird!" and then leave it at that. This always frustrates me. If I want to know what they think, then they haven't told me. All they've said is "that's different to lots of other things I have encountered recently." So what?! Is it good different or bad different? But apparently, "good different" isn't even a thing. Or else, I know the person is trying to insult me, and am affronted to find that I am going to be insulted so poorly. "What? That's not an insult! You need to make me feel bad about myself, dammit! I demand better service!"

The second way this causes issues is when you innocently point out that something or someone is different from something else, and are bombarded with the accusation that you are insulting that thing or person. This happened on YouTube, back when I was still naively optimistic enough to comment on YouTube videos:
Commentor X: I hate gay people blah blah blah
Me: Why? Just because they're different from you?
Commentor Y (to me): ZOMG that's so homophobic! Snarl! Rage! Froth! I have gay friends and they're cool there's nothing different about them!!
You see the problem. We are being robbed of our ability to use "different" as a simple comparative term, which is what it is.


I understand that I am far from being the only one to recognise this problem. But A lot of the people who have recognised it are reacting to it in what is completely and utterly the wrong way.

Many people think the answer to this aversion to weirdness is to subscribe to the hyper-individualism pedaled by Lady Gaga and others. The reason this doesn't work is young people then proceed to feel pressure to be unique and different, which isn't much better than feeling pressure to be the same. We aren't removing social conformity, we're just changing what it looks like. Either way, people are stunted from growing into what they actually want to be.

No, the solution is to accept that "different" is neither good, nor bad. It simply is. Just as many humans have feet, and many more find it necessary to breathe oxygen, some humans are also different from others. This is perfectly natural. It is neither something to be afraid of, or something to aspire to.


And that wraps up the sermon for today.

We will now sing hymn eighty-four, "ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth, ooh, heaven is a place on earth". 

"Extremism"

One-word political terms are used all the time. "Liberal," "socialist," "conservative," "progressive," "nationalist". Most of the time, these are rather useful (while restricting). If someone is a "liberal," they clearly place value in the liberty of human beings, and generally subscribe to certain left-of-centre ideals. If someone is a socialist, they have some belief in the ideas of Marx and the central role of the government; if someone is a conservative, they are reacting against a proposed change and probably support the free markets. And so on and so forth.

One term, however, is rather different. The term "extremism" is unique, because it means absolutely nothing.

The dictionary (or rather, Wiktionary) definition of extremism describes a viewpoint which is far from the political centre of a culture, or is seen to violate commonly held morals. But what is the use in such a term?
The political centre is, ultimately, wherever you perceive it to be. Yes, it would be a little far fetch to equate centrism with millitant Marxism, for example, but there is a wide spectrum including conservatism, liberalism and social democracy within which you could pretty much place the political centre anywhere you like.
Much the same goes for "commonly-held morals". If an ideology is actively calling for genocide, then yes, we can pretty much all agree it's gone against common morality. But beyond that, common morality is completely subjective. Many conservatives claim that anything outside a tradition family structure goes against common morals- a point of view which most left-wingers simply laugh at. Equally, a left winger could say that providing for the poor is a commonly-held ethic, but the popularity of staunch individualism and neoliberalism would appear to attest to the contrary.

The point is that what is "extreme" is ultimately down entirely to the perceptions of the individual. As such, it is unhelpful and means nothing.

Many US Republicans refer to Obama's pro-social-justice poliices as "extremist," but this is perplexing to the vast majority of Europeans. For us, the existence of universal health care is quite possibly the only thing our mainstream politicians all openly agree on.
The same goes for the gay-debate. Many right-wingers refer to Joe McMygod and Dan Savage etc. as "homosexual extremists"; many gay activists refer to the social conservative lobby as "Christianist extremists". Ultimately, all either of them are saying is "these are people who say things I don't agree with". Which we all knew anyway, thank you very much.

But excessive use of the term "extremist" is not just pointless, it's dangerous. It's gotten to the point where anyone can pretty much label anyone as extremists whenever they feel like it. As such, they instantly trigger thoughts of "ZOMG THESE PEOPLE ARE BAD AND WRONG in the mind of the undecided reader, without even saying anything. This is lunacy.

I call for decency and humanity amongst the political speakers and writers of the world, and humbly ask that we get together and agree to never use the word "extremist" ever again.
Otherwise, Jesus will cry.

To: Barack Obama. Sincerely: Samuel Copson. c/o: Blogger.

An attempt to fulfill my 750 words pledge on a day I didn't have much to write, which I thought I may as well share with the internet. A hypothetical letter a braver and more optimistic me might have sent to Mr Barack Obama.


Dear Mr President,

Come take a walk with me. Actually, don't bother, we can just facebook chat. It's less strenuous on my minuscule muscular structures.
So, anyways.
I was wondering if you'd like to shed the political image for a while, given that I will never have to opportunity of voting for or against you, and talk to me honestly, man to, um, effeminate penis-ed teenager?

Do you think you've fulfilled the lofty promises you made during your election campaign? Did you every really intend to?
Do you think any of your policies have had the slightest chance of bringing peace and/or uniting the United States?

If I were to promise never to tell anyone, would you tell me honestly why you invaded Libya? Did you honestly think you were protecting anyone or anything, other than America's short-term material needs?

If you were to turn from the sophism which modern politics demands from you, and formulate a genuine political philosophy based on nothing but your ideals and principles, what would it look like? Do you honestly believe in free speech, in social justice? Which of those is more important to you? Do you believe in direct, uncluttered, uncorrupted democracy? Do you honestly believe in democracy at all?

What do you actually think about the gays? If you had no voters or lobby groups to appease, and no vested interest in doing anything but being totally honest, what would you say about people like me? What would you say about people having open relationships with members of the same sex? Does is revolt you? Can you rise above that revulsion? Or do you think it is natural, healthy? Do you celebrate all expressions of love?

If your father were still alive, would he be proud of you? Was he a sophist, or an idealist? Would he want you to invade anywhere in North Africa or the Middle East? Would he want you to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, or introduce universal health care, or launch the USA PATRIOT act?

What do you think of the citizens you serve? How do you view them, and your responsibility to them? Are they there to be monitored and controlled? Are they there to be reached and co-operated with? Are they a source of profit? Are they your servants, or you theirs? Do you still honestly view yourself as one of them?

Do you think you've played too much on the race thing? Do you think you would have been elected were it not for the symbolism of having a black president after this long struggle?

Do you hate anyone, Mr President? Would you ever use the power at your fingertips to destroy your enemies?

Finally, do you even want to help those under the yoke of extremist Islam; or is the plan to exploit the situation for America's benefit, and America's only? Do you understand the role the West has played in fueling the hatred of the terrorists? Do you feel any remorse at all for the extent your predecessors have bled those nations dry? Do you accept the assertion that the West created the Third World in the first place? If you did, would you want to do anything about it? Do you honestly believe that your singular responsibility is to Americans, not the human race?

Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

God bless.

Why are people Sexist and/or Homophobic?

For years, decades, centuries, even millennia, men have dominated the scene. Males have been the political, spiritual and cultural leaders of the human race, with women safely contained in the role of "pretty things which make babies and sandwiches for us".  Then along came feminism.

At some point in the nineteenth century, women finally began to demand mastery of their own lives. They struck out at the chauvinist-imposed box surrounding them and keeping them in their singular, dissatisfactory role in society. And, eventually, the conscience of the dominating males kicked in, and women were gradually granted rights and freedom and equality and the rest of it.

This posed a problem for a lot of men. Until then, they had been able to satisfy, unchallenged, the primordial instincts which made them want to keep women as sex objects which would make food and children when required. Now, without the intense social pressure on women to be married and submit to male authority, they found they had to work a lot harder for sex/food/breeding.

And so this is where the sexism we encounter now came from. It was, and is, a reaction to the society which places such frustrating value on fairness and equality to those in our world with functioning uteri. Sexists are those who cannot bear to restrain their reptilian attitude towards females, and so object to any measure to give their objects of desire the power to retaliate and be independent.

I strongly believe that this is where all sexism and chauvinism comes from. It is the basis for any drivel about "traditional family structures" and gender-specific parental roles and the idea that because you have a penis you should be better adapted to earning money to feed your children. Anyone who wants their wife to be confined to the kitchen and bedroom all her life should thoroughly re-educate themselves before they are allowed within ten feet of anyone or anything remotely female-shaped.



The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that this blog post was also intended to be about homophobia. So, where do the gays come in to all this?

Essentially, homosexuality is another challenge to the idea that all humanity should be placed into the kind of family with a dominant man and submissive, adoring wife. If men are sleeping with other men, and therefore have no reason to keep a wife in the house, then mankind loses yet more of it's control over womankind, dammit! And if women are sleeping with other women, men lose their one way to entice women into subservient marriages, double dammit!

This wasn't an issue in antiquity, where most males slept with women for babies and men for fun. But then someone noticed that it was actually quite fun to sleep with women, too. So the common family structure we know and love today arose, with men demanding both pleasure-sex and baby-sex from women. Homosexuality was a challenge to the chauvinistic marital structure, so it had to go.



DISCLAIMER:
This is NOT an attack on heterosexual marriage itself. I do not deny that it works best for the majority of human beings.
All I am opposing is the attitude that all human beings, particularly women, must enter marriages or be outcast from civilised society (and it's many watered-down forms).

And that's about that.

Ban On Airbrushing Make Copson Happy

Following a motion from Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson, airbrushing, the process of making models look more attractive with computer sorcery, has been banned from make-up adverts in the UK.

GOOD.

Anything which takes steps to demand honesty from the media regarding human attractiveness, and removes the ridiculous, lie-based pressure on people, women in particular, to look prettier is welcomed by me.
This means we are bombarded by less impossibly attractive images every day of our lives, thus reducing the change of our self-esteem being decimated every time we step outside or switch on the TV.

The sick game which cosmetic manufacturers and fashion labels play with people's sense on self worth in order to sell stuff and make money has got to stop. Lest we wake up one doleful morning to find all our women and two-thirds of our men have starved themselves to death.

Congratulations, Jo!

The Human Mosaic (best experienced with "Lean On Me" on repeat as you read)

Some philosophical musings for y'all. The ideas below have been circling my head forever, and I thought I should get them out to stop them becoming a kind of brain crack.



The human race exists as a mosaic, with each individual human a tile in the wider picture. All humans need to perform a unique function and have unique characteristics to those around them- a mosaic would not be a mosaic if all the tiles were the same colour and shape. Equally, the human race must stand united, with each given a place of roughly equal standing in the scheme of things. In a mosaic, all the tiles, however diverse, need to function together to create the image. It would not work if some tiles were seperate, and tried to create an entirely different image. Nor can we discard some tiles and say "these only make up the background, we can do without them"- for in a mosaic, all tiles ultimately have an equally significant part in building the image.

This matter of unity is of desperate importance.
Good can only arise from unity. Equally, all evil stems from division.

Everything which attempts to bring injustice, destruction and misery into the world comes from the state of mind which says that some people are irrelevant, can be discarded; or that different groups of people should be treated differently. This is what selfishness, greed, discrimination and hatred all boil down to.
Selfishness and greed come from placing a disproportionate emphasis on your own needs, and disregarding those of other people. Consequently, you set "you" and "others" on a different level, and break up the mosaic.
Discrimination is the belief that some humans are fundamentally beyond the scheme of humanity. It treats the subjects of your prejudice as something other and less than human.
Hatred, and it's lesser forms, are when you let someone's faults or the fact that someone hurt you obscure their identity as your equal and partner in the scheme of humanity.

It is when we allow ourselves to have a mindset of unity that selflessness, generosity and defense of the weak and the good will arise from us. It is when we consider ourselves to be united with all other humans that we will strive for justice, creativity, protection, and higher quality of life.
Selflessness is not placing yourself at a lower level to others- that would be counterproductive. True selflessness is viewing yourself as one in the mosaic, rather than just one. Selflessness understands the interdependent nature of humanity, and that it is good to work for the needs of others. To work solely for our own needs is ultimately self-destructive; we all rely on the selflessness of others at some point in our lives, and the more we give to others in our times of plenty, the more we will receive in our times of need.
Generosity is similar, but it could be said to centre more on the wants of others than the needs. It is often that we disregard the apparently frivolous wants of others, for sexual partners or material goods or social status, while desperately chasing after our own wants of the same nature. When we are generous, we understand that all wants are effectively equal in nature. Providing for the wants of others allows us to develop a more objective perspective on our own wants, and to grow into a place in the mosaic which is more close-knit with our fellow humans.
Finally, to defend what is good for all or for many is to place an equal status on those outside your close circle and within. If we fight for fair trading laws for the third world, or for just treatment of immigrants, we cease to believe it is acceptable to benefit "ourselves" at the expense of "them". We accept that the human race is one continuous collection of individuals, one gigantic "us", and that the needs of those distant from us are no less important that the needs of those close.
Finally finally, to defend the weak is to embrace them as our brothers and sisters and partners, as one with us regardless of their ability or strength.

But my belief in the importance of unity is not the same as collectivism. I do not believe it is the role of government to enforce a policy where they do whatever is right for the "greater good", or cease to see their citizens as individuals. This, remember, would violate the first rule of the mosaic, that everyone must be allowed to be completely themselves, and to perform their own function. It is also ultimately destructive to unity itself- collectivism demands that we sacrifice the wellbeing of a minority to create the greatest good possible for the majority. This is at the expense of true unity.

No, the way to achieve unity is through a kind of communitarian individualism. Don't worry, I'll explain.

We must continue to treat every individual as that, an individual. That is key. But we must also establish a true community amongst these individuals. This we do by making sure everyone has equal access to happiness, that those who cannot provide for themselves are provided for, that the hereditary class system is extinguished as much as possible. It also relies on maximum freedom of speech and expression, as controlling the kind of beliefs our citizens can hold or express is akin to hacking away at the edges of a puzzle piece so it will fit where we think it should fit (yes, the mosaic has briefly become a jigsaw puzzle), when there is a perfectly designed place for it somewhere else.
Above all, we must keep the state of mind which allows us to view all humans as equal, diverse partners. Then, we will instinctively approach problems in a way which allows us to maintain unity and the human mosaic.





The end!

A quick recommendation for y'all: 750 words

As a man of varying motivation, I have found this site really useful recently. It's called 750 words dot com and, essentially, in encourages you to write 750 words every day.

It's really helpful. Not only is it a much-needed motivation when you actually have things to write, like coursework, reports, blog posts, novels, scripts for amateur musical comedies (ahem), it just gets you into the general habit of writing lots every day. It's a habit more people need, to be frank.

I would really encourage you to check it out and give it a go. It's free, but you can donate if you want.

On Norway

This article basically sums up what I want to talk about. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14256438

One of the most peaceful, open societies in the world is at risk of being destroyed, because of the actions of one group of idiots and bigots who thought they could bomb and shoot their way into making the world suit them.

People can be most distressingly selfish and stupid sometimes.

God bless the various victims of these attacks.
But more than that, God bless Norway. Lets hope it stays Norwegian, as a much-needed example to the rest of us. 

Let Yourself Feel

This, I feel, is an important lesson for all of us.

Long-term suppression of emotion is bad. It's unhealthy, provides no actual benefit, and results in the the pain you are feeling last a lot longer (thereby hurting more). It may be necessary to suppress your feelings for a time, to get through the day without screaming at people, but you need to let yourself  feel sooner or later. Preferably sooner.

Wait until you're in a private space, then "go nuts", as they say. Scream. Cry. Beat up inanimate objects. Write a letter to the one who hurt you, or one apologising to the one you hurt, then rip it up. Play loud music which reflects how you feel. Paint an angry watercolour. Sculpt an abstract representation of rage out of Plasticine, then sell it and make your millions. Whatever it takes.

Then once you've spent all your emotions, talk to someone. (Or do them the other way around it you want to be awkward.) Find someone you trust, who won't spread stuff around, who you've been through things with, who you feel comfortable depressing for a while. Tell them as much as you can, preferably everything. A problem shared is not quite a problem halved, but it is one you'll feel a lot less daunted in facing.

In this day and age (yes, I'm ninety), we, especially the men, are told we need to stuff emotion into a little box and hide it in order to be respected. That's untrue, and even if it was, the respect of strangers would not be worth a burden like that, IMO.
People don't mind talking about your shit now and again. Talking honestly about your problems even strengthens relationships, provided the person you're talking to isn't entirely egocentric in every way. Which hopefully they aren't.

I realise I'm talking to myself as much as I am to you, Person Of The Internet. But hopefully, you've got something out of the experience.

Emotions happen.
Trying to deny or hide them isn't going to help.
That's about the gist of it.
Thanks for reading.
You get a puppy.
You don't get a puppy.
I lied.
Sorry.

Men And Women And Gender And Stuff.

Disclaimer:
This point of view is uber radical and extremist and may cause you to projectile-vomit and then bleed copiously. Not really. But it is rather extreme, and understand that I am not forcing it upon you, nor expect you to agree with me, nor am I under any delusion that this sort of view will have any actual effect on how society works in the vaguely foreseeable future.


I do not believe that gender should exist as a social concept. I think that society would be better if instead of Men and Women, we just have People.

Obviously, sexes exist. That is undeniable. Some people have male bodies, some female. And only when these bodies link up can babies be made. None of that is under dispute from me, so anyone saying "gender obviously exists! Look at science!" is missing the point. Science shows that sexes exist. Sociology alone makes gender a thing (in my opinion).

Gender, of course, is a concept which has existed in society for ever and ever. Pretty much. People with male-bits have always been socialised to act one way, with those of a female stature being socialised to act another.

The reason I don't think this works very well is that it has only brought misery and illiberalism to the world. What it has meant is that women were held back for centuries from going for certain jobs, getting proper education, voting, owning property; effectively, they were prevented from doing anything but being baby-machines. Now, with the rise of feminism, we have been shown that women can do much, much more that make babies. Then can do, roughly speaking, everything which men can do.
It has also lead to the whole homophobia thing. Because men and women have been told to have certain roles (which involves being with each other), and homosexual relationships do not conform to those roles, homosexuality has been condemned as "weird" and "unnatural". This is also being steadily countered by research today- more and more evidence is emerging to say that homosexuality is a natural trait in those who bear it.

Still today, too many men react to successful businesswomen with unease and judgementalism. Still today, we often snigger behind the backs of men and women who remain permanently single, or enter same-sex relationships. And, really, what's the point?

We cannot go on expecting people to act a certain way because they were born with certain organs. Human nature is too diverse and too complicated to lump together about half of everyone in the world and say "these people will do this, this, this and this." I accept that there are certain traits which are more common in one of the sexes than the other (map reading for men, rapport talk for women, etc). But for every rule, there must be over a million exceptions (I am hopeless at reading maps, and I know several men who are far more chatty than any of my female friends). As such, I really don't think that making these generalisations helps us in any way.

I know a lot of people may be thinking "well, okay, we say that men and women can act in all the same ways, but what's the point in saying men and women don't exist? Surely that's unnecessary?" But what people often don't understand is that gender is behavioural. If we eradicate expectations of behaviour for the genders, then we eradicate gender anyway. As such, it would be pointless to use the term "man" or "woman".

Aaaaaanyway.
That's all I have for now. 

Why do people like full-of-hate celebrities?

Jeremy Clarkson. Jeremy Kyle. Simon Cowell. Both the Hitchens brothers. Frankie Boyle.

What do they all have in common?
They all have the benefit of immense media attention, a large fan base, and the status of "celebrity", and they have all earnt it by being angry, bitchy, rant-filled, and in a number of cases, hateful.

Why are we, the public, so attracted to icons who unleash anger and aggravated criticism unto the the world? What do we get from watching these people rant and rave about various aspects of reality, often disproportionately to the actual negative attributes of the subject of their anger?

Part of the reason, it seems to be, is the rather pessimistic stance which many of take that you can only be sure that someone it being honest if they are being negative. This does actually make a lot of sense- there are a lot of reasons why someone would pretend to be positive about something (courtesy, to build rapport, to appear nice, to get a promotion and/or free stuff), but there are no obvious reasons why someone would be untruthfully negative. Therefore, the only reason someone can have for being negative is that that is what they genuinely think.
However; this argument is self-destroying. Because we have attached so much respect to open negativity, both in the media and in social contexts, there is now a very clear vested interest for people to bitch and criticise untruthfully. I had a friend in secondary school who would intellectually complain about anything and everything which he had the opportunity to- yet it was obvious that he didn't actually give a flying monkeys about half the things he was going on about. He just understood that if he was negative about things, he would be associated with attributes such as intelligence, insight and, perhaps above all, honesty. (I know, the irony is killing me too.) And I am sure that this is happening with TV personalities, journalists. orators etc.

The other reason is, quite frankly, that is makes us feel better about ourselves. As humans, we think negative thoughts every day. But the dang thing around us called "society" tells us that we need to avoid expressing these thoughts vocally, because as members of society, we need to ensure we don't make other people miserable.
Seeing celebrities bitch and moan lowers the bar for how much negative expression is acceptable. In it's simplest form, the argument goes "lots of people on the TV are doing it, therefore it's okay for me, too". And so we are able to whine away about more and more of the inconvenient or unsavoury things in our lives, and as a result, we feel better about ourselves. We are releasing our negative thoughts in an effective way, and we can no longer be seen as bad people for doing it. If it does end up making other people bored and miserable, so what? It's not our problem. The media said it's okay to moan, and these people we're talking to should catch up to that.
This, of course, is a bad thing. As humans, we are blessed with a remarkable capacity of judgement and understanding, and are quite capable of weighing up the benefits of unreservedly getting stuff off our chests with the consequences of bringing down and alienating the people we're talking to. Setting our values by the bar set by the media is lazy and unhelpful.

As an overview; negative opinions are neither a good thing or a bad thing, they are just a fact of life. We shouldn't condemn others, or feel guilty ourselves, for complaining about something once in a while; but neither should we exalt those we are constantly critical of nearly everything.

Forgive Thy Neighbour...

Redemption, that feeling of having been forgiven, is among the sweetest, most blissful feelings in the human spectrum of emotion.

Being laden with guilt and condemnation, on the other hand, is a depressing, terrible feeling, which sucks a large amount of the joy from life.

That, in a nutshell, is why we should be willing to forgive those who wrong us.
Now, you might argue, those who hurt me don't deserve to be blissful. They deserve to feel guilty- they did wrong, that's how it works. But look at it this way: what kind of person do you want to be? Do you want to be someone who brings joy to others, or someone who brings misery?
It is always valuable to train ourselves in the art of bringing joy. And a huge part of that is enabling us to be willing to forgive.

The other argument for forgiveness, of course, is that it is much better for you, the wronged. Only forgiveness will siphon out the feeling of bitterness and hurt you feel after a wronging occurs. To carry around bitterness will only bring more hurt; and it's completely unnecessary.

If you are a Christian, then you are taught that to forgive is the godly option. The more you forgive, then ultimately, the more you will resemble Christ, the one you strive to follow.

If you are not a Christian, then common sense tells you that forgiveness is nothing but good anyway.

I'm not sure where that ramble came from. But there you are.

Meanwhile, in Gayland...

Gay Fridays are back! How long for? I don't know. Here's one piece of good news, and one bad. Because I like to be Karma-ful.

Things are going well for LGBT rights in California! The state's Governor has signed a bill requiring schools to "highlight the contributions" of LGBT people throughout history. This is in addition to laws which state that the contributions of women, black people and Mexican Americans should be highlighted.

This will help to bring balance to children's perception of gays. By which I mean that it will be a positive counteraction to the "that's so gay!" attitude most young'uns are exposed to. It's also just generally good to break down the intense taboo which still surrounds the whole "ZOMG some guys like guys!" thing.

Things are going less well in Republican Presidential Candidate Land, where Michelle Bachmann (one of the Republican candidates, famous for claiming she knows exactly what God wants for America) and her husband have been running a clinic in which they try to cure gay people from their gayness. This, of course, will lead to a rant  from me. So brace yourself.

Re-orientation therapy, that is, any therapy which tries to turn you from gay to straight, doesn't work. The failure rate of such a therapy is nearly always found to be in the nineties (percentage-wise). Testimonies from patients about their painful, negative, ultimately unsuccessful experience with re-orientation therapy is far more common than "yay, I'm straight now!" testimony.
The reason treating homosexuality as a disease doesn't work is because (wait for it) it isn't a disease. The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytical Association, and The American Academy of Pediatrics all state explicitly that from their studies, they have found that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, and that it is unhealthy to try and treat or cure it. Besides, there is no logical reason to view it as a disease, or serious disadvantage. Healthy sexual/romantic relationships are being formed all the time between members of the same sex all the time, and open and "active" gay people are accomplishing and achieving lofty heights every day. If you see homosexuality as something that clamps your ability to be a healthy, productive, interpersonal human being, then, quite frankly, you are deluded. Stephen Fry, anyone?

Not only is the ex-gay ministry based on untruth; it is deeply psychologically damaging to it's "patients", and to the young LGBTers who pick up their message. They are told that their feelings towards members of the same sex are unnatural and down to their own failure as human beings, they try to change themselves, find they cannot change themselves, and end up mired in guilt and despair. All over something that wasn't their fault in the first place.
I cannot believe that the aim of the ex-gay movement is to bring health to it's clients. If it is, then it is failing miserably, and would have given up by now. The aim of the ex-gay movement is to propagate rhetoric against a minority group, and provide phony support to the social conservative movement. They do not deserve any charitable status, any ranking amongst genuine therapists or counselors, or any respect as medial professionals.

Whew. That's a rant I've wanted to get out of my system for a long time.

TTFN!

"ZOMG I hate Catholics!!!1" "...Really?"

I don't understand why so many people are so eager to declare that they "hate" those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Because, how could they? Unless every one of the billion or so Catholics in the world had lined up and personally kicked your aged grandmother in the face, I don't see a basis for anyone to have such a strong condemnation of such a huge demographic of people.

It's possible to claim that you hate Catholic teaching, of course. But that also seems highly improbable. For one thing, there is a huge variety of belief amongst members of the Catholic community. There has to be- it would be totally, utterly impossible for 1.1 billion people to all believe exactly the same thing; or even to agree on all of the fundamentals. I know/know of openly gay Catholics, staunchly traditionalist Catholics, universalist Catholics, socialist Catholics, even atheist Catholics. To say you hate all of these people's beliefs in one fell swoop is to condemn about 78% of human opinion, without even realising it.

For another thing, the aspects of Catholic doctrine people say they hate are almost never actually true. "Catholics say all non-Catholics are going to hell!" Well, I'm sure some Catholics do believe that, but official Catholic doctrine as of the Second Vatican Council is (while I can't remember the exact wording) "anyone who does the best that they can be in the eyes of God is right with God, regardless of their belief system". That's actually a lot more tolerant that the majority of Protestant church doctrines.
The other faux-Catholic belief is "everything the Pope says is infallible". This is not, and has never been, the case. From my limited understanding, the Pope is only given infallibility in issues of deep moral crisis which threaten to divide the Catholic church, during which time he takes counsel with all who are willing to give advice, undergoes deep reflection, etc. The clincher, for me, is that this has only happened something like twice in the whole history of the Catholic church. Of course, some people will say it's stupid for there to be such an authority in any case- but the rationale behind it is actually perfectly sound. The Catholic Church is an organisation with common goals, and in order to function coherently, it needs a mechanism to deal with issues which threaten to cause schisms. The truth is, nearly all the organisations which have ever existed have established an authority like this; they just don't use the word "infallible". In the US government, the President can take an executive decision if an argument isn't getting anywhere. In a major corporation, the CEO can do the same.

I'm not even going to go into the pedophile priest thing. If you are seriously going to judge a millenia-old belief system and a billion people over the actions of a minority, then I have no more time for you.

Wanna know what I think? (If the answer's "no", this is a strange place on the internet for you to be.)
As far as non-Catholic Christians are concerned, I think we only direct so much hatred towards the Catholics because they are an easy vent for the blame which is on the Christian faith as a whole. I think that rather than seriously analysing why the Christian faith has been used to cause pain and division, and why our reputation is not as glowing as we would like it to be, it's easier for many people just to say "oh, that's not us, it's the Catholics", and then move away under the impression that they are guilt-free. I think that it's an attempt to polarise the Christian community into "us, the real Christians" and "them, the not-real Christians", rather than actually assessing and reflecting upon the many diverse practices and points of view held by those who follow Christ. It's dangerous, and it's infantile, and we should stop doing it.
As far as secularists go, well, there's no real reason for you to separate Catholics from the rest of us foolish religious people. Perhaps it's because the Catholics get so much stick from non-Catholic theists that they seem an easier group to target? I don't know. Either way, open and intelligent discussion is always more welcome than sweeping condemnation.


This issue isn't as singular as you're probably thinking it is right now. The whole anti-Catholic thing is just one part of the divisory bickering which is going on amongst people of all faiths. The fact is, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jew, Christian of any church, we all striving for the same God, and we all have the same belief in the need for spirituality. In my opinion, the doctrines of all the major world religions (including ones like Buddhism and Wiccanism) have far more similarities that differences. And, ultimately, we share many of the same goals. It is far more beneficial to emphasise the things we have in common, than the things we continue to bicker over.

And so ends today's (8) Universalist Rambling Of The Weeeeek! (8)

Peace out!

The EU: Hysteria-inducing Awesome, or Frothy-Rage-inducing Evil?

I've been reluctant to do a blog post about the European Union [or any blog post at all, you lazy douche], and Britain's membership thereof. The first reason for this is because it's one of those topics, in Britain at least, where everyone either goes all ultra-Conservative and "EUROPE IS BAD! IT'S AN ABOMINATION! IT'S FULL OF SOCIALIST-MUSLIM-RAPIST-NAZIS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" or they go all super-left-wing and "EUROPE IS THE BEST THING SINCE THE PULMONARY SYSTEM AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE IT IS A FASCIST-RUSSIAN-GENOCIDAL-BABYEATING-TENTACLEMONSTER!" or something like that. [Wow, that's a lot of caps...]
The second reason is that I thought my opinion on the EU was all complicated and confusing and I wasn't really sure what it was [you either sound pretentious, or like you have half your brain missing, or both- nice going, Copson!], but it turns out it's actually perfectly simple. As far as the hysteric low quality of the EU discussion goes, well, half my blogs have been about gayness [pfft, like they hadn't noticed] and a third are about religion (roughly), so I should be used to throwing myself into such discussions anyway. So here goes.

My perfectly simple and non-confusing view on the European Union is this: the EU is a great body for dealing with inter-country issues like trade and territorial claims, but it should never get involved with the domestic affairs of it's individual states.
We have benefited rather marvelously from the former role. Trade is booming among the EU states during the absence of levy, and we haven't had a war major war on the continent since 1945 (in case you hadn't noticed).
But for the EU to excersise control over how individual governments govern their own citizens is illiberal and undemocratic. Presently, is it possible for bureaucratic EU institutions to overrule the elected bodies of any of it's member states on certain issues (a minority of issues; but still a minority too many). This completely goes against the consent-of-the-governed ideal which all of the states supposedly subscribe to. [Oooh, "supposedly", eh? Get you, being all cynical!] 


So I'm neither pro-Europe or Eurosceptic per se, but Euro-reformist (Eureformist?). I like the EU as a concept, within the boundaries that I have set out, and which the Union/Community was confined to when Britain joined in the first place.

That's another point worth making, actually. Since the nature of the European Melarkey has changed considerably since Britain had the referendum to say we wanted to join, it would definitely be worth having another referendum to ask if the people of the UK want to be a part of this new thing we're in. But that's not going to happen until the government decide they want to claw their way back to being a genuine democracy...

In summary: European reform is really, really, needed right now. Only then will I pick a side on the whole pro-or-anti-EU spat.

And that's what they refer to as "that", I believe.