Confused by homosexual confusion

          I generally find my religion pretty close to human nature, it looks very logical, quite practical but there is one thing that confuses me, totally stumps me:  its stand on homosexuality.  Not only my religion but all religions strongly condemn it, on the other hand homosexuals claim that it is the most natural thing for them.  

          Now I am not taking any sides, I am sharing just my confusion,

          1. Apart from humans, homosexuality is a common occurrence in many animals.  So is nature trying to say that it is only for animals to follow such instincts or is it trying to say that it is but natural to have something different from normal?

          2. If according to religion it is but unnatural then why do people claim to be so helpless against it?  If it is like any other sin then why do homosexuals bear so many discriminations just to publicly state their sexual identity?  From where do they get the courage of bearing all the bullying?  In short, why would anyone deliberately choose a hard path if it is something unnatural?

          3. When an octogenarian gay couple get married after 50 years of living together, doesn’t it show companionship more than any other emotion?

          I do not want to judge anyone and least of all in the light of religion but I do want to know what exactly is religious logic behind it?  Is it religious politics of many centuries, is it holy scriptures understood the wrong way or is it people not understanding the laws of nature?
          The preceding is the unaltered 16 January post written by Beenish Kahn, a Pakistani woman living in Toronto, Canada.

          Routinely, I read things which expand my knowledge.  Other times I may contemplate and ponder over something I've read (but not retain the information).  And, occasionally, my conversations are fueled by the ideas of others.  Once in a blue moon I'm driven to respond with an entire post of my own.  This is one of the latter.

          Not all religions condemn homosexuality as is initially posited by Ms Kahn, (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism don't address it or are neutral) but she is correct in regard to the big three (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

          Then she poses a few statements followed by seven questions outlining 'her confusion'.

          The first declarative statement she makes is factually bass-ackwards.  It should read:   Although male-on-male and female-on-female sexual acts have been documented in a large number of species in the animal kingdom, it's routinely interpreted as acts of dominance or sexual play.  The exception are humans, who form long-lasting, intimate, emotional bonds with members of the same sex.

          Her next seven sentences are all questions.  Each different.  But there is a similar tone in the confusion of each.  As I see it, the crux of her problem is she is either unable to—or can't—see the situation logically, from a shoe-on-the-other-foot perspective.

          Since puberty, humans of the female persuasion have caused my nervous system to react with an "attraction impulse."  When I look at a man my brain registers the same response as when looking at an ostrich or a chair.  Neutral.  Non-erotic.  This is not a conscious choice I make or have ever made and (most importantly) I'm incapable of making a different one.  I don't choose.

          However, there are millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for both genders, and some of these polysexual people—because of a desire to conform or not be shunned by their community—choose to have a sexual relationship only with members of the opposite sex (many of these people use religion to aid their choice by touting "sin dogma").

          Also, there are hundreds of millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for only members of the same sex.  They don't more than the billions who are only attracted to the opposite sex.

          Until the last few centuries 'church' was synonymous with 'government' (in many countries, it still is) and, most of the time, government is run by wealthy dominant males.  The leaders of all governments make and enforce rules in order to maintain their status quo.  This could explain why religions support(ed), condone(ed) and didn't/don't consider a sin:  owning chattel, burning witches, gender apartheid, racial segregation, etc.

          Ms your only confusion, really, the church's disapproval of buggery?


Epitaph to Live by

          G. P. Spencer of Lyndonville, Vermont, died in 1908 at age 83.  He was a stone-cutter by trade.  This is a portion of his epitaph which he inscribed on his vainglorious tomb located in Lyndon Center, Vt:
Beyond the universe there is nothing and within the universe the supernatural does not and cannot exist.  Of all deceivers who have plagued mankind, none are so deeply ruinous to human happiness as those impostors who pretend to lead by a light above nature.  Science has never killed or persecuted a single person for doubting or denying its teachings, and most of these teachings have been true; but religion has murdered millions for doubting or denying her dogmas, and most of these dogmas have been false.

          I thank Davecat for stumbling upon Futility Closet, recognizing how 'far up my alley' the site was and steering me in its direction, and Greg Ross (at Futility Closet) for collecting ephemera for everyone's perusal.

New Exquisite Corpse

          The Exquisite Corpse game was developed by the artists and writers associated with AndrĂ© Breton's surrealist group which included Max Ernst, Man Ray, Joan MirĂ³, and Yves Tanguy.  The original game consisted of folded paper with a drawing (or a sentence) composed by several people, each ignorant of the previous creation(s); as an example: "the exquisite / corpse / will drink / the new / wine"  —  excerpt from the 1939 Abridged Dictionary of Surrealism, as copied off the wall at the Art Institute of Chicago.

          The New Exquisite Corpse functions in much the same way as it's predecessor did almost ninety years ago...four players create a 'slice' 450 pixels wide by 200 pixels high (with the second, third, and fourth players receiving only the bottom 15 pixels of the one above theirs).  The New Exquisite Corpse has been dormant for a few years.  This week I received 15 pixels and created the bottom 200 pixels of this:

Plastic man | Challenges and Adventures | Fire and Ice | brie factual lie
fractal        |        sky wookie        |        madwise          |      veach

          Anyone interested in joining should sign up and send a message to The Mortician informing him/her that you want to become a corpser.


Measuring My Mettle

          My first car accident doesn't really qualify as anything more than foreshadowing for this tale.  Licensed less than six months, I attempted to carefully back the family's pristine white Ford Grenada into the garage so I could unload the trunk.  Unconfident with the mirrors, I opened the driver's door, twisted my body around and looked behind me as I slowly eased the car in slowly that when the top point of the driver's door came to rest on the side of the house I didn't immediately notice.

          The result was a few gouged inches in the house's siding and a very small dent on the edge of the car-door near the lower hinge.  My sixteen year old self decided not to mention my mistake(s) to my mother or 2dad.  For years, my eyes immediately focused on the scratch in the siding whenever I found myself in it's vicinity.  Nobody ever commented on it or the door-dent (which I, also, could never stop staring at, whenever I was near the exterior of that car).

          Three years later, as a college sophomore, I bought my deceased father2s car.  Actually, "gave my mother2 a small fraction of what the off-white VW bug was worth in exchange for the title" is more accurate than "bought".  I painted it a coppery brown (only later, after hearing it referred to as The Turd did I regret my choice).  Backing out of a diagonal parking spot one night-school-night, I cut my turn too sharp and rubbed the driver's side rear fender along the fender of an adjacent car.  I got out, noticed no dent on the other car (just shit-colored paint transfer) and left.  Without leaving a note.  Clearly, I was once "that fucker".

           My third accident occurred six years later as I approached a stop sign at a T-intersection on a gravel, residential street.  I was distracted (by a child running toward my piss-yellow VW rabbit) and failed to come to a complete stop.  A pick-up truck with monster tires (taller than the child) appeared out of nowhere, clipped my front quarter panel/bumper, and spun me around a little in the gravel.  Since he was going too fast and I'd failed to stop, we decided to fix our own damages (his was a scuffed sidewall).

          Twenty years and well over a million accident-free miles later—after driving a relatively large number of military vehicles (Gama Goat, APC, Jeep, HMMWV, as well as several different civilian cars and motorcycles—I had my first serious accident.  The phrase: torrential hail will forevermore cause me to remember crashing into the earth in a bruise-blue Ford Explorer after it flipped end over end.  In 2004, I began this s n a p p e r h e a d blog with an article about that accident in a post titled:  Driving Anozira-style.

          Almost exactly seven years later (a few months ago) I backed my silver 2008 Dodge Avenger into a travel trailer parked on the side of a street at 3am.  It dented my trunk pretty bad (it still closes).  I immediately rang their doorbell, woke them up, gave them a photo of my driver's license, name, address, phone number, and told them if they got an estimate I'd either pay it or turn it over to my insurance.

          They still have yet to contact me.  I drive past that trailer every night and always glance at the little wrinkle I caused in the metal.

          (And, since 3/5 of my accidents have one thing in common...I've decided not to drive in reverse anymore.)


Bunraku - (☆☆☆☆) film review

          This film was (and still is) loathed by almost EVERYONE.  One reviewer claimed watching it didn't just make him uncomfortable but caused him 'excruciating and deep in the balls type pain'.  For over a year I figured that they all couldn't be wrong.  But.  Of course.  They were.  *surprise*

          Bunraku is a smirking homage kaleidoscope.  Colorful bits and shiny slices of spaghetti western's and campy kung fu's are mixed with big-screen graphic novels, actual bunraku (large paper puppet theater) and - beat - Hollywood musicals.  The result is a humorous and unique treat.

          This is definitely not a forgettable film.  Although it has some obvious flaws I didn't let them ruin the overloaded thrill ride.

          Kill _ill 1; A Fistf_l of Dollars; Si_ City; He_o; Zombiel_nd; _ill Bill 2; and The Seven Sama_ri.

          If you choose to disregard all the other reviewers—you'll thank me.