"Tempt not a desperate man...."

Long time no rant. I've been a busy little bee. A bee that also excels in procrastination, it seems. Alas.

Tempting as it is to go off on one about politicians, lawyers, police, insurance brokers and the DSA, I'm not allowing myself a foray into such self-indulgent drivel.

Instead, I'm going to indulge myself and drivel on about people. Shock horror surprise.

It is oft bemoaned that, in our society, the general assumption is that one is heterosexual until proven otherwise. I have a related gripe, which I have found extends right across my somewhat disparate social circles: why, I ask, why is sex assumed implicit? (Not gender or genitals or any of that malarky; I refer, for now, to that messy, sticky, glandular act of copulation)

I'm going to be twenty two in a few weeks. I've been told I'm not bad looking and a reasonably likeable sort of person (but then again, mums and friends are indebted to say such things, right?). It would seem that many expect, upon seeing me and knowing my age, that I have one or two notches upon my bedpost. Perhaps a lesser occurrence amongst religious types, where abstinence (or professed abstinence, as the case may be...) is more common; until they find out I bat for the other team, whereupon I must surely be doing more screwing than a Black&Decker cordless 'driver. Can you say "stereotype"?

As my boss so eloquently put it, "21?! You must be up to your nuts in guts every night!"

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the act of coitus, nor those whom partake of it. I'm sure it's great, and I suppose I'll get round to it some day. But it becomes tiresome to have it repeatedly presumed that ones decisions, actions, aspirations, et al. are influenced by a libido that isn't there. That, for example, I'm into someone for the sake of getting into them. Can't I just be interested and friendly?

No, I don't like pussy and tits. No, I'm not a top. Yes, I am a virgin. No, it doesn't bother me. Yes, I could get some if I wanted. No, I don't make a habit of objectifying people. No, sex and romance isn't the be-all and end-all. Yes, I do wish people would stop portraying it as such, and pressuring others into thinking they need to get some ASAP, or thinking they're worthless/ugly/failures/doomed because they haven't.

Perhaps I should just print that out on little cards and hand them out as a pre-emptive measure, to save reliving the same tired old conversations?

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

So it's midnight, I have to be up for work in six hours at the latest, and the beehive of my mind continues to elude slumber's sweet embrace. Take note kids, that's what you get for selling your soul and working double shifts; screwed up body clock. Oh, and lots of overtime pay to go towards your bike fund.

Experiences. Memories. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Why is there evil in the world? Why can we not always be happy? Without contrast, how could we truly appreciate anything?

It was with shock that I realised we're over a week into March. Six months since I've been living in London. Less than two months 'till I turn twenty two. Along with remembering old and current friends, I've been recollecting some of my more memorable experiences, and the great contrasts between them.

I have been in over twenty different countries, all unique; both wonderful and terrible in their own ways. Seen people and creatures dead, dying, diseased, disfigured, in poverty, and in pain; met people content, healthy, rejoicing, friendly and generous.

I have been atheist; I have been Christian.

I have had £5 to my name and no roof over my head; I have earned over £300 in a day, eaten the finest of foods and lived in more than comfortable housing.

My first girlfriend; my first boyfriend.

I have been healthy, strong, fit as a fiddle; I have been so sick I couldn't keep half a cup of water down; was once in such constant pain I was popping codeine just to try and sleep; spent 3 months with the prospect of cancer hanging over my head.

Friends who love me, supported me, advised me; enemies who bullied, tortured, slandered and tried to undermine me.

Times when I could have died, gone to Heaven, and not been happier; times I wanted to die, to put an end to it all (and nearly did).

Times I have injured or killed; times I have comforted or healed.

Work that involved sitting on a boat, reading books in the sun; work that saw me elbow-deep in oil and sludge, getting 4 hours' sleep on the good nights, or drenched in raw sewage (if I ever tell you something tastes like shit, I mean it...)

So cold I couldn't feel my limbs; so hot I couldn't sweat any more.

Going out to drink on a Thursday, finishing on the Monday morning on the way to work; getting through a couple of bottles of wine with each meal; drowning sorrows; being dry, learning to enjoy alcoholic beverages when I don't just want to get hammered.

Doing nothing but chilling for a month or two; clocking 300 hours of work a month.

Hoarding possessions; giving everything away.

My 20th in Loughborough, drinking shots all night, sleeping in a grotty student house; my 21st in Nacula, Fiji, sober and sitting on a deserted beach with a bonfire, sleeping in a local village about as far from civilisation and the beaten track as you can get.

The list goes on for quite a while further, but this is all very self-indulgent; you're forgiven if you're bored of this tripe. To conclude, variety is the spice and zest of life; seek it out. Weather the bad moments, for they are what make the good times good.

What I once considered the worst things to happen to me, I now consider the best, for they made me stronger, and make me realise how blessed I am. To forget your life is, perhaps, one of the saddest of losses. Treasure all of it.

0130....damn

What are you? A man or a mouse?

I've had this question posed to me on quite a few occasions, mostly when I was a child. Amusingly, I recall a little voice in my head that piped up every time, giving "squeak" as a private reply.

Identity has been on my mind of late. I don't consider my "identity" to be who/what I view myself as; I am a stream of consciousness contained within a corporeal shell, with various subconscious and/or glandular desires and emotions. I have the capacity to learn, reason and remember, and a greater capacity to forget. To define and categorise oneself is to impose limits on what you can be or achieve. It's similar to trying to describe God; every label you apply makes God less like God and more like your own (mis)conception of what a God should be.

When I think of my "identity", it is what others view me as. I have many, quite different identities, depending on who you ask; depending on what sort of situation people have experienced me in. When someone says they're afraid of me, I'm generally shocked (and I know a few people who would laugh at that). But that's the facet of "me" that they've seen.

I am rather fond of getting my own way; when I want something to happen, I'm not averse to doing whatever I have to in order to realise my wish. Appearance, how I present and comport myself, is one tool I have come to use a lot. It is something we are all judged on, and something we can have a lot of control over. I also find that my mental self image rarely lines up with my actual image; what is inside is rarely reflected on the outside.

This doesn't bother me much. For whatever reason, I am quite detached from what body I have, or what people call me/refer to me as. Those who ask me what name I want them to use, invariably get a hazy "whatever" in reply.

At face value, it seems most people see me as a heterosexual man in his mid-twenties, confident, neatly dressed, well-built, quiet and well-mannered. It is an image I have cultivated and encourage, for the simple reason that it helps me get what I want. In general, people afford me more respect as a result, for like it or not ours is a sexist, ageist (etc) society; if, for example, I were to look my age or younger, or look like a woman, certain things would become a lot more difficult.

Someone once commented to me, "You know, for such a macho guy, you sure do have some very feminine traits..." I just grinned.

We all judge books by their covers; it can't be avoided. But don't forget there's a myriad of pages contained within.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Intro)

I'll admit, perhaps the title is ever-so-slightly misleading. Don't expect me to apologise (nor explain, if you don't understand it).

At the request of a few people, on various occasions, what follows shall be an account of my views on Christianity and the Bible in relation to homosexuality. It's not going to be short, and I'll even include references at the end. Aren't I kind?

But before I begin, I would like to make certain points clear:

• This isn't intended to sway anyone's beliefs, but merely clarify and explain how I came to my own conclusions and opinions. Better people than I have tried and failed to change the stance of anti-homosexuality proponents. One cannot reason a man out of a position he has not been reasoned into. I gave up trying a while ago.


• I spent a long time over this subject, and invested a lot of thought, research, introspection, and prayer into it before I decided what was right in my eyes. We are all biased, but this is, in no way, merely an exercise in self-justification. I don't need that.


• Within this disquisition, I shall not be addressing in depth my perception of the follies and downfalls of organised religion, or the Christian churches. I don't want to end up typing a novel. Most major Christian denominations put great emphasis on the authority of the Bible, and some on the authority of the Church and Tradition. It is these aspects I shall mainly be concentrating on.


• I have tried to make the main body concise and fairly easy reading, for those who can't bear the thought of indepth study. The references/bibliography at the end are, therefore, quite comprehensive, and I'd urge anyone with the will and patience to study further on their own. Don't take my opinions as gospel.


• This is a touchy issue, with many people having very big fights and fallings-out. It's not likely to be resolved any time soon, but in all the theology and philosophy, try to remember that real people, with real feelings, are being affected by society's opinions (i.e. YOUR opinions) in a very real way.


• I don't make a habit of pondering and debating theology any more. There are more imortant things to life. This is in answer to a couple of requests, not a sign of more things to come.


• Comments, criticism, and debate are always welcome, on the strict condition that they are legible, grammatically correct, polite, justified/backed-up with suitable evidence, and in response to having actually read my writings. Slogans, derogatoriness, dogma, condemnation, etc. may be inserted directly into your rectum, without having to be aired to me first.


• If you can't understand sarcasm, I have no time for you.


• If you don't know common Latin abbreviations, or polysyllabic words, might I recommend a dictionary as a wonderful resource?


• If you wish to use this essay, by all means do so. I will request, however, that it remains complete, including references, and you don't claim it as your own unless you bother to reword it. Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery copyright infringement.

And so, without much further ado, let us move forwards, beyond the forewords!

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 1)

The mainstream Christian stance on homosexuality has long been (and to a large extent still is) that homosexuality is a Sin. "God Hates Fags", as some might eloquently suggest. Certain modern groups put a gentler, more politically-correct spin on it, talking about "loving the sinner, hating the sin" and stressing that it's "homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation/desires" that is the sin. Pretty wording, just as destructive and sinister when put into practice.

Ask the average self-professing Christian why it's Wrong, and you'll likely get the answer "the Bible says so". Ask them where, and you'll have many people stumped. Que mutterings about "Old Testament" and "Sodom and Gomorrah", or even "Unnatural-ness" and "fallen worlds". I have yet to meet a person who, having been brought up in a Western/Judeo-Christian country, could tell me that they thought homosexuality was absolutely fine until they read it was wrong in the Bible. Always, the opinion comes before the justification.

Two words: Societal Influence.

There are cultures and societies in our world for whom homosexuality and transsexuality are perfectly normal, in fact are an intrinsic part of life (for example, tribes in New Guinea¹). If they don't have some mystic instinct that tells them it's Evil, why do Westerners?

We grow up with the concept of some things being "right" or "wrong" all around us, either implied or outright expounded. A person's take on homosexuality often fits in as part of their fundamental worldviews, which are formed early on in childhood and heavily influenced by those around them (e.g. parents, siblings, teachers)². So we generally perceive homosexuality as either "good" or "bad" before we're of an age to understand what romance and sex even are. Worldviews are very hard to change; they form our core beliefs, how we view our surroundings, our opinions on how life should operate; therefore when we are mature enough to begin considering such subjects as sexuality, we already carry deeply rooted preconceptions and biases.

Hence, it is little wonder this debate is causing so much strife in our world, and people rabidly stand by arguments touting "proof" that endures scrutiny and reason, like a snowman endures a Saharan heatwave.

Proof such as "the Bible says so".

For those who don't know (viz. the majority of people), in the original translations of the Bible, homosexuality is directly mentioned a grand total of zero times. Even different English translations cannot agree, with some including no mention of "homosexual" or "homosexuality" (e.g. the KJV, NCV, the Message, ASV, YLT) and others (e.g. NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NASV) including the word in dubious translations that I shall address later. Interesting to note, however, that those translations that do make direct mention of the term "homosexual" are exclusively modern, (from the latter part of the 1900's, or the start of 2000, often the 1980's or 1990's), whereas translations with no mention of the word include those both old and new. Again, this reeks of societal influence upon the translators.

This, of course, has not stopped people from finding passages in the Bible, from which to construct support for their arguments. The most common of these include the Creation account in Genesis, the Levitical laws, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Timothy.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 2)

Levitical Laws

The book of Leviticus, third book of the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah. An entire volume on ritual purity. Instructions to the Jews and their priests, designed to distinguish them from the surrounding nations. To strengthen their cultural identity, and prevent foreign practices and acts of worship from corrupting their traditions.

It lays down the law on "proper" behaviour, from sacrifices and offerings³ to ceremonial purification⁴, from how to perform rituals⁵ to what not to do as acts of worship⁶, and sets out punishments for those who disobey⁷. It states that Israel should not act like the Egyptians and Canaanites, and gives a list of deeds and behaviours that should, therefore, be considered unacceptable⁸.

Amongst all this, we find the brief verse used by some to condemn homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."⁹

Repeated a couple of chapters later with the punishment:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."¹⁰

So, within an entire book on "How To Be a Righteous, Purified Jew and Perform All the Correct Rituals" and "What To Do To People Who Try To Do Differently (Kill Them)", we have two verses that apply to all peoples of the modern world, unequivocally stating that homosexuality is wrong. How indubitable.

Frequently, the popular bandwagon to jump on whenever Leviticus is brought up in debate, is the fact that other Laws from the book are blatantly ignored nowadays, specifically re: eating shellfish¹¹ and wearing mixed-fibre clothing¹². This is sometimes countered by talk of different "levels" of Law being present, of important Moral Codes alongside mere Health Recommendations and Ritual Codes of Practice.

It is of some significance, then, that the word translated as "abomination" is the Hebrew word "Tow`ebah", used throughout the Old Testament to signify ritual uncleanliness<sup>14</sup>. Not quite what the modern English-speaker thinks of when presented with Abomination: "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome.". And why use "Tow`ebah" if the author meant "Zimmah"; moral wickedness, evil¹⁵?

Another oft-made observation is that the verses cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, include female homosexuality; the wording/grammar irrefutably specify men who "lie" (whatever that means...) with men. In the same chapters, when bestiality is dealt with, both men and women are specifically forbidden from intercourse with animals¹³. So God is cool with lesbians but not gay men?

Interesting, also, how the 2004 NLT bible for example, says instead "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin", to handily cover up, through translation, any doubt that might otherwise ensue.

However, neither of these common points pique my interest quite so much as the fact that, in Leviticus Chapter 18 (and again in Chapter 20), it uses the phrase "Do not have sexual relations with..." eighteen times¹⁶ (alternatively, "The nakedness...thou shalt not uncover..."/"You shall not have intercourse with..."); and yet, for our single, all-important verse, the author abandons the less ambiguous phraseology for "lie as with a woman".

Or, in alternative translations, "beds-[of-a]-woman". For the Hebrew construct, "Mishkevey", formed of two nouns, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament translated as anything other than "bed" or "bed-chamber"; describing all this as obscure and enigmatic borders on understatement. A similar argument holds true for the Greek translation, the Septuagint¹⁷.

In addition, the command appears just after burning children as a sacrifice to Molech is forbidden, and just before ritual bestiality is banned, "as were the practices of the nations around Israel"¹⁸. Not a huge leap of logic to discern that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" ⁹ might just, ever so possibly, have something to do with worshipping other gods.

What a stupendous argument against two people of the same sex having an emotional and physical relationship.

Hot Steamy Yaoi! (Part 3)

Sodom & Gomorrah

Ah, Sodom, the city that lent its name to the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite". Terms we automatically link with "teh buttsecks". How droll, then, that despite the Sins of Sodom being mentioned in over a score of different verses throughout the bible, "homosexuality" is never one of them¹⁹. Societal influence? Surely not again?!

Certainly, there is word of the city being full of immoral people. Inhospitable people. Idolatrous, murderous, greedy, arrogant, adulterous, prideful, oppressive, unrepentant people. All that, and more, mentioned quite specifically. But no reference to queers.

Hence one might ponder, wherefore art said fated city the namesake of such terms? Afterall, sex doesn't even come into the picture until the early Christian Church decided to note sexual immorality as being amongst Sodom's sins (for example Jude Chapter 1 Verse 7, KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."). And even here, "fornication" is the translated word "Ekporneuo" (to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication")²⁰ and has very heterosexual connotations. "Strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6 Verses 1 to 4 (for Lot's guests were, apparently, two angels sent by God²¹).

The entire argument hinges, as usual, upon one precarious passage (in Genesis 19), and an interestingly translated word: Yada`. For it is this word that appears in Genesis 19 verse 5:

"And they [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."²²

Alternatively:

"They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"²³

There appears to be ever-so-slight-a-difference in the implied meaning between these two translations; what is translated as "to know" in the KJV, becomes "to have sex with" in the NIV. One could argue, the author meant "to know carnally". However, Yada` appears in the Old Testament 947 times. Yes, that's nine hundred and forty seven times²⁴. The overwhelming majority of those mentions have no sexual implications whatsoever; it literally means to know experientially, to learn of, find out, etc.

It is perfectly true that there exists a handful of instances (about 5%) where Yada` suggests carnal knowledge. All instances (bar this single, disputed account of Sodom's tale) denote heterosexual sexual encounters. Yada` doesn't always appear alone in these cases (i.e. it is combined with other words that translate as "to lie with.." etc.) and, often, the results of this heterosexual "knowing" are also recorded (e.g. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."²⁵). In addition, if the mens' intention was to perform sexual acts with the strangers, why use Yada`, instead of one of the more direct Hebew words?

Could it not be, that the men of the city wanted to know, i.e. identify, the strangers Lot had decided to shelter within their city? In an era and culture where war, conquest and barbarism were common, and cities had walls with gates that were locked at sundown, is it odd for people to wonder why a foreigner living amongst them²⁶ was harbouring strangers in his home at night?

Still, some consider the Sin of Sodom, and the reason it was destroyed, to be that it was full of homosexuals. I find Abraham's pleading with the Lord beforehand interestingly relevant²⁷. It concludes with God saying "For the sake of ten [righteous men], I will not destroy [Sodom]." So, in the words of the Lord, if there were but ten men in the whole of Sodom who were righteous, the city would not have been destroyed.

Therefore, it goes without saying that if the Sin was homosexuality, then the entire city woud have had to be gay. Even today, with our advanced methods of communication and transport, you couldn't find a city like that (more's the pity). How statistically likely is it, then, that Sodom would have been populated by homosexuals?

And to say "But it was one of the sins, not the only sin, so they didn't have to all be gay, so nyer!" holds no water, for "both old and young, all the people from every quarter" were surrounding Lot's house, demanding to Yada` the strangers.

Finally, it must be mentioned that even if the incident in Sodom was about sexual acts (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...) then it was a case of attempted rape. An act of power, against the wishes of the recipient, degrading to the victim. Making the angels their bitches, so to speak.

Rape is never a good thing.

But neither is a case of rape grounds to condemn sex or relationships in general. A very similar occurance happened in Gibeah²⁸, which resulted in a concubine actually being raped to death, and again a city being destroyed. But no one would use that to outlaw heterosexuality.

The sad tale of Sodom and its fate is no grounds for condemning homosexuality; one can barely concede that it's even remotely relevant.