I’m not very gay; in fact if I’m being honest I’m not gay at all (no matter how much I look like I am in the photo to the left). Having said that, some of my male friends do think I’m a bit too in touch with my feminine side for my own good.
I put that down to my wife indoctrinating me in the early years of our marriage. A scented Joe Malone candle here, a drop of Moulton Brown bath oil there all sounds innocent enough, but in reality it was a highly crafted military style campaign waged over years that would have had Sun Tzu purring with pride and admiration.
Chuck Norris himself would have succumbed under such an onslaught and been signing up for the Sephora newsletter, standing in line at the opening night of Sex And The City and insisting to his wife he really needed the new Legacy purse by Coach to house his knuckle duster and numchucks in.
The fact is I don’t need to be gay to know that according to my map of the world, Prop 8 is wrong. The same way as I don’t need to be wearing shackles round my ankles to know that slavery is inhumane or be black to know that discrimination is an abomination. I do however need to possess certain values like tolerance and equality, values that are absent from people that support Prop 8, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. And protest they do.
This is probably the most hypocritical post you’ll ever read, so take note in case it ever comes up as a quiz question or I run for political office.
I have said on many occasions that there are no right or wrong values only values that are right or wrong for you. The fact is, if I’d had your upbringing, your friends, your family and your genes, I’d also have your values.
I had a debate some while ago with Ali from Aliventures. She said murder could never be an acceptable value. Leaving aside the fact that pretty much nobody aspires to murder, who’s to say that is can’t be? It isn’t for me and I suspect you too, but we’re just two people in 6.5 billion. Many believe in the death penalty as a deterrent to crime and war in the name of peace. Even more think that shooting an intruder if their life is at risk is acceptable, so where is the line in the sand?
I do a value elicitation with almost every client to determine his or her hierarchy of values. The reason I do this is twofold. Firstly, most people have no idea what their values are and as these are the things that dictate the quality of their life, I think it’s useful to have a general idea.
Secondly, I need to align with every client. As a life coach it’s not my position to tell people what to think and what to value in their life. It’s my job to understand what is already important to them and work within that framework.
Every now and then I get a client whose values are so diametrically opposed to mine that I simply cannot work with them and have to end the relationship. It doesn’t happen very often because I pride myself on being reasonably tolerant of other people’s values and beliefs. However, if I get somebody that thinks racism is ok, being a misogynist cool and dandy and Tuna is really the chicken of the sea, it’s time for me to vacate the premises by the nearest available exit.
My beliefs and values dictate that I find Prop 8 abhorrent. It’s just how it is and I doubt very much my opinion will ever change. I suppose it could, but it’s not very likely. You too will have an opinion on Prop 8 and similarly yours is unlikely to change based on anything I say to you. Once we get past our mid-twenties our values don’t tend to fluctuate that much, and if they do shift dramatically it’s often because of a significant life changing event.
For example, if health isn’t high on your list of values and you develop a sudden case of Green Monkey Disease it’ll probably make a swift move into your top 3. Equally, if you’re vehemently opposed to any legislation offering equal rights to gay people and you come home one evening to find your son bouncing around on top of the local Priest, you may well do an about turn. A bit like your son if you don’t let him know you’re watching.
So what’s the point of this post Brownson, other than some desperate attempt to sell a few copies of your highly informative, amusing and yet still reasonably priced e-book on values, you may well be thinking?
It’s this.
Don’t get angry. Anger never serves you and the people that voted yes on Prop 8 are just fearful, not evil. It ‘s easy to get indignant about personal and emotional issues and we all do from time to time. They’re black and white to us because we’re looking through our own filters of life and surely everybody can see what we see, right? Well sorry no, it doesn’t work like that.
Everybody sees a different landscape no matter how loud you shout or how vigorously your shake your fist in somebody elses face. It’s like talking very slowly and very loudly at somebody that doesn’t understand English. It seems logical at the time, but in actuality, it’s ridiculous to think it’s going to help.
Anger attacks the person that holds on to it far more than the person or people it’s aimed at. Anger polarizes people and reduces the chance of positive change.
Take Michael Moore as an example. I often sympathize with the message he is trying to deliver, but how many people do you think he really influences? When he’s a new movie released do you really think there are many Republicans lining up with baited breath to hear what pearls of wisdom he’s going to dispense? Of course not, they don’t care. To them he’s just a fat opinionated loudmouth, pinko-commie, bed-wetting, tree hugging, whale-stroking deviant. Or something like that.
If you really want to be a conduit of change you have to step into the world of your adversary. Understand their beliefs and values and work within their framework. It may mean swallowing your pride and it won’t necessarily be pleasant, but if you seriously want to change the world, surely that’s a small price to pay?
Ta for the link! :-) I completely agree with you about not getting angry, though I think I need to work on that one. Occasionally, when The Boyfriend and I have a clash of values, I find it hard to have a cool and calm discussion.
(He thinks Margaret Thatcher was a GOOD PRIME MINISTER, but we have just about agreed to differ on this issue.)
I still maintain that some values are better than others, though ;-P One of my values is “always being right”… ;-)
Ali Hales last blog post..Straight to the top of your career path: the Brazen Careerist blog
There’s an interesting story told by Pema Chodron, who knew a former Vietnam/Korea soldier who became Buddhist. During his time as a soldier he was asked to police a peace rally. He said that in all his time of active service, he had never seen people so filled with hatred and anger as the peace activists.
I’ve lately found myself distancing myself from activists of all kinds. For a long time I wondered what it was that I found such a turn-off, until I realised after reading that story that it was the anger and hate that seems to fill them up. It doesn’t apply in all cases, but it’s there.
This is actually relevant over here this week as I’m sure you’ve heard about the release of the BNP membership list. Some of my friends are joining “anti-BNP” Facebook groups. The level of fury and hate you read on the walls of these groups would scare Hitler. I’ve already written elsewhere that honestly, we have nothing to fear from these people because their attitudes are dying out. Patience with the democratic process has garnered some incredible results.
Isabel Joely Blacks last blog post..Amnar Podcast – Amnar – Special Edition 1
@ Ali – Thatcher a good PM??? Jeez, that IS worrying.
@ Joely – That’s a great story. You either support violence and hatred or you don’t. You can’t swing backwards and forwards depending on circumstances imho.
That is so true. And that is also so, so terribly difficult to understand and *apply*. I’ve been working very hard this summer/fall to accomplish the goal of accepting the values of others when they don’t match my own.
I also think 100% that most values have no logical basis. The experiences in our life shape us, and we make decisions on what to support based on those events – not fact, not reason, not logic, but emotion.
And getting angry when others don’t have values that match ours? As they say: You can have your own opinion, but be prepared to support those opinions and enter into debate.
(And by debate, I *do* mean polite, calm discussion and an open mind to see all sides of the story.)
James Chartrand – Men with Penss last blog post..Don’t Miss Your Chance to Reach Your Dream
The tolerance door swings both ways. While it is sometimes fashionable to coin a political view as intolerant, I have seen some of the ugliest displays of intolerance from those who claim enlightenment. IMHO, the further you get from political center, the more intolerant the crowd. I get around, work with lots of people from the far ends of each spectrum of values, and have found myself quite uncomfortable amongst those on the far sides of this debate.
A bunch of anti prop 8 people beat a group of Christian demonstrators on the news last night. It goes both ways, but usually the extremes ruin it for everyone.
I do believe in the death penalty, and if someone is about to kill me, you bet your ass I am getting them first.
I am very very upset about Prop.8 I don’t think that is for us to decide, that is big man upstairs territory.
I agree, people are fearful, and since fear and hate are closely related, things tend to get out of hand.
My eyes are still really round from the son bouncing on the priest thing. O.O
Melissas last blog post..Silly Tombstones
@ James – Nicely put and I don’t think I can better that.
@ Mike – Of course it swings both ways and I allude strongly to that in the post. OTOH, I disagree about needing to be near the center. I’m nowhere near the center and I abhor violence. Most non-violent peace activists are well to the left and most violent peace activists (a n oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one) just think they are.
@ Melissa – I used to believe in the death penalty, but no more. So you think denying marriage is for the ‘big man upstairs’, but it’s ok for us to decide whether we end somebody’s tenure on earth? Yikes, not sure I understand that one.
I can only surmise that Melissa might be voicing what I believe. My “line in the sand” is if someone is attempting to do me bodily harm. At that point I will fight back to protect myself. If it leads to the death of the other person, so be it. Attitudes and opinions and pretty much all else are up for debate.
@ Emily – I actually think that self defense is fine in such circumstances. As long as the person defending themselves doesn’t shoot the other in the back as they’re running away! OTOH a Buddhist Monk wouldn’t believe that and his opinion is as relevant as mine or yours.
I was just trying to point out that this stuff is always murky and it’s difficult to come to a clear cut answer.
“The fact is I don’t need to be gay to know that according to my map of the world, Prop 8 is wrong. The same way as I don’t need to be wearing shackles round my ankles to know that slavery is inhumane or be black to know that discrimination is an abomination.”
You’ve put it wonderfully.
thank you for speaking out.
Articia4s last blog post..Articia4: I love randon websites like http://www.paycheckcity.com/index.asp or http://iexpenseonline.com/
@ Emily – Meant to say a Buddhist Monk Would believe that.
@ Articia4 – Glad you liked it!
See? I knew that post would rock the world over here. :-)
James stole what I was gonna say:
“I also think 100% that most values have no logical basis. The experiences in our life shape us, and we make decisions on what to support based on those events – not fact, not reason, not logic, but emotion.”
He’s like that. But I’m not angry or anything… ;-) ’cause he said it better, and more concisely, than I would have.
Amy Derbys last blog post..Now the door is you
Great post btw, did i say that before? apparently not.. hehe..
;-)
Two of my closest friends are gay and have been together in relationship for 25 years. If that is not a marriage then we need to change the definition to just “Marriage is a baby making arrangement”. They have fulfilled every other description of what a relationship is better than anyone else I know. With them as our example, my husband of 5 years and I are attempting a life long loving relationship, and can only thank them for their wisdom, compassion & friendship. The “yes” voters need to get the concept of Live and Let Live, before someone uses that same constricted view to stomp on one of their important Rights. God, Don’t let us forget about America’s freedom in the Persuit of Happiness… and Liberty for all.
Tim,
Being near center in my eyes is being enlightened enough to see another view, while still holding on to your own. I see the extremes often. I work with both sides of the debate.
Im giggling on the self defense thing that has sprung up here. The Shaolin Monks actually are amongst the most respected and accomplished martial artists in the world. They would certainly agree! By definition, escalation or retaliation negates self defense (see war or fight), thus the view expressed by both of you is spot on. I will have to blog on that tonight!
@ Amy –
That begs the question, “Like what?”
James Chartrand – Men with Penss last blog post..Don’t Miss Your Chance to Reach Your Dream
@ Amy – Yep, you did say that and yep you were right. More to come I imagine ;-)
@ Barb – Love is love in my book irrespective of anything else and I refuse to believe that there is a higher being that is homophobic.
@ Michael – I’m arrogant enough to think I see other peoples points of view from waaaay over here ;-) I wasn’t always over here though, I used to be waaaay over there!
Tim- You can only guess what I think of all this. I would have voted in favor of Prop 8. Can you tolerate that? I’m not prejudice against gays, I’m not fearful, I am also against slavery. There is no reason to redefine marriage. If you do, where does it end? Do you have a line that can’t be crossed when it comes to what should be allowed for marriage? Or does anything go?
I don’t de-value the people. I do believe, however, the behavior is wrong.
@ Laurie – Good for you for saying that! You know I don’t agree, but I respect your opinion and your right to give it.
I got in interesting e-mail this morning that Id like to share because it makes an important point that never even crossed my mind about the son being unde-age!
Apologies if it caused offense.
“Interesting blog making an important point. One bone to pick–’son bouncing on Priest’ reinforces the mistake of equating gay sex with pedophiles. Assuming son is under-age.”
Here was my reply and in retrospect I think it wasn’t such a great idea to use such a throw away line.
“Yeh, good point. Sometimes my juvenile humor gets the better of me. It was more a sideways dig at SOME members of the clergy than the gay community, but thanks for mentioning it and on balance, I maybe should have left it out.”
I’m puzzled by the idea that marriage has this certain set definition that can’t or shouldn’t be altered. In reality, our view (21st century America) of marriage is quite recent and radically different from the past. For much of recorded history, polygamy was widely accepted and viewed as normal, and men had virtually dictatorial control over the arrangement for the vast majority of recorded history.
In most cultures, up until recently, marriages were “arranged”.
In short, the concept of men and women freely choosing each other, without being forced into it by parents, tribal elders, feudal lords and so on is very, very recent.
Which means, the “argument from tradition” is a very leaky boat. And, if folks want to look to their bible for help via the “argument from authority”, in the Levant of that day, men had total control and generally many wives.
“Defining marriage” is a very, very unstable proposition. If we look closely at history, that becomes much more apparent. Dozens of nations across the globe are currently debating gay marriage. Six recognize its legitimacy and more are on the way. At the very least, America shouldn’t make the mistake of viewing current laws as “time-honored” or even “traditional”. History tells us something quite different.
Dougs last blog post..Regions of the Great Hourglass
Hi Tim – I can empathise with folk to a point. But when their values are completely the opposite to mine – eg. they’re racist, sexist, neo-nazis etc, I would do my best to avoid any type of conversation with them.
My ex-husband and his family were a lot like that – which went down badly when his sister told me she thought hitler was doing the right thing gassing the jews – when we were at a family Christening. I find it difficult to bite my tongue when it comes to things like that :) Thank God for the divorce law.
Things like the death penalty are a different kettle of fish. Some folk are for and some folk are against and there’s so many pros and cons. I’d find it difficult to form a strong opinion on things like that, as it’s not clear cut but I’d never hold it against folk who did have one.
By the way – I’ve never thought you seemed even slightly gay.
@ Doug – Very considered and interesting response that takes the debate up a notch. OTOH, it’s all about values and people wont stand to have their values compromised no matter how much contrary evidence is stacked up against them.
@ Cath – Jeez, I think I’d have been hard pushed to stop myself from punching her ;-)
Great post! I find it quite unnaturally absurd that in today’s age–with all its modern socialist views, methods of communication and enlightenment, ease of travel and exploration of different cultures and traditions–we still have racism.
I’m not even talking the “mild” racism that is somehow connected to someone’s past events that they can’t leave in the past and move on from–this event now tainting the way they react and perceive a whole grouping of people… I’m talking about the violent or outrageous racism that transcends and honourable levels of tolerance and acceptance.
Anger is a bitch. It’s also quite unnecessary to furthering anyone’s life effectively in a positive way. Anger references past events. Drop anger and you can view those past events with reason and grow past its constraints.
I’m ranting :)… I’m done. I think there’s a point in there somewhere. Really I do. Thanks again!
Another thing or two to ponder. If folks are against gay marriage because “the bible tells them so”, they should also consider that the bible tells them that it is a sin to work on Saturday, wear certain fabrics, eat certain foods, talk back to one’s parents, and commit adultery. In all of those cases, that sin is punishable by death. The death sentence is written into the law of that time for those “crimes”. You can find that in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, among other places. But, to show again how men ran the show back then, in the case of adultery, only the woman was stoned to death. The man was not put to death.
(That is, if one takes scripture literally.)
The “argument from authority” loses even more heft and weight when one considers that one of the ten commandments included “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s slave”.
Life is tough enough. If two people find each other and love each other enough to want to exchange wedding vows, why on earth would any of us have a problem with that? In the vast scheme of things, with all of the tragedies we see around us, the wars, the famine, the environmental devastation, the loss of species, the abject cruelty of human beings toward one another and Nature . . . . isn’t it truly and absurdly stupid to legislate against love and its symbols? And isn’t it truly and absurdly stupid to do so because some books written 2500 years ago, in a completely different world from our own, one we have virtually nothing in common with, say thou shalt not do this or that?
I say, live and let live. Let them be happy. Let them have their love and their symbols. Life is tough enough.
Dougs last blog post..After the Vortex
I check in once in a great while to see your blog.
Now I’m deleting you from my subscription list.
Darren M. Carys last blog post..Make Savings Cool With ING Direct ($25 FREE Bonus)
@ Nuno – Agreed, it seems to be to be the antithesis of a modern society, but it rumbles on ad infinitum. Is there any reason to suggest that we’ll look back in 200 years time and laugh at our current behavior.
@ Doug – Excellent points again, thanks.
@ Darren – That’s my day ruined.
@Darren – I love people who feel the need to let people know every single time they make a choice about something insignificant to the rest of the world. He must have been angy and missed the point of this blog post. Poor angry Darren.
NunoXEIs last blog post..Republic Domain 047: Facin’ Trouble
I so resonated with this post, but mainly for your point that ‘there are no right or wrong values only values that are right or wrong for you’ – precisely. My own take on this is that there are no definitive values suffice those that you create between your own two ears. I’m just still so constantly amazed that people still believe it’s feasible or even remotely possible for people to hold exactly the same values or beliefs about things or, put a different way, see things in the same way. Sure there are some things that I feel pretty strongly about that it would be great to make others see too eg Prop 8, but it’s an acceptance that no two people will ever see things exactly the same way that might help lessen people’s attacks, anger whatever towards others. I have a number of gay friends and I often find it’s people who don’t that have the views on what’s best for them. As one of your commentors said above, many of my friends have also been in long standing relationships – often way longer that some of my heterosexual friends – and yet the stereotypical image that contradicts that still abounds, often a case of ignorance over knowledge or fact.
Thanks for this post – I really enjoy your thinking and your writing.
All the best
Tamsin/nudgeme
Umm … wow about Cath’s ex in-laws. I thought mine were bad.
It isn’t even always possible to agree with someone who shares the same values. For example, I am a vegetarian/lapsed vegan. But I can’t tolerate the methods used by PETA. They are sort of like the Michael Moore of animal rights and not eating meat. Actually they are worse. With their shock methods they are really only convincing people that vegans are a bunch of crazed radicals. Understanding and gentler methods are much more effective.
Kim Woodbridges last blog post..Google Page Rank – A Sudden 3 Point Drop!!!
@ Nuno – LOL, well I’m sure he wanted to make a statement about something or other even if nobody has a clue what it is.
I love the Catholic Church they send me half my clients ;-) I’m actually not joking and I can say that in all honesty and bearing in mind my wife is a Catholic and I was married in a Catholic Church. How do they manage to drill so much guilt into so many people?
@ Tamsin – Thanks a lot for the feedback. Unfortunately some people hear the word guy and are instantly on the back foot. It’s often simply the fear of the unknown.
@ Kim – Agreed about PETA, they do more harm than good imho for often excellent causes. I think Joely nailed the excellent point about extremism.
@Nuno . . . agreed. It’s almost like people with their cell phones in the grocery store: I’m picking up the milk now. Now I’m checking the eggs. I’m smelling the rutabaga. Now I’m approaching the checkout line. Now I’m paying for the food. Now I’m . . .
Uh, folks, we really don’t need a press release for your every action. You’re just not that interesting.
:>)
Dougs last blog post..After the Vortex
@Doug : Now I’m reading your comment to my comment. Now I’m clicking the Submit button… wait now I am… damn… now I…
I will click the submit button after I finish typing that I’m going to click the submit button–
NunoXEIs last blog post..Republic Domain 047: Facin’ Trouble
@NunoXEI–I understand the point of the post, but I disagree with his point of view, and I’m expressing it. I’m not angry. He disagrees with Prop 8 and wrote an entire post about it–does that make him “angry”?
He is obviously anti-Catholic and unfairly smears the priesthood in his nonsensical but perverse comment about “bouncing around,” yet he is “reasonably tolerant.” (About the comment: If I saw a priest sexually abusing my son, my initial emotional reaction would be to go the opposite direction of what the blogger presupposes.) He speaks of “tolerance and equality, values that are absent from people that support Prop 8″–how unreasonable, polarizing, and closed-minded is that! I don’t need that kind of ignorance or intolerance in a “life coach.”
As a proponent of Catholicism, I know that there are many homosexuals who are basically “good people” (even though I believe the homosexual act is immoral), and every gay person is as deserving of every basic human right as anyone else. That doesn’t mean I have to submit to gay activists’ new definition of “marriage.”
A person can and should be tolerant and principled at the same time. Buckling to a political homosexual agenda is not a requirement for a person striving to be tolerant; to many Americans, if not most, it would be a betrayal of their own principles.
The blogger, on the other hand, says he “could” change his opinion about Prop 8, “but it’s not very likely.” Earlier, he said he knew Prop 8 was wrong just as he knows that slavery is inhumane and racial discrimination is abominable. If he believes that so strongly, how could he entertain the possibility of changing his opinion on it? I don’t see him as principled, and therefore not worthy of me subscribing to his life-coaching blog.
Darren M. Carys last blog post..Make Savings Cool With ING Direct ($25 FREE Bonus)
@ Darren – Interesting stuff. No doubt you read the comment where I apologized for my crass remark about the gay son, but no matter.
There was a whole stream of cases In Ireland a few years ago when it came to light that Priests had been abusing young boys for years. It had been kept quiet by those in power to ‘protect’ the integrity of the Church. Yeh, right. Screw (pun intended) the integrity of the abused, let’s protect the abusers.
I’m actually not anti-Catholic per se and it is quite frankly an absurd thing to say when half my family are Catholic. I am though anti any group that abuses its power which your guys have done more than once or twice over the last few centuries. I also see first hand though how the Catholic Church has screwed up so many lives.
You’re not a regular or even occasional reader here because if you were you’d have found something to be offended by in your first visit or two. And quite frankly when you post about homosexuality being immoral, I just roll my eyes and shake my head.
I had somebody defending Hitler here last week and quite frankly he scares me less than you do, but hey, that’s just my opinion.
@Tim Brownson — Your apology in an earlier comment was to assure readers that you don’t mean to equate gay sex with having sex with males who were under 18 years old. It had nothing to do with my complaints.
You have no argument from me that it was terribly wicked and unjust what some priests and their superiors have done. The Church is far from impeccable. I’m also very anti-abuse.
You’re willing to apologize to the homosexual community to avoid offending them; would you do the same to avoid offending faithful Catholics?
I have seen firsthand, and in history, how the Catholic Church has redeemed so many lives. They’re not in the business of screwing up lives. Their moral and charitable contributions have been tremendous. You can’t take bad examples and make that out to be representative of what the Church is and stands for.
No, I’m not a regular or occasional reader here. I was attracted by your blog’s title and several of your articles a while back.
Your eye-rolling and head-shaking, by the way, does little to change my perception that you’re intolerant. It leaves me with the impression you believe that you have a superior set of values — the very thing you’re preaching against.
Frankly, I find it creepy that a “life coach” is less concerned about someone who supports genocide than someone who holds a different viewpoint in the realm of sexual morality.
Darren M. Carys last blog post..Make Savings Cool With ING Direct ($25 FREE Bonus)
The question of what is moral or immoral is a fascinating one. And it’s essential. More than essential.
Hard and fast rules are problematic, but in general I believe this:
Morality and immorality run the gamut from kindness to cruelty. With all the nuances and layers and levels included.
And, because I believe that, I could never follow any of the three monotheistic religions of the Levant, as I see their vision of morality and immorality as mostly antithetical to that. To me, they are hopelessly paternal, dictatorial, irrational, imperialistic and still stuck in ancient times (with the exception of sections like the Sermon on the Mount). If a person follows them in a fundamentalist way, if they gather their ideas of what is moral or immoral from those ancient scriptures and take it all literally . . . I see little chance for them to view morality and immorality in a rational, logical or beneficial manner.
IMO, it takes a poetic reading of those ancient texts to move away from arbitrary and irrational “thou shalt nots” into logical, rational and uplifting “yes we cans”. It means that we look at those texts as literature, fable, legend, parable, poetry . . . and derive from them wisdom that suits our own context.
Millions do this. Millions see religious texts as springboards for poetic/artistic/metaphorical deductions. I see this as the most “moral” way of viewing them. OTOH, if we remain locked in the chains of words written down more than two millennia ago, if we choose to remain locked in a fundamentalist interpretation the authors never, ever intended . . . we fail ourselves and our fellow human beings.
Those authors clearly wrote down an oral tradition that was shaped, altered, altered again and again, depending upon circumstances and context. Those authors clearly saw that allegory, parable, myth and metaphor could reach the widest, most diverse audience. Really reach them.
IMO, we do a disservice to them if we fail to question their words, to think around them, through them, because of them and above them. As Nietzsche said (roughly translated), “One pays back one’s teacher poorly if one remains forever the student.”
What is morality? IMO, the three religions of the Levant are silent on the issue if we only read them “literally”.
Dougs last blog post..Coincidence in Cape Breton
@ Darren – I’m not looking to change your opinion of me, it is what it is.
I view the Hitler defender as a sad malcontent that’ll probably fail to influence anybody about anything of any consequence. OTOH, people that talk about homosexuality as immoral concern me because they can influence others.
Of course the Church has done good as well and there are millions of good people that attend regularly. It was the way the hierarchy moved into to protect their own that made it sickening to me and it has done and still does lots of bad too.
Oh and what Doug said too ;-)
“Tuna is really the chicken of the sea, it’s time for me to vacate the premises by the nearest available exit.”
I thought the article was brilliant, and followed you for most of it, but could you explain the chicken of the sea comment? I don’t get it! You should be able to reach me by email if you do respond.
@ Shanti – LOL, have you ever heard people eat some new meat or even vegetarian meat replacement and say “it tastes a bit like chicken”? I’ve heard everything from frogs legs to alligator compared to chicken. I couldn’t quite believe it when I saw there was a company called “Chicken of the Sea” that supplied canned Tuna.
It was just hysterical to me that it would think it’s customers were so moronic that the only way they could relate to Tuna, would be to be told it was like chicken, but wetter.
IOW, if somebody has to dumb something down so much for me, I’m outta there!
Make sense?