Wednesday, 20 February 2008

It's all a bit gay...

From the BBC website:

Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas Party, said the tremors had been caused by lawmaking that gave "legitimacy to sodomy".

Wow. I'm sure the geologists who've been studying shifting plates for 30+ years will take that into account, schmu.., I mean, Shlomo.

Well, add that to the papal statement at Christmas that birth control and gay marriage are threats to world peace, and we know it must be true.

Sounds like they're in bed together.

God, it makes me so angry. Yeah, I know, you too - oh, they slipped that stuff into Leviticus when you weren't looking? Guess the Onion had it right then.

Last week, I watched a programme on adoption. The couple looking to adopt were two men who had met on a photo shoot in LA. After nearly a decade together, I've rarely seen a couple more in love - straight or gay.

They'd always considered children part of the equation. Looking around, they saw the immense need in the community around them, and instead of opting for a mother for one of their children, or a perfect little baby of an affluent Catholic teenage mother, they decided to adopt through fostering.

And which children did these white, gay, affluent men choose?

Black fraternal twins - a girl and a boy -
with developmental difficulties, born to a crack addicted mother. You would have wept to see the tenderness and love they gave these little ones as they swaddled them at night far past the age that normal children need to be so tightly wrapped. Or to see them terrified at the prospect of losing them to a member of the mother's family.

Do you think Shlomo, Benedict, the late John Paul or any of the white, clean-cut, affluent, smugly religious couples at my church would make that kind of commitment? Would adopt a child who didn't look like them? One that had developmental difficulties?

You can bet Satan will be hosting the Winter Olympics first.

Thus, the crux of my problem with the outwardly religious: you spout morals. I know bloody few of you who actually live by them. As with everything else, the more you talk or ostentatiously follow the rules, the less you really do - or believe.

Men like Dane Holweger and Israel Segal are vilified by 'priests' in the pulpit for living in sin. And yet, who fed? who gave water? who visited in prison?

Who took care of the little ones?

Not the Catholic Church, was it, Ben? That whole putting children at risk of being sexually molested by moving paedos around for years annihilates your moral authority. Especially since all you do is blame gay men and refuse to take any real action.

No. Those gay men that you vilify have taken care of the little ones - fed them, clothed them, loved them. My love and prayers are with them, Nola and Ziggy - they will raise two very fine children, mark my words.

Why? Because they love without regard to creed, colour or history - which makes them a lot closer to God than the pair of you, who spend your lives telling us you speak for Him.
Even if they live in an earthquake zone, Shlomo.

I know it certainly means that Dane and Israel are worlds closer to God than I am. They love, forgive, and open their hearts in ways that I can only imagine. Their ability to walk God's talk puts me to shame.

Mother and father, single parent, two fathers, two mothers - what does it matter? A nuclear family may look perfect on the outside but be hell on the inside. Appearance and outward behaviour, as so many in organised religion need to learn, mean little to nothing.

Take it from God - all you need is love.


Anonymous said...

Why don't you think for yourself, instead of blindly following the dogmas of the liberal establishment? You came away from the TV programme with exactly the opinion that the secularist producers wanted you to have!

Actually, Catholic adoption agencies in Britain specialize in placing children with all kinds of difficulties - eg Father Hudson's Society in the Archdiocese of Birmingham. However, the Sexual Orientation Legislation will now make this impossible - a triumph of bigotry over charity. This from the same Establisment that wants to abort Downs Syndrome children in the womb and experiment on human embryos - now who actually is loving most here? The Church is about the only body in this country that speaks out for the rights of the human person from conception to natural death - and at the same time quietly gets on, by the work of people like Father Hudson's, with helping others.

Sorry if the facts don't fit in with your prejudice, but if you actually tried out charity, forgiveness, kindness and tolerance instead of judgement and hatred, you might be able to help others, and become happier yourself...

Anonymous said...

I'm interested to hear more about Father Hudson's Society - why don't you suggest that to the TV programme makers as a come back to the programme mentioned here??

Irim said...

"Why don't you think for yourself..."

You sound exactly like my father when I wouldn't agree with him. "You've been brainwashed." Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm not thinking for myself.

Disagree, fine. Accusing me of being unable to think for myself - out of line.

I don't know who you are or how well you know me or my life, but I believe if you ask any of my friends, they'll tend to tell you I know my own mind.

If you are a friend/acquaintance of mine - and I suspect you are one of the clerical ones - I expect you to either make a comment on here making it clear who you are or inform me in private by email.

"following the dogmas of the liberal establishment..."

I don't follow any dogma - I'm a curious mix of liberal, conservative, moderate - just like most people who think for themselves.

"You came away from the TV programme with exactly the opinion that the secularist producers wanted you to have!"

Did you see it? If not, then isn't your argument destroyed by the fact that you aren't actually arguing from evidence but from your own dogma that disagrees with mine?

I may have agreed with the producers THIS TIME, but I don't always. I'm very well aware of how segments are cut, so I read body language, tone of voice, consistency over the programme - and no one could have faked the affection they had for eachother nor the love they bore the children. The way you touch someone doesn't lie - that's why spotting an affair is so easy, even when someone is trying to hide it. True intimacy can't be faked. They had it in spades.

I grew up in a family with parents who were fakely affectionate in public. Trust me, I can spot it from 20 miles away.

I know about Father Hudson's Society,which does excellent work - you missed my point. I asked if *any of the 'we are SO PERFECTLY CATHOLIC' couples* would adopt a black child with developmental difficulties. Having spoken to a number of them, I can tell you the answer is 'no'.

"However, the Sexual Orientation Legislation will now make this impossible - a triumph of bigotry over charity."

How is opening up adoption to loving families, regardless of sexual orientation, bigotry? By its very definition, bigotry is judging people by their colour, religion, sexual orientation and shutting options to them because of that. This law opens it up.

If adoption agencies - and many non-Catholic ones do the fine work of Fr Hudson's - want to keep their doors shut to gay couples, who's the bigot? By definition.

"This from the same Establisment that wants to abort Downs Syndrome children in the womb and experiment on human embryos - now who actually is loving most here?"

Giving the right to choice for abortion and 'wanting to abort Downs Syndrome babies' are miles apart. The individual makes the choice. You're condemning everyone without knowing the facts.

"The Church is about the only body in this country that speaks out for the rights of the human person from conception to natural death"

Really open your ears, and you'll find that's not true.

"and at the same time quietly gets on,"

No, it doesn't. It talks about what it's doing all the time, whilst pointing fingers at others and condemning. That takes a lot of energy and prevents you from really looking at yourself. The sad thing is, it does a lot of good things, but by saying things like "gay marriage is an obstacle to peace", it alienates the world it's meant to save.

"Sorry if the facts don't fit in with your prejudice"

I may be hard on the Church, true. But the claims 'One true Church' and 'the way, the truth and the life' are huge. It has to be held up to those standards, which it set for itself. And it's failing.

Since it shows little tolerance for those who disagree and gives no quarter or mercy, I'm only treating it the same way.

"but if you actually tried out charity, forgiveness, kindness and tolerance"

You'll have to ask those who know me.

"instead of judgement and hatred"

This is a very personal attack for an anonymous comment. Either you are angry with me or with something I've pointed out. The former would indicate that you know me, but refuse to engage with me directly, which makes you guilty of judgment and hatred, and lacking charity, forgiveness and tolerance.

If the latter, well, read your letter again and ask yourself honestly - are you showing charity?

"become happier yourself..."

I have good health and good friends. I don't need much else - I am happy. You don't sound like you are though - care to elaborate?

I'm happy to listen.


Ariel said...

I feel a bit odd defending you, because you of all people are more than capable of defending yourself, but I'd just like to say that there's one blindly dogmatic, bigoted, hate-filled rant associated with this post, but it wasn't written by you. It couldn't have been. You have your biases, true, but of all the people I've ever encountered, of whatever religion or creed, I've never met anyone who looks at things as unflinchingly straight-on as you do, and I've always admired you for it.

The same is not true for the legions of self-righteous holier-than-thou blind men who call themselves religious. I've met quite a few of them, and most of them don't think for themselves. They do think an awful lot OF themselves, though. Curious, that.

I am glad to be Jewish. We have our share of the blind, but we're far more supportive of "deviant" thinkers overall.

Just to add, in support of the family-diversity thing. My family was outwardly perfect: two parents, two children, both sets one of each gender. My parents didn't divorce, didn't hit me, seem like great parents from the outside. But they don't love me, either. And I'd rather have been raised by a couple of men like you describe than be raised without love.


Vera Nadine said...

LOL. Well said Irim.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for once again writing so well and explicitly - not only on the blog, but also in response to others' comments.
Please continue with your writing/blogging...
And in common with ariel (and with what you said and with what I know of you) you always think for yourself and preserve your own individuality rather than blindly following anyone else's.

You are needed to continue speaking out on behalf of those who do not get to speak or cannot do so...if you ever doubt this, read Dietrick Bonhoeffer!

Dane Holweger said...


My children are now 4 1/2 (desperate to be 5 when we've said they may finally have chewing gum) and are two of the greatest blessings bestowed upon the earth (but I'm not a proud parent or anything). They are kicking butt in both gymnastics and ballet and are starting to read. They begin kindergarden in September. Both dance through life with an extraordinary sense of wonder, humor and compassion. They are truly God's children. And God blesses us every day with their presence.

I celebrate the idea of raising children who will not judge even those who judge us.

As for the television program about our adoption process, it has been a wonderful gift for our kids to be able to see such an accurate depiction of our story and to enjoy the excitement and love surrounding our union as a family.

We appreciate, so much, all of your positive thoughts and words.

All the Best,
Dane Holweger and Family

Serena said...

Irim -

I actually found your site by googling Nola and Ziggy's name, hoping to find out when that program would run again on the Discovery Channel here (it was just on this morning and I hoped they'd rerun it soon so I could tell my Mom.) I thought this family's story was BEAUTIFUL and I have thought of adopting...I loved how the one parent said that fostering shouldn't be considered a last resort. I had never thought of it that way. As a single woman, I know it may be hard for me to adopt. But maybe fostering...

I really liked your comments and I feel you certainly are a thinker. The first anonymous person who posted that you came away with what the "secularist producers" wanted you to have clearly doesn't know that the show is quite unbiased and shows a different perspective on adoption or fostering situations every week. Ok, so it's not unbiased - it's VERY PRO CHILD!

Anyway, thank you for what you said. Articulate. Well thought out. And I'll be back!