13 comments

• 

  B.T.Carolus

  9 months ago

  I had this really surreal experience at disneyland a couple of months ago; it could have been part of a movie where you go 'wow, that's profound, but totally staged,' but I promise it really happened exactly this way. So, I was walking away from tomorrowland towards the plaza sometime after 10 pm, and to my left walking towards tomorrowland was an older gay couple, maybe somewhere between 55 and 65. I'm sure they were a couple (or at least there together, I didn't grill them on living arrangements or anything), and they kind of made me sad because they were walking next to each other, the way most couples at disneyland walk, except they were definitely not touching, i.e. not holding hands, like you would expect of a straight couple. After I saw them I kept walking straight through the plaza toward Adventureland, and right after I got past the circle thing in the middle, I saw right in front of me heading out of Adventureland, a young gay couple in their early-twenties. They were holding hands, smiling hugely, and quite obviously happy to be with each other.
  
  I have this tendency when I'm at Disneyland to get distracted by profound thoughts (I'm an annual passholder, so I don't have to savor every moment), and my profound thought was that it was amazing to see this total generational dissonance, all played out within a minute at Disneyland. The older couple was obviously 'a couple' but they were being very careful not to draw any attention to that fact. The way they were walking (which I have seen before via other people) always makes me think that they are being followed around by a mean old lady wearing a black Victorian-era dress, ready to smack their hands with a ruler should they get nearer than twenty-two inches to each other in a public place. It just has a very weary and wary feeling to it that makes me wonder if they were just being overly vigilant, or if they have had an experience (or experiences) that makes their caution absolutely justified. But the younger guys were just oblivious and 'young and in love,' which sort of made me wonder if they weren't being vigilant enough.
  
  It just seemed like a really brilliant illustration of youngin's (as you like to call us, Randy) and their elders, and the total disconnect between the two sets of experiences. If the two couples had met each other the younger would probably have told the elder something along the lines of "you can hold hands...this is Disneyland, and it's 2008." And the older would probably have said "better to be safe, you never know what's going to happen." I think people my age have grown up with the concept of being 'out,' and we just expect and accept it without realizing any of the cultural history behind it, because nobody is telling that history.
  
  There's a documentary called "The Other Side: A Queer History" (alternately sub-titled "Back in the Gay," which I thought was way cooler, but oh well), which I'd really like to see. It's about LA's only piano bar, The Other Side, which is a Silver Lake fixture, and which is known for it's clientele, which tends to be over 50 (all the way up to about 80, I believe). The trailer at least used to be available on youtube, and it is really interesting, because all these old men are describing the history of LA's gay community, from the vantage point of having actually been there. Too bad more young people haven't seen it.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  That does sound like in an interesting film and am glad to know others are seeing what I am seeing with regard to the generational differences.
  
  I think that an honest look at the history of ssa people would be very educational. Especially modern history. Thanks for the great comment Ellie. I voted you "up" one with the little arrows I am not sure anyone but us use.
  reply
• 

  P

  9 months ago

  Randy,
  
  You said "I am personally encouraged that today’s broader culture is much safer for those with same sex attractions than the reality of what some of our Senior citizens went through." I could not agree more. The culture in which we live allows me to share openly with friends at church -hopefully educating them on the issue and giving them a glimpse of what it means to live, day to day, with this.
  
  Yet, the reason why the culture is safer is because of HRC, because of all those drugged out guys who dressed like Judy Garland and rioted in the streets of New York in the late 60's, because MTV puts gay characters on Real World and because celebrities like Ellen and Rosie are not afraid to share their lives with the public at large and because, in many states, there are laws that protect LGBT folks from employment discrimination, etc. Its a catch -22 of sorts, isn't it?
  
  In some ways, I have HRC, Lamda Legal and the tireless work of Gay Activists before my time for the fact that I can openly share my story without coming off as some sort of freak. Would you agree?
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  Well, I don't know about all of that and some of those orgs you mention I believe do much more harm than good. That said, I do think the more open people have been the easier it is over time for us to share our stories.
  
  Plus, it is those like myself like Frank Worthen, Sy Rogers, Exodus in the early days that started the ball rolling in combatting true homophobia in religious realms and helping the church to become more honest and open about the issue.
  reply
• 

  Jonathan

  9 months ago

  I too have mixed feelings about this climate change, back then society still had an understand that it was 'wrong', but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Thank you for being a part of a Godly force to effect change within the body of Christ such that we can feel safe being vulnerable. True love can only been expressed in vulnerability. One of my professors once said, "We all want to feel safe to confess what we think is truth... Telling someone of our hurts and fears, sins and tears.. It's the one thing the Catholics have on us." Without this safe environment you've helped create we couldn't even begin to lovingly address where our views don't match up, so people can find the help they need.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  There is a lot of work left to do but thank you for your encouragement. There are so many more people who have done far more than I that I am eternally grateful for.
  
  but again, we have a lot of work to do and need to be wise.
  
  Thank you very much for leaving a comment :).
  reply
• 

  Janey

  9 months ago

  Here's an interesting twist....
  
  It seems like Christians are the only group that legally can be discriminated against.
  
  There can be Gay/Straight alliances in the schools. How would that same school treat students who wish to create a student support group for those wishing to walk away from homosexuality? They teach evalution in our schools instead of Evolution Vs Creationism. They took prayer out of the school and most schools can influence their students with spiritual practices like Holloween which is rooted in witchcraft but heaven forbid if schools influence their students with the real Christmas celebration.
  
  In Canada the schools no longer celebrate Christmas. Instead it's just a Holiday Season celebrating Santa Claus. Isn't that sad? I don't know what it's like in the US if the schools still celebrate Christmas. Do they?
  reply
• 

  Jay

  9 months ago

  Well Janey, it could be that Creationism is a religiously-inspired theory, and as such it has no place in a state-funded school which has to teach all students (not just the religious ones)... Not to mention it isn't supported in the scientific community (naturally, because it's not science). I actually am a Creationist (being a Christian and all), but I don't think it needs to be taught in schools because it's a matter of faith, not science.
  
  Christians can't be legally discriminated against, thanks to the First Amendment. Every school has clubs like FCA and Young Life as well as GSA. I'm sure if there was to be a support group for ex-gay students, a school might even consider it (though I think the prospect is odd and unlikely... usually GSA's don't have that many members, so I doubt an ex-gay club would have any).
  
  And why should the schools celebrate Christmas? Is it right for Christians to force our holidays on Jewish or Muslim children? I don't think so, because we're not a Christian nation.
  reply
• 

  B.T.Carolus

  9 months ago

  I think that Janey's concept holds a lot more water in a Canadian context, where Christians actually are, in some limited cases, actually going to jail for their beliefs. America has a much more intrinsically Christian and free speech leaning society than Canda, so it is less likely to go down a thoroughly Canadian road (as I pointed out on another post at some point).
  
  And no, Janey, we don't celebrate a traditional Christmas anymore.
  
  But Jay, to look at your concept from a different direction, in Denmark pork and pig farming is a hugely traditional part of the Danish culture. Danish meatballs (frikadeller) are pork meatballs, and are a very common school lunch (Denmark, I would remind you, has a very large Jewish population, and they have never complained about this). Ever since the Muslim population has grown, and Muslim children have been going to Danish schools, Muslim students have been able to select a different option from the pork meatballs for their lunch. But for some Muslims it is apparently not good enought that they are being accomodated, and they went on a drive to force the entire country to ban one of their most traditional dishes from their schools. That's pretty extreme, and the Danes didn't go for it, but I would argue that, although it isn't the government's job to enforce out an element of religion or culture, it's not their job to wipe it out, either.
  reply
• 

  Janey

  9 months ago

  Well said Ellie,
  
  One thing that I've been learning while viewing this blog is gaining the perspective of folks from the States because there are different perspectives and issues are addressed slightly different. Sometimes I mention Canadian cultural issues to gain some perspective on what's happening outside my own country and it is interesting to learn from other people outside my own country.
  
  Interesting though that an entire people group would want to wipe out some of what makes the Danish Culture what it is. I don't necessarily think that they'd like if if a group went into their schools and tried to force their schools to accomodates a different dress code because that group beliefs it's "discriminiatory against their women" The dress code is very much so apart of their culture but it is also a huge part of their religion as well.
  reply
• 

  Janey

  9 months ago

  Jay, some of what you say does make sense .... but.....
  
  If you are a Creationist then you'd also have to agree that Science has everything to do with Creationism. In fact, most Scientists in years past have believed in the Creation theory. The Evolution is a theory and in "science" Creationism is a theory. Yet in our schools they do teach their students that Evolution is a fact. No where has there ever been anything remotely close to being discovered that makes human's origins comeing from Apes and yet they teach students that the origin of human's come from Ape's. That isn't fact, yet they teach it as fact. It's only a theory that has yet to be proved and I don't think there will ever be enough scientific data to ever prove such a theory.
  
  Most people throughout the entire world believe that God exists and that God created everything. And so, if those believing the Evolution theory are in the minority, why don't they teach Evolution Vs Creationism. I think that would be a far more interesting class if you ask me.
  reply
• 

  Emily K

  9 months ago

  Janey,
  
  I think you might be confusing linguistic use of the word theory with scientific theory.
  
  in the realm of science, the word "theory" has a very different definition than the one attributed casually in language. In language, a theory is a hypothesis, an educated guess that can't necessarily be tested. In science, and especially in regard to "Theory of Evolution," this is the definition of theory (per wikipedia):
  
  "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method)."
  
  Additionally, a theory is only taken seriously if:
  
  "The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable."
  
  "Creationism," by using the same set of scientific definitions, would be a hypothesis. from wikipedia's hypothesis page: "Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory."
  
  Scientific theories are testable, quantitative explanations applied to observable facts. Fact: when you drop an apple, it falls to the ground. Scientific Theory: The earth's rotation causes gravitational pull on matter.
  
  It is true that due to inductive reasoning, a theory can always be disproven and never fully proven. But no matter how "shaky" a theory might seem to be, if there is substance in teaching it (like evolution, gravity, relativity, or even string) then it should be taught.
  
  Why is the Creationist "theory" not congruent with "scientific theory?" Because Creationism starts with the end "proven" fact, "God created the world because the Bible says so and is divine and infallible." This is not a repeatedly observed fact (like the falling apple), but rather a record of what has to be assumed was someone's witnessed observation (revelation?) thousands of years ago. Theories can be tested because studies and experiments that prove them ("prove" used in the scientific context) can be replicated.
  
  Fact: the earth is inhabited by a huge variety of organisms (biodiversity). Scientific Theory: The organisms that we observe in nature are those that have adapted to their environment by outliving those who have detrimental genetic traits - in other words, evolution.
  
  **
  
  In short, the Theory of Evolution - like the Theory of Gravity - is an explanation of observable facts. Creationism is the conclusion that beings were created by a higher power (usually God).
  
  What IS appropriate in a science class: questioning scientific theory. Scientists do it every day. As I said before, inductive reasoning makes it relatively simple to disprove a theory.
  
  What is NOT appropriate in a science class: teaching with certainty that "God might have actually done it." Until that hypothesis can be proven or disproven through use of the scientific method, Creationism has no place in the classroom.
  reply
• 

  Randy

  9 months ago

  With all of that great explanation ... allllllll of that great explanation I think that science ignoring Creationism to the point of shoving any discussion of it out of Education is arrogant, elitist and really rather defensive of their own ability to perceive and measure "fact."
  
  Truly, sociology has pretty much declared religion/spirituality a cultural universal. The Sociology professor who taught me that said that what he has read and researched, his field only knew of one society that was devoid of all spirituality and they had made a religion out of not having a religion (some tribe in the South Pacific.)
  
  The "Creation" story and spiritual pursuits were what inspired many of the founding Scientists. To all of a sudden say it has NO place in the classroom is simply remarkable.
  
  Plus, there are a lot of Christian Scientist who would completely disagree with your assertion that Creationism doesn't fall into the realm of scientific theory. Irreducible complexity just being one of the many theories, being tested according to the scientific method and coming up with some startling evidence that the universe started with an infinitely complex "design" that happened at the Big Bang and not the evolved result.
  
  And that is just *one* of the scientific theories they are working on to prove Intelligent Design. Dr. Hugh Ross' books "Creator and the Cosmos" and "Beyond the Cosmos" would give your last comment a big run for its money.
  reply