Michael writes:
> For somebody who professes to be so deeply and comfortably
queer, one wonders why you're so irrational, even paranoid,
about this topic.
One of the things I am concerned with is how the lack of equality impinges on my well-being and the well-being of my husband. I think such a concern is neither paranoid nor irrational.
A small example: December's rent money went to pay Terrance's dentist's bills (and we are still not through with them). Like many people raised in poverty, his family never went to the dentist. Well, that caught up with Terrance a few weeks ago. Between trying to figure out how to pay the rent, stave off the landlord, and nurse Terrance through the nights when the pain is at its worst, I am a little frazzled. I am sorry if my frazzled state appears as paranoia to you.
Of course, if I could marry Terrance then he would be covered under my health insurance and this problem would not exist. I realize that desire is irrational, so I am guilty as charged about being irrational since I desire to have my husband covered by health insurance which would help to relieve the pressure we are under.
> You talk like queers in the U.S. are being rounded up and sent
to concentration camps . . .
I merely post news of the latest aggressions against queers. Is oppression only noteworthy when it involves round-ups?
> . . . when the fact is that attitudes and standards of reaction and
treatment have been improving about as rapidly as anybody could
expect.
You keep posting this statement and to be honest I do get your point. Is this empty statement supposed to be some sort of palliative?
> OK, the cops in Georgia shut down a nude play. Perhaps not right
(though I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of regulating the
locations of nude performances), but not exactly the crime of the
century.
So, oppression is not notewrthy unless it rises to the level of a crime of the century?
> Meanwhile, you seem oblivious to the extreme danger of your
attempt to base your schtick on nature.
My talking about my exeperience of queerness is some comedy routine to you?
> It is a long-established reactionary trope to argue that the only
things that are just are "natural" things.
I never argued that. I said that since homosex was a natural part of human behavior and that it caused no harm, why should there be prohibitions against it. I never said that the only just things were "natural things." Please don't twist my words to make your points.
> This is a blatant end-run around sociology, democracy, and other
vital hard-won elements of decency and rationality.
Huh? First you twist my words. Then having mischaracterized what I said, you say I am trying to do an end run around things. As for sociology -- not interested. Democracy -- kewl, except there needs to be checks so it doesn't become mob rule as it did in the passage of the queer hate amendments.
Really like rationality and decency, too.
> It is also a close cousin of classical racism, which, as you must
know, uses biological/natural claims to kick the living shit out of
millions of people.
So why not use biological/natural claims to help people instead of kicking the shit out of them? The claims are neutral. It is the uses to which they are put that must be examined. A switchblade can kill a person. It can also, in the hands of a skilled surgeon, be used to save a person's life when traditional surgical tools are unavailable. Same instrument, different purposes which leads to different results.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister