Further, people who try to make out that the Bible does not present homosexuality as sinful are simply not being honest- and that goes well beyond one or two verses in Leviticus. The Bible is generally pretty anti-sex, begrudgingly making allowances for monogamous marital behavior. Beyond specifically being gay, homosexual behavior certainly constitutes sinful fornication.
Believing that homosexual behavior is a sin against God is not equivalent to hating homosexuals, let alone being equivalent to hating black people. As a non-believer and an individualist, I do not share either opinion, but I recognize the difference between them.
Also, leaving God out of it, there may be reasonable arguments that at least some types of homosexual behavior should be less preferred in society than classic monogamous heterosexual marriage. That doesn't mean that people making those arguments should get to FORCE people to go along with them.
On the other hand, perhaps reasonable criticism and gentle, sympathetic social encouragement towards normal heterosexual relations has a legitimate place.
In short, then, sexual proclivities and behavior, and attitudes and treatment of people with deviant preferences and behavior constitutes a broad range of complicated issues. It does not reflect reality or philosophical sophistication to simply label any critic of any homosexual behavior a "bigot."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Interesting post. You almost seem to take a stand, which is refreshing in this debate here on Blogcritics, where so many posters who SEEM to feel gay people are morally inferior only say so in a sideways fashion.
Let me offer two examples to clarify my position:
1. A lesbian couple, in love, raising children, paying taxes, doing all those things good citizens do. Like maybe the couple in the first paragraphs of this story. Anyone who could look at that couple and come to a determination that they are morally inferior solely because they happen to be of the same sex is a bigot. Why? Because the moral condemnation stems from no logical basis.
2. A gay man who constantly cruises bars and sex clubs, knowing he is HIV positive, having sex with partners unprotected without warning them. I wholeheartedly agree that this man is morally inferior--his inexcusable behavior is bad for everyone, even people he doesn't come into contact with. He is a menace. But his behavior is wrong because of the serious, provable public health risk he poses, not because he happens to like men. A straight man doing the same thing (and they do exist) would be just as wrong. Condemning either of these men is not bigotry--because there is a demonstrable logical basis for the condemnation
That's why the bathhouse issue you raise is a red herring--I would challenge you to find a single leader in the GLBT movement who endorses unprotected sex. (By the way, instead of making assumptions about my feelings on promiscuous unprotected bathhouse behavior, you could have asked.)
So, scary images of HIV-spreading-and-proud-of-it gay men aside, do you have anything to support your almost-assertion that homosexuals are inherently morally inferior to straight people? I know you're not actually making this assertion (God forbid!), but you are defending those who do. You indicate that "perhaps" they have a point.
If so, what could it possibly be? You'd better respond, Al--those here on Blogcritics who actually hold the view you are defending apparently fear to state and support it themselves.
2 - Al Barger
Brian, I am absolutely NOT of the opinion that simply being homosexual shows moral inferiority. I would be leary of making any blanket statement about such a variable and broad ranging group as that. Also, I'm not a Christian, so I don't have that underlying religious doctrine.
I would come closer to saying that homosexuality tends to be unhealthy. I don't mean to imply that all or even most homosexuals are as ridiculously irresponsible as frequenters of bathhouses. By the way, would you consider supporting closing or restricting such establishments? I brought up that idea basically as a point of contrast to the perfect Christian marital ideal to make the point that not all sexual lifestyle choices are morally or practically equal.
On the other hand, homosexuals do appear to have a greater tendency to promiscuity, among men anyway. This makes some sense, as homosexuals are already basically sexual outlaws.
I don't pretend to have an explanation for homosexuality. Granted, I do have the high credentials of a BS degree from Ball State University with a minor in psychology, yet I somehow manage to remain humble in my opinions.
Seriously though, human sexuality is far too complicated to have such answers on a broad scale. There are too many variables- including many that perhaps aren't obvious to us- for there to be a single cause or explanation for all homosexual behavior.
With those qualifications, I will tend to view homosexuality as an expression of emotional immaturity, which would correspond with Freud's thinking as best I understand it. Thus it makes perfectly good sense to see a lot of young people experimenting with homosexual behavior and, as it were, growing out of it.
Or maybe I have no real insight on the matter at all. However, I will say a couple of things I'm more sure of. One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better.
Another thing I feel confident in saying is that there is some fluidity and flexibility in sexual identity. Now, Liberace and Elton John are just flat gay. There really ain't no two ways about it. However, most people who are homosexual in practice have some heterosexual proclivities and experience, as nature has strongly loaded us up for this. Heck, even Elton was married to a woman for a minute.
Perhaps then, it would be the wiser course of action for us to recognize heterosexuality as being in fact the norm, and the more preferred practice. Without being hateful or judgmental toward those whose proclivities run to homosexuality, it would make sense to gently encourage those wavering and impressionable young folks toward the path that will be healthier and happier and more functional.
Except for lesbians, of course, (at least young cute ones) as they are quite pleasing to heterosexual men. As I said, these things are complicated.
My main point in the post, however, was not to criticize homosexuals, but to criticize people who attack the character of anyone who criticizes homosexuals, which you seem to do. Perhaps you can raise counterexamples, but it sure looks like anyone who makes any criticism of homosexual practices or homosexual organizations is just asking to have you label them as a bigot- no better than evil old Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.
Again, some critics of homosexuality are just hateful jerks, such as Fred Phelps. Some, such as Reverend Falwell are decent individuals with whom I might have some serious differences of opinion. Like homosexuals, there are a whole range of different attitudes and arguments among critics of homosexuals.
I don't necessarily agree with critics of homosexuality- particularly the religious arguments- but I don't think that it is fair to make them all out to be stupid or evil or bigoted. I don't think it's accurate to do so, nor does it further healthy public discourse.
3 - Natalie
Al wrote a lot.... My answers will be in bold face.
Brian, I am absolutely NOT of the opinion that simply being homosexual shows moral inferiority. I would be leary of making any blanket statement about such a variable and broad ranging group as that. Also, I'm not a Christian, so I don't have that underlying religious doctrine. ... I would come closer to saying that homosexuality tends to be unhealthy.
By whose standards?
I don't mean to imply that all or even most homosexuals are as ridiculously irresponsible as frequenters of bathhouses.
Again, who is the authority who decided what is and isn't "irresponsible"? That is your opinion -- one I happen to share, by the way. But the truth is, there are many more sexually "irresponsible" heterosexuals than there are slutty and saintly gays, lesbians, and bisexuals combined.
By the way, would you consider supporting closing or restricting such establishments?
Why ask this of the queers? This is not germane to the discussion. I don't see that we've banned het men who like paying for sex from getting married, serving openly in the military, adopting kids.
Since you asked, though, other than restricting such establishments to those who have reached the age of majority, no, on Libertarian grounds. I don't have to support a "gentlemen's club" or XXX bookstore or "live, nude girls" to support other adults' right to patronize the businesses they want.
I brought up that idea basically as a point of contrast to the perfect Christian marital ideal to make the point that not all sexual lifestyle choices are morally or practically equal.
OK, you've said you aren't Christian. Let me inform you of something that even some Christians don't know: The ideal to which you refer is the ideal for particular strains of Christianity. There are many different interpretations of Christian teachings -- a number of denominations could very well split over disagreements over subjects such as homosexuality (the link is to a related report I did for Baltimore City Paper on the topic). I am a Christian, and in my interpretation, the perfect Christian marital idea is reflected in a committed, loving union of two people. My relationship with a woman, if blessed by God, can be the perfect Christian marital ideal, and in some churches (if not US law), it already is seen as such.
On the other hand, homosexuals do appear to have a greater tendency to promiscuity, among men anyway.
Perhaps this is a MAN thing. I know many more heterosexual than homosexual men, and most of them are pretty randy beings... As my brother says, "Men are dogs." (I don't buy that at all, but I know that some are, and the hets and the homos, in my experience, aren't all that different.)
Seriously though, human sexuality is far too complicated to have such answers on a broad scale. There are too many variables- including many that perhaps aren't obvious to us- for there to be a single cause or explanation for all homosexual behavior.
I want an explanation for heterosexual behavior. That's what I don't understand. ;-)
And now I am going to get a little angry: Why the heck do I have to explain the cause for my sexual orientation before I'm allowed to have full citizenship rights? What's the cause of your heterosexuality? Did/will you have to define and defend that before you could/can marry? I don't know why I'm queer and don't care. I just am.
With those qualifications, I will tend to view homosexuality as an expression of emotional immaturity, which would correspond with Freud's thinking as best I understand it.
You mean Siggy? The one who said, "It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too"? Siggy said some good things and some crazy things. The crazy stuff, with which you say you tend to agree, is touted by some of the authors of the books you've chosen. Joseph Nicolosi is the notorious head of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Richard Cohen heads up the International Healing Foundation in Maryland. Both, IMO and in the opinions of many, are quacks. And I've even had Religious Reichers tell me on the QT that they believe Cohen, in particular, is cracked, which isn't hard to believe if you know him as I've known him. Both Nicolosi and Cohen push the notion (one discredited by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and other reputable organizations) that homosexuality is emotional immaturity/arrested development/blah blah blah. Their theory posits that gay men didn't have strong male role models/father figures; lesbians hate and fear men and had poor relationships with their mothers. It's amazing how many queers don't have these sorts of histories. It's amazing how many queers are well-adjusted, productive, contributing members of society. But what's really amazing is how many people -- apparently like you, Al (please correct me if I am wrong!!!) -- buy into this garbage. Hey fags and dykes! Undergo reperative therapy and change fom gay to het, from unequal to equal! Add God to the mix, and it's ex-gay ministry! I beg of you: Read. Learn. Don't go recommending this shit if you don't know the ins and outs of it. Seriously -- people can be severely damaged by exgay ministries and so-called reperative therapy. Some even take their lives. These things you are advocating are DANGEROUS. That's not my word -- that comes from many medical associations including those mentioned above. I wrote an investigative piece on the subject a few years back; it should offer some insight and information for you on this frightening issue. But the bottom line is change therapy doesn't work for most (and perhaps all) who try it. Sexuality, for some, is fluid. For some it is fixed. End of story. I am queer. I have always been this way, even when I didn't know what to call it. It is as immutable a characteristic as my eye color.
One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better.
Fine for those into conformity. How about happiness? How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?
This individual is queer. I have two children (and I know LOTS of gay couples with children, so lose that stereotype). I couldn't blend into society if I wanted to (and trust me, I don't like society -- why would I want to blend in with them?). My dad hated it when, at 18, I started wearing a button I have to this day: "How dare you presume I am heterosexual!" Not that there's anything wrong with being het. I do not want you thinking that I am heterosexual, though. No, this individual would not be better off pretending to be like you.
However, most people who are homosexual in practice have some heterosexual proclivities and experience, as nature has strongly loaded us up for this.
Oh really? You don't know too many queers well, do you? I have tried sex with men (and wish I hadn't). Nature did not load me up for it. Sorry, can't stand it. Not my cuppa. Exceptions? A couple. And there are some very lovely men that God put on the planet. I can enjoy them on an aesthetic level. But SLEEP with them? Outside of, say, Hugh Jackman or Dan Fogelberg, I'd sooner take a bullet. My proclivities are toward women. Any time I've tried sex with men -- and I married one -- I can only get through the awful act by thinking of women. Any decent shrink will tell you -- forcing me into heterosexuality would be a HUGE mistake and likely a dangerous one. So how would I be better off, pray tell?
Heck, even Elton was married to a woman for a minute.
And you just said he's as gay as they come! Imagine what we queers will put ourselves through to curry societal favor. Elton himself will tell you that getting married to Renate was one of the biggest mistakes of his life -- and not because his wife was a terrible person. Ask him.
Perhaps then, it would be the wiser course of action for us to recognize heterosexuality as being in fact the norm, and the more preferred practice. Without being hateful or judgmental toward those whose proclivities run to homosexuality, it would make sense to gently encourage those wavering and impressionable young folks toward the path that will be healthier and happier and more functional.
God, what a scary proposition...
Except for lesbians, of course, (at least young cute ones) as they are quite pleasing to heterosexual men. As I said, these things are complicated.
I'm sure you intended that to be humorous.
My main point in the post, however, was not to criticize homosexuals
Coulda fooled me.
but to criticize people who attack the character of anyone who criticizes homosexuals, which you seem to do
OK. You have the right to criticize whomever you like, as do Brian and I.
Perhaps you can raise counterexamples, but it sure looks like anyone who makes any criticism of homosexual practices or homosexual organizations is just asking to have you label them as a bigot- no better than evil old Strom Thurmond or George Wallace.
Disingenuous, my friend. If someone is criticizing homosexual practices, good for them. I criticize heterosexual ones. Free speech. BUT when people are criticizing homosexual practices (and by the way, in all seriousness now, sex acts are sex acts; queers do the same things hets do -- we are talking about critiques of a partner's gender here) or groups, it almost always has to do with the law. If it's merely an ignorant yahoo or inexperienced person parrotting the Religious Reichers, well, that person is ignorant and inexperienced. You can't criticize, you can only try and help them see alternate views (if they are willing) and let them know that, yes, those ideas are but a few steps away from Falwell and Phelps. The idea is to teach, not scold. But in other instances, anti-gay statements are about law or politics and preventing queers from living their lives to the fullest. And yes, if someone says to me, I don't like gays on _______ grounds, and they should be barred by law from marrying and adopting kids and teaching and being a soldier, I am going to see that person as a bigot.
Here is the difference: You can criticize me all you want. You can hate me all you want. But when you demand that the law treat me differently than you because your orientation is superior to mine (in your opinion), I will fight it and call people what they are loudly and clearly. I may criticize, but I am not suggesting that any of your legal rights be stripped from you. Why is it that anti-gay folks need to show how anti they are by punishing us under law for not conforming to your beliefs?
Again, some critics of homosexuality are just hateful jerks, such as Fred Phelps. Some, such as Reverend Falwell are decent individuals with whom I might have some serious differences of opinion.
Have you met Jerry Falwell? Talked the issues with him? Met his wife? Interviewed him? Spent time with him? No? Then I respectfully state that you don't know whether he is decent or not. In my experience, no, he is neither honest nor decent. Here is my account of My Dinner with Jerry.
Oh -- and trust me: Fred Phelps is a whole lot nicer -- and more honest -- than Jerry Falwell. Yeah, Fred's a lot of things, few of them good. But if he says something to me, I know he's telling me what he believes to be true. Falwell is a showman, a tycoon, the Mr. Potter of Lynchburg, VA, a man who wanted to be president more than he wanted to be a preacher and for whom power appears to be the real deity.
Decent individuals with differing opinions? They exist. I have conservative Christian friends (even some in and around the exgay world) who believe fundamentalist teachings but don't believe civil law should have anything to do with what's in Romans or Leviticus. They treat me with love and respect and know that God will one day deal with whatever sins have been (or have not been) committed. God's the judge, not them -- and they believe GLBTs should not be punished under secular law because they see it as being unfair and antithetical to the stated precepts of America. Let go and let God deal with it, they say. Now THAT sounds decent. You can oppose homosexuality without having to impose second-class citizenship on us. Those are two separate things.
I don't necessarily agree with critics of homosexuality- particularly the religious arguments- but I don't think that it is fair to make them all out to be stupid or evil or bigoted.
Well, I am allowed to hold my opinions. Sorry, I'm not going to think someone is good and smart if they reject me on the basis of whom I love. Again, unlike these critics, I won't advocate punishing them under law for disagreeing with me. Scout's honor.
I don't think it's accurate to do so, nor does it further healthy public discourse.
We'll have to disagree on whether it's all healthy. Perhaps when your kind is flayed alive in media for all to judge. Perhaps when your kind has to bend over backwards to keep it together emotionally, spiritually, physically in a world that hates and dehumanizes them. Perhaps when you get a chance to experience being on the defensive, being expected to explain yourself and your kind at the whim of those oppressing you. Do I find these discussions of whether I am worthy to be a full, equal citizen healthy? Not for me. I would prefer to just live my life and be happy and equal. Certain hets and the laws of your country make that impossible. Healthy? What a laugh. But then you think pretending to be "straight" is healthy...
4 - BRICKLAYER
Kid Rock: And Wolf, if I could just make one more comment, I've been watching CNN here, and I keep hearing about the decision with the Supreme Court with the homosexual ruling. I just want to say I think it's a beautiful thing. Because if you really think about it, you know, the more gay men there are in the world, that just leaves more chicks for me and you, Wolf.
5 - Natalie
[ Comment deleted at poster's request, see next comment. ]
6 - Natalie
Shoot. Can you delete the above? Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in formatting.
Hopefully this will be a bit more legible:
One more thing, Al. No, all Christians don't buy into the biblical passages as being anti-gay. Try this site from Dr. Rembert Truluck. Also take a look at the Rev. John Shelby Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Mark D. Jordan's The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, the Rev. Peter Gomes' The Good Book, and Daniel A. Helminiak's What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. This is just a start; there is lots more...
7 - Eric Olsen
This thread is very important, complicated and nuanced so my 2 cents should not be taken on the same level, but here goes: it seems clear to me that X% of gays are hard-wired that way, same as race (although race is seen by biologists as something of a construct, but that's another issue), as a result, what possible societal benefit could there be to condemning them or their sexual behavior as long as it conforms to other societal stipulations regarding sexual behavior, namely that loving monogomous sexual relationships are better than otherwise? But, we no longer legislate hetero conformity to this social preference, so in the interest of equal rights, we shouldn't legislate against consensual gay activity either.
This doesn't mean, though, that we can't or shouldn't discourage those, as Natalie put it, who are "fluid," from doing all they reasonably can to pursue social norms - they will be happier in the long run this way, about 1 million years of human social history would seem to indicate. If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay, but society owes it to itself and to its members to favor the hetero, monogomous norm, ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULDN'T BE LEGISLATIVE PENALTIES specific to gay behavior.
I believe that those who espouse "family values" should be the ones most in favor of gay marriage. It only makes sense that if gay is gay, then we allow, even encourage, the most societally beneficial expression of that sexuality, ie marriage - committed, loving monogomous - as we do with hetero expression - to do otherwise seems self-defeating.
Equal under the law, societal norms pointing to the hetero-marriage ideal, this seems to be the best society can do to treat its individuals properly while maintaining the "healthiest" possible overall social environment.
8 - Natalie
Except that you can not treat an individual properly while having them treated inequitably under law. You do not treat an individual properly when you tell them they are "less than." Until any adult citizen can marry the individual of his or her choice, will moms and dads who happen to be gay, trans, or bi be judged on parenting skills rather than orientation or gender expression in court cases; can GLBTs live where they choose and work where they want and are qualified to do so; can we serve honestly, openly, and honorably in the military; etc., etc., then GLBT people and their allies are NOT being treated properly -- and, if one believes no one is equal until all are, well, then, NONE of us are being treated properly.
[Keep in mind that married hets get 1,049 federal rights. Gays who have been faithful, loving, and committed for decades -- even if they've married in Canada or Jim Crowed in Vermont -- get SHIT. And their kids... victims of the church and state. This is America? No, unless my civics teachers lied to me when they said all were equal here. I will assume that they passed on lessons in good faith and instead call your country (I don't consider it mine if I am not a fully equal citizen; I am a soon-to-be expatriate whose preparations to flee to a decent place with my kids are in progress) a name I find more accurate: Amerikkka.]
I am one who does not believe opposite-gender couples are preferable. Love, patience, responsibility, commitment, discipline, maturity, nurturing, generosity, kindness, dependability -- THESE are elements that define solid families, not the gender(s) of the parent(s). No one has ever been able to persuade me that man-woman couples are better. None of those arguments have come even close to being convincing for me in any way. And I have no patience after four decades to sit around discussing how the hets are better for society than me and my family. Not anymore.
Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"
Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment? Oh my God!!! (Your words are quite painful to read, I must admit.) We need some putting ourselves into the other guy's shoes here...
It is difficult, I know, for the privileged to know what the underprivileged, disadvantaged, second-class experience. But I would think that as fellow humans, hets would not want to make other humans suffer. Perhaps society -- especially the well-meaning folks whose apathy or ignorance makes them unwitting parts of the problem -- should rethink that. Or pay for our passage to Canada.
(If this sounds as if I am picking on Eric, no, I am not. The comments are meant generally.)
Eric wrote this, as well: "...but society owes it to itself and to its members to favor the hetero, monogomous norm..."
WHY? And how?
Aren't I a member of society? How in the hell is this beneficial to me? And if it isn't beneficial to me and my family, why should I care about what is beneficial to you or a society that rejects those who don't conform? And who are you -- the expansive You -- to expect me to live my life according to your dictates, or else? But that is life as a queer person in the so-called land of the free.
Eric wrote: "ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULDN'T BE LEGISLATIVE PENALTIES specific to gay behavior."
Oh, that's very nice. We're second-class (by definition, if you advocate inclucating everyone that gay's ok if that's the best you can manage, but het is better -- unbelievable!! -- that is exactly what you are saying, that non-hets are second-class, second-best, inferior) for society's sake , and that's OK so long as it's not in writing?
I am so glad I am leaving this country. Soon, soon... though not soon enough. :)
Seriously, believe what you will -- people have the right to love, hate, and prefer what they will. Just keep your godforsaken law away from me and my kids and my life and keep your government away from me. I pay taxes. My money is coerced from me to finance your country's violent excursions and the educations of bigots' kids. I volunteer for charitable and community organizations. I help register voters. I follow the speed limit. I don't yell "Fire" in public places. I work to inform people of current events and about the doings of the Terrorist-in-Chief and his evil henchpersons in hopes of helping create an informed citizenry. And I am ashamed to say that I was born within these borders. It is the current US law along with societal admonishments to encourage heterosexuality / discourage homosexuality that causes this shame. I am not ashamed of me or of how God made me -- I am ashamed of your country's government, its laws, and the citizens who ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE.
I vehemently disagree with encouraging people to go het, go gay, go anything. I believe it is more beneficial for a person to be encouraged to be honest, decent, kind, compassionate, and, in short, the best Molly or Lawrence or Mufasa they can be. Imagine the poor questioning kid who is gay, doesn't know it (I didn't know for sure until I was in my 30s, but I've spent most of my life celibate), but is "encouraged" to be what his or her parents or teachers or clergypersons want him or her to be or what they feel it is best for society for him or her to be. That very scenario has sent too many people I know to therapy or their graves or worse. (And in case you don't know this, telling someone that they are "less than" is heard by many as they are better off dead, that society is better off with them gone.)
Telling a kid that het -- or homo or bi -- is superior to other orientations is, IMO, child abuse. What a horrid thing to say to someone! Do you expect queers to hear that shit and say, "OK, whatever works for you, oh precious heterosupremacist society"? Wow.
As far as the so-called "hetero marriage ideal," before spending so much time and energy discriminating against and dissecting the queers (essentially dehumanizing us, as usual, but that's our lot, isn't it?), congratulating yourselves for being born "society's ideal," and codifying that under supposedly secular law, how about working on making your marriages ideal?
The best wingnut comment I've heard about the sodomy-law repeal was from some yahoo pol who said he plans to get to work to fight the SCOTUS ruling and bring back anti-sodomy laws to Texas -- and he wants to add adultery to the law too. Give this guy points, at the very least, for consistency. I don't agree with this right-winger at all, natch, but him I can respect a bit.
9 - Brian Flemming
Natalie,
Thanks much for all of that. Expressed with admirable patience and lucidity. I imagine it was a painful chore to lay out the obvious, and I appreciate your doing it.
I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving the country, but of course I understand why you would. America is a country where a person who considers himself open-minded can actually feel benevolent condemning you for who you are (as long as he doesn't actually propose legislation against you).
It's maddening. It's maddening that those who hold these views don't see how much they come from ignorance. They can read "Romeo and Juliet" and feel the pain of characters who are forbidden to love who they love. But they can't see that suffering when it is felt by real people right in front of their fucking eyes.
Well, that's not fair--most people I run into who have a casual prejudice against queers don't spend a lot of time with queers right in front of their eyes. They depend on stereotypes and statistics and scary descriptions of sexual practices delivered secondhand. I suppose when your main impression of homosexuals is a fist shoved up an anus, you might tend to feel it is an "unhealthy" lifestyle.
I'm straight. A Kinsey zero. Fortunately, I've never had any doubts about my sexual identity. But I didn't have any idea that I was a member of a privileged group in this way until I developed good friends who are gay. I grew up believing, as many people do, that anti-gay prejudice really isn't prejudice--it's about looking down on people who do bad things, like shoplifters or peepers.
I was ignorant of the wholly unnecessary suffering this societal view visited upon people who didn't ask for it. I was a bigot.
And that's the right term for someone who can hold that society should use a stigma to "encourage" gays to pretend they are not who they are. Anyone who could look at a 16-year-old kid struggling with the feelings he has when he sees the other guys in the locker-room shower and say to this kid, "You should be ashamed. That's what's best for society," deserves to be called a bigot.
Anyway, Natalie, as a citizen of the country you are leaving: Thanks for your generous contributions to our society. Sorry we couldn't manage to respect you.
10 - Eric Olsen
I realize this is an extraordinarily emotional issue, rightly so, but I believe a fair amount of my position has been miscontrued: "best" for society can be defined on many levels - religious, moral, biology (ie propagation of the species), and most if not all of these standards favor monogomous heterosexuality as the standard. BUT, what I was primarily referring to when I mentioned "best" societal norms, is the, I believe, uncontested difficulties of living a gay lifestyle, internal and external. You can remove ALL the legal barriers, and I am in favor of removing those legal barriers, (including to gay marriage, which I believed I had clearly stated above) and you still will have all kinds of psychological, cultural, even physical (if you include having children) issues to deal with that you (a generic, nonspecific "you) would not have to deal with if you were straight. This isn't a value judgment, simply an observation of fact.
I also thought I made it clear that I believe a high percentage of gays are born that way, end of story, and attempts to persuade them to "go straight" can only be pointless at best and detrimental at worst. However, for the "fluid," if they are truly fluid, then the choice between gay and straight should not be seen as neutral or even or inconsequential because of the reasons stated above.
I have seen what VERY close relatives and friends have gone through coming to terms with their homosexuality, some Christian, some not, all kinds of other variables - every single one of them has told me it is not a frame of reference or a process they would wish on anyone. In this instance, what I have been told by those who have gone through it exactly reinforces what I would guess from living in this real world, not the world where all choices are neutral and all lifestyles are equal, which does not exist, including outside of the United States.
I believe the SCOTUS decision confirms that we as a country are ready to say it is time to stop persecuting gays, and it is time for the government to getthe hell out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. This is excellent and we are all better off for it, but it does not mean the nation as a whole believes that all types of relationships are created equal - many types of relationships are disapproved of to varying degrees: adulterous, indiscriminate, age-inappropriate, etc, etc; none of these are legislated against anymore and that is good and humane, but society will never view all relationships equally, not from many perspectives - public health, child-rearing, propagation of the species, religious, etc. - nor should it be expected to. You can demand personal respect and legal equality, but it is too much to demand that society have the same attitude toward every kind of relationship. FRom a SOCIETAL standpoint, they simply aren't all equal.
I absolutely refuse to be labeled or insinuated as a bigot in this regard.
11 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
Why don't you lay these "issues" out--specifically? You keep saying this as if we all agree on "all kinds" of issues related to gayness. What those issues are and how they combine to justify an action or attitude by society are vital to this debate. We can't proceed on an assumption that we all agree on some sort of debilitating package of "issues."
While it is true that gay people have a hard time when confronted with a society that resists gays, I hardly think that qualifies as an argument to stigmatize homosexuality (this is what you are proposing, right?). The very same argument could be made against miscegenation, and I doubt you are a supporter of stigmatizing race-mixing.
I think your enthusiatic support for gay marriage and your enthusiatic support for a social stigma on homosexuality are at odds.
Two direct questions for you:
1. What--specifically--are the "issues" that justify society's non-"neutral" attitude about gayness?
2. How--specifically--do you propose that society express this attitude?
12 - Eric Olsen
2) society already expresses itself in this regard in a million and public and private ways, no need to "do" anything.
1) if one believes in any of the major world religions, homosexuality is condemned to varying degrees, but at minimum discouraged - this is a problem
if one wants children in a homosexual relationship - this is a problem
if one wants to be judged by society as an individual and not a stereotype, then being openly homosexual is a problem - but if one isn't open then one is living a lie - this is a problem, which problem is lesser?
if one wants the approval of everyone in the family, including Aunt Winnie, this may be a problem
If one wants to play professional sports, and especially if one is a man, this is an ENORMOUS problem
if one wishes to go through life without being abused or taunted by bigots, this is a problem
how many do you need? I didn't say it SHOULD be this way, (although I am a Christian and have a hard time completely ignoring the "sin" issue, but I am not a hardcore Christian, I am not a literalist or a fundamentalist) I am simply saying it IS this way, and IF a person has a choice in the matter, it is only logical that they be encouraged to follow the path of least resistance - life is hard enough without complicating it unnecessarily. If it is not a choice, then carry on and do your best - I wish you nothing but peace and happiness.
13 - Eric Olsen
And in case there is any doubt, I like and respect you Natalie, am sad you are leaving this country as we need as many conscientious, principled, courageous citizens and parents as we can get, and I hope you find peace and happiness for you and yours wherever you may seek it.
14 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
I'm having a difficult time determining where exactly you stand on this subject.
You say that gays are "abused and taunted by bigots," then say
It seems to me you keep saying that gays deserve equal rights, except that gays don't deserve equal rights. You seem to condemn society for its cruelty to homosexuals, then you endorse that cruelty. You wish queers "nothing but peace and happiness" and encourage them to "carry on"--but at the same time you seem to endorse the very obstacles that require gays to "carry on."
You list many ways that society visits prejudice upon the GLBT community, then seem to use those attitudes to justify having a similar attitude yourself.
If we're talking about a parent WISHING for his or her child to be straight rather than gay--I can understand that. I know parents who feel this way. It is very hard for a parent to wish for a child to have a difficult life--it goes against the very instincts of a parent to wish for such a thing.
But if we're talking about approving of an attitude in society that makes coming out utter torture for gays and lesbians, that's a different matter. You cannot pretend to have sympathy for ANY gays and lesbians--specifically or generally--if you support this attitude. You can't have your cake and rub it in queers' faces, too.
You completely dodged Question #2. I asked what you propose society should do, and you said society does things. That's not an answer.
Take a stand. Do you approve of the social stigmatization of homosexuality or not?
15 - Eric Olsen
I have said it all very carefully, twice: equal under the law, treat individuals with respect but don't encourage it - it may be the only choice for individuals but is not the best course for society as a whole. Period.
16 - Natalie
Eric, I'm not calling you a bigot. That's exactly why I took pains to say that I was referring to a general "you," and not you personally. However, and I say this because I deal with this sort of thing every day I draw breath, you have no choice over how people see you, label you, speak about you, whether directly or as an insinuation. People label me erroneously all the time. It is dehumanizing, humiliating, and worse. But other than offering my two cents, there really isn't a damned thing I can do about it save avoiding the labelers as best I can.
As far as bigots go, there are folks I know whom I believe are bigots. They believe they are not. We have to agree to disagree in those instances. I wouldn't say that applies here -- your posting above was theoretical, I assume, and not representative necessarily of your personal point of view. (Noting that there are millions of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is sinful. I personally believe homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality. I believe wanton promiscuity is sinful, but I am not about to go about judging people's lives or telling them that they -- and only they -- can't marry, etc. You and I agree on this: If they change the law, that won't fix anti-gay attitudes. If someone is anti-gay and it doesn't affect my life, other than bruised feelings perhaps -- BFD -- whatever. That is their right. But I've spent far too much of my life trying to make myself likeable and acceptable on other people's terms. Pardon my profanity, but fuck them. Change the law and leave me the hell alone -- that's my position. I will do my best to treat everyone, even bigots and adversaries, with as much kindness and compassion as possible. I will even do my level best to refrain from calling people bigots unless it is necessary to do so (and sometimes it is). But I'm done with sucking up to society -- there is nothing in it for me.
By the way, in terms of the sexually "fluid," making the het choice is not always -- or even mostly always -- the happiest choice for that person. Unhappy, tortured people who "settle" for the benefit of others do not do society any good -- they only add sadness and misery to an already screwed-up world.
Also, in terms of society regenerating itself, I don't see that as a concern at all. Does anyone seriously see a population shortage on the way? Our problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
I believe I grok your position, and if so, I know that you are correct. Heterosexuality ISN'T superior and making it largely compulsory ISN'T a good thing. In stupid society's eyes, however, it is, and society calls the shots. Too bad for the rest of us.
But do not be sad that I am escaping! Getting my family out of this country is the best thing that could happen; I've been planning this for eons. I've been bouncing off the walls lately with joy thanks to the thought that by end 2003, we'll be out of here! It'll be great. The Internet is practically everywhere. Recent developments in Canada mean I won't have to go too far away from my parents. After suffering through 15 months of terribly difficult Dutch lessons -- the initial plan was to flee to Amsterdam, which was switched to Belgium after the Netherlands joined Bush's Coalition of the Killing; I DO NOT suffer warmongers gladly -- ending up speaking English and French in the Great White North will be a treat! And I'm happiest in cooler climates anyway.
Final thing: Christians shouldn't taunt and abuse people they consider sinners. In fact, they shouldn't taunt and abuse anyone. In fact, they're supposed to leave the punishing to the Creator and focus on the logs in their own eyes.
Brian, excellent direct questions!
As for society having a neutral view of all sexual orientations, I think that's the only fair, rational course. Individuals will have whatever views, prejudices, preferences, beliefs, whatever they hold as core values, but as a whole, I can only find a societal view that picks a "favorite" completely immoral and worthless. And in the case of a manmade construct that brags to the rest of the planet and to its captives (those forced into citizenship by virtue of their births' geographical location) about being the greatest country, the land of liberty, land of the free and home of the slave, er, brave, the land where everyone is equal... well, it's preposterous, it's presumptuous, it's unforgiveably and unattractively arrogant, it's disgusting. Because the boast is nothing more than a goddamned lie. As I grew up, I carried the notion of equality for all as a desperate hope, a far-off goal, a not-quite-impossible dream. Didn't take long before I realized that precious society has little interest in everyone being equal under law. What hope I have lies in activism and attrition -- not in the American people.
Don't get me wrong, I hate and fear your government. Absolutely. I am anti-American if you define that as being opposed to the government and the politicians (and add the corporations who own them too). But if you define the term as being against the people, then it would not apply to me: I love and pity the American people. I feel infinite gratitude for those who work for true justice and equality. I do feel afraid of bigots, but there is lots of experience to explain that. But more than that, I fear for the souls of the ones working so hard to keep GLBTs inferior and oppressed, those who harbor the thought that GLBTs are less than hets/sinful/etc., and those who take no stand or do nothing to foster equality for all. I see all those folks as being part of the problem, but God will deal with them if, when, and/or as She sees fit. Me, I want to focus on landing in a place of equality, a home where I actually can pursue happiness, something impossible for most of my kind in your country.
17 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
I still don't know what you propose when you say "don't encourage it." Don't encourage it how? Teach children that it is shameful? Try to get queers to keep their orientation a secret?
This statement isn't entirely clear:
What is "it"? Do you mean that 100% of society being gay would not be good? 50%? 10%? 1%?
What is the acceptable percentage? Or is it just "the lower the percentage, the better off society is"?
I suspect the latter, so, on speculation: How exactly is it bad for society to have a certain percentage of gay people in its population?
18 - Brian Flemming
Natalie,
Damn. Now *I* want to move to Canada.
Didn't mean to imply earlier that I was sad for you--clearly your hatred for and fear of this country's government are justified (HEY, HOMOPHOBES--SEE HOW HATE BREEDS HATE?), and leaving is a positive, not negative, event for you. I don't think I could love a country that demeaned me (to use Justice Kennedy's word), either.
I'm just sorry to see the U.S. lose another champion of justice. But clearly Canada deserves your loyalty more.
19 - Al Barger
Natalie- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out here. I will treat you as an equal, and have no desire or instinct to stigmatize you based on sexual preference. I send you love and respect.
At the same time, equal treatment means that I'm going to be straight with you. You are being irrational and hysterical. I'm not going to bend over backwards to appease a hysterical woman. I can already imagine the howls of protest accusing me of misogyny or bigotry or whatever.
None of that will turn the nonsense you're spouting into truth, however. The fact that you are very adamant and emotional does not therefore mean that you are right. The fact that your feelings are easily hurt does not mean that I'm going to nod my head and go along with whatever you say. Nor does it make me a bigot or a hater, nor does it constitute "dehumanization."
You do not impress me in the least with the nonsense about "AmeriKKKa." That's a lot of crap. The "terrorist in chief" stuff is just dumb name calling with no substance.
Gays are not being oppressed in America. You do not get carted off to jail for being gay. You can own property, go to work, pretty much anything anyone else can do.
Now, you may have some legitimate issues about the legal protection of gay partnerships. We can discuss those. I'd say that it's none of the army's business who you're sleeping with on your own time, for starters. There are doubtless plenty of other legitimate issues that haven't even occured to me.
Whatever legitimate issues you may have, you're way the hell out of line with "AmeriKKKa." There's no excuse for that. In context, I'll take this for cheap emotional leftist commie nonsense more than any particularly gay issue.
Indeed, even someone bending over backwards to make nice such as Eric Olsen stands suspect of bigotry and prejudice. Now, that part I will put off mostly on Brian rather than you. Still, you write:
Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"
Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment?.
Natalie, again I want to send you love and understanding, but this statement is just goddam stupid. How do you get "cruel and unusual punishment" from "that's ok"? Take a deep breath, and think again.
You have clearly mistaken or misinterpreted my comments here in a dozen different silly ways that a person of your obvious intelligence just shouldn't. I doubt this comes from dishonesty. I take it as more likely from emotional traumas, automatically shunting me off into your pre-imagined categories.
Still, to pick one example, you write: "How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?" I never said anything close to that.
Now, if you want to run off to Canada, go ahead. That'll show all us evil homophobes and warmongers. If you want to renounce your country, giving up all the benefits of being an American, that's your right...and YOUR loss.
20 - Eric Olsen
I want all individuals to be told they can and should be who they are. I want them to be happy as long as that happiness does not harm society. I do not believe consensual relationships between adults harms society. But I want them to know the difficulties that lie ahead, and if there is a choice, for them to choose the path of least resistance because life is difficult enough as it is. Natalie's pain and anguish reinforces the difficulties I have seen endured - internal as well as external - by those close to me who have gone through this struggle.
As to society's position: I want it (society's position) to be legally neutral and I want individuals treated as if it were neutral, but I do see a hierarchy of relationships based upon nature, religion, and morality. I don't agree that our biggest problem is that we have too many people. A declining population is a much bigger problem in the long run than overpopulation, which is rather brutally self-limiting. Right now we, Japan, Western Europe are starting to face issues of underpopulation, namely supporting the aging baby boomer population. The ideal is slow sustainable growth, not stasis, not decline. We do need to continue to reproduce, this is a biologically hetero function, and one that is ingrained in human society after eons of struggle. It is only in the very recent past that the human population has grown exponentially - survival of the species has been an issue since we climbed down from trees. So this is a real issue.
Next, all of the world's monotheistic religions favor monogomous hetero sexual relationships that result in children - this is the most favored relationship of the religions that form the moral underpinnings of most of the world's cultures apart from Asia. This cannot be ignored, should not be ignored. It's just the way it is.
That doesn't mean disapproval, that doesn't mean intolerance, that doesn't mean discrimination, that means in a trans-societal sense, this is the most highly approved form of relationship. That's all it means.
Does this translate to some ideal percentage of the population for gays, etc? No, but it means populations with TOO high percentages of nonreproducing households will decline.
21 - Natalie
Natalie- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out here. I will treat you as an equal, and have no desire or instinct to stigmatize you based on sexual preference. I send you love and respect.
At the same time, equal treatment means that I'm going to be straight with you. You are being irrational and hysterical.
That's your view. OK.
I'm not going to bend over backwards to appease a hysterical woman.
How about a hysterical man? ;-)
I can already imagine the howls of protest accusing me of misogyny or bigotry or whatever.
Nah. I do have a sense of humor that gets dusted off for use every decade or so. You are amusing me greatly.
You do not impress me in the least with the nonsense about "AmeriKKKa." That's a lot of crap.
You entitled to your opinion. And who was trying to impress you or anyone else?
The "terrorist in chief" stuff is just dumb name calling with no substance.
You are wrong about that. But I have no interest in debating the invasion and the US-led terror with you.
Gays are not being oppressed in America. You do not get carted off to jail for being gay. You can own property, go to work, pretty much anything anyone else can do.
You are wrong, but given that you've decided you know the score, why should I waste my time? Let me just refer you to a Maryland organization called Free State Justice and a national one called Human Rights Campaign. They can speak to issues, oppression, and stats.
Whatever legitimate issues you may have, you're way the hell out of line with "AmeriKKKa."
When did my right to free speech go through the window? I have the right to call this construct anything I want. :)
Indeed, even someone bending over backwards to make nice such as Eric Olsen stands suspect of bigotry and prejudice. Now, that part I will put off mostly on Brian rather than you. Still, you write:
Eric wrote: "If a person can't conform he/she can't conform, and that's okay,"
Would you insist they try? Isn't there something in your country's documents about protection from cruel and inhuman punishment?.
Natalie, again I want to send you love and understanding
Um, keep it, thanks. :)
but this statement is just goddam stupid. How do you get "cruel and unusual punishment" from "that's ok"? Take a deep breath, and think again.
Context. Go back and read the entire thing. Perhaps I did not quote enough of what Eric wrote. But I will reiterate again, I was not calling Eric a bigot, and that's the last time I will address that.
You have clearly mistaken or misinterpreted my comments here in a dozen different silly ways that a person of your obvious intelligence just shouldn't. I doubt this comes from dishonesty. I take it as more likely from emotional traumas, automatically shunting me off into your pre-imagined categories.
Frankly, I've been talking with other people and not giving a thought to you at all. I hadn't made any major assumptions about you at all. Not because of anything negative, by any means; it's just that the conversation had gotten to be between me, Eric, and Brian, so they were the ones whose thoughts I perused after my initial posting on this topic. If you think my thoughts and experiences are crap, that's cool. But no, I hadn't shunted you anywhere. And I have only three categories: Friend, Foe, Don't Know. If anything, you'd be in the last one.
Still, to pick one example, you write: "How is someone better off having sex they hate or no sex at all JUST TO MAKE YOU AND THE RELIGIOUS REICH HAPPY?" I never said anything close to that.
OK. My comment was in reaction to this statement: "One is that any individual will tend to be better off being straight (and preferably monogamous) rather than gay in numerous ways. They get to have children and blend into society better in myriad ways. It just tends to work out better."
I equated "blending into society better... work out better" with "having [horrible] sex or no sex at all just to make you [AGAIN, GENERAL YOU, NOT ERIC AND NOT AL BARKER SPECIFICALLY!] and the religious reich happy." Isn't the idea that if gays are "discreet" and "blend in," they and society will be better off? My point is that I believe the idea to be a load of codswallop.
Now, if you want to run off to Canada, go ahead. That'll show all us evil homophobes and warmongers.
You really don't get it. I am not running to show you or anyone else. Why in the world would you or anyone else care unless you had a personal relationship with me? :) I am running for the benefit and joy of me and my family. Big difference, mate.
If you want to renounce your country
I don't feel I ever had one to renounce. I feel at home all over the planet; in fact, I feel more at home in Europe and Canada than on your shores.
giving up all the benefits of being an American
Jingoists give me that crap all the time too. It would amuse me if I weren't so bored with that statement. I've been alive nearly 42 years, Al. Not that long a time, but neither am I the proverbial spring chicken. I am still awaiting a benefit. Anything I like here I have found -- and usually better -- elsewhere. Yes, I haven't been murdered or physically mained by the state. But as I believe one is better dead than unequal, I don't particularly find that beneficial. Survival is not my number-one issue; quality of life and the state of my soul are the things most important to me after my kids (oh, and you better believe my son is not permitted to join the Boy Scouts of America -- because I am a good, caring mom and I only want quality around my children). Call me stupid, hysterical, a bad parent, irrational, whatever. You are not in the room with me; you do not know my mood, my demeanor, what is traveling through my mind. Anything you tar me with is merely your opinion or assumption, and you are, again, entitled. But frankly, you're not doing too well on that score. That's the downside to message-board discussions. Online conversation makes understanding others more difficult than in meatspace or over a voice line at times. Especially when differing sides are so far apart that they probably can't have a meaningful or productive discussion.
that's your right.
That's right. And in Canada, I can marry the woman of my dreams. They acknowledge my right to do so there. Gotta love it! :D
..and YOUR loss.
I've heard that before. It sounded arrogant then too. :)
From where I sit, darlin', it's all GAIN for me and mine.
Naturally, I wish you all good luck. God bless you, and God bless the people who live in America.
I've been at the computer all day. Going to go catch some sunshine. Later, gorgeous.
22 - Doctor Slack
Natalie: I notice your link to Free State Justice is being redirected to a Christian website. There's another link here.
Also, I should note, for the sake of completeness, Canada as a whole doesn't necessarily compare favorably (yet) with the States in terms of same sex rights. The recent landmark decision came in Ontario, and the federal government is expected to try to pass legislation of its own in the fall. There will likely be a fight over it here in Alberta, where Klein has vowed to invoke the notwithstanding clause if such a bill passes.
Al: Natalie's reply to you is more than adequate, but let me just add that frankly, I'd be more sympathetic to your complaints about other people's intolerance and "pre-imagined categories" if you weren't gibbering in every other post about "emotional leftist commie nonsense" or some variant thereof. A word to the wise: your credibility shrinks a little bit every time you do this.
23 - Brian Flemming
Although I haven't hurled it directly at anyone, I think "bigotry" is a relevant word to this topic.
Here's why:
People who believe heterosexuality to be superior to homosexuality without a rational basis are bigots. They have every right to hold this irrational view, of course, but it is impossible to hold one's self above an entire group of people for no good reason without at the same time being a bigot. It simply can't be done.
"Without a rational basis" is, of course, key. Although I have yet to encounter an argument against queers that actually approaches solid reasoning, I remain open to the theoretical possibility that there is one.
Hence, I can't confidently call anyone a bigot without hearing the support they have for their feelings of superiority. So the topic here, as I see it, is not so much "Bigotry!" as it is "Bigotry?" When faced with someone who says they sit higher than others in the hierarchy, I think the thing to so is to figure out whether that conviction is the result of sound reasoning or...something less.
So far, here is what is on the table.
Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because...
1) God says so.
2) I just feel that way.
3) Homosexuals are ostracized in our society.
4) The survival of the human species is threatened by homosexuality.
As far as I'm concerned, none of these pass muster. A person's individual conception of God does not count as reason. "I just feel that way" also doesn't count. Go ahead and feel that way--but that's pretty much the definition of bigotry.
Arguing that anti-gay prejudice itself is an argument for anti-gay prejudice is laughable. Finally, that the survival of the human species would be threatened by society's neutral acceptance of homosexuality is the most laughable of all. What's the theory here--we'd all turn gay?
If I have missed a key point, I'm open to being corrected. Please fill in the blank with a statement that stands the test of reason:
Heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because...
24 - mike
More gay men equals fewer Metallica fans, so homosexuality is automatically a good thing. If gays got married, they would keep nicer lawns than straights, so property values would go up. Also, maybe that guy on the House and Garden channel would elope and put us out of our misery. And don't forget--lesbians are really hot! They have them on the Howard Stern show.
Also, if gays could marry, there'd be guys in wedding dresses on the cover of Modern Bride magazine. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, necessarily, but it's just something to keep in mind as we continue this debate.
25 - Natalie
LOL... I want to shake your hand, Mike!
Dr. Slack, thanks for the link and the info. I had heard things were rough in Alberta... In any case, there are a few months before we depart. I will be watching what's going on up north with rabid interest. And there is always Belgium, which I adore.