Angels and Demons Thought the film was fair enough, though the script was pretty dreadful. I found it less exhausting to watch than the DVC film which seemed to try to cram too much. I'd read both books before seeing the respective films and found them both entertaining reads - and also quite thought-provoking. The A&D film was, to me, surprisingly sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church so I reckon that most of the criticism from that particular quarter comes from those who haven't seen the film. There was, though, one particular oddity that struck me. - Towards the end of the A&D film there is a general clamour to raise to the Papal post a certain character. But it is said that he is ineligible because he is only a priest, not a cardinal. When I was being educated (by Marist priests) we were told that the only qualifications required to become Pope is that one must be male and he must have been baptised into the R.C. Church. Theoretically, even a man who wasn't a priest could be elected. I would have therefore thought that even I qualified. (Perish the thought!) Or is this yet another case of the Catholic Church slowly changing its position on theoligical matters, though in this case in the 'wrong' direction?

Recipe for a God Impressive, thought-provoking article which helps fill in some of the gaps in the perplexity I experience when trying to account for the attraction of theism, I being a former fanatically devout Roman Catholic, until I 'saw the light'!
Thanks for posting.

Nothing Queer About It #99 I realise that this wasn't aimed directly at me but it might as well have been. If heteros earn respect by being and acting hetero, does that mean we homos earn respect by PRETENDING to be hetero? In other words, can we ever have respect by being ourselves? - or are you saying that it is better that we be totally sex-abstemious even if we don't see why we should? Okay, I myself am proud to be non-religious but there are even some of those who ARE religious and HETEROsexual who don't go that far. But I suppose they, like us, are all heretics whose souls (whatever that is) will also be condemned to burn in the flames of Hades for ever and ever, Amen, right? Truly knee-knocking, nail-biting, frightening stuff!

Nothing Queer About It In previous post, in penultimate line, rather than 'religious BIGOT' I had meant to write 'zealot'. A fine distinction. Apologies.

Nothing Queer About It Re #94. Well, I had hoped that the subject was, for the moment at least, exhausted, but nomansiddiqui has kindly replied to my request for elaboration so I can't complain at that. Now let's see - "sick, **cking writer....mental illness....freak"? Wow, you don't mince your words do you? It's crystal clear where you are coming from. However, and unsurprisingly, I do in fact find the writer's using animals illustratively to be totally valid. I think that most (though not all) would agree that humanity is, at present, the final chain in an evolutionary continuum - notwithstanding that there may be some past 'links' missing, yet to be filled in, which is surely only a matter of time and research. Or are you seriously suggesting that man was 'divinely-created' as an already complete entity, in the way that Creationists insist - and that the Earth and the Universe (one or multi) are less than 10,000 years old? If so, can you supply the evidence, please? (I do hope that you won't refer to a religious source that so many of us don't believe in - or is it the case that we must be FORCED to register such a belief, albeit spurious?)
As to incest, I personally have never found my father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces - or even in-laws - sexually attractive. I don't deny that some people are indeed attracted to a blood relative - and, particularly in M/F relationships where 'precautions' against possible consequences are taken, I think that, as long as it is between two consenting mature adults of either or both sexes it is none of our business to interfere, even despite society's taboo status of such relationships.
Hope that clarifies matters, but I somehow think that there is as much chance of your coming round to my way of thinking as I have of yours - though I must confess that when I was a religious bigot (I cringe at the memory) what you say was pretty well the same as I was spouting all those years ago. But, thankfully, I saw the 'light'. (Hallelujah!)

Nothing Queer About It Shore, my admirable friend, I couldn't supress a smile as I read your post#92. The way the subject has been discussed has clearly raised your hackles - and I'm envious of the way you retain your lucid articultaion in expressing your point of view whereas anger usually renders me incoherent. No surprise that I largely concur with your views. I think this subject has run its course for now and let's hope that you're to be allowed the last word on it - but something makes me suspect that won't be the case so I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, pal.

Nothing Queer About It #84 Good point, Shore sir. I hadn't quite seen it in the light that you did, but maybe that's a residue of my homophobic 'conditioning' - which surely must have left at least some scars. (Being brought up a strict Roman Catholic didn't exactly help matters either.) But being seen as a 'freak' is indeed pejorative. I don't actually mind being considered 'deviant' - after all that really only means not having the behaviour of the majority, to which I am happy to own, although I've never heard left-handers being labelled as 'deviant' - I wonder why?

Nothing Queer About It #81 nomansiddiqui - please elaborate on why you think about the article as you do. As it stands your contribution is about as informative as #29 - i.e. it tells us nothing other than your own viewpoint which, I don't doubt, you have arrived at after careful and prolonged consideration.

Nothing Queer About It Fascinating previous post. So I am a homo-homo. I like it!
By the way (believe it or not) I myself feel at least a trifle uncomfy with the idea of 'gay marriage' which I don't feel about civil partnerships. Partly because I don't see why there is a need to emulate that institution - as long as the state recognises C.P.s as equally valid, but different. Though as far as children are concerned I don't see any problem with adoption by gay parents, though I admit that some people clearly DO oppose it. But then I speak as one who has myself never wanted to to be a father, either in reality or by adopting. But thanks for that post, Zeena. It's clear and balanced, as have also been some from other interactors - and, no, I don't mean just those with whom I agree. I hope my mind is a bit more open than that.

Nothing Queer About It Oh well, if I didn't know it already, I suppose that reading some of the reactions to this article only proves that queer-bashing is not only still alive and kicking, it is positively thriving! Anyway, I still live in hope that as those particular interactors (and those who share their opinions) discover that more and more of their circles of family, relatives, friends, acquaintances and colleagues are gay, although some may prefer to denounce and disassociate themselves from them, there will still be at least some left who accept that we are not all evil, dangerous, AIDS-ridden, paedophiliac, pathetic monsters. Some of us may indeed be - as may be some heteros - but my own experience has been that gays cover the same entire gamut of like/unlikeability as non-gays. (I bet someone is now going to say that we are more likely to be at the negative end of the spectrum. Well, I suppose if they can't win an argument then they've got to invent one that conforms to their own prejudices.)
Interesting to read that Akbarhussain #35 (we share a passion for Astronomy, by the way - maybe not much else) works in Northern Ireland where he will be familiar with the views of one Iris Robinson (the DUP leader's wife) who insists that we can be 'cured' (as though we thought there is anything wrong with us in that respect that needs 'curing'!) and who loves to quote scripture at us which we don't believe anyway. I was pondering on whether Mr A also supports her views?
By the way, really impressed by Simon Templar's contribution (#29) - so thoughtful, cogent, well argued and, above all, succinct. I do hope this gentleman doesn't let his 'halo' slip. ;-)

Nothing Queer About It I've got so much to say on the subject but on this occasion confining it to just one aspect, I am always bemused (I'd be AMUSED if it wasn't so fatuous) by the "But it's not natural" argument. Even if it was so - which I don't think for one moment - humans live practically their entire existences by employing the so-called 'unnatural' - e.g. cooking food, wearing clothes, shaving, wearing make-up, hair(cuts and styles), receiving medicines, surgery, driving vehicles, flying....the list is endless. "Ah, but...", goes the argument, "it's SEXUALLY unnatural". Well, let's see. How about using artificial contraception? - by definition (and tautologically) 'artificial' = unnatural. What about vasectomy and hysterectomy? - Are they 'natural'? The Catholic Church goes further than anyone I know on proscription - any sexual activity which does not have the potential to produce fertilisation of the ovum is sinful and 'unnatural'. Leaving aside all oral sex (pity!) and anal sex even between consenting M/F partners, presumably all infertile individuals, whether male or female, are acting unnaturally when engaged in sex. I could go on but the argument at this point usually veers off towards "But the Bible/Koran etc FORBIDS it." So they might - but not all of us believe that one or any of them is the word of God, if indeed there is a God at all. Should we be FORCED to accept it? I think and hope not. No, as long as sex is between two consenting adult human beings, het or homo, where is the problem?
By the way I knew I was gay for as long as I can remember - certainly even when I was at infant school although of course I didn't know the name for it then. But growing up I absorbed and believed all the hateful propaganda and thought that there was something wrong with me and hoped that I'd 'grow out of it'. Of course I didn't. And when was my first homosexual experience? At the age of TWENTY NINE. Oh, all those wasted years!

The Capture of Christianity Re: # 22
Thanks, pinku. For far too long I've soft-pedalled a view on Christianity's bloody past, preferring to consign it to a 'that was then, but things have changed' category. Maybe it's about time I thought about taking the gloves off.

The Capture of Christianity Just a comment or two on the physical aspects about Jesus' crucifixion. Being educated by Marist priests it was in their 'interests' as propogators of the 'one true faith (!)' to teach that the treatment of Jesus was uniquely horrible. For example it was only later when I found out that nailing to the cross was standard procedure - as a child I took it that this was a particularly cruel fate meted out to Jesus alone. (Even today I can't recall off the top of my head any classical artists who depicted the legendary two thieves crucified on either side as being likewise nailed to their crosses. Usually they are shown as having their hands and feet roped or lashed to the wood. - Please someone correct me if I am wrong.) Likewise I believe that criminals were traditionally crucified completely naked - but it's unsurprising that this is refined into loincloth-wearing victims. Apart from the 'indecency' of a pictorial representation of such there would be the revealing of Jesus as a circumcised Jew - something to which, perhaps, the Church would, although acknowledging, rather not draw undue attention.
When still an infant we were told that when Jesus said on the cross "I thirst" and a vinegar-soaked sponge was raised to his mouth I never knew whether that was an act of cruelty or kindness - and even now I'm still not entirely sure. Then Jesus cries "It is consummated." (A very big word for the little boy I was then who was being told this story) I assumed that it was some reference to the vinegar - perhaps it was its bitterness he was complaining about. No attempt was made to explain this very 'obscure' word - and I was too frightened to ask!
But the article is certainly very interesting and food for thought. (I knew that the title 'Jesus of Nazareth' was a misnomer, something the Church has always seemed reluctant to accept.)
But thanks for the post.

The Republican Red Scare Yes, so much for a 'clean' campaign! I wish someone would ask McCain/Palin whether they consider that the 8 years of 'Dubya' have been a success. If so, in what respect(s)? I seem to recall that after the 2000 election GWB saying something to the effect that his priority was going to be to 'unite America' - or is that just my poor recollection or misunderstanding?

Demon SS - no, despite my name and pic I ain't now or have ever been in anyone's army. Interesting thought, though - I'm wondering if someone acknowledging the raw emotions described in your article would be at home in an army, being able to bring to the surface and live out the anger (pity the 'enemy'!) or would an emotionally-detached automoton fulfil that 'role' better. I leave the question dangling in the air.

Demon So bleak, so savage - and yet quite understandable. It's got me shivering. I'm sure this reflects how many more of us would feel had we not the survival instinct of 'switching off' - though, of course, that's near impossible when one or one's near ones have been subject directly to acts of violence by man or Nature.