02-07-04 @ 10:49 am EST

I finished reading the vampire ghost book! YEE! (I don't know if I've said "Yee" in here since...the big Vertical Horizon entry back in September. Could be wrong though.) That might not sound like a heck of a lot...but considering that it was over 300 pages...and I have had such great trouble reading anything lately...and I finished it in like three weeks or so...well, it means something to *me.* Toward the end I was like, "Okay, that's nice, PUH-LEEZE just END already!!" Really, the book didn't end up going anywhere. The lady never found out what the deal was with her supposed ghost. She did a lot of semi-interesting learning along the way though and now I know way more about ghost photography than I ever wanted to know. O_o

Anyway, now I can start reading ANOTHER book. I was so tempted during the last chapter or so of Ghost to pick up another book, but I didn't, because I have this bad tendency to leave the last few pages of books unread. That happened with The Hobbit. (A long time back I bought that and the LOTR trilogy just because everybody is always gushing about them...I read all but the last few pages of The Hobbit...and that's it. It wasn't AWFUL, but then again I can't understand what all the fuss is about. Tolkien's writing is just so-so to me. Not sucky, and better than most stuff you see on the Net, but it didn't send me into paroxysms of imagination, either. I dunno, maybe I need more iron in my diet or something. *shrug*)

So now I'm reading The Secret Language Of Dreams. I STILL haven't mailed out that money order! *steam* This book will probably be easier to read since it's very small and there isn't really much text per page. Lots of images. I was tempted to try out the Winter Of The World trilogy again but that series always gives me trouble. I bought all three books because they actually had all of them on sale at Glen's long ago. Never heard of the author, Michael Scott Rohan; didn't care, because it was an entire trilogy, and it's very rare that I get all the books in a series, plus it was fantasy, AND it didn't have friggin' elves or anything on the cover, so I bought them. And I keep getting stuck after the first book. It's not that it's BAD--in fact I really liked it. I WANT to finish the thing. It's just that I keep getting stuck. I've read that first book like TWICE and a half so far and only got a bit through the second and I keep getting derailed...AGGHH! Someday I will really have to smack myself upside the head to read those books since they start out really good. *sigh*

Ohhhhh...*cries* I just HAD to go to Google to make sure I got that trilogy name right and have just found out that there are TWO MORE BOOKS in that series! Why is it called a trilogy then? I'm missing two books! *cries* I HATE SERIES STORIES! Why don't they ever sell them all at once! Apparently they're more standalone stories, but STILL. I hate you, Michael Scott Rohan!! I would never pull something like that on my readers if I could help it! (Check out my Manitou Island short stories folder. Nyeh-heh-heh.)

Anyway...what else? I thought I had something else?

Oh yeah. Might as well before I forget. Dad just had to bring up the Massachusetts gay marriage thing with me the other day. What did he really hope to achieve? He knows how I stand on minorities and such (he of the favorite phrases "wetback" and "spook" and "gook" etc.), so why did he think THIS would be any different? Anyway he comes into the room and starts to say, "I can't BELIEVE that in Massachusetts they're going to allow gay marriage now..."

I interrupted with an offhanded, "You probably shouldn't even bring it up with me, Dad."

He looked at me with some surprise and said, "You AGREE with that?"

I can't remember what I said; I probably shrugged and said something like, "Why not let them?" After all, why not? Not everybody in this country belongs to a religion that thinks homosexuality is a sin, mind you, and not even all of those who do believe it is. The way I see it, let a woman and a man, a man and a man, a woman and a woman marry; as long as nobody has sex in the street I'm fine with it.

To which Dad replies, "It's immoral."

My reply to that? "*snort* A LOT of things are immoral but they're still legal!"

But frankly, that reply of his stunned me. IMMORAL? Who is DAD to be talking about what's MORAL and what's IMMORAL? As far as I know, I've never had any reason to believe he even BELIEVES in God or morality until this point. He does not go to church, does not pray (that I know of), does not recognize religious occasions, and he is most CERTAINLY not a moral person, at least in the usual sense of the word. He's not AWFUL, but he's hardly somebody to be talking about MORALITY. I can think of at least one unsavory thing he did in the past, apparently without remorse, and I'm sure there's more. If I had been more in the mood for an argument I should have said, "I don't think there's a single MORAL person in this house!"...but thankfully that was the extent of the conversation. Still his response really bothered me the rest of the day and it still does now. Guess whose parents are now CERTAINLY never going to know that their daughter writes gay-themed erotica? I think I'd feel almost like I'm coming out of the closet MYSELF or something. >_<

(No, I'm not lesbian, that I'm aware of! I'm sure that "that I'm aware of" would freak my parents out, but then again, it's not like I've ever had SEX with anybody of either sex to know for sure, is it?)

I wouldn't have been QUITE as offended if he had used the other one of the two most frequent (and just about only) objections to homosexuality--"It's disgusting!" Because, well, okay, that would be his opinion. To those who object to gay unions because "It's disgusting!", know now that not everybody thinks that. (See the Ameni Chronicles folder, nyeh-heh-heh.) But it's an opinion, and if somebody wants to think it's gross, fine. Grossness is certainly no reason to prevent gay unions (if grossness were the extent of the law, then let's outlaw Fear Factor and cooked mushrooms!--BLECH!), but it's a reason to dislike them, I guess.

But for Dad to bring up IMMORALITY? Um, HELLO! You are the guy who for all intents and purposes seems to be agnostic. You judge people ALL the time as being inferior to you, you tell dirty/irreverent jokes, you are slothful and greedy (hell, so am I), you like to initiate fights just for the sake of fighting, you have broken the law and never seemed to show remorse for it, you don't honor the holy days (whatever they are), and for the most part you just don't act like good Christians are supposed to act. (Whatever that is, it varies so much--but in my opinion it means being humble, upholding the law, honoring God in some way, and doing unto others as they would do unto you--or at least not judging everybody all the time, with no remorse. When you're rather bigoted, as my dad unfortunately is, it's kinda hard to abide by that "Judge not" rule.) I hardly think he is the person who should be talking about IMMORALITY.

Take a look at the New Testament, since most Christians against homosexuality nowadays say that the rules in Leviticus or whatever no longer apply because of the coming of Jesus and the adoption of the New Testament or whatever. What was Jesus REALLY big against in that book?--DIVORCE! That's right--He really hated DIVORCE. I can't remember Jesus ever saying anything about homosexuality; I could be wrong, but I just don't remember it. If He did mention it, I do know it certainly did not stand out as much as His tirade against DIVORCE. As I remember Him putting it--"If you divorce and marry another, it's the same as if you and your spouse are committing adultery!" And you remember how big the Bible was against THAT little thing. My memory may be poor, but I really do remember Jesus being WAY pissed off about the whole divorce thing. It was a HUGE no-no for Him.

And guess what's legal in all fifty states?--DIVORCE! Never mind that according to the Big J Himself it was quite immoral--it's legal. That's progress, or whatever you want to call it. Adultery for all intents and purposes is ALSO legal--at least, I don't believe you can get arrested for it. Then you have all the wonderful other things from the Old Testament that many Christians say went out the door when Jesus came along, though for some bizarre reason the ban on homosexuality stayed (pick and choose, anyone?)...namely, seeing your parents naked...getting tattoos...growing two different crops side by side in the same field...letting mildew grow on your bathroom walls...being near a woman when she's having her period, or even worse, BEING a woman who's having her period...and don't forget wearing clothing made of--*gasp*--MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF CLOTH! (What is this shirt of mine made of...? Damn, somebody better stone me now.) Yes, THESE were all big no-nos in the Old Testament, too...but every time I or someone else bring them up, "Oh, those don't hold anymore since Jesus came along." The whole gay sex ban stays, but all those really annoying, bothersome bans can be overlooked and forgotten. Whatever.

I don't remember the New Testament sanctioning divorce. I suppose it was a church mandate or something that made that okay? (There's also the Catholic way around divorce, namely annulment (sic?). I won't even get into that. I'm Catholic, yet I'm afraid of offending the Catholics. Catholics, please do not attack me. o_o; ) So, what if a church mandate were to someday say that homosexuality is fine with God? I can imagine some Christians getting all irate--"They would NEVER say that!"--but think about divorce...I'm betting a long time back, they never thought of okaying THAT, either. But somehow, it was okayed. And over half of all American marriages END that way as it is. (Trust me, gay marriage cannot ruin the American family any more than heterosexual marriage has!) I'm willing to bet, as sad as I find it, that more than half of all Americans are against same-sex marriage. (I'd love to be wrong, but I'm a pessimist.) These are the same people who think divorce is okay because the church must have said so. Why is it that the Bible's word is supposedly inviolate, yet so many people who claim it is the ultimate authority are willing to overlook many of its rules just because their CHURCH says it's okay? How can one be so sure that these church men revising the Bible are really acting on behalf of God?--remember how you might react if they were to suddenly say homosexuality is fine. And what gives THEM the authority to revise, and no one else? Churches may act on the supposed authority of God, but that would mean that He's constantly revising His Book. Who's to say this isn't a matter that could be revised in the future? You never know. They okayed divorce, after all.

(I really think that the REAL reason homosexuality is still "not okay" is because it is the only "sin" (besides the obvious, not-really-religiously-motivated ones, like theft and murder and such) that hasn't inconvenienced the majority of Christians. Not being able to wear clothing made of two fibers, having to tear down your bathroom wall because it has mildew on it, being stuck married to somebody you hate, these were all very inconvenient, so out the door those bans went. Homosexuality? It hasn't proven to be a big inconvenience to many Christians yet (except the gay ones, obviously!), so that ban stays. That's my opinion, at least. Wait till the day the gay ban proves to be bothersome! Then we'll really see that taboo go out the door...)

And bla bla bla, like I already said, WE'RE NOT ALL CHRISTIANS, and not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin anyway. (Whether or not you believe that Christians who have nothing against homosexuality are real Christians is not the aim of this entry.) So why some Christian taboo should apply legally to everybody in this country is beyond me.

AND for those who insist that gay marriages would somehow screw up the insurance system, I'd like to see proof that that would happen. I mean, so more people would want to get married. How would that mess it up? They would still have to provide some proof that they intend to truly live together as a couple in order to obtain those benefits. And if they try to screw the system over, whether man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, then they'll be prosecuted. 'Nuff said. Just because two men decide to get married and share benefits doesn't mean the insurance system is going to go all to hell. That's just as ludicrous as the whole slippery-slope theory that if we allow gay marriages, what next?--marrying animals or children? (The people who insist this will happen have yet to understand the simple concept of CONSENT, apparently. Dunno why this always escapes them. *shrug*)

When all is said and done, the only REAL argument against same-sex unions boils down to..."It's disgusting!" And I already mentioned how lame an argument that is, as not all of us find that gross, and some of us even thrive on...WRITING ABOUT IT! (See the Ameni Chronicles! *droolage* ^_^ )

Well anyway...on the other sites where I post this I may have to make it no comments for a while just so the conservative types who insist on pummeling others with their religion don't decide to snipe...I have nothing against them believing it's sick (just as long as they don't insist EVERYBODY thinks it's sick--because as the Chronicles prove, that's not quite true!--the same as that not everybody masturbates!!), or even that it's immoral (just as long as whoever claims it's immoral follows most of the other tenets set out in the Bible, unlike my dad, which is why I found his comment so ludicrous--you should at least be pretty moral in order to proclaim what's immoral!), but trying to pass religion-based laws on people who don't even practice that religion...whatever. I don't believe this Massachusetts thing is going to sit easily for a very long while, if ever. If I knew it had a chance of standing, I'd cheer, but like I said I'm a pessimist...but at least it's a start. The Civil Rights movement took a pretty long time, so I've heard. Change doesn't happen overnight. Besides, the only real stake I have in this personally is that I write gay erotica, which is perfectly legal. So bla bla bla bla BLA.

Well. Hum. I have some e-mails to respond to, but it might take me a while because it takes me so long to type them up. I wanted to try to do one today but this entry ran longer than I thought (DAMN YOU MASSACHUSETTS!!). So I'll go for now, and if you are a conservative or anti-gay-marriage-type person who reads this, just remember, I wouldn't go and argue with you in your journal, so please return the favor! (I'll never change your mind and you'll never change mine so let's spare ourselves the time and trouble! It's already obvious I really need the TIME...)

Tar...