The View from the Cheap Seats

Actually, let me clarify my title.  It should really be, “THIS is One of the Reasons Why I Left” but that’s a bit long and cumbersome.  So I took some liberties with my own title.  I can do that.

Why I left where?  The Catholic church.  I have long been disillusioned by the Catholic church and its stance on many social issues.  About a year ago, I decided to make my break from the church official.

What is “THIS” in reference to?  Gay marriage/civil unions.  Let me start by saying I have no issues whatsoever with the Catholic church not performing gay marriages.  I don’t even have an issue with the Catholic church taking the stance that it officially disapproves of gay marriage.  It is clearly a religious organization, so the Church can makes its stance and the members of the Church can decide for themselves how they feel and act accordingly.  So I did not ever leave the Church because it is against gay marriage.

People talk about what a progressive thinker Pope Francis is, and I won’t deny that he certainly has a very different and often refreshing view.   That seemed apparent when I first saw the headline for this article: “Pope Francis wants church to study civil unions, Cardinal Dolan says.”  How open-minded of him!  I appreciate that he even has a desire to learn and understand, because it is learning and understanding that lead to acceptance.  This is a positive step.

Then I read this:

“When asked for his own views on same-sex marriage, Dolan said he is concerned it could ‘water down’ the sanctity of traditional marriage.

‘It’s not something that’s just a religious, sacramental concern,’ Dolan said. ‘It’s also the building block of society and culture. So it belongs to culture. And if we water down that sacred meaning of marriage in any way, I worry that not only the church would suffer, I worry that culture and society would.’ “

THIS is where I lose it.  I can’t abide that it’s just not enough to take a stand against it.  It also has to be the absolute breakdown of culture and society as well.  Why can’t the Church just stay out of our bedrooms?  Does the Catholic church have any idea what goes on in the beds of married people?  I doubt it because I’m betting the Church would predict the downfall of civilization based on common sex acts that occur.  Guess what, Church, some people have sex for reasons other than procreation (like PLEASURE), and there are LOTS of other ways to make sex feel good other than the missionary position.  Look out!  The world is spinning off its axis!!!!!!!!!

Now, I am fully aware that Pope Francis did NOT say these words, BUT someone who is speaking on behalf of the Catholic church DID say these words.  If his attitude is not the prevailing attitude of the Catholic church, then maybe the Pope needs to correct the Cardinal and set the world straight publicly.

Until then, I’m going to assume that the Catholic church has broadly adopted this unnecessarily calamitous view of homosexuality and gay marriage, and that is something I simply cannot tolerate.  It is narrow and hateful and prejudicial and uninformed and callous.

Yes means yes; everything else means no.

When it comes to consensual sex, why is that concept so damn difficult to understand?

If a man wants to have sex with a woman and she says yes, then there’s a green light.

If she’s drunk or high and says yes and then says no, stop, don’t, quit or becomes unresponsive or unconscious, that’s a no.

If she’s drunk or high and says no, that’s a no.

If she’s unconscious and can’t say yes, that’s a no.

If she doesn’t say definitively that she wants to have sex, she hems and haws and appears indecisive, that’s a no.

If she says yes and then says no, stop, don’t, or quit, that’s a no.  I don’t care if you were in the middle of something good.  It clearly wasn’t good for her.  So that’s a no.

If you buy her a nice expensive dinner and she’s dressed really sexy and she doesn’t want to have sex with you, that’s a no.  She doesn’t owe you.

If you take her on an expensive trip, buy her expensive gifts, spend lots of money on her and she doesn’t want to have sex with you, that’s a no.  She doesn’t owe you.

If she is dressed in super skimpy outfits and is grinding all over you on the dance floor and she doesn’t want to have sex with you, that’s a no.  She isn’t a tease.  She doesn’t owe you.

If she is parading around naked in front of you, putting things in your face and she doesn’t want to have sex with you, that’s a no.  She isn’t a tease or a slut.  She doesn’t owe you.

If she is your wife and she doesn’t want to have sex with you, that’s a no.  She doesn’t owe you.  She isn’t your property.  It’s not her duty.  You don’t have a right to her.

And for any other scenario I didn’t think up here, let me cover the bases simply: if a woman is of sound mind and communicative ability (she’s not drunk, high, mentally disabled, unconscious, unable to speak the language) and she does not give you a free and clear yes, then that’s a no.

When you try to have sex with a woman who is not providing a free and clear yes, you are committing rape, and it no longer becomes about sex.  It becomes about power and aggression and violence and anger and evil.

Teach this shit to your boys, parents.  I’m tired of reading articles like this.

Phil Robertson’s anti-gay comments in a GQ article have swirled up a storm of controversy because he has been suspended from filming on the show “Duck Dynasty”.  There are people screaming about how he is being denied freedom of speech and that it is ridiculous that he is being banned from his own show.  The memes are popping up fast and furious.  I took umbrage at his comments, being a pretty verbal supporter of gay rights.  But in no way, shape, or form am I implying that he should have kept his thoughts to himself.

My bachelor’s degree is in English, and I have to believe that a lot of English majors are pretty staunch supporters of freedom of speech.  Censorship is a bad, bad thing in the world of writing.  I am no exception.  My favorite book is Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, and I live in mortal dread of our society becoming the one portrayed in that novel.  Actually, I don’t see us being all that far off (seashell radios = earbuds, does anyone else see that????), and the more people in society talk about removing or restricting material they find offensive, the closer and closer we get to the world of Fahrenheit 451.

So when Phil Robertson says, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical,”  (Read More      http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2nw3ZZ1ex) I wonder how people would react if the quote instead read something more like this:

“It seems like, to me, a white woman — as a white man — would be more desirable than a black woman.  That’s just me.  I’m just thinking: There’s more there!  The white woman has more to offer.  I mean, come on white folks!  You know what I’m saying?  But hey, marrying outside your race: It’s not logical, my man.  It’s just not logical.”

Or what if the quote sounded like this:

“It seems like, to me, a man for the job — as a man — would be more desirable than a woman.  That’s just me.  I’m just thinking: There’s more there!  The man has more to offer the company.  I mean, come on, guys!  You know what I’m saying?  But hey, hiring a woman to do a man’s job: it’s not logical, my man.  It’s just not logical.”

Would people be jumping up and down screaming about his freedom of speech?  I would hope so, because Phil Robertson is free to speak his mind on any topic he chooses!  But I think what is really happening with the reaction to his statement isn’t outrage at restriction of his speech (because NOBODY has restricted his speech); it’s outrage at being suspended from filming the show because of his comments.  Would people think he deserves to be suspended if he made the comments I made up that were racist or sexist?  I would hope so.  Racist speech and sexist speech — any derogatory speech for that matter — should not be squelched.  But with freedom of expression comes consequences.  And Robertson is facing consequences.  He isn’t suspended from HIS show.  He’s suspended from a show ABOUT him and his family.  “Duck Dynasty” belongs to A & E, if I’m not mistaken.  And that network needs to protect its ratings and its profits, and if it fears losing those things based on Robertson’s anti-gay comments, A & E has every right to suspend him to protect its assets, not just “Duck Dynasty” but all the other shows on their network as well.  After all, consumers may decide that they don’t want to watch ANY show on A & E because “Duck Dynasty” is on that network, and maybe advertisers don’t want to advertise on that network, either.  A & E has to protect its investment.  Maybe Robertson has the rights to the show and he can therefore peddle his show to another network if he’s unhappy with his treatment by A & E.  It is a free country, as everyone is quick to point out.  This is all about the almighty dollar.  A & E doesn’t care what Phil Robertson has to say about gay people; A & E cares about making money off “Duck Dynasty”.  And don’t be mistaken — Phil Robertson doesn’t care about making sure “Duck Dynasty” is high quality television programming; he cares about making money off “Duck Dynasty” — despite the fact that he’s already got plenty,plenty, plenty of money!  But getting as much money is also quite American, isn’t it?

Everybody should have their own opinion — if they choose to have one — about this new thing to argue about and pit friends and family against each other.  Goodness knows there simply isn’t enough to argue about and hate each other about right now.  But make your opinion clear: Phil Robertson is NOT having his freedom of expression denied.  He is facing consequences for making a public statement about a controversial topic that some people have found offensive, and A & E is reacting in a way to protect its financial interests.  So have your opinion — if you choose to have one — about how you feel personally about his comments or how you feel personally about the way A & E has handled this.

My opinion — because I choose to have one — is that Phil Robertson made remarks publicly that are discriminatory and therefore offensive, and he is receiving justifiable backlash from A & E.  I do not believe or ever, ever want anyone to prevent Phil Robertson from speaking his mind, no matter how disgusting I find his opinion to be.