BiCon Same-sex relationships session

BiCon Same-sex relationships session

I'm considering offering the following for BiCon. Comments welcome.Same-sex relationshipsWhile many of us are open to same-sex relationships, there haven't been a lot of BiCon sessions focussing on them so I will facilitate informal conversation at thi...
From Jen’s Little Book Of Wisdom

From Jen’s Little Book Of Wisdom

Despite the over-used "twice the chance of a date on a Friday night" line*, bisexuals only get the same number of Friday nights as everyone else.* & thank you so much Woody Allen for saving oodles of people the effort of having to think up their o...
skibbley 2013-04-17 12:05:25

skibbley 2013-04-17 12:05:25

More BiCon thoughts:Will there be something about / do I want to do something on:Dealing with discomfort / shame / internalised fear or hatred about being bi and being non-heterosexual?Being personally and as a community better at race and ethnicityPer...
skibbley 2013-04-17 11:05:25

skibbley 2013-04-17 11:05:25

More BiCon thoughts:Will there be something about / do I want to do something on:Dealing with discomfort / shame / internalised fear or hatred about being bi and being non-heterosexual?Being personally and as a community better at race and ethnicityPer...
‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

They've done it again. Those busy bees at the centre of my denomination, the Church of England, have published another document that underlines their understanding of marriage:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1715479/marriagetextbrochureprint.pdf

And reading it it makes me angry, and sad, and more anger, then a little despair, pushed aside by rage, and levelling out at somewhere between livid and seething.

Theirs is not a faith I recognise. They seem a stubborn child, who has gone via it's own convoluted logic to come to a conclusion, and refuses to listen to actual reason when it's pointed out that they've made a mistake or twenty, by those with more experience and understanding, refuses to see how they're just simply wrong; instead, sticking with their viewpoint on the principle that of course they're right, if they've been right up to now, how can they be wrong?

What are we, CATHOLICS??

Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect to the Catholic church and community, but a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking - and however some parishes use incense and Latin, the CofE is still philosophically Protestant - is that Protestants left behind the belief that the Church never got things wrong. Protestantism accepts that the Church is a fallible institution, like anything human, and therefore accepts that the Church is perfectly within it's nature to change it's blinkin' mind.

This document reads like it was written by a medieval arsehole. They have no concept of what humanity actually is! Humanity is an infinite collection of combinations - sexuality is on a sliding scale, gender is on a sliding scale. I mean "persons are not asexual, but are either male or female" is just so outdated, it's embarrassing. Like so often when dealing with the church, this makes us cry out yet again for modernisation - get with the times, our understanding of what the human condition is is not longer the constricted, binary concept of yester-century that you guys seem to be working off. Get out in the fresh air guys, muck around with us grunts and you'll see, a) your categories are way off the mark and b) sometimes it isn't possible to define all the aspects of a person and c) you don't HAVE to define everything. They even state "The Church guards a common traditional understanding of marriage as a human, not only a religious act." Then guard the understanding that humanity is complicated, so marriage is not a set-in-stone, just-one-option thing, why don't you?

I'm going to get religious now. You have been warned.

God made a vastly complex universe. At least you've acknowledged that, Church of England. Yet God is vastly more complex. And a person is made in God's image ie just as complex; we don't understand God, so why would we be able to pin down that which is made in Her image?? The arrogance of thinking that the people of this planet are as easily confined to a 'proper ordering' of two boxes is astonishing.

To glory in God, to love His creation, to see the divine in all things and relish in the splendour of creation so that we can be the best that God made us to be, means to accept that an individual's gender, sex, and sexuality are separate things, to accept that God purposefully made an individual whatever combination of gender, sex, and sexuality they might be - the combination nor the components are not a mistake, something to be fixed, or anything wrong - and to accept that an individual may not be able to figure out who they are and what God means for them to be, and you have no right or authority to decide that they have only two options; accept that they may change their minds, several times, while figuring it out. And accept that this is natural, it is human, to be a minority and different to what is usual is in NO WAY unnatural, or wrong, or something to aspire against.

I am angry at the arrogance. I am angry at the stubbornness. I am angry at the illogical, unreasonable, and downright out-of-touch thinking. I am outraged at the clinging to words from Genesis, literal acceptance of an ignorant and bigoted understanding of humanity written by people with over two thousand years less experience, knowledge and understanding than the people sitting in the pews every Sunday right now. Listen to the people in the pews! Listen to the people visiting the church, to the people on the street, the people next door, people in every corner of humanity.

I agree that marriage is important; in fact, I agree with a lot of this document, but the thing is, anything you say about marriage, including most things about parenthood, is entirely applicable to any marriage, whatever the combination of gender there is between the two parties. Marriage is about complementarity, but two people complement each other, it's not the complementarity of gender that creates the bond of marriage.

And I agree that "marriage is a form of committed Christian discipleship for those who understand their own love as part of God’s love towards the world" - direct from the document, and yet, they cannot see the hypocrisy of not including some people and their love as a form of committed Christian discipleship, when Christian discipleship is grounded in an open arms policy, and the obligation to not exclude anyone. It's sickening.

So ultimately, same-sex marriage is a legitimate, natural, and divine state of two people. So why refuse same-sex weddings? That's all the church has to do. The church isn't involved in marriage - that's between the spouses and God. The church's part is the wedding, a celebration and commitment ceremony, not some vehicle for binary, blinkered meddling. Sure, we'll probably have to continue to change attitudes so that the church can give "pastoral help to those who seek to engage with the challenges of life responsibly" to same-sex married couples too, but that's the next battle. We don't need that yet. For now,

stop being stupid.
‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

‘Men & Women in Marriage’ by the CofE / a bisexual Anglican rants

They've done it again. Those busy bees at the centre of my denomination, the Church of England, have published another document that underlines their understanding of marriage:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1715479/marriagetextbrochureprint.pdf

And reading it it makes me angry, and sad, and more anger, then a little despair, pushed aside by rage, and levelling out at somewhere between livid and seething.

Theirs is not a faith I recognise. They seem a stubborn child, who has gone via it's own convoluted logic to come to a conclusion, and refuses to listen to actual reason when it's pointed out that they've made a mistake or twenty, by those with more experience and understanding, refuses to see how they're just simply wrong; instead, sticking with their viewpoint on the principle that of course they're right, if they've been right up to now, how can they be wrong?

What are we, CATHOLICS??

Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect to the Catholic church and community, but a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking - and however some parishes use incense and Latin, the CofE is still philosophically Protestant - is that Protestants left behind the belief that the Church never got things wrong. Protestantism accepts that the Church is a fallible institution, like anything human, and therefore accepts that the Church is perfectly within it's nature to change it's blinkin' mind.

This document reads like it was written by a medieval arsehole. They have no concept of what humanity actually is! Humanity is an infinite collection of combinations - sexuality is on a sliding scale, gender is on a sliding scale. I mean "persons are not asexual, but are either male or female" is just so outdated, it's embarrassing. Like so often when dealing with the church, this makes us cry out yet again for modernisation - get with the times, our understanding of what the human condition is is not longer the constricted, binary concept of yester-century that you guys seem to be working off. Get out in the fresh air guys, muck around with us grunts and you'll see, a) your categories are way off the mark and b) sometimes it isn't possible to define all the aspects of a person and c) you don't HAVE to define everything. They even state "The Church guards a common traditional understanding of marriage as a human, not only a religious act." Then guard the understanding that humanity is complicated, so marriage is not a set-in-stone, just-one-option thing, why don't you?

I'm going to get religious now. You have been warned.

God made a vastly complex universe. At least you've acknowledged that, Church of England. Yet God is vastly more complex. And a person is made in God's image ie just as complex; we don't understand God, so why would we be able to pin down that which is made in Her image?? The arrogance of thinking that the people of this planet are as easily confined to a 'proper ordering' of two boxes is astonishing.

To glory in God, to love His creation, to see the divine in all things and relish in the splendour of creation so that we can be the best that God made us to be, means to accept that an individual's gender, sex, and sexuality are separate things, to accept that God purposefully made an individual whatever combination of gender, sex, and sexuality they might be - the combination nor the components are not a mistake, something to be fixed, or anything wrong - and to accept that an individual may not be able to figure out who they are and what God means for them to be, and you have no right or authority to decide that they have only two options; accept that they may change their minds, several times, while figuring it out. And accept that this is natural, it is human, to be a minority and different to what is usual is in NO WAY unnatural, or wrong, or something to aspire against.

I am angry at the arrogance. I am angry at the stubbornness. I am angry at the illogical, unreasonable, and downright out-of-touch thinking. I am outraged at the clinging to words from Genesis, literal acceptance of an ignorant and bigoted understanding of humanity written by people with over two thousand years less experience, knowledge and understanding than the people sitting in the pews every Sunday right now. Listen to the people in the pews! Listen to the people visiting the church, to the people on the street, the people next door, people in every corner of humanity.

I agree that marriage is important; in fact, I agree with a lot of this document, but the thing is, anything you say about marriage, including most things about parenthood, is entirely applicable to any marriage, whatever the combination of gender there is between the two parties. Marriage is about complementarity, but two people complement each other, it's not the complementarity of gender that creates the bond of marriage.

And I agree that "marriage is a form of committed Christian discipleship for those who understand their own love as part of God’s love towards the world" - direct from the document, and yet, they cannot see the hypocrisy of not including some people and their love as a form of committed Christian discipleship, when Christian discipleship is grounded in an open arms policy, and the obligation to not exclude anyone. It's sickening.

So ultimately, same-sex marriage is a legitimate, natural, and divine state of two people. So why refuse same-sex weddings? That's all the church has to do. The church isn't involved in marriage - that's between the spouses and God. The church's part is the wedding, a celebration and commitment ceremony, not some vehicle for binary, blinkered meddling. Sure, we'll probably have to continue to change attitudes so that the church can give "pastoral help to those who seek to engage with the challenges of life responsibly" to same-sex married couples too, but that's the next battle. We don't need that yet. For now,

stop being stupid.
Glee article in recent BCN magazine

Glee article in recent BCN magazine

I recently had an article published on the Bi Community News website, so I thought I'd share it on my blog as well. It was written before Glee returned to Sky for its fourth season.

Ask most fans of Glee about its representation of bisexuality and very often one episode gets brought up: Blame it on the Alcohol. In their infinite wisdom, the creators of Glee decided it'd be a great idea to take an established gay character, get him drunk and have him snog a girl, sober up, decide to date her for a bit, doubt his sexuality and then after kissing her when sober go back to being gay again. All in the space of one episode.
Lovely.
However, from the second episode of Glee there has been positive representation of bisexuality that the creators have at times seemed not to want you to know about and her name is Brittany S. Pierce.
Ever since Brittany debuted on screen as a bit part during Showmance, she's been unashamedly eyeing up boys (including Mike who she's rumoured to have dated in the first season) and girls (especially but not exclusively Santana, who she’s now in a long distance relationship with) alike.
There were only a couple of lines delivered by Brittany in the first season which explored her sexuality:
  • After Santana said "Sex is not dating", Brittany agreed, saying "If it were, Santana and I would be dating." This had been meant to be delivered as a joke, but after saying that the two of them exchanged awkward glances.
  • During Bad Reputation, she wonders why she’s only fourth in the Glist (a ranking of sexual depravity of the members of New Directions) when "I've made out with, like, everyone in this school. Girls, boys, Mr Kinney the janitor."
In the second season when Brittany's actress, Heather Morris, was taken on as a regular cast member the show started exploring her sexuality. After a make out session with Santana during Duets, Brittany suggests they sing Melissa Etheridge's 'Come to My Window' for that week’s assignment for Glee. As Santana was still a closet lesbian at this point, she refused, but the fact Brittany even asked shows she was comfortable singing a romantic song to another woman in front of the rest of the Glee club.
When Santana finally admits she loves Brittany during Sexy, Britt is dating Artie. Although Brittany freely admits she loves Santana back, as she was already with someone else, she says she can’t break up with him because she loves him too and it "wouldn't be fair to him". This successfully challenges the stereotype that bisexuals can’t commit to any one person.
At the time, although it was pretty obvious to me that Brittany was already comfortable with loving people regardless of their gender, the writers themselves couldn't seem to decide what to label her. After giving Santana a 'Lebanese' T-shirt, she asks if the reason Santana’s upset with her is because she’s a lesbian and Brittany thinks she’s bi-curious (pause for groan).
Since then, however, the writers have given Brittany lines to show quite how open she is about her own sexuality:
  • During I Am Unicorn, when talking to Kurt about her running as a candidate for class president, she says she realised she was a unicorn too [with Santana's help!], and followed this with "maybe a bicorn".
  • During The Spanish Teacher, she joked that she was "bilingual".
  • In Props, after Santana told a teacher in the teachers’ lounge that they were both gay, Brittany pointed out that she wasn't "totally gay" (pause for another groan), but that this didn't make a huge difference to Santana’s point. 
I’ll admit that the lines they’re getting Brittany to deliver aren't always perfect. However, Brittany is now in a long term relationship with a girl, Santana, but the show isn't afraid to point out that she herself isn't gay. In similar situations, other TV series have chosen to identify the character as gay, regardless of who their past relationships were with:
  • In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow had a committed and long term relationship with Oz and also was in love with Xander. However, during and after her relationship with Tara, she said she was “gay now”.
  • Hollyoaks is a repeat offender:
    • When Sarah Barnes entered into a relationship with Lydia, despite the number of men she’d been with before, she proclaimed to everyone that she was a lesbian.
    • Ste Hay was in a relationship with Amy Barnes for years and they had children together but after he started sleeping with Brendan, he apparently decided to come out as gay.
At the end of season three, it was revealed Brittany will be retaking senior year whereas her girlfriend has graduated. It’s not clear where Santana will move on to but it’ll be interesting to see how Glee handles a long distance relationship between the two of them and whether they stay together or not.
Photos from the opening night of FIERCE: Photographs of…

Photos from the opening night of FIERCE: Photographs of…


Fierce exhibition


Dignity and beauty.


We turn our backs on war.


It's not often that black men are portrayed as being happy.


Compare and contrast

Photos from the opening night of FIERCE: Photographs of under-35’s black LGBT people.  Ajamu captured the beauty and dignity of this much-overlooked section of the LGBT and black and minority ethnic communities in this amazing exhibition.


The exhibition takes place at London’s Guildhall.  More details HERE