To be fair, I can’t be bothered debate a party of St. Grottlesex trust-funders who decry the imagined ‘fascism’ of college campuses (because of all the things one might do on a college campus, identity politics is neither sin nor crime, just a step above gauche ponchos, Che Guevera T-Shirts, or considering the works of Ayn Rand ‘literature;’ the opportunity for alcohol poisoning and date rape are more problematic than a drum circle) or how political correctness (respecting groups who’d never vote for you) while riding herd on a herrenvolken here to defeat the effete academics and swarthy foreigners to take back ‘real America’ while buttressing domestic terrorism and pretending it’s nothing.

That’s shrill, I’d suppose, but, as (Will’s post, I think) indicated, they’re on their way out, without some serious reorientation (perhaps spreading the wide stance)

I’m cool with the whole “right/wrong” thing (I wrote an essay for the site about a ethic that didn’t have a theos!) but, at the end of the day, the “act” that is “abnormal” is the whole “treating sex as less than Divine” thing (and I deliberately capitalized that and I’m not making that dumb “I forget your name but you were Divine” joke). If it is treated as something other than two, for lack of a better word, souls uniting then *THAT* is abnormal.

So the Larry Craig thing? That Ted Haggard thing? Yes. That is, indeed, an abomination and he strikes me as deeply insane and someone to be deeply, deeply pitied.

But two dudes who have, despite all forces working against them, found each other in this vale of tears?

Eh. If I don’t have to do anything, they can knock themselves out. None of my beeswax.

Woo! Browne, Nader, Badnarik, and Jay!!!

Anyway, I’m from the internet. I don’t really have a decent gauge when it comes to “abnormal”. I mean, it seems to me that “cruelty” is pretty normal and people treating other people as they would like to be treated is fairly rare. If I went by “normal”, which of those ought I pick?

Screw normal. Follow the insights about how to treat people that you have gleaned from your studies.

That’s the seed that I am hoping to plant today.

But, hey. If that ain’t your bag, ain’t no drag.

It was a nit pick or a quibble, to clarify the statement–I could tell from context what was meant, rather than what it sounded like, which is why I harked to the woman v. lady argument (though I suppose the proper construction would be woman v. female for precision or identical match in meaning–or girl (a man talking about, say, a 35 year old lawyer) v. female). I wasn’t demanding herstory or womynism or rewriting history books to explain how Jesus delivered the reified Constitution to George Washington.

Besides, sometimes you have to shout at some well meaning clod to be heard, cause they’ve yet to meet a gay person; as I’ve learned from the GOP, a sufficient demostrati0n of zeal and emotion will win concessions and allow your terminology hegemony, especially if you dress it up in moral language. Which means everyone shouts instead of talking, but the point was to help Mr. Kain communicate his point more clearly, rather than a rhetorical drum-banging.