P. S. - Of course, a lot of the suggested answers in this film we have already heard about long ago. But I did get to thinking - is there any tree that produces blooms, but not fruit, in its natural state - that is, untinkered-with by botanists and commercial growers? I consulted M. P., who in addition to being Chef Supreme is also Head Gardener here, and has the green-thumb gene your Head Trucker missed out on. He informs me that he knows of two such naturally non-fruit-bearing trees: dogwoods and redbuds.
Both of them such beautiful things when in bloom! Fabulous. I myself think that there doesn't necessarily have to be a concrete reason for beauty in the world - some things just are what they are, you know? Not everything beautiful is particularly useful, but then - does it have to be?
The evanescent trace of a shooting star - the golden glow of a full moon rising - the susurration of a gentle rain - the smell of new-mown grass - the warmth of a handclasp - the touch of a lover's lips - the scientists may scribble and scratch until doomsday parsing the nature of such things, but what would be gained? It is enough that Beauty exists, and gladdens the hearts of men wherever they find it.
For beauty is one of the things that make us human. The animals cannot conceive it - the plants do not need it. No, the ineffable joy of the beautiful belongs to mankind alone: the great gift of the Love that moves the stars. And that beauty is in us, too - if we nurture it. Beauty, truth, and goodness - if you want a trinity to adore, that is a fine place to begin.
One more thing - the evolutionary theory about the usefulness of the "gay uncle" is very clever - but note that it is not a proven fact, just a happy thought. Some of us have no nephews or nieces, you know.
-----
%20-%20Portrait%20de%20Pavel%20Tretiakov%20(1901)%20-%20oil%20on%20cavs,%20111x134cmTretiakov%20GAllery%20Moscoxw.jpg){kind=spacer}
2 comments:
I just saw this a few days ago myself. Perhaps you saw my comment under the video which I will paste here with some parenthetical additions:
As a gay man I found the documentary interesting but I have more questions than answers. The stereotypes seem to be less prevalent in modern society, perhaps because the more "masculine" gay men are more open about their sexual orientation now than they might have been in generations past.(More masculine men can "pass" much easier than those who may have what are considered more "feminine" characteristics.) There is a wide spectrum of behavioral traits that range from the stereotypical to the opposite end (hyper masculine) of the scale. Also I would suggest further research in the areas covered in the documentary, especially among a certain regional ethnic group of which many gay men I have known belong (I was purposely not specific about this but I have know many, primarily gay men, who were from or whose family roots were in, northern Maine (the Van Buren-Madawaska-Presque Isle triangle of French-Acadian ethnicity). Many of these men have had one or several gay siblings or close relatives. I will only add that right now in 2022 I am appalled and frightened by the surge, in the United States (and elsewhere), of anti-gay and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, lies and misinformation that is fueling the introduction of laws meant to suppress us and take away the rights we have fought for and attained since the Stonewall era.(Has our being out and proud threatened the homophobes? or their fragile world view? or their biblical literalism? or their hetero-privilege? What, really is the threat we pose? And do we, or more precisely,the younger generation of LGBTQs, have to start all over again, educating the misinformed, the ignorant, the bigots? - I have a file cabinet of basic lessons.)
I had not seen your YT post but I've gone and read it since you posted this comment.
Yes, there are still many unanswered questions left. The birth-order idea is most interesting, but does not explain how and why firstborn boys or only children turn out gay. It also does not explain why lesbians are born.
Perhaps further genetic research into the "family" of genes that has something to do with sexuality will produce more answers. But even if science one day pinpoints the cause, I'm afraid the homophobes will simply say, "It's a birth defect." Unfortunately, facts and logic are not sufficient to change opinions that are set in concrete, as it were.
Tomorrow I am posting another documentary about some gay folks in rural Tennessee - one of them has a Baptist preacher dad, who candidly talks about his struggle reconciling his love for his out son, and his fundamentalist beliefs. I hope love will win out.
Educating the ignorant is important, but I'm not sure it's effective by itself. It's easy to write off a group of anonymous people you think you have no connection with. Not as easy to ignore people you love and know very well - although it does happen, of course. We know how many gay kids have been disowned by their oh-so-righteous parents.
And yes, the resurgence of antigay hatred is very alarming - and it is fed day and night by outrageous lies on radio and television. All part of the rising tide of far-right fascism/populism/whatever-you-call it. This is paralleled by a rising ultra-left movement, which does not get reported as much or as such in the MSM. All of it is very scary - I don't know what can be done about it, though.
There is a sane and sensible middle way, however, and I'm sticking to that path.
Post a Comment