I Think We're Gay

Apparently this is from some TV show in 2003.  I never saw this before, but it's a laugh riot!

-----

Survival of the Fabulous

Who am I?  Why am I?  All of us gay guys have pondered those questions intently at some time or other.  Canadian filmmaker Bryce Michael Sage queries the scientists for answers in this snappy, entertaining 2013 documentary, which I somehow missed seeing until just now.  It's well worth watching, even though there is still no single answer, only educated guesses.

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.

-----

Yes, Loved: Vanessa da Mata

Happened to run across this one from Brazil and thought I'd share it with you Blue Truckers as the weekend draws to a quiet close. I don't understand the words . . . but love is beautiful in any language. Enjoy.

For the Bible Tells Me So

From the web site:

Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.

I can't recommend this excellent film enough. Would make a great Xmas gift for the religious folks on your list who still have a hangup about Christianity and gayness.

Trailer:

A couple of study guides are available here for group discussion, too.

Hide the Squash

Honk to 10percent.com. More gay Thanksgiving cards available on their site, check them out.

Question for Truckers: Define the "B" in LGBT

How do you spell bisexual? Yeah, we ought to accept a person's definition of him/herself. But in the abstract, as I discovered last year when trying to explain things gay to an inquiring relative, it's a very slippery term to define.

Case in point: I have a close friend who, after nearly 30 years of marriage and kids, got a divorce so he could have the gay life he always wanted to have. (The kids are cool with it, btw, very supportive, and he and the ex are on good terms now.) He's not interested in relationships with women, only with another man.

I would tend to say he falls under the bisexual category; he says, oh no, I'm definitely gay, always have been, got married because that's what was expected, and I really wanted some kids.

I take him at his word. But then what does it mean to be bisexual? Where would you draw the distinction, Truckers?

Sunday thought: "God is weeping . . . "

Link to BBC News video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7602535.stm

Bishop Tutu, former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, Nobel Peace Prize winner and a leader in the struggle to end apartheid, says he's "ashamed" to be associated with religious leaders who are "persecuting the persecuted" . . . i.e., the gays. "I can't imagine anyone in his right mind choosing a way of life that would expose him to so much hatred."

Basically, Tutu is telling the Church to get over it and stop "obsessing" over homosexuality. And get on with feeding the hungry, healing the sick, helping the poor. You know--the original plan; wasn't that it?

What made the Gay Nineties so gay . . .

The great Eugene Sandow . . . the Father of Bodybuilding . . . and a (closeted) committee member.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking . . . but get your mind out of the gutter. The pose is an imitation of a famous Roman statue, The Dying Gaul. Really.

"the victory of our queer race . . . "

I first read Forster's famous statement of belief when I was about 19 or 20, trapped and closeted in a fundamentalist church in a far province of the Deep South, knowing no one gay, fearing I was the only one who ever felt that way . . . and I've never forgotten Forster's ringing affirmation of the truth and goodness of one's real inner self. It was a momentary balm to the soul. I don't remember whether I knew Forster was gay when I first read this, but I do recall I recognized a soul somehow like my own.

I believe in aristocracy. . . — if that is the right word, and if a democrat may use it. Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes, and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as for themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and they can take a joke. I give no examples — it is risky to do that — but the reader may as well consider whether this is the type of person he would like to meet and to be, and whether (going further with me) he would prefer that this type should not be an ascetic one. I am against asceticism myself. I am with the old Scotsman who wanted less chastity and more delicacy. I do not feel that my aristocrats are a real aristocracy if they thwart their bodies, since bodies are the instruments through which we register and enjoy the world. Still, I do not insist. This is not a major point. It is clearly possible to be sensitive, considerate and plucky and yet be an ascetic too, and if anyone possesses the first three qualities I will let him in! On they go — an invincible army, yet not a victorious one. The aristocrats, the elect, the chosen, the Best People — all the words that describe them are false, and all attempts to organize them fail. Again and again Authority, seeing their value, has tried to net them and to utilize them as the Egyptian Priesthood or the Christian Church or the Chinese Civil Service or the Group Movement, or some other worthy stunt. But they slip through the net and are gone; when the door is shut, they are no longer in the room; their temple, as one of them remarked, is the holiness of the Heart’s affections, and their kingdom, though they never possess it, is the wide-open world.

–E. M. Forster, Two Cheers for Democracy, “What I Believe” (1951)