Gay dads

Gay dads

Another Blog by an Ozzie Gay Father

He lives in Sydney, I think, is a dad and is (unlike me) super fit.  Triathlon fit.  I hate him (only joking) (Seriously) (I mean about the joking)   His blog is called superchilled.

He did a post on religion and I thought when I read it, yup, so true.  For me, religion isn't about listening to someone else telling me about how evil I am or other people are, it's about me trying harder to love my neighbour, to be a nicer person, to make the world a better place.  I like hymns 'cos I like singing, but my memories of church are of crushing -- crushing -- boredom.  Not to mention major theological doubts (is absence of evidence evidence of absence?)

Insignificant Others

When I read Stephen McCauley's first novel The Object of My Affections, I was entranced. (The film of the novel is an abomination -- avoid it at all costs)

For a first novel, it was remarkably polished and assured. With such a highly promising start, I suppose it was inevitable (and unfair) that his subsequent novels would disappoint. Insignificant Others is about Robert and his long-term lover Conrad. Robert has an insignificant other, Benjamin, who Robert doesn't know about. Benjamin is married with two kids. But when Robert discovers that Conrad also has a lover, in another city, and it appears that he might leave him for the other guy, it starts getting serious.

Why didn't I like this as much as The Object of My Affections? I find it hard to explain. The writing is as excellent as ever: McCauley never misplaces an apostrophe or uses clumsy or ugly language. There are some funny, laugh out loud, incidents. Perhaps it's because his first novel was filled with the optimism and hope of youth, and this one isn't. An inevitable adjunct to getting older perhaps: there's good reason it's described as sadder and wiser. But as I get sadder and older I find myself preferring novels of hope and optimism. I have enough reality in my own life to keep me going.

George and Nina in Affection are perfectly drawn, well-rounded people, described with liking and compassion. Even Joley, George's horrid boyfriend, is entirely real. But in Insignificant Others, it feels a bit as if the characters have just been recycled. Robert seems to be another George, only more melancholy. Conrad is another Joley, not really very loving, selfish, thoughtless. Robert (who comes across as a sweet, lovable, hen-pecked bloke) could do better for himself, just like George. Only, George did, in the end.  And Robert doesn't.  McCauley's caustic description of the new America contrasts strongly with the political indifference of his first novel. But the bitterness (even though entirely understandable -- who didn't despise George W Bush and his administration?) jars.

The reviewers on Amazon love this book. I am reduced to damning it with faint praise. Yes, it's beautifully written; yes, the characters are real and convincing; yes, had it been a first novel I would have given it 5 stars. But somehow it disappointed. I shall blame the disappointment on my own dyspepsia and cynicism, and I will undoubtedly buy his next novel. And by all means don't let yourself be put off by this lukewarm endorsement.

The Rabid Religious Right's Agenda

I found this on a blog written by a gay dad, married to a bloke. It's a polemic written by a religious nutter in 1884 about... well see if you can guess what! Read the blog post in full, because it shows how the conservative Christian right is always against progress and reform.

Here's an excerpt (see if you can guess what dreadful thing he opposes):

“AMONG the social questions now under discussion, none is more important or more freighted with principles and issues that outreach present consequences and take hold of the very life of society, than that of _________. The frequency and urgency with which this measure is pressed upon our legislative bodies by a certain class of reformers, encouraged by partial success in some of the newer states and territories, and the recent advocacy of it in full or limited form by some who have very largely the ear of the public, and the apparently increasing drift of public sentiment in this direction manifest in many quarters,—call for a sober and reflective revision not only of the reasons and supposed advantages of the so-called reform, but of the very serious issues and consequences involved in it. These issues are not immediate and do not lie on the surface."

Read the whole blog post. It's an eye-opener.

The same sort of people who now oppose gay marriage were also opposed to interracial marriage. And that was only struck down by the Supreme court in 1967. Once again, if you were to draw a map of the US, it would be the northeast, which never passed legislation against interracial marriage which is now the main area where gay marriage is legal. And just like the repeal of laws against interracial marriage, the acceptance of gay marriage is moving out from there, with Iowa the first state outside the northeast to allow same-sex marriage. We shall overcome, I have no doubt. But it is depressing that mankind never learns from the past. One day the church will be as embarrassed about its anti-gay rhetoric as it is by its support for slavery and its opposition to women's rights.