Disclaimer

This blog ran for more than two years with no graphics--and it received about 50 page views. I was advised to add graphics; after seeing the huge public that followed blogs dedicated to homoerotic images, I decided to use that kind. The result was a dramatically increased number of monthly page views, and the number has remained fairly steady. Most of the images were found on the internet; although they are assumed to be in the public domain, they are identified as far as possible. They are exhibited under the Fair Use protections of United States copyright law: their function is simply to attract readers to the poems--I receive no economic benefit from them or from the blog. Nevertheless, they will be removed if they are copyrighted and the owner so desires. 1260 x 290

POEMAS EN ESPAÑOL -- 2009: January 8, April 12, August 3 . . . . 2010: January 13 . . . . 2013: June 30, November 28, December 8 . . . . 2014: September 25, November 30 . . . . 2015: July 9, October 22 . . . . 2016: February 12, August 1, December 28 . . . . 2017: March 2, September 5 . . . . 2018: May 10, July 15, November 3 . . . . 2019: August 4, December 5 . . . . 2020: December 1 . . . . 2021: October 12, December 3 . . . . 2022: April 15, June 21 . . . . 2023: January 3, April 2, May 9, June 6.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

DUSTE 53



Búscanse el l y el ll
igual que los lll al llll
para ser uno más que ninguno,
pudiéndose así.

Una porra tras otra tonsura,
en cada cuadrante de la carta,
los baluartes crecientes
de las fronteras cruzadas.


Barbacana hecha puente       
en cada salida de esas
toda piedra dispara 
sus carcajadas de flechas.

(En cuanto a los hemisferios armados,
se sabe lo que se tiene entre manos.)




http://thebrotherhoodofmantumblr.com/      tumblr_na9s660oua1rk0b7uo1_500.jpg









Wednesday, July 8, 2015

HOMOPHOBIC RESISTANCE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE




The agitated opposition to same-sex marriage is partly the result of a fundamental(ist) misunderstanding. Ignorant people confuse “marriage” with the “Holy Matrimony” of Christian theology, which is for them a divine dispensation. The secularization of American society and communications media has contributed to this confusion by increasingly ignoring the religious phrase and substituting “marriage.” 

In reality, same-sex marriage is never even  mentioned in the Biblemuch less prohibited.

Marriage is not 
Holy Matrimony. Holy Matrimony is a specifically Christian religious concept: Its defenders base their argument on the Christian Bible and on medieval Christianitys theological definition of Nature—and on the manipulation of that definition so that many common animal (including human) behaviors could be classed as “unnatural,” as in the fantasized pseudo-biology books called bestiaries, written by medieval clerics. 

The theological concept, Holy Matrimony, is not shared by many other religions—not even all Christian churches admit “Holy Matri-mony” as a sacrament—and in the United States this religious concept (including the idea that a union between two people must be between only one man and one woman) cannot be imposed by some citizens on others without violating the First Amendment. 

And how can Christians forget that the Lord’s anointed King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? In the Holy Bible. Does that sound like the traditional one-man, one-woman  marriage touted by homophobic Christian fanatics?

Marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) existed all over the world long before Christianity, and still exists outside Christianity, in order to ensure the orderly transfer of property—through an economic pact between two families which would include (but was not limited to) inheritance by children. That is why marriages have always required “dowries” and “bride-prices,” to guarantee economic solvency. 


In fact, these contracts were required among the Hebrews, from whom Christianity originated. Remember how Jacob in the Old Testament, had to buy his two wives, Leah and Rachel, from his father-in-law, Laban? And they were sisters. Sister-wives. In the Holy Bible. (They were also his cousins on his mother's side. Incest.) Does that sound like the traditional one-man, one-woman” marriage of reactionary Christians?

Outside Islamic and Judaic theocracies, marriage (not “Holy Matrimony”) is a civil contract registered with and regulated by the state. It is, in effect, a kind of incorporation. That is why couples are required by law to go to a demographic registry and fill out a marriage license. They register with the state, which establishes by law who will possess the property that each brings to the marriage and the property that they acquire during the marriage.   

That is also why modern countries require not only a state-issued marriage license but also, if the marriage is dissolved, a civil divorce decree that, among other things, apportions the couple’s assets and assigns obligations, sometimes as established by law.

Furthermore, the fact that marriage is a civil contract is clearly shown in the prenuptial agreements that dispose of the couple’s property in the case of a dissolution of the marriage. They are contracts—modifications of the property distributions explicit and implicit in marriage contracts.

In summary, 
marriage is de facto a civil compact, a civil union; holy matrimony is a religious concept superimposed on it first by the medieval Church and now by reactionary Christians, and is the excuse that they and others use for depriving a hated minority of its civil right to form such unions.

One has to wonder at the virulence of homophobia today, in the face of the facts and of plain logic; after all, same-sex marriage is never even mentioned in the Biblemuch less prohibited. 

But, aside from the way children and young people unthinkingly absorb the dominant attitudes around them, the explanation seems fairly simple: These people compulsively imagine homosexual couples engaged in coitus, revoltingly “nasty”—noisy, squishy, smelly, dirty—conveniently ignoring the fact that heterosexual coitus is equally “nasty.”  

It explains their obsessive use of the word “abomination” in its modern sense of something disgusting, although in repeating the word, today’s Bible merely preserves the Authorised (King James) Version’s 17th-century translation of a Hebrew word that meant basically “ritually unclean: ineligible, under the law, to kill animals in the Temple, and burn them, and smear their blood around for the delectation of the Lord” Not noisy? Not squishy? Not smelly? Not dirty?—Hebrew law also barred the unclean from a few other community activities as well.

This level of irrationality can hardly be persuaded away. The government will simply have to enforce the law, as it did with the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s.  And GLBT people will have to continue to demonstrate that they are human beings who deserve respect.


Followers