The Extremophile's Lair

There is no one kind of relationship that has some special magic that makes it superior to all others.  Or all that different from others.

I've seen this said a lot of different ways.  I've heard that straight relationships are more based in love than gay ones.  I've heard that monogamous relationships are more true to love or sensible than poly ones.  I've heard polyamorous relationships held up as more sensible and loving.  That mentally disabled people's relationships are not as full.

All of this is wrong.  All of these have the capacity to be wonderful, glorious.  Or to be hurtful.

All intimate relationships have the same standards - The consent of the participants.  The respect and compassion with which they treat eachother.  Whether the relationship enriches both of them.  Whether it leads to healing, growing, blossoming.   Whether the relationship enriches the community around them.

The outward forms of these things may look vastly different.  They should look different.  Shaped by the people in them.  But they're not some weird exotic thing.  They have the same heart.

There's a new community called Disabling Queerness  which is exactly what it says on the tin... or exactly what it says in it's name.

Disabling Queerness on DW

Disabling Queerness on LJ

I'm exited! :)

A wonderful video that is full of cute.  I swear it has a happy ending!



If the song annoys you - it's just as cute with the sound off!

Watch onYoutube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagfWkIiSLk

From Adam Kotsko:

"In light of recent proposed budget cuts in various countries, I feel compelled to mount a defense of the common sense concept of the government being able to “afford” something:

• If we can afford to spend billions of dollars on weapons systems we will almost certainly never use, we can afford to have a system where a dedicated tax stream pays for some bare-bones retirement and disability benefits, with no more overhead than it costs to print and mail the checks.
• If we can afford to endlessly occupy two countries for no apparent reason, surely we can afford to help people get health insurance.
• If we can summon up $700 billion out of thin air to bail out banks, surely we can afford to fill in the state and local budget gaps that would lead to firing people who provide essential services.
• If we can afford high-tech laboratories to do scientific research the results of which we will basically give away to corporate interests for nothing, then we can afford humanities instruction, which requires a teacher, a chalkboard, and enough chairs for all the students.
• Again, if universities can afford to run money-losing athletic programs, then they can afford to provide the minimal research support funds humanities people require — basically time off to focus on research and maybe the occasional plane ticket, since the other resources they need consist of little more than the pre-existing infrastructure of a good library that you’d need for the university anyway.

The pattern is the same again and again and again: the thing that actually costs not too much money is denounced as unaffordable, while the insanely expensive thing is never even questioned. It’s like if I overdrew my checking account and decided I needed to start buying store-brand cereal while never questioning if I can afford that Lexus."

That wold be Love/Metta in action.

Also another good site:
http://liberationforall.wordpress.com/

Posted from my private blog.

My views have mellowed a bit since I wrote this though.  At the time I was still in shock and angry.

Marriage may be a religious institution that our government should have no say in, but prop 102 is still a nasty and foolish piece of work. Not only does it potentially restrict access to hospital visitation rights, but it also might send a nasty message about the equal worth of relationships.

It seems to me that the whole "procreation" issue is a red herring. Because when I see anybody who's married (even the fundie christian types) when they talk about their spouse and why they married them it's never about how they wanted to fill the Earth with their children. It's about LOVE. They LOVE each other. Ok, not always. My best friend was perfectly willing to cohabitate until his lover got into a serious accident and the hospital paperwork got messy.

This simple fact is at the heart of why I'm suspicious of anything that restricts marriage, even if I'm not really sure how it would fit into my life if I did get married. The ritual aspect always struck me as cool, but being neither monogamous nor possessive, and being annoyed by empty social rituals, I can't see any reason to tie the Knot.

Love is too rare and precious to worry too much over who other people choose to love. That should be a non-issue. Having believed for a long time that I was flat out "incapable of love" (and all the trouble that caused) it baffles me when people pull this kind of shit and assume that others are unfit to be in a relationship.

EDIT: I'm no longer sure how important this is. Mixing up personal lives and politics is often a bad combination. Basing your arguments on what people "might think" is no way to prioritize.