If all Superheroes dressed like Wonder Woman

There's a picture floating around Facebook where Wonder Woman says, "If I don't get pants, no one gets pants." ... now let's see if I can link to that picture. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/545803_419539401398843_100000283604812_1543425_1291662531_n.jpg
While I appreciate the artist's efforts and intent, I think she kind of missed the boat here. Putting Wonder Woman in a ludicrous outfit wasn't an effort to humiliate her (a la Green Lantern's skirt). It was an attempt to turn her into a sex object --- complete with a bustier that in reality, if she were to fight, there's no way her boobs would stay inside that thing. The question the artist should have asked herself was not "What would embarrass a man?" but rather, "What outfits would turn a man into the same ludicrous level of sex-object?"
Or to put it less delicately, since Wonder Woman looks dressed more for porn than for fighting crime, how would we dress the male superheroes for porn? Oh, but not straight porn. Everybody knows straight porn is as aimed toward straight men as comic books are. How would we dress male superheroes for gay porn?

So, I give you ...

Superman

 (note that in none of these have I removed the original logo and replaced it with Wonder Woman's. That was just silly.)

Batman
(Sorry, Bats: WW doesn't get a mask, so neither do you. I hope you like your bat-ear tiara.)

Aquaman

(Okay, so Aquaman's costume isn't that different from your typical Olympic swimmer. Except the silly gloves.)

All 4 Green Lanterns of Earth (or rather, space sector whatever-it's-called *g*)

And I threw in Captain Marvel

(trademarked as Shazam! because Marvel comics also has a Captain Marvel. Note the lightning bolt cut-out in the center of the chest, a la Power Girl. [look it up] *g*)

And Nightwing (aka Dick Grayson, who used to be Batman's original Robin.)

Enjoy, ladies! And, crime-fighters, watch out for chaffing.

I wonder where that pet shop is.

Screen cap courtesy of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

Geometrees

Will add text later. Sorry.

One Christian Perspective on Gay Marriage

This past weekend, New York state became the 6th in the United States to pass a law allowing gay marriage. Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships, marriage. And amid the friends congratulating New York and celebrating New York and, yes, loving New York, I saw a handful of conservatives. One man on the news decried the fact that our children will be referring to two men as husband and husband. Others of course quoted Leviticus 18:22, got sarcastic about when "we" can complain about others' beliefs being crammed down "our" throats or say that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

And I breathe a heavy sigh.

I'll counter those arguments later. First, I want to point out that these are supposedly Christian people and they are doing more damage to the Cause of Christ than any den of iniquity ever could. It used to be that non-Christians just saw Christians as being "no fun". Remember Billy Joel? "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints"? Well, that's all changed, probably in the last thirty years or so. Non-Christians now see Christians as hateful and mean-spirited, and we only have Christians (or people who call themselves Christian) to blame.

It started with abortion laws and the protests that go with them. People stand on corners with signs that have hideous pictures on them, accusing women who are at the end of their ropes of being murderers and minions of Satan. And now, as gay rights continue to make inroads into the law of the land, they have turned their ire against homosexuals. Signs on street corners and funerals say "God Hates Gays" and "Burn In Hell", and they're being carried by people from "The Church". And it doesn't help to claim that there is one very loud very fringe church out there when the same message -- with less vitriol, but the same underlying message -- comes from so many other churches. Do they really think that yelling at people will change their behavior? Yelling at people fuels resentment; any child will tell you that.

But more importantly, these people like asking, "What would Jesus do?" but really, what would Jesus do? While we don't have any accounts of Jesus and homosexuals in the New Testament, which I think is telling in and of itself, we do have accounts of Jesus confronting other sinners. When Jesus was confronted by a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) -- or rather, by a mob who had caught a woman in adultery -- he said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone," and then when the mob dispersed, and he asked the woman who condemns her and there was no one, he said, "Nor do I condemn you." He also said to go and sin no more, but that's not the point. The point is that Jesus did not say, "By this they will know you are my disciples, by your hatred of people who don't share your beliefs and religious practices." He said, "By this they will know you are my disciples, by your love for one another." (John 13:35) No one is seeing Christians' love for one another. They're seeing hatred. And do you remember who Jesus hated? Jesus saved his vitriol for the religious leaders of his time who were putting obstacles in the way of sinners who wanted to know God. He called them "blind guides" and "white-washed tombs" (Matthew 23; see also Luke 11). And here we are, 2000 (give or take) years later, with more blind guides and white-washed tombs placing more stumbling blocks between people and the God who loves them.

That's right. God loves them. God loves homosexuals. God loves adulterers. God loves people who cheat on their taxes. He even loves Christians. He may hate some of the things that people do, but "In this, God shows his love for us: that while we were sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) Christians actually believe that -- and many of them became Christians because -- Jesus came into the world and died on a cross to pay the penalty for their sins. But now that they're in, many Christians want to act as spiritual INS agents, and while Jesus is saying, "Give us your tired and your poor," they're saying, "Go away. We don't want you."

This HAS to stop. God loves you, warts and all. He wants you to be in a relationship with him, but our sin is standing in the way. That's right, our sin. Mine too. He provided the way to have that relationship, by putting our sin to death on a cross so that we, by believing in Jesus Christ, can have our sin washed clean and be in that relationship with the Living God.

Then there's the complaint that we're cramming a religious viewpoint down someone's throat. That's just backward. No one is forcing "straight" people to get same-sex marriages or even attend same-sex marriages. In the words of Wanda Sykes, "If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." It's the people who are trying to prohibit same-sex marriage who are forcing their beliefs on other people because they're trying to enforce others' behavior based on what they believe. But this is America --- actually, this is the Internet, which has no country, but I'm writing in America, so deal! ;-) --- we act based on our beliefs in accordance with the laws and the Constitution. And part of that is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (United States Constitution, Amendment I) So when we see a law that favors a particular religious system only because of those religious beliefs, we get it changed.

And of course the argument that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman is circular at best. English is a thriving, vibrant language. When I was a child, "aint wasn't a word because it wasn't in the dictionary." Now it is. When I was a child, Internet was not in the dictionary either. Besides, who defines marriage as between a man and a woman? Not Merriam-Webster. If you check on-line at merriam-webster.com, the first definition of marriage is, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." So both heterosexual and same-sex marriages are recognized. Of course, Merriam-Webster includes as their third definition, "an intimate or close union " So, I ask you. Is painting the man or the woman?

If you're going to argue that marriage is defined by God, you're back to that same forcing of religious beliefs onto others. But there's another problem. If marriage is defined by God and the union of two men or two women is unnatural, then I've got a laundry list for you.

Getting your nutrition from a pill (store-bought vitamins) is unnatural.

"Speaking" through hand-gestures (sign language) is unnatural. God gave you lips and ears. Are non-deaf people sinning if they communicate through ASL?

Wearing clothing is unnatural. When God created man and woman, they were naked and they felt no shame. It's right there in Genesis. So, go ahead and take off your unnatural clothes before you go parading with your "God Hates..." signs.

I could go on all day, but I won't.

As to the idea that our children will be referring to two men as husband and husband, I have no fear for our children, who will hopefully grow up in a world where equality is valued, where people are treated with respect and their rights are protected regardless of sexual orientation as well as race, creed and color.

But, for those people who are going to insist that people follow the law of God, ... really? You want to go there? Well, first you'd better know what the Law of God says --- at least according to the bible.

The big problem with Leviticus is that if you're going to live according to the law, you're going to have to live according to the whole law. So, what does the whole law say? Well, in part, it says in Leviticus 11:6-10, "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. " But we don't see Christians rallying outside the city diner protesting bacon, crab imperial and hossenfeffer.

The second part of Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." But are Christians willing to give up their polyblend? Somehow, I doubt it.

The first half of Leviticus 19:26 says, "Do not eat meat with the blood still in it," so you can forget your nice, thick, juicy steak, too, unless you're going to dry it out first.

(Note: when I include half a verse, it's not because the other half contradicts, it's just because that part would be making a different point.)

Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." And yet, so many of the men standing on these protest lines are clean-shaven. Do they not read their bibles? --- well, in many cases, probably not.

And Leviticus 20:10 says, "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death," but the penalty for adultery in this country isn't death, it's divorce. So why is no one standing outside of divorce court telling the adulterers that God hates them? These are the questions that the non-Christian who knows what the bible says is asking. Because he or she may also know what it says in Leviticus 19:37: "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD." But Christians have this way of picking and choosing which of the Lord's laws are ... convenient, which ones they can berate people with and which ones they'll be happier if people ignore.

So, now that I've driven away the self-righteous that I need to reach by comparing them to the Pharisees, and I've driven away the sinners that I want to reach by going all-religious on them, let's get to the rest of it.

What Does God Really Say About Homosexuality?

Let's start with the meat of it: Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a man in the same way that you lie with a woman. This is detestable." ... Or does it? Well, Leviticus was written in Hebrew, so no, not really.

What does Leviticus 18:22 say? A year or so ago, I became troubled by that. This argument is hardly new, after all. And the more I flippantly said, "When a man lies with a man, it is nothing like when a man lies with a woman," I started thinking that it was less and less flippant and more and more true. So I did a little research.

Did you know that there's a web site that has the whole bible in it? And that that web site has multiple translations and multiple languages? It's called "biblegateway.com", and one of the languages it has a bible for is Hebrew. Is it the original Hebrew? I don't know, but it was a place to start. According to biblegateway, the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 is apparently

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃ 

I copied these Hebrew letters into the Google search field --- which was not easy, let me tell you; Hebrew is written backwards --- and found a blog written by a Rabbi who was trying to defend the anti-gay stance. What this Rabbi revealed blew me away.

First, to make the above markings a little readable, the phonetics for the above Hebrew are, " Ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah to'evah hiv," which admittedly is little help to those of us who don't speak Hebrew, but it lets us begin our approach. Taking each Hebrew word in turn...

Ve'et (may mean) "and with". I've also seen it translated as “Additionally/in the same way” and "likewise"

zachar (seems to mean) “male-kind”

lo - no or not

tishkav comes from the root “lie down” and is in the second person imperfect, signifying persistent or on-going action.

mishkevei is a noun, “lying down; bedding”; the word’s root is the verb "shkav", just like in tishkav.

ishah - “female-kind” or woman

to'evah - active participle of “to be hated” or "abomination".

hiv - "he" or "it".

So, putting this together, we get "And with / additionally / in the same way / likewise male no shall lie down lying down / bedding female hated / abomination it." Now, if those of us who love grammar can stop cringing, we see one of the problems in translation, that languages with different roots may not use the same sentence structure. And, of course, Hebrew writing didn't use punctuation ... or vowels ... or the present tense of the verb "to be".

So, through centuries of what may amount to homophobic bias, we have been given "You shall not lie with a man in the same way that you lie with a woman," which just isn't supported by the original text. It also doesn't make sense to me because, as I've flippantly said many times, a man doesn't lie down with a man in the same way that he lies with a woman. At least, not if the man and woman ever hope to reproduce.

Instead of just claiming a better translation, I'm going to look to the experts and a little linguistics. The form "zachar" is an indefinite form. In English, that would be expressed as "a man". The form "ishah" is a definite form, "the woman", which, according to the experts, is used to refer to a wife. (We do that today --- or, annoying people do ;-) --- when we refer to "the little woman".) So, looking at the meaning of the original text, we get a little closer with "Likewise male shall not lie bed wife is hated it". Fixing the grammar just a touch can give us a better translation of "Likewise, (you) shall not lie down with a man in (your) wife's bed. It is hated."

This actually makes sense in the context of the entire chapter, which also prohibits incest of various forms, and other sections of Leviticus that prohibit adultery. Many Christians don't realize that some men today will pretend that homosexual sex isn't adultery because it's not "real sex"; I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on in the days of Moses as well. And of course, it makes sense that the Bible would prohibit same-sex adultery. What doesn't make sense is why the Bible would prohibit two males from having sex (under any circumstances) and not prohibit two females. On the other hand, if God were trying to protect the sanctity of the marriage bed, then it makes sense that all of Leviticus 18 is written from a male perspective.

It also makes more sense to me that God would want to protect the marriage bed than that God would want to prohibit love just because it was between two men.

T-shirt Derby - this time, it's Slogans!

It's been a while since I've posted any T-shirt design efforts. (And I needed a place to put some small partials. *g*) This week's derby theme at Woot is Slogan's for Every Day Things (as in, not brand-name-product slogans). After trying and trying to come up with a "thing" that could have a slogan, I was sitting in a waiting room, and for whatever reason, thought of the phrase, "That's attractive". That had me thinking of magnets, and that let me come up with this. If you like it, you can go here and click "I want this" to vote for it.

And if you like it, tell your friends.

 

A Walk In The Park

 Yesterday was probably the first nice day of 2011, temperatures around sixty, bright, blue skies -- jacket weather, to be sure, but spring jacket weather. So I decided to spend some time at the park.
This particular park is largely natural, a mix of woods and glens with a few biking and hiking trails and a couple roads so you can get around. I brought my camera with me so I could take pictures of whatever caught my eye. I was not alone. A lot of other people decided to take advantage of the warmth that had finally arrived, and a few of those had cameras, even if their tastes in pictures might have been more ... traditional than mine.

After walking for what I can only guess was a mile and a half, two miles, I finally got to a picnic grove where I could sit for a while. While I was sitting, I noticed a man out jogging with his dog. This particular man with his dog struck me as odd because the man was running ahead of the dog, and the dog seemed to be trying to catch up. Usually, it's the other way around.

Anyway, some time later, after the man and dog had continued on and I'd finished the soda I'd brought along and a couple pretzel bites -- and a coughing fit when something had gone the wrong way, I had just put everything in my bag and was about to get up when a young woman approached me (probably around 20 years old). She had a pint of ice cream and a plastic spoon in her hand (yes, this matters). She said to me, "I was just wondering, is there some reason you're taking random pictures?" and she asked if it might be for "some project." Now, first, this is a public park. Lots of people go there and take pictures. Second, I can't imagine she was sitting in a car for all that long, watching me "taking random pictures", not with a pint of ice cream in her car, not unless her car is equipped with a freezer. So, since she hadn't bothered to say, "hello, how are you, do you mind if I sit here?" or why she was asking the question, I just said, "no," and left.
It seemed to me that she was being nosy and just a bit rude. Now, if she had said, "I'm a photography student and was wondering why you choose the pictures you choose" or "I'm taking a survey for my sociology class" or some other actual reason why she might want to know why I took the pictures I take, I might have said ... something. Am I wrong?
Anyway, I continued on my walk and as I reached almost the end --- never mind that my feet and legs were both continuing under protest at this point, I heard a faint noise to my right. I turned and saw what I think was a hawk --- could have been a falcon, I suppose. I'm not much of a bird expert --- that had just landed in the field. I first took a couple of pictures of it sitting there, then waited for it to fly off. But it seemed intently interested in the ground directly in front of it. I imagine it was waiting for a mouse or some such to poke it's head up. So, since my legs were extremely tired -- I'm guessing I walked about 3 or 4 miles -- I took a few steps forward... disappointingly quiet steps. I quickly glanced down for a twig I could break to alert the bird, but once I did, it still didn't move. But after a few more minutes, it flew off -- I have no idea why -- and I got the picture at the top of the blog. It perched in a nearby tree, but by then my feet and legs had all had enough and I managed to get back to the car and go home.