So, I am guilty of leaving really well-thought-out well-researched comments on sites that don't matter (predominantly Datingish).  These comments go completely unseen (for the most part, though I know I got some subscribers due to my comments about lesbian/queer dating), which makes them a complete waste of my time.  So now I am a reformed blogger.  When I decide my comment deserves views, I will make a blog post about it.  All this to explain why I am posting about Who Pays on Dates. 

BUT BEFORE I GO INTO THIS!!!  Take this survey, so you can post your sexist scores as comments.   No.  Really.  Open it in a new window/tab.  Right now.  Do it.  Then read this (somewhat directly related) post, and leave your scores and opinions at the end.

This is mighty tricky for anyone who is not heterosexual or gender normative in its own special way.  It is tricky for the heterosexual too, so I will, well, address this lot first.  (Tips for everyone of every identification found under "Better Ideas than Having the Man Pay.")

Anyone (man or woman) who says that this is the man's responsibility on all or any date(s) is a benevolent sexist.  Let me define this term for you.  Benevolent sexism idealizes women, protects paternalism, and has an overall chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist, because it casts women as weak creatures in need of men's protection.  Being submissive and insisting the man pays is not going to change female oppression in the working world, or challenge gender stereotypes (Sexism FAQ). 

Expecting a man to pay comes from the same thinking that spawned the following views: 

• A woman is incomplete without a man.
• Women should be cherished and protected by men.
• Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
• A good woman ought to be set on a pedestal by her man.
• People are not happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
• Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.
• A man is incomplete without a woman.

When Blue__Summer made her post responding to Papillon_Mom's anti-feminist post (a little time ago now), I left the following comment, as "Who Pays" was (ironically) directly discussed that very morning in my Psychology of Gender class:

My (female) professor (if that makes a difference to you) had joked that, "The reason women make less than men in the business world is because men are still expected, to some degree, to pay for everything. If women and men made equal pay and the man still paid for everything what would she do will all that extra cash??" Need I restate, she was joking; however, her saying this really did make me think.  Double standards persist in things like this, in ways that even I failed to recognize. 

...Thus why I am blogging about benevolent sexism in a post about Who Pays.

I personally love being chivalrous, but that goes for most social situations, whether the girl (or guy) is a friend, girlfriend, lover, partner, mother, grandmother, aunt, etc.  It's a personality trait for me, not a gender obligation.  

If you really want gender equality, everyone (girls and guys alike) need to step up their game and recognize that chivalry is up to the person, not the gender.  Insisting the man pays, or accepting drink after free drink at the bar for that matter, does nothing to encourage the perception of women as strong, independent professionals (if that woman is indeed one) who are capable of paying for their own drinks, their own meals, and their own lives.

- S/he who asks, pays.  The one who does the asking is the one who does the paying.  For the whole meal, tip, everything.  This needs to be agreed upon at the time of asking.  Simply add to your date proposal:  "Also, I know this may be unconventional (or whatever), but I feel that since I asked, I should be the one who covers the tab, is that alright with you?"  Totally not a big deal unless you make it one.

- Going dutch.  Simple: You each put in half.  Split the bill (and tip, if there is one) down the center.

- Paying your own way.  Each person pays for what they ate and only what they ate (and their portion of the tip, if there is one).

- Trading off.  "I pay this one, you pay next."  You rotate who pays.  Most people do every other date, but you could do every third date, or whatever you work out.

- Compromise.  This is when one person covers the meal while the other covers the tip, one person pays for the meal while the other pays for dessert, or one person pays for the meal while the other person pays for the gas spent to get to/from the date.  This generally involves one person spending more money, however there are cases when the person genuinely likes being in charge of the tab.  Like me; I'm one of those cases.

Hope this helped somebody out there.  Now tell me how sexist you are!! 

This one time (in the not too distant past; like maybe seven months ago), I met a boy we will call Justin.  Justin and I worked together every weekend for about three months. (I'll assume this means we worked together an approximate twenty times, as the staff was divided when simultaneous parties went on.)  I grew very fond of Justin very fast.  Justin was charming, quirky, witty, sassy, and (most importantly) both emotionally and intellectually intelligent.  (He was also equipped with a certain boyish charm I am attracted to.)  To make a long story short, I was smitten. 

Work had recently made the staff list public on the Internet and I took the liberty to find out Justin's legal name, and to then search that name on Facebook.  The whole thing was, I had to know if he was gay (and couldn't ask him).  He seemed just too "friendly" to be a straight guy.  Also, I wanted a chance.  (I am Eli at work, and everywhere else in life, save Home.  And, while I recognize I'm not exactly that "male" looking and that straight guys do fall for me, I cannot grasp the whole heterosexuality of that situation.  It seems entirely unreal.)  His profile, much to my dismay, said that he likes women.  It became one of those weird situations where you're like, but what kind of women does he like?  Does he like masculine women?  Androgynes?  Women and men?  I wanted to pretend there was hope.

School started up (Fall Semester), and I had to cut back my hours at work.  He did too.  I cut back to Friday/Saturday; he cut back to Sunday.  We no longer worked together.  I mourned this.  Our last day working together, we embraced, and I invited him swing dancing.  He said he would love to come.  We made a date that he soon broke.  (We had failed to exchange numbers, and so the plan, loosely made on Facebook, was difficult to cement.)  I didn't want to spam his Facebook wall or Inbox, so after one or two failed attempts at communication, I kind of just let him be.  Eventually, I forgot about him.

He IMed me tonight.  This is our brief exchange:

(It started as a response to my status message on Facebook:  "I really need to start sleeping at these hours."  And ended with me philosophizing about soul mates, twin souls, polyamory, and a whole host of "relationshippy" things.)

J:  Don't go to bed, sleep is for the birds! 
Me:  Hey, J.
Me:  Whoever or whatever it is for, it's certainly not for me.
J:  How are you Eli
Me:  Tired, at the moment, at least enough that I'm considering sleeping soon. Other than that, very well.
J:  Sleep is good for little more than removing the lactic acid from your muscles and rooting memories.  Screw it, you don't need it. 
J:  Good to hear.  I'm well too.
J:  I never got to say goodbye before I left New York.
Me:  You moved? I was wondering what happened to you. Work is not the same without you. [insert sobs]
J:  I miss you too
J:  I graduated in November
Me:  Oh, crazy.  I had no idea.
J:  Yea.  I left the day I graduated.
Me:  That, is insane.  Where did you move to?
J:  Colorado.  I'm sitting in the middle of the Rockies right now
J:  I smile at your profile picture, you look so joyful, (sobbing)
Me:  Crazy
Me:  haha, thank you.  I was very happy there.  She moved to Portland. 
J:  Oh nice, Maine or Oregon?
Me:  Oregon
J:  Damn, she's probably lit right now
Me:  All the ones I love move clear across the country [sobs]
J:  The love remains strong no matter the distance
Me:  True
J:  True dat homie!
J:  Okay well I just wanted to get on and harass you about sleep, I'm about there myself
J:  and to tell you I miss you.
J:  Goodnight Eli
Me:  I miss you too
Me:  I was rather fond of you
Me:  Not to be weird but it took me a bit to get over our never seeing each other again
J:  I was fond of you as well.  You truly are one of the most wonderfully unique individuals I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, never change or lose that child-like enthusiasm.
J:  goodnight eli

Truly a beautiful way to end the evening. 

Goodnight. 

So I've been thinking lately about doing a legal name change.  Obviously that means that I have been thinking about what I would like to legally change my name to.  As you all know, I go by "Eli."  I'd like to discuss this.

First, I never meant for Eli to be a permanent solution for my short-term (and current) "name" problem.  But I have fallen in love with it.  Eli was simply the male "nickname" for my birth name, which is Elissa.  I hadn't done away with my name, simply shortened it.  Elissa was always so short a name that no one ever called me anything else.  In nineteen years of using the name, only two people called me something else, and that was "Lis."

The story behind my birth name. 

My parents put a lot of thought and research into my name.  I am the first child to a recently converted Catholic (to non-denominational; ecumenical) and a recently converted Jew (to Messianic Judaism; the belief that Jesus is the Messiah of whom the Law and the Prophets spoke of, in case anyone hasn't heard the term).  Together in their joint faith in Jesus and the Bible, they were strongly interested in Biblical names.  So they bought books about baby names with Hebrew origins.  My name and the names of my two brothers (Mitchell Zachary and Jonathan Elias) have come from Jewish tradition.  I plan to change my name, yes, but I do not plan to deviate from Jewish tradition, as I identify as Jewish before any other religious affiliation (aside from agnostic, that is).  And I do not plan to do this for any other person than myself.  I have always been strongly attached to my name and the thought that went into it and the meaning behind it.  I want my new name to carry as much weight as the last.

New name ideas.

I still want to go by Eli (pronounced Ee-lie), but I don't want that to be my legal name. I've always been drawn to long names that can be shortened (capable of a "nickname").  I have been thinking about two names:  Elisha and Eliraz (the former pronounced Ee-lie-sha, and the latter pronounced Eh-lee-rahz says the only source I can seem to find attempting to pronounce it). Neither Elisha nor Eliraz is a popular name by any means, which I love because neither is Elissa.  (I love having an uncommon/unique name.)  My current name, Elissa, is a derivative from Elizabeth (a name I love wholeheartedly), and takes on its name meaning.  Elizabeth comes from Elisabet, the Greek form of the Hebrew name Elisheva meaning "God is my oath," "my God is an oath," "consecrated to God," or even, perhaps, "my God is abundance".  (Eli is a name from the compound "El" which means God, and "I" which is a singular possessive; therefore, Eli means "my God")  For the name Eliraz, the literal translation is something like "My God is a secret" or "The nature of my God is a secret," as "Raz" means secret.  On the same note, Elisha is a name taken from the Hebrew name Elishu'a which means "my God is salvation" or "God is my salvation."  They are both very strong names.  And they both lack the popularity of the names Elias and Elijah (the former I couldn't have anyway, as it is my brother's middle name).

My middle name to my birth name is Christina, meaning "Follower of Christ" (it is the Latin feminine form of Christian, which obviously has the same meaning).  I intend to have a "C"-lettered middle name, but I can't find one I adore.  Christopher is obviously a suitable match (meaning "Bearing Chist"), but I'm not in love with it; it's also far too masculine, for some reason (and too popular).  Chaim is a cool name, meaning "Life" in Hebrew, but I'm not sure how it works with either of the first name ideas.  So I've thought about some names that don't start with C.  I've been thinking that if my middle name didn't start with C it would start with Z.  But I can only find one Z name I like: Zayn (which means "Beauty and Grace" in Arabic).  However, Eliraz Zayn, for example, is pretty "out there," even if people were simply calling me "Eli" on the regular.

So, that's just some stuff I've been thinking of.  Which name do you most like?  Which combination do you think sounds the most elegant?

Your turn. 

What is your name, or the meaning behind it (or both)?  Is there a story to your name?  Share a name-related story with me!  Any bizarre nicknames?  Is there a name you would love to change your name to? Are you totally in love with your birth name (or chosen name)? Are you apathetic? If your name is Elizabeth, or Eli, did you know the things that I mentioned here? Share whatever you would like!

[edit]  I meant to mention this in my original blog, but it appears I was so carried away by the desire to get feedback that I forgot. 

The Kabbalah on Names:

Ironically, the power of one's name is directly addressed in the book I am reading, God is a Verb.  Cooper shares that "if you change your name, you change your fate" (along with an anecdote).  This idea comes from the concept mystics hold that fate is flexible (as opposed to fixed) and that, as we engage in activities that raise consciousness, fate adapts itself to support such things.  He continues saying, "Fate is a pattern sketched in the mystical book for the garment we call life.  The sketch of fate is only an outline.  We can significantly affect the final design of our lives by the way we cut the cloth of our fate, how we sew it, how we trim it, and especially by the material of life we choose.  Ultimately, although the designer of our fate may follow an essential prototype, like a dress, a shirt, or pair of pants, we have a great deal of freedom to modify the finished product."  (This is part of why I am into tattoos and body modification, but I will not go into that now.)  Fate can be changed by introducing a new factor into the universe, something unexpected.  So it is with a name change.  It forces people to regard you in a new way.  It causes a dramatic shift in your life, and in others' perception of you.  It has a direct impact on your fate.

Something similar that is interesting and worth checking out:  Kabalarian Theory (on names).  [/edit]

This topic will seem a bit, well, off-topic, since I'm not addressing gay marriage or marriage in general in this mini series. However, some things I have said about marriage in the past, and would be happy to elaborate on again in the future include: How I do not agree with gay "marriage" (the same way I don't agree with "marriage" between two atheists) but think gays should be able to "marry" (the same way atheists can "marry") and that we should call all non-Judeo-Christian marriage something else. (ie. If we have to call gay marriage a "civil union" so too should atheistic marriage be called a "civil union.") We're not a Christian nation; it is unfair for the rest of us for the Christian Church to impose its beliefs. ANYWAY, that was terribly off-topic.

Gender roles in marriage are very clear in the Bible, and I'd go so far as to say 80% of the population pays little to no regard to them.

The current practice of deciding on direction in marriage is to compromise or take turns in decision making, correct? Well, Biblically, that's wrong. Christians are called to have an alternative way of life. Instead of there being two people trying to get their own way and compromising for an end result, in a Christian relationship, both partners are concerned with discovering and following God's... AND the wife should submit to her husband. Yes, I said it; Scripture teaches that the husband should be the spiritual "head" in marriage. (But what does this mean?)

Being the "head" in the biblical sense means the husband is responsible to initiate love and self-sacrifice for the well-being of his wife. (It does not mean the husband must be spiritually older than his wife, nor does it give the husband a license to insist on his own way. He is only to call for God's way.) It is important to remember that leadership in the biblical context is servant leadership. Paul said husbands should "love [their] wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). This is the kind of leadership Christ demonstrated when he let himself be nailed on a cross for us. Jesus could be very authoritative, but he did not come to selfishly boss people around. He said, "Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). When Jesus gives us a directive, it is not because he enjoys controlling us, but because he is concerned for our welfare. He also extends an amazing level of freedom to his followers, allowing us to defy his will and still continue our relationship without rejection. He will discipline us for our good, but he will never reject us (Hebrews 13:5).

Coming under such self-denying leadership poses no threat to our happiness, because the husband should be committed to providing for the wife's needs, protecting her and (yes) directing her at times. A servant leader will not insist on his way in areas where it is not possible to know objectively what God wants. He will call for his wife to follow Christ along with himself, but will graciously allow her to refuse his suggestions often. Like Jesus, he will not compel obedience, but will seek to win it through persuasion and love. The Lord doesn't force us to follow him; he wants us to follow willingly.

Any man who is eager to assume such a role of leadership has probably not grasped what the Lord is saying in this passage. To be responsible for initiating love--for initiating self giving--is a daunting role. Properly understood, no husband would object if his wife offered to lead the way in self-sacrifice for awhile. The role of head in a marriage is not a role of privilege but of responsibility and self-sacrifice.

Why I went into this:

For no other reason than because I don't see anyone condemning the man who yells at his wife, berates her, belittles her, bosses her around, or otherwise disrespects her, and these actions fly blatantly against the teachings of the Bible. Not just the ones I mentioned, but against every teaching about love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Fruits of the Spirit; Galatians 5:22).

Likewise, I do not see condemnation of women and men who share the bread-winning tasks, child-rearing tasks, or otherwise have compromised and modernized their shared family tasks. While it is clear that our postmodern aversion to authority is incompatible with Christianity because it flies in the face of biblical teaching, we ignore it. Selective Christianity 101.

Moving on.

Not all gay people are bad people. And not all heterosexuals are good people. I know you knew that; I’m just reminding you. I was reading through the comments on Casmarie’s blog and some man actually said that he believes the LGBTQ Community to be some sort of “cleverly disguised” Satanic Cult. I need to be honest with you, as someone who doesn’t usually get offended, this really shook me. The majority of homosexual and gender deviant people I know are not really any different than any of the heterosexuals I know, save their orientation. I will agree that there are times when “Pride” events get out of hand, or particular demonstrations for why the community disagrees with Prop 8 or the Mormon Church’s support of Yes on 8 go way overboard and are uncalled for, but, overall, gay people are just people. To say that we have an “agenda” (a plan, or outline of things to be done; matters to be acted upon) is absolutely ridiculous. The only “agenda” that the LGBTQ community honestly has, as a whole, is to live lives that recognize as opposed to deny our deviation from society’s “norms” (particularly in gender roles -- as there is no “man” for lesbians and no “woman” for gay men, but rather, two same-sex people who divide the household and bread-winning tasks).

Another sentence or two of his comment, aside from the “Satanic cult” sentence, reads: “This community is strong and very divisive. They manipulate the victims of homosexuality, using their internal shame and guilt to steer them away from the truth of this lifestyle.” As a minority, less than 10% of the population, I fail to see our strength. We are still oppressed in many ways, still misunderstood, still misrepresented, and still looked upon with shame and disgust. I see strength in the majority of gay individuals I meet who have had to fight for any sense of pride in themselves they may have, but that is not what this man is talking about.

It is very popular to condemn homosexuals as Godless and sinful. But in many indigenous cultures homosexual and transgender people served as shamans (religious leaders). Native Americans reverenced gay, lesbian and transgender people as doubly blessed, “two-spirited.” Carl Jung commented that homosexual people are gifted in things spiritual. Contemporary homosexual Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus recognize their self-acceptance as the work of God's grace. They report that, since “coming out,” they are happier, healthier, more productive, more loving, more peaceful, closer to other people—and closer to God. If, according to Jesus' own criterion, “By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16 ), religious lesbians and gays should be reflections of Jesus. In contrast, focusing on only the worst element in the homosexual—or heterosexual—community is an unfair way of assessing the matter. 

So we have established that many of the passages that have been advanced as pertinant to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. Among all of Sodom's problems (which is what the story is really about), it is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19: 1-29) that makes the story seem to be about homosexuality. That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting persons of the same sex is legitimate or not.  Likewise, Deuteronomy 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship, and the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."

Therefore, Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.  I have already discussed this.  Paul, who was not a philosopher, said that homosexuality was "atypical", and this is certainly the case even today where only 3-4% of the population is exclusively homosexual.  However, Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals and so we can't read this into Scripture. 

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

Even if the Bible were conclusively proven to condemn homosexual activity this conclusion would not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices, and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative.  Some examples:

• Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:18-24), and anyone who engaged in it was to be "extirpated," or "cut off from their people" (Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Are they sinners?

• Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of I Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?

• A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?

• The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the ability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Which is right?

• The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe intercourse, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.

• The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt, 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

• The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and I Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. Are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In I Cor. 7:7, Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was - unmarried.

• The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which II Samuel 5:13, Judges 19-21, and Numbers 31:17-20 permitted -- and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of the Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting incest, rape, adultry, and bestiality.   But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:  intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this), and the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not.   Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).  And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen.

Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture, even though no explicit Biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these Old Testament sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul says as a new law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which laws they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

Next point.

I'd like to say a few things upfront. 

1)  I am not a Christian.  I was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, believed it for seventeen years, and have de-converted.  I now identify as an absolute agnostic theist who follows the teachings of the Kabbalah and is well-read in several of the main world religions, particularly Christianity.
2)  I do not dislike Christians, or the Christian faith.  Regardless of the fact that I hold strong opinions and will disagree with you, I genuinely do have a lot of love and compassion in me. (Especially for the Christians who are Christ-like.)
3)  I will be arguing from all angles, many of which may actually benefit Christians to hear as they pertain directly to their faith. (This is as opposed to my making secular arguments.  While I do have a handful of arguments from nature, evolution, anthropology, sociology and psychology, I will try to keep those out of this particular argument.)
4)  I have an affinity towards women and I was born with two X chromosomes.  This makes me queer.  My being queer does not necessarily make everything I have to say here biased or invalidate my argument. 
5)  I have researched what I have to say here for four years.  On top of that, this exact compilation of thoughts, argued in this manner (aka, this post) received over eighteen hours of my time.  I have delicately thought through every point I have made here.
6)  I am posting this for one reason only:  So that you stop blindly believing things you have chosen not to research.  There are arguments out there that make sense to use against homosexuality; I just haven't seen any of them here on Xanga.
7)  I expect respectful discourse only.  Do not regress to age two and whine and name-call.  If you're going to disagree (which I welcome and encourage), do so respectfully.  And try to restrain your ignorance.  (But if you truly don't understand what you're talking about, and still want to share it, I won't hold it against you.)

With that said, I encourage you to read the following novel that I have written, and engage in respectful discussion.

**Note: This is not my own material, this is my own arrangement of others' materials, presented in a way that is original.  I stand by everything said here while I myself wrote very little of it.  I can provide sources for every point upon inquiry**

The Bible Does Not Condemn

According to Scripture, the Bible has many purposes -- and beating people (especially non-believers) over the head with isolated verses is not one of them.  The Bible is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) so we may “preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2). There are many different kinds of functions for various parts of the Bible, in teaching and instructing, rebuking and encouraging.  At the same time, since God is One, there is a unity of purpose to all his word. All his words manifest his glory (John 17:1), and in all his words to us, God enjoins us to “be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 19:2; 20:7).  Or, as James says, “Do not merely listen to the word; and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22). All of the Bible leads to Christ (Luke 24:44-49).

We may misconstrue the Bible either by paying attention only to one purpose, by reducing all the purposes to one, or by artificially isolating the purposes, as if we could adequately accomplish one in isolation from the rest. This is what those who use the Bible to condmen or oppress others are doing. 

The Bible does not condemn, if you read it in its own context.  It is when you take it out of context that it ends up condemning.  Many things have been read into the Bible in the past, both related and unrelated to homosexuality, that the text doesn’t really sustain.  If we could get the territory cleared up, then we could start talking about what’s wholesome and produces good living and what doesn’t.  That would be a more profitable discussion than shouting Bible texts back and forth, condemning people to Hell.  It should be intolerable to use the Bible to justify the oppression of any group of people – especially by an educated person. 

We are at the point in history where it should be considered outrageous for an educated person to quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality.  The Bible is less than “crystal clear” on the matter and therefore hardly has the weight to sustain the claims being made.  I would expect that, at very least, any good-willed person would recognize the biblical teaching on homosexuality is highly debatable.   If the Bible was crystal clear there wouldn’t be all this scholarly discussion.  (Some of the scholars studying this topic include:  Victor Furnish of Southern Methodist University, Robin Scroggs of Union Theological Seminary, Bailey, Boswell, Boyarin, Brooten, Countryman, Hall, Hanks, Helminiak, Miller, Olyan, Petersen, and Wright.)

The scriptures commonly used to justify the condemnation of homosexuality include the story of Sodom in Gen 18 & 19,  Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Deut 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46, II Kings 23:7, I Cor 6:9-11, I Tim 1:9-20 and Rom 1:24-27. While high in number, yes, not all of the interpretations (readings) of these scriptures condemn homosexuality.   While never being outright permissive of homosexuality, the Bible provides “evidence” so uncertain that an honest person would not appeal to that evidence.  And if people don’t know what uncertainty I’m talking about and claim to be educated, I am calling them out right now.

Uncertainty in Biblical Interpretation

I will do my best to condense the information on this matter.  If you want longer interpretations, direct reference to the Greek mentioned, any of that or more, please speak up; I do have them.

The Story of Sodom; Genesis 18 & 19 (*particularly 19:4-11)

There are two sweeping generalizations made about this story; the first is that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and the second is that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.  Neither is true.  Sodom was destroyed for a laundry list of reasons including, but not limited to:  Inhospitality, heard-heartedness, lack of compassion, hatefullness, arrogance, fornication, Angel-Human sexual relations, injustice, gang rape (both heterosexual and homosexual), sexual abuse, and lust (See Ezekiel 16:23-53; Jude v. 6-7).  There is no question that hospitality was important to near Eastern cultures, but the destruction of Sodom was the worst destruction in Scripture next to the Flood and it's hard to believe the reason behind destruction so huge could be pinpointed to a single reason.  Sodom is mentioned upwards of 20 times (I think the actual number is 27) in Scripture, each time as a symbol of the nation’s gross immorality and an example of how God punishes wickedness – the latter defined by various prophets in terms of the current sins they wished to condemn.  Homosexuality doesn’t make their list. 

Cult Prostitution in Israel; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

Lev 20:13 reads: "If a man [ish] … lie with mankind [zakhar, NASB: 'a male'], as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [to'ebhah, NASB: 'detestable act']; they shall surely be put to death…" The death penalty was widely used as a deterrent in ancient times (prisons being rare) and was applied even to cursing a parent (Lev 20:9), adultery (20:10) and blasphemy (24:16). Since Lev 18:22/20:13 is the only place in the KJV where zakhar is (peculiarly) translated as "mankind," the term "male" used elsewhere (e.g. Lev 6:29, 22:19) is clearer and preferable. The fact that we find two different Hebrew words used here for a male (ish and zakhar) suggests that this may not be simply about an ordinary man (ish) having sex with another ordinary man. A study of all of the (rare) uses of the word zakhar ("male") in the OT reveals that in 90% of the cases it apparently was applied to a man or male animal specially dedicated to a deity for some sacred function.  [Zakhar was applied, for example, to Israelite priests, sacrificial animals, circumcised men, Israelite men given various sacred duties, and (in some cases) to persons who were dedicated to pagan gods.] It is possible that Lev 18:22/20:13 falls into this last category, and forbids Israelite men to visit the male prostitutes dedicated to serving the Canaanite deities. Again, I will leave it up to you to interpret this one, weighing the evidence.

*One might also note that "abomination" (to'ebhah) was frequently applied to things that related to idolatry (cf. Deut 7:25-26); idolatry falls under the Ten Commandments (#2; Exodus 20:4)

Cult Prostitution in Judah, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46, II Kings 23:7

The only later OT references to negative homosexuality that we have in Israel's history are sad, reoccurring passages that speak of the male cultic prostitutes operating in Judah (1 Kings 14:23-24; 15:12; 22:46), even within the precincts of the Jerusalem Temple itself (2 Kings 23:7).

The Hebrew word for "female sacred prostitute" is qedheshah, and for "male sacred prostitute" is qadhesh.  Secular "female prostitute" uses the word zonah, a common word for "harlot" and "secular male prostitute", uses the word for "dog" (kaleb) in a derogatory way. Money from none of these classes of prostitution was to be offered to the Lord, even though foreign cult prostitutes commonly supported their shrines through fees obtained by offering their passive sexual services to worshippers (to seek fertility and health in family and field).  These are the words used in these passages.

Secular Prostitution in Corinth, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:9-20

Virtue and vice lists were common in ancient Jewish and Greek writing and are also found in Paul's letters, including two with words that might relate to homosexuality. The more familiar list, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, names ten types of persons who "shall [not] inherit the kingdom of God," including (as translated in the KJV): fornicators (NIV: sexually immoral), idolaters, adulterers, effeminate (malakoi*), abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai**), thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners (NIV: swindlers). Words that appear only in word lists, not applied to a specific situation, can be notoriously hard to define – and such is the case with malakoi and arsenokoitai here. Malakoi basically meant "soft, delicate," but was also used to describe moral weakness or male effeminacy.

*Boswell noted that Church tradition held unanimously through the Reformation (16th century) and in Catholicism well into the 20th century that malakoi here referred to masturbation – although after the Kinsey sex reports (1948, 1953) showed that masturbation was widespread and not harmful, this view was largely abandoned. It should thus be noted how erroneous a longstanding tradition of interpretation of Scripture can be, and without any real support for it in Scripture.

**Arsenokoitai is a compound noun, joining arsen ("male") and koite ("bed," inferring sex). Paul may have coined this word, deriving it from a Hebrew phrase like arsenos koiten in the Septuagint translation of Lev 20:13 (which refers, in the Greek syntax, to a male being penetrated).

For more on this one, just ask; I don't want to go into it more here.  Interpreted, finally, arsenokoitai is most commonly regarded as "male patrons who bought their sexual services" and refers to prostitution.

Paul's Letter to the Romans, Romans 1:24-27

The final major passage is Romans 1:26-27, where Paul writes, "even [the pagan] women did change [NIV: 'exchange'] the natural use into that which is against nature [para physin]: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another [doing unseemly things and] receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (The "recompense" here may refer to the pagans' general downward slide, to venereal disease, or [as Philo suggested] to sterility.)

Paul was a Christian Jew, not a Greek philosopher.  He did not use the term "nature" in the abstract sense of "essence."  As for para physin, mistranslated as "unnatural": It is a technical term borrowed from Stoic philosophy, wherein it would be correctly translated "unnatural."  But Paul, not a philosopher but a popular preacher, uses the technical term in its current popular meaning.  The popular understanding of para physin evident in Romans was widespread in Paul's day and, in Romans 11:24, Paul meant "atypical" (see Brooten's work).  If he meant atypical in one place, then he means atypical in another; that is how he understood this term.  Also, the Creation story was never recalled.  Sex was created for companionship as much for conception, and this passage has nothing to do with homosexual love, devotion, or commitment. 

In actuality, this passage has everything to do with lust. It focused on certain negative aspects of sex (like lust) and the power it has to seduce and cause one to turn away from God.

If you can’t use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, if you stop conveniently quoting Bible verses to claim the authority of God for your personal beliefs, what then is your argument? That it is against nature? That women and men just compliment each other so nicely? That one of the necessary requirements for marriage is procreation?

Biblical condemnation removed from the debate, we are forced to go on to consider other bases on which to judge the morality of same-sex acts -- like Christian tradition, natural law theory (reasoning), social science, and the personal experience of lesbian and gay Christians -- and on the basis of them all draw some ethical conclusions.  I plan on addressing these very topics in my next blog.

Note One:  I really condensed the material in this section (I know it doesn't seem like it), so if it seems like I didn't completely make my case, that's probably because I cut more than half of the material I have on each of these points out of my arguments, as they were getting too long.  There are books published saying all that I have said here.  I am merely making the material public on Xanga.

If you don't want to wait until I get the time to write my own post on the matter, and want to do your own research, please be my guest.  Here is a list of all that I can remember on the matter.   (Note:  I am not posting any "Christian" ex-gay, anti-gay or homosexuality-is-a-sin type arguments.  Why?  Because most, if not all of you are familiar with those arguments.  Also, I've included Scripture [New International Version] so you can see with your very own two eyes what the Bible says.  That is, what you would like to believe the Bible says after reading that translation.  If you're tight on time, I suggest reading the first link at very least: "The Clobber Passages: Reexamined."   Then you may (respectfully) disagree and/or argue all you want.  I'm more than willing to hear diverging opinions. 

 

- The "key verses" commonly used to justify the oppression of homosexuals:  Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46, II Kings 23:7, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, I Corinthians 6:9-20, I Timothy 1:9-20.  

- The "key verses" commonly used to "prove" how God intended for men and women to be; the importance of those "God ordained" gender roles; and how homosexuality, transsexuality, and transgenderism are all perversions of these orders:  Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 2:23-25; Genesis 5:1-2, Ephesians 5:22-33, and Hebrews 13:4.

Rebuttals (aka, "Inclusive Interpretations"):

- The "Clobber" Passages: Reexamined: An Introduction to Homosexuality and the Bible
- What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality 

- What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality

   - The Evil of Homosexuality. Fact or Fiction?

   - The Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as Psyche and Spirit: Sexuality and Spirituality
- Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics
- Resources on the Bible, Homosexuality, and Dialogue
- A Rebuttal to "A Reformed Response to Gay Theology"

Other things to look at:

- Beyond Ex-Gay : The “Ex-Gay” Movement and Its Negative Impact (One Man's Story) 
   - Various Ex-Gay Ministries 
- Saying Evolution Cannot Explain Homosexuality is a MYTH
   - An exhibition on animal homosexuality
   - The study of Bonobo Monkeys
- Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe (a book)
- Homosexuality & Civilization (another book)

(Really, any book that studies psychology, anthropolgy, archeology, evolution or the like will do.  Also, looking into other civilizations, the history of religion, how the definition of -- and practice of -- homosexuality has changed over the years, and its existence all over nature could be of some use.)

Girly Guys

(Go to the original post; I can't post quotes because they operate with the aid of pictures.  Like this hot andro pic of Zac Effron, whom I'm not normally attracted to.  NOTE:  This is NOT an attack on the blog owner herself, but rather, me expressing my distaste with sweeping generalizations and gender stereotypes.  That is what this is.  I actually like the blog owner, so be nice to her.)

This post astonishes me.  Don't you realize your gender stereotypes are OPPRESSING people?

People are people.  Invidiuals.  Different.  Not everyone wants to be bald, clean cut, or clean shaven.  Also, go read a psych book; a good dose of androgyny is healthy.  That's all I have to say about this.

Or, if you don't want to read, talk to a straight woman dating a healthy androgynous man (in appearance; metrosexual, if you like that better).  See what she has to say.  I'm sure she doesn't feel like he is not a "man" because his hair wasn't buzzed off like he was deparing for warfare.  Ever heard of personal style?  Give me a break.

1) I love to sing.  (This is no secret.)  I love to sing in choirs (wish I was in one right now), in the shower, in the car, on the top of my lungs, with a band, at a concert, a cappella, while playing the guitar, in three part harmony, in five part harmony, alone – wherever, whenever, however.

2)  I am consistently torn between two things that appear mutually exclusive:  Friend or lover, male or female, Christianity or all the other world religions in a great mash-up I can call my own, acting mature or acting immature (/older than my age or in the mid-teens), monogamy or polyamory, sexuality or the lack of it, moving on or staying where I’m at… (And each of these areas of ambivalence is something I could write a novel about, and/or do struggle with intensely.)

3)  I am a health freak.  I wasn’t always, but the more I think about transitioning, the more focused on a healthy body I become.  Now, regardless of whether or not I transition, I have set up a routine that keeps me and my body healthy (which is always good).  I will not, however, give up my indulgences.  I still love chocolate, liquor, coffee, Goldfish, and have the occasional urge to go eat something I know will totally destroy my arteries.  And I will never say no to these urges.  Lucky for me, they decrease in frequency the healthier I eat. 

4)  I am attracted to intelligence in people above all else.  Not only is ignorance the leading cause for hate and prejudice and other things that make my skin crawl, but it’s also really boring.  (I mean, ignorance can also be entertaining, but in a really disheartening sort of way.)  Nothing makes me swoon more than people talking about subjects I could be better educated on.  People who have an affinity for math and science (particularly upper levels of calculus, chemistry, or physics) and also have a sense of humor and good social skills on top of that knowledge, really make me hot (as long as they don’t talk over my head).  I’m also drawn to people who study religion, theology, psychology and philosophy – I’m pretty sure that I could not be with someone who has not struggled against religious dogma and really wrestled with things to form the opinions and values they hold.  I also love people who have a way with written word that is really emotive and/or creative.  I pretty much just love people who exhibit any sort of intelligence, no matter the form.  (This explains my love for musicians, as well.)

5)  I respect people who do things I have never done.  I respect athletes and vegans and all these things that require strict routines and diets and exercising, etc.  While I care about my body, I could never do these things.  Unless I was allergic to something, I couldn’t say no to it even if there is a really good social-political reason to say no.  I respect the vegans in my life immensely, but I doubt (strongly) that I will ever become one.

6)  I respect people who differ in opinion from me.  I like to argue with people who differ in opinion from me, yes, but so long as they don’t appear brain-washed (so long as they appear to be a rational, thinking person) I can generally accept our differences.  I enjoy when people with differences can teach me something new about their beliefs (or better, something new about mine). I enjoy when I have a reason to do research on things that I think I understand really well as it is… I enjoy feeling like I have mastered knowledge of an area only to be reminded that there is still much more to learn.  Research and debate are fun for me.

7) It took something as drastic as falling in love with someone of the same sex to question whether there was anything wrong with the American Dream or gender stereotypes or fundamentalist Christianity.  Prior to coming into a queer identity, I readily embraced the gender role I was told I was to have (and reinforced those of other men and women), the dream I was expected to carry (to be a virgin till marriage, get a husband, have 2.5 children and a big house, and be a youth group leader to young minds eager to worship God), and every other societal or religious influence.  I now think for myself, and I couldn’t be any more thankful to be queer – because of all it has taught me.

8)  I am not religious at the moment, but I am, to pretty much directly quote Jessica, very into Biblical history/ linguistics, possessed of a skeptical, rational mind, rejecting of 98% of dogma, and way into comparative religions.  I am very into the Kabbalah and different ways different groups of Jews look at the Torah and inquiring as to why some of those interpretations are not held by any Christian denominations.  And so on and so forth.  I believe in Create-Your-Own religions.  The only way I would ever call myself a Christian is through tradition.  I’m long over fundamentalist Christianity.

9)  I’m really gay.  No. Really.  Even if transition I will still be really gay.  I enjoy queer people and queer culture too much to not continue to stay immersed in it.  There is so much strength and courage in the queer community – so much self-awareness and challenge of “norms” – I find it totally wonderful and inspiring.  Go out and challenge a stereotype TODAY.

10)  I love to travel.  I love big cities and I love rural places, I love other countries and I love going someplace new in my very own state.  I love not knowing anyone when I go somewhere.  (Something about that anonymity is so freeing.)  I love immersing myself in another culture and observing ways of life that differ from my own.  But I also love being a tourist and doing touristy things.  I think I find a pretty decent balance between the two… I was upset that my trip to France and Belgium wasn’t more of an “immersion” experience.  (In fact there was little to no immersion at all…)  I can’t wait to visit and experience more countries!

11)  I’m polyfavoritist and polyamorous.  I have multiple “favorites” and multiple loves.  There are over two dozen people who have my heart (all of it, not just a fraction).  I believe that relationships are both gifts and opportunities and should be cherished above everything else in life.  I believe it is a grave sin to take your friends and family and those who love you for granted.  I believe giving and sharing are the foundation of our being and that relationships teach us everything we need to know about ourselves.  I’m conflicted about whether or not I want a monogamous romantic love relationship in the future… Even if I did, I don’t think a relationship is too realistic for me at this time, but it would be nice to have someone to talk to on a regular basis, take out to eat, take swing dancing, and cuddle up with on occasion.  But if being with one person meant I couldn’t swoon over my other 47 lovers, I’d say forget it.

12)  I think about adoption constantly, because there are so many kids who deserve a chance.  My biggest problem lies in that I’m not sure how I feel about monogamy, and I’m not sure how polyamory affects children.  But anyway, I really want a son.  And while it would be nice to have a little carbon copy of myself running around (I mean, I *am* awesome), I do not want him to be blood related.  I want him to be a product of me taking one more kid out of The System.  I think I would be an excellent parent.

13)  I wish my parents would ask me about my personal life because that means that they’re over their disgust with my “alternative lifestyle” and actually care to hear about my life beyond a superficial level.  It hurts me that my family is so very private and we never really talk about anything that matters.  If the eleven year old me could predict nine years into the future, I would have never seen a family as disconnected as this one.  While I am generally not a jealous person, I always feel a little sting or twinge of it when people share with me how close they are with their family.  (But my happiness for them far outweighs the jealousy. Promise.)

14)  I cannot WAIT to live on my own. I look forward to everything that comes with being on my own, including doing the dishes and cleaning my space and paying the bills.  I’m ready.  I’ll deal with it.  I just want to be independent already.

15)  I am not a very good student, academically.  I’m terrible with managing my time and therefore don’t study nearly as much as I should.  I put in minimal amount of effort on small homework assignments… but I obsess over papers (aka, FREAK OUT).  In high school, if a friend didn’t proofread a paper I wrote, I hardly felt confident enough to turn it in at all.  However, I like to think that I’m brilliant.  I also like to think that, academics put aside, I *am* a good student. I pay attention in class.  I contribute to discussions inside of class.  I do additional research at home.  I absorb information wherever it is presented to me.  In fact, I tend to become really close to the teachers and professors I admire, both in hopes that I can absorb some more knowledge and also because I secretly hope to grow up to BE them.

16)  If a teacher or professor doesn’t push me to my limit, I don’t seem to care about their class in the slightest.   If I am not challenged I actually do WORSE in a class.  The harder I am pushed, the more I rise to the challenge.  All my low grades are from classes I thought were easy (except my low grades in math… I actually worked my butt off for those).

17)  I edit my Xanga and other online journals like I get paid to do it.  Grammar is really important to me.  So is presenting myself as accurately and honestly as possible.  I’m constantly going back and making sure things are phrased the best that they can be.  I do research for even the smallest article.  I constantly read over things with different mindsets, “what if my father read this?” “what if someone with the disorder mentioned was reading this?”  I do my damndest to remain honest and true to myself while keeping my work from being offensive to any party.  I pride myself in my written work.

18)  I like to spend money -- but only when it’s mine.  And I like to spend it on myself.  I also really enjoy treating people to stuff.  I love buying coffee and desert and small things when I’m out with a friend or loved one.  And I really like giving big tips.  (In fact, I’m offended when people I am eating out with are stingy with their tip.)

19)  I love to laugh. I love to be around people who make me laugh. I think it is one of the most important qualities that a person can possess- you should always be able to laugh at yourself and your mistakes.  …On top of that, I love to smile, at anyone and everyone.  I like to sing and dance in my car (ESPECIALLY when people are looking).  I will do anything to brighten someone’s day.

20)  I don't know what I want to do with my life and I don't think anyone should ever map out their life concretely; I feel like doing so closes a lot of doors.  This isn't an excuse to hide the fact that I’m lazy (because I’m not) or something that I've concocted to make my indecisiveness seem tolerable or acceptable; it is just simply impossible for me to say where I will be in one year, or five years, and I could never limit myself to such confined ideas.  Life has infinite possibilities.  I like to stay open to the fraction of them that present themselves.

21)  I don't accept much judgment from others. I don’t feel it is anyone’s place to judge me (and certainly not if they don’t know me intimately).  I am very self-aware and analytical, to say that I judge myself would be an understatement.   I hold myself responsible for all my actions, and all the consequence of my actions.  I do not blame-shift.  This life is mine and mine alone.  I am responsible and accountable, for all the good and bad.

[edit]  22)  I want to learn four languages between now and the time I reach old age.  I am interested in Spanish, German, Russian, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and American Sign Language (among others).  [/edit]

23)  I look for the beauty and positivity in everything – and often find it.  This is a learned behavior.  I was not always this way.  I have to re-train myself to do this every day.

24)  I want everyone to love themselves.  (It's a prerequisite for loving others, and kind of a huge deal.)  In fact, nothing makes me sadder than to see people with poor self-concept and low self-image.  Everyone should love themselves; nothing they could have possibly done deserves a lifetime of self-hate. Nothing.

25) I firmly believe that anyone can be anything and everything – whatever they want to be.  I can’t judge anyone by looking at them.  I have no gaydar.  I hold no one to any stereotype.  Everyone in my life has infinite potential and possibility – friends, acquaintances, classmates, coworkers, family, everyone.  And I do my damndest to make sure the people in my life remember this.