Technics: Ethics: This blog faces moral problem of its own in joining indie blogger group, surprise!, includes meat-marketing
refWrite joined an independent association, Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians, not realizing that the Blogroll with which I would consequently share links would include at least one meat-marketing site for male homos. As I have indicated often in my discussion of the triad of different and irreducible intimate unions - marriage (1man1woman), 2women, and 2 men - I think the state/s and in Canada, the Fed/provinces, may have a state interest in recognizing and privileging the 1woman1man, and in recognizing and supporting to some extent (what extent exactly but differently, becomes the question) the 2woman intimate unions that are already and irrepressibly present in the societal fabric. And perhaps also the 2 man intimate union (but in Canada at least the 2man is under the shadow of the Gay males' movement own history and that should be fully aired in the parliamentary explorations and hearings that would preceed recognition, I think). Apparently, of course, the opportunity to recognize the differences, provide according to kind, and air the spotted history has passed; and in Canada we are saddled with a generic legal status that I am tending to call not "marriage" but "Gmarriage" which is built on non-recognition of the any structural differences among irreducible kinds.
Well, to make a long story and analysis short, I find in joing BANPC, I have received on its Blogroll a listing for a gay male meat-market, which does not align with my own vowed homo celibacy and urban neo-monastic life-style. This is not a matter of public-legal right for which I am aruging or a denial of a public-legal right to publish digitally in the case of meat-marketeers. Nor is this is a matter of contesting the internal rules for memberhsip in BANPC (now that I notice, the semiotician in me says the acronym itself is offensive to me and my blog's purposes, and in itself is clearly partisan); rather, I would think that BANPC can itself determine to carry and blogroll its membership in the manner it sees fit. Since there is definitely a clash in principle of life-styles as expressed in the one blog I've noticed as inappropriate to linkage on refWrite, where I radically do not participate in meat-markets or share communication with them I find myself wounded and, indeed, my blog compromised. I could simply quit the Blogging Alliance, but I like and want to be in communction with all of the sites in fellow-member there, save only meat-marketerring sites. So, what do I do?
I am here appealing to Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians to make an alternate Blogrolling list available, to give members a choice of including or excluding, sites like ++GayOrbit++. So, I will simply for now remove the BANPC Blogroll to a position lower on the right-hand column, try to communicate with BANPC via email to make my proposal (which, if they accept is a valid choice I should be able to make, to discriminate between non-meat-market blogs and meat-market blogs of whatever sexual orientation, as a matter of a clash of blogging life-styles. I do realize that I should allow them some time to make arrangements with Blogrolling in this regard. However, I do not know just how long I can wait. The offense and contradictions in in my face and mind clearly now. I don't want to be precipitous and lose communication with all those blogs on the BANPC list that are compatible with my Christian vowed-celibacy homo life-style, because they just don't trample in their texts and visuals on what is idiosyncratic to me in these regards. Further, I have no interest in trying to get BANPC to exclude meat-market sites, of whatever sexual orientation, from the membership; I have no desire to engage in a directly political fite or a quite over live-style display resulting from the inclusionary policy of BANPC, but I will be able to continue in its much appreciated membership only if I and others have a choice of the lists we display on our own blogs and provide links to our distinctive readerships. My readership is quite diverse, and I'm not here pushing my own life-style as a vowed celibate, as that would be folly since there are extremely authentic celibates, let alone vowed, around; and because one doesn't choose it, but God gives it thru pain, suffering, and loss. It's almost always a gift to the aged, and not the spiritual heroics of the young who have other gifts like hi-ly active libidos in most cases.
I will continue to post blogs on sexuality themes, especially in regard to practices in the Christian community, such as the one I hot-listed a couple of days back regarding Rolling Stone's article on the Tuff Virginity movement among a small but hi-ly active young Christain hets, an article replete with the use of 4-letter words of the sexual kind by these young Virgin men of a Christian kind. I want the freedom to continue a careful attention to such developments and evaluations as I encounter them in my normal news-searches for refWrite.
Also, I wish to make it clear that among the options offered by the Christian community for homos, the defacto but largele-unspoken recommended option is promiscuity, on occasion, when lapse becomes urgent and refrainse is felt to be impossible by the individual involved. We males do not all have the same level of libido (or, if you prefer, a biochemical term, testosterone). And each male varies in his level - according to episodes of physical sickness, mental illness, one's stage in the aging process, and even diet, to say nothing of work-level stress. Thus, at least, the absolute rule of restraint, is experienced unevenly and therefore cannot possibly have a universal moral significance, as for some it requires far more unpaid labour to comply, much investment of energy in trying to comply, and guilt when an episodic lapse does occur. An ethic of non-sexually-expressive heroism is not for many. While I am no spiritual hero, I have been led, by God I believe, in my path of strict celibacy according to an explicit vow, thru events in my life and a struggle to discern their significances for me under God's hopefully loving concern for me too.
That being said, I don't want to participate in any campaign against the sexually-promiscous homos who have chosen or drifted into that specific kind of life-style. If a few friends in that manner of living can leave that chosen pattern of action aside when relating with me, I rejoice that I can share at least some of life, across even those differences. But when it comes to meat-marketeering, I draw the line, making a judgment about the value of the uniqueness of my own life-style. And the use of my blog to create links to the kind of blog that I want nothing to do with.
Promiscuity ≠ adultery.
Full disclosure: At times in my life I have indulged in sexual promiscuity, going to the kinds of bars and websites called meat-markets, and do not do so now for a long time.
On the other hand, I gladly link to a few homo blogs like GayandRight which takes a stand favouring the recently-passed Gmarriage law in Canada (which passage I lament) and which discusses politics in a very broad way, which I appreciate. So, I shall remained linked for readers who may want, from time to time, to see that stance expressed. For my Christian ethics, the discrimination I make between the two blogs mentioned is valid and necessary. It leads to a more Christianly-cultured life, and includes more linkage but not without boundaries. As soon as the discourse of a blog becomes explicitly sexual I'm out of there. No link. As soon as the visuals become explicitly sexual I'm out of there. No link Strait, gay, or homo, sexual explicitness (as against discussion within boundaries that I set for my context and links) is unwelcome on refWrite.
Finally, this kind of posted comment on the blog and correspondence to the
Reply: No! You are unwelcome! - Owlb with the full concurrence of Politicarp, Anaximaximum, and Owlie Scowlie.