the_vulture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdSbU5rJ7 wU

Lookee! Finally, photographic evidence of Teddy's existence in England! *chuckle*

As PDC has been messing something fiercely with all of my files, I won't bother going through the hassle of posting the rest of the photos here, only to have them disappear. Instead, I'll simply point you in the direction of the apppropriate photobucket page, found here: http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/Ca thartesAura/Dover/?albumview=grid

On Wednesday, I hopped on the train to Dover. Between the fog and travelling in depressions, there wasn't a whole heck of a lot to see during the trip. Fortunately, the town of Dover itself was reasonably visually rewarding, with building styles from a variety of eras. The avenues of the town were lively and colorful, though not overcrowded, and it was with eager eyes that I walked along.

As I had been a little too relaxed getting going that morning, I arrived in Dover with time to either tour Dover Castle, or to hike the cliffs, not both. To the disappointment of some, I imagine, I opted for the latter. Afterall, whilst I do enjoy architecture and history, I am, at heart, a child of the wild, and the hills beckoned to me.

The walk to the hiking trails carried along the beachside, again, delighting my vision. It was good to commune with Mother Ocean.

The hike itself was vigorous and carried through light bush and pastures. My eager camera sought many splendid vistas from the top and hillsides, as well as getting visually intimate with a number of odd rock formations and plant life. On a distant hill, through the haze of light fog, I could make out Dover Castle, spawling out like an iguana sunning itself on a rock.

On my return to town, I then walked out to the end of the Prince of Wales Pier, though, sadly the potentially stunning photos of the cliffs from a distance were thwarted by fog.

My meanderings carried me back into town, where, with just enough time left over before closing, I visited the Dover Museum. Of particular interest to me was the Bronze Age Boat exhibit, which featured the remains of possibly the oldest sea going vessel so far discovered. It was likely built over 3500 years ago and shows some particular ingenuity. I also learned some interesting stuff about how to smelt bronze using a fire pit furnace and bellows, how to cast bronze tools, and how to attach said tools to wooden handles. (Yes, this kind of knowledge is pretty much useless in the modern era, but, hey, along with my knowledge of pit firing ceramics and bits of survival trivia, it might come in handy in a post-apocalyptic world! ) I also learned about how there used to be five major ports that were of major strategic importance up until the fourteenth century when changes in the coast led to the complete silting up of all but Dover, which only remains a port due to extensive efforts to keep its harbors clear over the centuries. And, finally, I learned that local metal detector club has found some really neat crap over the years.

My little educational excursion over with, I bought some Subway (I was reserving finer dining for the day after) and headed to the bed and breakfast I had reserved a room at. The room itself was a little tatty at the edges, but it was warmly decorated, featured a double bed, and (JOY!) had its own toilet and shower, a somewhat infrequent occurence for such places.

I spent the remainder of the evening chuckling at Family Guy: Blue Harvest, on DVD. If you're a fan of either Family Guy or Star Wars, it's worth watching. Where else are you going to see Stewie as Darth Vader making comments such as "I sithed my pants"?

Afterwards, it was off to bed early to have a good start on the following day's adventures.

The origin of this enmity lies deep in the Old Testament, which clearly expresses a strong imperative to be "fruitful, and multiply" (Genesis 9:7, King James Version).  This obsession with procreation becomes even more apparent in the Book of Chronicles, which painstakingly elaborates the patrilineal succession of many, many generations of Israelites. The importance of maintaining a line of descent is so important that a widow of a man who has died heirless can call upon her husband’s brother to take her as a wife and "perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her," (Deuteronomy 25:5, KJV). The first born then continues the line of her former husband. 

Any opportunity to reproduce that is wasted is considered 'defilement' as shown in Leviticus 15. This chapter contains a number of proclamations such as "...if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even [evening]," (Leviticus 15:16, KJV). This chapter also goes into depth about how women who are menstruating (and thus, not pregnant nor caring for a young child) are also unclean. In both cases, two birds must be sacrificed in atonement. (Can you imagine how rough it must've been for a young Israelite boy during puberty, with all of its nocturnal ejaculations?) 

This imperative to procreate, and the punishment for not doing so, is taken to the extreme in the woeful tale of Onan (Genesis 38:6 –10, KJV), where a father, whose eldest son is slain by God for being wicked, commands his next son, Onan, to marry his brother’s wife and impregnate her. Onan, sensing that this shouldn’t be, instead 'spills his seed' on the ground and is subsequently struck dead by God. (Keep in mind that Onan didn't actually have any qualms about sleeping with his former sister-in-law; he just didn't want to ejaculate in her.) Whilst it may be that this was done because Onan refused to 'honour his father' by obeying his commands, the mere existence of this morality story demonstrates the importance given to the continuation of one's line.  

There are many more examples emphasizing the instruction to 'multiply,' including the condoning of polygamy and refusal of entry into the sanctuary (of a Jewish tabernacle) of any man whose sexual organs are crushed or removed. And just as numerous are the often harsh consequences for refusing to properly attempt reproduction. Among the many sins punishable by death is for any man to lie with another man as he would with a woman (Leviticus 20:13). It is found amongst a description of a number of infractions that have to do with improper sex, which directly conflict with the imperative to maintain a line of heirs. It is important to note that gay sex is considered an 'abomination' punishable by being put to death (Leviticus 20:13, KJV), whilst other crimes are of a different nature, such as a man and his mother-in-law having sex being considered a 'wickedness'. This is a 'wickedness' that must be cleansed from the tribe by burning them both to death (Leviticus 20:14, KJV).   

Interestingly, whilst gay sex is considered an 'abomination,' lesbianism is not even mentioned in the Old Testament. It’s only in the New Testament where lesbianism is first mentioned where "God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..." (Romans 1:26-27, KJV). (Wait a minute, God MADE people homosexual???) 

To understand why gay sex was considered a mortal offence by the Israelites, one must look at passages such as Deuteronomy 23:12-14, which describes how a soldier must take care to bury his excrement as it is unclean and, if God sees it, would offend God (How does one hide one's defecation from something that is supposedly omniscient?). This, coupled with the treatment of 'discharges' (Leviticus 15:2-15, KJV), shows a view that excrement was considered 'unclean.' As such, it can be easily seen how it was an 'abomination' to not only deliberatly contravene the commandment to multiply by wasting sperm having sex with another man, but also to deliberately mix it with something as unclean as excrement. As failure to show any mention of lesbianism in the Old Testament shows, it has nothing to do with love and sex but everything to do with what's done (or not done) with the semen. (Does anyone else hear the cast of Monty Python singing Every Sperm is Sacred in their heads?) 

That explains where the enmity towards homosexuality originated, but why has it continued? Surely, if it was purely a matter of Old Testament law, the Jews would have more animosity towards homosexuals than Christians. After all, they still keep laws such as those pertaining to not eating pork, resting on the Sabbath, and a host of other rules and prohibitions that Christianity has chosen to leave behind. Yet one doesn't see a lot of Jews in protest marches against gay rights. Why is this? Perhaps it is because the Jews know persecution all too well, likely more so than any other group of people on the planet. As such, they're not so willing to persecute others. 

It's clear to see how a hatred of homosexuality began in Old Testament law, as gay sex not only defies the commandments pertaining to reproduction and maintaining patrilineal descent, but can even be perceived as mocking them. However, given that reproductive concerns are not as strong amongst most modern day Christians as they were for the Israelites, why this animosity towards gays, by many segments of the Christian society, continues is not so readily determined. Rationally, though, modern Christians have little reason to select prohibitions against homosexuality as one of the few odd rules they choose to maintain. After all, many Christians choose to use birth control; would this not be as much of an offence to God for contravening his command to be "fruitful, and multiply?"