Elton John has said Jesus was gay, apparently.

Which largely caused me to roll my eyes and move on. Maybe consider for a moment why anyone would consider Elton John any kind of source for ecclesiastical or theological insight (you totes have to go to Lady Gaga for that, y’know).

Naturally, being neither Christian nor having any real place for Jesus in any part of my belief system or philosophy I am rather indifferent as to any biographical information about Jesus.

I’m also not entirely sure why anyone cares, to be honest. First of all, it’s an ultimate example of non-verifiable conjecture. Secondly, and correct me if I’m wrong since I’m no theologian, I can’t see anything in the purported messages of Jesus, teachings of Jesus or miracles of Jesus that matter whether he was gay, straight, bi, asexual, omnisexual or indeed, any kind of sexuality at all.

People have huffily said that Elton John has been grossly disrespectful to Christians and, even if I’m not a Christian, didn’t I agree that it was an unwarranted and unnecessary attack?

And I say no. I understand the original quote was “Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man.”

Now, I don’t accept any of that as accurate – but disrespectful? Compassionate? I think most followers of Jesus wouldn’t be offended by that description. Super-intelligent? Again, not really much ground to be offended there. Man? Well, maybe some may argue that as the son of god man is not appropriate – but it does seem to be a commonplace descriptor. So we’re left with…

Gay.

So, if you expect me to agree that Elton John’s comment was disrespectful, insulting, denigrating or otherwise naughty-bad-wrong then you are expecting me to agree that calling someone “gay” is to disrespect them, insult them or denigrate them. If you want me to accept that his comment was an ATTACK then you’re asking me to accept that calling someone gay (other than in the “so gay” context and I think that can be safely set aside, all things considered) is an attack. I’m not accepting that.

As to disrespectful to Christian beliefs – it is disrespectful to the homophobic belief that being gay is wrong/bad/sinful. And I’m all for disrespecting that bigoted, hateful belief to the hilt and back. Bigotry should be disrespected. Prejudice is NOT OWED respect

So, here’s the thing the way I see it: If you’re insulted or offended by the suggestion that Jesus was gay, that’s telling me that you think gay is an insult or being gay is somehow a bad thing. Now if you want to argue accuracy then that’s different (and a matter of rather supreme indifference to me, nor do I particularly see why anyone else gives a damn). But if you are arguing insult, offence, disrespect etc  then, from what I can see, that only fits in the context where BEING GAY IS WRONG.

Shockingly, this argument does not earn much in the way of sympathy from me.

Now, if you want to see an example of something that is disrespectful we have this lovely bumper sticker.  See? That is how you do insulting, offensive and disrespectful.

PYJAMAS!!!! NOOOOOOOO!

Ok, so  apparently a school has decided to chastise parents for going on the school run delivering or picking up their kids dressed in pyjamas. This follows a Tescos’ shop in Cardiff banning customers for also wearing pyjamas

My initial reaction is “do people do this?” I mean I just can’t picture running around outside in my nightclothes (ok, probably because I don’t WEAR nightclothes so it’d be less an issue of going out in pyjamas and more an issue of going out stark naked and likely getting frostbite). The only time I can picture walking around outside my own home in nightwear is if, say, the fire alarm has gone off. So I have a faint boggle that pyjama clad masses are wandering around our streets.

But my second and more important reaction is – why do people care? I mean, so long as the pyjamas cover all the parts that are legally required to be covered*** then why do they care what their shoppers are wearing? And certainly what do they care what people coming to pick up their children are wearing? (And really, how does the school intend to enforce this, I wonder? I mean a shop can keep people out, but what can you do about parents outside the gate or in cars?)

Oh and in response to “people don’t go to see their solicitor dressed in their pyjamas” I have to say HA! HAHAHAHA! Oh that’s funny! Y’know, pyjamas may be an improvement.

I just boggle really at the amount of time, attention and effort people put into what other people are doing. If it causes no harm, if it doesn’t affect your life why do you care if your shoppers or the parents picking up the kids are dressed in pyjamas, formal business attire or fancy dress? Does it matter? Does it make teaching the children and getting the children out of school any harder? Does it make their money less valuable?

It’s just sad that these people think that it’s their BUSINESS what people around them are wearing. They’re not at work, they’re not in uniform, they’re not breaking any obscenity laws (dubious though they may be), they’re not obliged to be professional (and fail to the teachers comparing the way the teachers are dressed to the way parents picking up their children are dressed), they’re not in a formal or professional setting – so… why do you care? Why is your opinion on their clothing even remotely relevant? What gives you the damned right to comment? I’ll even go so far as to say who do you think you are to police their clothing choices?

I think I am endlessly frustrated by the idea that other people’s lives are our business. That we have a right to demand conformity for… what? Our comfort levels? But why are we made uncomfortable by what someone else is wearing when it doesn’t effect us? Our sense of what’s appropriate? Why does our sense of what’s appropriate overrule their sense of what’s appropriate FOR THEM TO WEAR?

It’s a terrible form of arrogance, methinks.

***Personally I don’t even see the point of having the screaming meemies about people being stark naked. I have never really got why nudity is bad, never understood why a nipple or an arsecrack or a penis or a vagina is going to cause our eyes to explode or something. BUT our silly societies have equated nudity with sex for so long now that walking around naked is almost like involving other people in your sex lives – in fact, flashing is just that. Using non-consenting people in your sexual acts or for sexual titillation by exposing yourself to them. So I’m inclined to think, in a proto, not really explored kind of way – that public nudity laws need to change – but so do our attitudes towards nudity first/as well/alongside of it.