First off, I’m very pleased that my Michael Gee post was picked up today by Inside Higher Education. Thanks for the link! NYMOM continues to think I’m awfully hard on Michael Gee; most other folks seem to agree that his remarks about an attractive student made his position in the classroom untenable.
Dear Cliopatriarch Jonathan Dresner always sends me some wonderful links. He sent me two yesterday, both from the Positive Liberty blog. First, check out this very powerful photo essay from Jason Kuznicki: How Not to Make Me Ex-Gay. Jason interweaves pictures of himself and his spouse, Scott, along with a letter from someone who urges Jason to "leave the lifestyle" with words like these:
I am writing to let you know that you are making a terrible mistake. You may think that being gay is who you actually are, but it’s not. Homosexuality is only something that you choose to do–and you can choose to stop it if you want. A person like you, with all of your talents and abilities, should not waste his life on a destructive, unfulfilling lifestyle.
The photo-essay is the perfect answer; misunderstanding contrasted with images of real love, devotion, and a shared garden.
Eve Tushnet has an interesting response. A conservative Catholic, Tushnet bristles at the tone of the letter sent to Jason — not because she doesn’t believe homosexuality is sinful, but because she knows that even a sinful life can have beauty in it, something the anonymous author of the letter doesn’t acknowledge:
What on earth would make you think that sin never contains any seed of goodness, any element of love? St. Augustine thought precisely the opposite of that–that every sin was a virtue misdirected.
Eve concludes:
I believe what the Catholic Church teaches not solely–not even, when I’m at my best, primarily–because the alternatives are ugly. Quite often the alternatives are attractive, insofar as they partake in a partial share of the goodness, love, and grace that God offers. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because, when I’m at my best, I love Jesus Christ, I love God, and I can faintly discern the beauty, hope, and peace He wants for me.
Now, that’s powerful. It’s understandable that many gays and lesbians, particularly those who are not in the church, have a hard time distinguishing the various forms which opposition to full acceptance of homosexuality can take. Indeed, from a secular left-wing perspective, it is at times overwhelmingly tempting to tar all religious opponents of gay marriage with the same brush. Why should gays and lesbians — and their allies — be the ones to do the work of distinguishing between the hateful bile of a Fred Phelps, the ex-gay ministry of an evangelical group like Exodus International, and the humble, loving, but ultimately non-affirming position of Catholics like Eve Tushnet? Yes, the rhetoric and the tactics are radically different. As someone who strongly believes that same-sex marriage is compatible with the Gospel, I’m confident that I could sit down to dinner with Eve and have a very civil disagreement; I don’t think Fred Phelps and I could do the same. Then again, I’m a straight man about to be married to a woman, despite multiple previous divorces. I can be passionate about gay rights, but ultimately, it’s an academic issue to me. My civility towards those who oppose gay marriage is no doubt linked to the obvious fact that the issue doesn’t actually affect me personally.
Ultimately, I do think it’s the job of those conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality (but do see things as Eve does, with the possibility of a "partial share" of goodness and grace in gay and lesbian relationships) to regularly do as she has done: repudiate the more extreme and insensitive anti-gay bigotry of those further to their right on the spectrum. There’s a world of difference between telling a loving, married gay couple: "Friends, I think your relationship falls short of the mark" and telling them "Fellas, if you don’t repent, you are burning in hellfire for eternity." At the same time, conservative Christians have to be careful to be honest. If (in their heart of hearts) they really believe the latter statement about hell, then they owe it to the gay and lesbian community to reveal their true feelings. Many of my non-Christian GLBT friends tell me (frequently) that they distrust the "love" rhetoric they hear from conservative Christians. A lesbian student of mine said to me recently, "Hugo, honestly, whenever I hear a Christian tell me ‘God loves gays, He just wants them to change’, I want to scream. I’d so much rather hear the truth: "I think you’re going to hell." At the very least, I want my conservative Christian friends to be bold enough to say exactly what it is they believe are the consequences of living out an authentic gay or lesbian life. If they do suspect this is a salvation issue, then they have a moral obligation to be honest about that.
To his great credit, Jason recognizes the distinctions. In his response to Eve, he writes:
But two questions remain: First, how should civil society treat someone with only an incomplete share of God’s love? I think I know the answer to this question, but it would be nice to hear it from some Christians as well.
And second, what will you, as a Christian, do to draw the line between your measured, thoughtful disapprovals–and those of religious extremists?
From where we sit–and I ask Eve Tushnet to pardon me–it often looks as though there were a seamless continuum of intensity between her position and those of the Iranian executioners.
This absolutely does not mean that the two see eye to eye, nor does it mean that the more decent among the anti-gay are serving as a front, knowing or otherwise, for the killers. It does not mean, as Maggie Gallagher falsely claims, that gays and lesbians always hold anyone who opposes “the gay agenda†summarily guilty of bigotry–as if all prejudice were one and the same.
What it does mean, though, is that if anyone has some soul-searching to do, surely it is not those of us who seek equal treatment for gay and straight relationships, and for gay and straight people.
It’s with that last bit that I disagree; my faith tells me we’ve all got plenty of soul-searching to do. Gays and lesbians do need to do the hard, and often painful work, of listening carefully for nuances and differences in the arguments that are used by the "other side." Here, Christians who do affirm homosexuality can play a vital role, as many of us are familiar with the various theological arguments which different factions of the traditional values movement are likely to employ.
There are some issues about which I am gravely conflicted. (Abortion chief among them.) Gay marriage, I can say, isn’t one of them. On both a civil and a religious level, I’m unequivocally in favor of complete equality. I’m proud to belong to a church that has made full inclusion for gays and lesbians an issue of Gospel justice. At the same time, I know a great many wonderful, kind, sincere Christians on the "other side." I’ve sat and talked with many of them, and felt their genuine grief at being perceived as "haters". One man I know well, a very prominent evangelical, told me of his years marching in the anti-Vietnam war movement of the 60s and 70s; he has a forty-year long commitment to Christ and social justice. He would love to be able to stand up for gay marriage, he says. "I’ve never opposed any group’s demand for inclusion", he told me, "until now I’d love to go there with you, Hugo", he said, "My heart wants to see gay and lesbians feel completely accepted. But my reading of the Gospel simply won’t allow me to go there. It hurts me that I can’t, but I can’t."
My friend’s anguish was real. I honored his inability to go where I — and the national Episcopal Church — have gone. My friend is a loving man. But his sadness, ultimately, doesn’t cost him much (beyond a discomfited conscience.) His position does cost gays and lesbians — both in the church and civil society — something very tangible. So Christians like my friend will have to understand if most gay and lesbian folk aren’t overwhelmed with sympathy for those whose theology will not allow them to endorse what their hearts long to embrace!
All movements for justice and inclusion have their radicals and their moderates. One needs both Malcolms and Martins, after all. Similarly, those who react against such movements have their own extremists and thoughtful centrists. The best opportunity for dialogue is between those on both sides who are still convinced of the essential humanity and decency of those on the other side. And those who have that conviction have the crucial responsibility of restraining the over-heated rhetoric of their more radical allies.
Why should gays and lesbians — and their allies — be the ones to do the work of distinguishing between the hateful bile of a Fred Phelps, the ex-gay ministry of an evangelical group like Exodus International, and the humble, loving, but ultimately non-affirming position of Catholics like Eve Tushnet?
Why should MRA’s — and their allies — be the ones to do the work of distinguishing between the hateful bile of an Andrea Dworkin, the rhetoric of radical gender seperatists…
Yeah, Hugo - they are all good questions.
“Why should MRA’s — and their allies — be the ones to do the work of distinguishing between the hateful bile of an Andrea Dworkin, the rhetoric of radical gender seperatists…
Yeah, Hugo - they are all good questions.”
NYMOM said: Well in that case why should mothers have to work to distinguish between the hateful bile of many fathers/mens rights advocates talking about mothers and normal men concerned about fathers’ roles in their childrens’ lives? Many MRAs refer to mothers as incubators or egg donors. Accusing mothers of commiting paternity fraud all the time and ‘father shopping’ for higher child support (which is an accusation totally debunked recently by a study showing it’s very RARE for women to lie about paternity). Posting nothing but horrible story about odd cases of mothers abusing their kids or murdering someone on MANY of YOUR SITES.
Those are good questions as well.
My answer to The Gonzman’s question would be:
Sometimes there are groups that are clearly oppressed in this society. Women have been, and still are in many ways. Queer people still are.
And when people in oppressed groups generate discussion and debate, people who are not oppressed in the same way need to listen and reflect. Because the oppressed group usually knows a lot about the experiences and world-view of the non-oppressed group. But the reverse is almost never true.
Hugo said:
“It’s with that last bit that I disagree; my faith tells me we’ve all got plenty of soul-searching to do. Gays and lesbians do need to do the hard, and often painful work, of listening carefully for nuances and differences in the arguments that are used by the “other side.” ”
I agree about the soul-searching. But I wouldn’t quite have put the rest of your statement in just that way…
It is incredibly important to acknowledge that there are “nuances and differences in the arguments” of one’s opponents, and that there are many degrees of good, love, acceptance, evil, hate, and rejection, etc.
At the same time, when queer people can sometimes have such a hard time just surviving their lives — physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. — I would never _insist_ that a queer person listen long and carefully to those who can’t accept them. I would know that queers have already probably spent a lot of time listening to such people. And the psychic pain is sometimes just not worth it. Queer people have to have the energy and self-love to live their lives, not just listen to others question their lives.
But one also has to acknowledge that people are sometimes legitimately in different stages in overcoming their homophobia and heterosexism. Especially older people (though perhaps this is ageist). When you talk about the man who wishes he could stand up for gay marriage, but can’t feel that it’s ok to do so, I do have respect and compassion for his situation, even though I have a very ambivalent relationship with Christianity. But I wouldn’t insist that everyone else feel exactly as I do…
“If (in their heart of hearts) they really believe the latter statement about hell, then they owe it to the gay and lesbian community to reveal their true feelings.”
Now, I dunno what kind of “Family Values” the Episcopal community goes for, but I do know that one of the absolute commandments in my house when I was a child was “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” (On more colorful days that was “If you can’t say something nice, keep your damned mouth shut.” ;) ) I can understand defending the right of Evangelics to ‘reveal thier true feelings.’ But.. so say that they “owe it” to the gay and lesbian community seems a little odd.
Good point, aldahlia. But here’s the issue. If conservatives really believe that gays and lesbians who don’t repent are going to hell, aren’t they doing GLBT folk a fundamental disservice by not being direct about the consequences? Ultimately, we do sometimes need to say “not nice” things in order that others might know where we stand. What I don’t like is disguising one’s theology; it’s a dangerous game to play.
Actually, now that a few minutes have passed, I wanted to clarify a few things I posted:
It’s important to acknowledge that there are “nuances and differences in the arguments” of one’s opponents, but what I am trying to say is that you can’t expect every individual to do so, especially on demand. It may be that an individual finds that it is too personally destructive to do so for a period in their life. And I defend the right (and need) of a person in that situation to choose some degree of cocooning.
But the balance is that, overall, queers and their allies must (and usually do) at times acknowledge and dialogue with some of these “nuances and differences”. To do otherwise would not be in touch with reality.
Aldahlia’s comment:
“that they “owe it” to the gay and lesbian community seems a little odd.”
I took it that Hugo was saying that Christians who really, deep down, believe that queers are going to hell not try to lie about it. There’s trying to be nice and not say things, but when that hides such a fundamentally condemnatory attitude, it’s ultimately just deception.
I’m Canadian, and we now have a national law that legalizes marriage for same-sex couples. For the last few years, there have been a lot of court challenges, and changes in provincial legislation around gay marriage, but the laws weren’t national, and some parts of Canada still did not allow gay marriage.
When the big national debates about gay marriage were joined in the media in the last 2 years, there were some notable examples of anti-gay-marriage Christians who tried to argue against gay marriage without saying that homosexuality is a sin.
And the deception evident in what they were often saying vs. what they really believed was sometimes very illuminating.
There was quite a surreal, and, at times, amusing debate on our national network, the CBC. The CBC had set up 2 rooms with people who wanted to make arguements; one room for, and another room against. There were 2 reporters/anchors as moderators. There was also an intermission in the debate where the CBC did a live broadcast of a gay wedding cermony (a national first)!
The room of people against gay marriage consisted of people who were mostly Christians, of various kinds, though there were a few people who identified as athiests. The room of people for gay marriage included many Christians, as well as some athiests, and a Muslim woman.
What was great was that the tone of debate was, overall, very civil. To a certain degree this is reflective of Canadian culture, where, for instance, during elections, negative political campaigning almost always backfires against those who engage in it. But I am sure it also reflected the policy of the CBC (some other Canadian networks would allow a little more muckraking, pro-Christian bias, and disrespectful language).
It was amazing, at times, to watch the anti-gay-marriage contingent try to justify their position without shoving their Christianity down everyone’s throats. And they were trying to be very careful about it.
What was funny was that you could tell that a few of the people in that contingent were just itching to use the language of “sin” and “salvation” to win the debate. But they didn’t dare, because the debate was about legislation that would legalize gay marriage but still exempt any objecting religious organization from having to perform gay marriages. And in Canada, we take for granted a more clear separation of church and state than it seems many Americans can.
Eventually, some of the cracks in the demeanor on the part of some of the prominent anti-gay Christians (because that is really what they were) grew big enough that a moderate Christian woman on the anti-gay-marriage side became very uncomfortable being in the room. She was shocked at certain comments about how marriage “is for having children”, and she couldn’t agree with that viewpoint, as a Christian, but childless, married woman. And you should have seen the way she started looking at the prominent anti-gay Christians — like she’d never seen them before.
So, yes, I appreciate your comments, Hugo, about soul-searching and honesty being important on this issue. If you really think someone’s just plain going-to-hell, maybe you should just come clean about it, and deal with the consequences.
But sometimes people seem to want to lie for political advantage, even though their religious beliefs condemn lying…
“If conservatives really believe that gays and lesbians who don’t repent are going to hell, aren’t they doing GLBT folk a fundamental disservice by not being direct about the consequences? Ultimately, we do sometimes need to say “not nice” things in order that others might know where we stand. What I don’t like is disguising one’s theology; it’s a dangerous game to play.”
NYMOM said: Probably then gays who wish to interact with conservatives (perhaps in the hope of changing their minds) should have a philosophy of ‘First, do no harm’.
In other words post on their sites and let them post on yours, but don’t go to the extent of maybe helping them configure their sites more effectively so they can get their message out easier; thus, hurting your community even more.
That sort of common sense/limited interaction approach can go a long way to helping the two communities (both gays and conservatives) intersect easier (and sensibly) with each other over the long haul.
Hate and Love aren’t necessarily opposites. Hate can be take loving forms, and love can take hateful forms. Hate mixed with love is a confusing and often very difficult thing to be a reciever of. I think it’s a bit much to ask the recipients of hateful love to affirm that yes, there is some love mixed in there, and yes, your particular brand of hate is well-intentioned, etc, etc, etc.
(I’m suggesting that there is something a bit hateful about the message that the some of the deepest love and emotions you feel will cause you, ultimately, to be rejected by God. Hate can sometimes be a function of the motives of the message, but it can also manifest itself, as in this case, in blithe indifference about the meaning and consequences of the message to the recipients. If called upon to defend this position, I’ll simply agree to disagree, as I don’t think that particular sub-debate should take over Hugo’s thread or my evening.)
“If conservatives really believe that gays and lesbians who don’t repent are going to hell, aren’t they doing GLBT folk a fundamental disservice by not being direct about the consequences?”
I’ve known a ton of people that thought they were morally obligated to tell me I was bound for hell. I understand the concept.
I just can’t imagine that there is a single homosexual in this country that isn’t already aware of what the Bible says.
I mean, would you think that a Committed Christian had a *Moral Obligation* to tell Africans and persons of African descent that they were going to Hell based on the Tribe of Ham rhetoric that was used for so long? Would that be “enlightening for the sake of souls?” Or would it simply be using the Book to justify personal condemnation of others?
Aldahlia, I’m not suggesting that anyone tell anyone else “you’re going to hell.” What I am saying is that it’s cowardice, rather than civility, that often leads some folks to dress up their real agendas behind very lofty language about “loving the sinner, but hating the sin.” (Which, as virtually everyone knows, is not a bible quote).
I wasn’t writing to all Christians. I was writing to those who are on the other side of the fence from where you and I stand. I was asking them to, in civil and kind language, be as honest as they can be about their real feelings and their real agendas.
Well, I would rather the gays-go-to-hell crowd, or at least the ones who use gays for fundraising scare tactics, would just out and say that on national media, rather than pretend to be mealy-mouthed “love the sinner” types who really don’t love the sinner (unless that sinner has useful money or technical skills). I for one don’t believe that Dobson or Falwell really regret any murders of gays or transwomen. I think they would be happy enough to see scenes like that in Iran recently, where 17 and 18 year old boys were hanged for engaging in sex with each other. After all, hanging for sodomy is a Christian tradition too, though uncommon after the middle of the 19th century (at least in England and the US).
I have plenty of sinfulness to be condemned to Hell by a righteous God. This is true of everyone on the planet. No amount of repentance or personal discipline can make me righteous enough to get into heaven. Only God’s grace, forgiveness, propitiation will make me righteous in God’s eyes. This is true no matter if the sin is that of the self-righteous do-gooders or the flamboyant GLBTQ folks that God loves enough to give his only begotten Son that whosoever believes will be saved.
Gays and lesbians do need to do the hard, and often painful work, of listening carefully for nuances and differences in the arguments that are used by the “other side.”
Why? Would you tell African-Americans that they need to do “the hard, and often painful work,” of listening carefully for nuance between those who believe whites are superior, and those who believe all races are equally but should live in segregation from one another?
I’m with Myth on this one. Why should gaya and lesbians listen carefully to the variety of different people who think that they are sinners and distinguish between those who think that God will punish them in the afterlife and those who would prefer to get right to the punishing in this life? I’m afraid that certain attitudes are simply indefensible, and homophobia is one of them. I’m not particularly interested in the reasons for someone’s homophobia, and I can’t see any reason why gays and lesbians should be either. If a particular gay or lesbian person wants to know what people of a particular faith think about their choice of partners they will surely ask. If they don’t ask I see no reason why the person of faith can’t keep their unwanted and unasked for opinions to themselves.
And when people in oppressed groups generate discussion and debate, people who are not oppressed in the same way need to listen and reflect. Because the oppressed group usually knows a lot about the experiences and world-view of the non-oppressed group. But the reverse is almost never true.
So it’s often the people in the oppressed groups which know what it is they suffer, and rather than “pooh-pooh” the notion that they are oppressed, or argue with them on it, people should listen and understand?
I see.
Only the LGBT who are temperamentally up to “opposition research” and have plans to use this information in planning political/public opinion campaigns should bother to parse out the fine distinctions in varieties of anti-gay rhetoric in the public sphere. Too much exposure to venom gets a bit stressful for a lot of people, so I’d leave wallowing in it for the political strategists, journalists, professors, and others who digest the nastiness and produce summaries for the rest of us.
Many LGBT may also benefit by noting said rhetoric and consciously saying to themselves, “that’s their problem and their perception, not mine” - ie, help exorcise any “internalized homophobia” in their own perceptions and feelings.
incar_naine wrote: “My answer to The Gonzman’s question would be:
Sometimes there are groups that are clearly oppressed in this society. Women have been, and still are in many ways. Queer people still are.”
I’m not so sure that gays are “oppressed,” and I am certain that women are not oppressed in Western society. There have been several challenges to both Hugo and ampersand to provide clear, defensible examples of how women are “oppressed” and neither one of them could come up with even one single example. That’s saying a lot! Further, I’m not at all sure that women were “oppressed” in the U.S. in the past, at least not any more than men were “oppressed.” Both men and women had advantages and disadvantages that were based on their gender, and frankly, IMO, in the past it was men who were proportionately more at a disadvantage than women were because of the phenomenally greater responsibilities that men had compared to women.
As for gays, I would agree that in some rare cases, in less progressive parts of the U.S. they are persecuted for being gay, but IMO “oppression” denotes widespread persecution which gays do not suffer from these days.
Thus, all this talk of “oppression” of gays - and especially Western women, the most pampered, spoiled and privileged people in human history - has me rolling my eyes. Ask a European Jew in their 80s about oppression if you want to know what it truly means.
Hugo, you said, “very lofty language about “loving the sinner, but hating the sin.” (Which, as virtually everyone knows, is not a bible quote).”
True, that is not a quote, but the principle certainly is in the Bible and is bound up with not judging others as in our deciding who is going to hell and who is not. (Judge not, lest you be judged.) As Christians we are, however, called to use discernment that comes from being immersed in the Bible in submission to God, who by His Holy Spirit reveals its meaning to us as He makes us able to understand it and live it by His grace. Loving the sinner while hating the sin probably comes from this passage:
Jude vs.22-23 “And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.”
Hmm. “Phenomenally greater responsibilities that men had” - in other words, child rearing, the full time care of helpless human beings, doesn’t count as real responsibility. Not to mention doing so and also having to support the household by outside work, when the “man” of the house decides he can’t bear the awesome responsibility of working 40 hours a week and then getting waited on the rest of the time.
Self-centered putz.
So, homosexual sex is a sin, is it? Well, don’t do it, then! What other people do is none of your business, and the Christian Church, which is, as Jesus told us, no part of this world, has no business in dictating the legislation which non-Christians must live under.
This philosophy is expanded, with more Biblical quotations and reasoning, at a post on h2g2.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=3795398&skip=34&show=1
TRiG