 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/25/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | My High-school Biology Teacher Speaks Out re:Homosexuality
My High-school Biology Teacher, who is also a lawyer and a very intelligent man, wrote me the following letter this weekend and I wrote back to him with some comments.
He provides some very scintillating biological/psychological explanations for homphobia.
He comes from a liberal Christian background and was influenced by Bahaism when he was in college. However, perhaps in part thanks to our extensive dialogues, he has been renewing his faith in more recent years and his comments, though critical of evangelical Christianity, bear some paying attention to.
John:David,
Last night (Friday) I was surprised to see David Brooks arguing for gay marriages on "The News Hour". In the article you forwarded he advanced arguments that I have not before heard, e.g. "A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work." And again, "Some conservatives may have latched onto biological
determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage." And finally, "Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency."
In looking at what Brooks has to say, I find some interesting arguments, but I question the ability of his analysis to bring many opposed to gay marriages over to his side, as it fails to address enough of their concerns, and I think he needs to search for a better expression than "culture of contingency". I think he has good things to say about fidelity and why it should be culturally supported, and I like his description of men who "want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along."
Brooks definitely brings some interesting arguments to the table, but by failing to address issues like whether or not the homosexual condition is a personal choice or not, changeable or not, and whether or not homosexuality can be "inflicted" on heterosexuals, thereby causing them to become homosexuals, and why certain passages in the Bible that have traditionally
been used to condemn homosexual activity do not trump his analysis--until he can address these successfully, I do not think he will convince many conservatives, especially conservative Christians.
dlw:I agree he avoids the difficult issues.
john:When it comes to males, I believe another issue exists. I believe it is more difficult for a boy to go through the psychological maturation process to feeling he is male than it is for a girl to mature into feeling she is female. This is in part because boys must go from identifying with their mother to rejecting her femaleness to take on maleness.
All fetuses start out female, and only by being "stressed" by androgens do they become male. Biologically this is a complicated process and one for which the male pays a high price. We know this because of the much higher mortality rate seen in males, right from birth. We also know administering
androgens speeds aging. Psychologically we see far more paraphilias in males than females. Homosexuality itself is twice as common in males as it is in females. Foot fetishes are almost never encountered in females, while being quite common in males. Interest in pornography is very much higher in
males than females. Pedophilia is almost non-existent in females, compared to males. And the list goes on.
dlw:par·a·phil·i·a n. Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner. Also called sexual deviation.
John:As we observe children mature, boys are constantly challenging each other over masculinity. Whether it is through fights, through athletic competition, through "dares" that will prove whether or not a boy will climb a tree or take on a danger, those who do not, or do not do them successfully, are always at risk of being called a "sissy" or a "fag" or something that portrays them as not yet having become a man. Think of the rites of passage many an Indian boy had to go through in order to become "a brave". Not to say that going from a girl to a woman is without difficulty, I am merely saying it is more difficult for males than it is for females.
In this respect the biological and psychological mirror each other. That is why girls thrive better than boys, that is why paraphilias are less common in women than they are in men.
I believe the root of most homophobia in males comes from a fear that the male has not completely made it into the domain of being a man. The stereotype of the homosexual man is that of a male who is at least somewhat effeminate. I believe there is often some element of truth behind the stereotype. On the biological side, I would argue that the brain did not get completely switched over to the male pattern during critical fetal
periods of development. Consequently we typically see more "feminine" behaviors in homosexual men than we do in heterosexual men. Not only behaviors are affected, but interests also. Do we not find homosexual men disproportionately highly over represented in professions like hairdressers, fashion designers, interior decorators, antique dealers, florists, priests
and flight attendants? Lesbians, by some accounts, make up 50% of women's professional golf, tennis and basketball members. The WACS and WAVES (not sure I have these spelled right, but I am talking about women in the military) have long had a reputation as havens for Lesbians.
The homosexual male is a reminder to the heterosexual male of the perils of adolescence and the struggle to become a man. Studies exist that show the most homophobic heterosexual males are the ones who show the most increase in blood flow to the penis when shown pictures of nude males. They are the
ones who are most afraid that they "did not make it", and in reality, they are the ones who had the hardest time making it. The effeminate male homosexual is a most unpleasant reminder of what this guy fears might be true about himself. Men who have a high level of confidence in their own masculinity are far more likely to be comfortable around a male homosexual than are those who are always trying to prove themselves men--those in
professional sports (I think this would be especially true for high contact sports--think "hockey players"), those who have to lift weights and be "buff" to feel good about themselves, etc. (dlw:note, I know my teacher did in his younger days lift weights quite a bit, as is common this seems to be somewhat autobiographical.)
John:One of the strangest correlates of this fear on the part of males is found in prisons, where the male prisoner who has been stripped of his freedom, his autonomy, his power, turns to raping other males to get some of it back symbolically. By treating another male as if he is a female, the guy who fucks the man proves he is "more of a man", the one who can humiliate a man at the very core of his sense of maleness. The rapist in the male prison turns males into "females". Symbolically he has proved who the true man is and who is less of a man than he is. Of course not all men in prison try to rape other men. My hunch is that the ones who do are the ones less sure of their own
masculinity, those who feel most threatened. By committing rapes they prove their fears to be false.
In my mind, homophobia is really a fear in males about their own sexual identity. How can society deal with this? I believe it requires a demonstration on the part of secure males to be publicly associated with gay males. Jesse Ventura talked in one of his gubernatorial debates about having two friends who were homosexuals who had been together for something like 30 years. If he can be seen associating with them, it says a "man's
man" is not compromised or threatened by gay men. Sort of, "If I can do it without fear, shouldn't you be able to as well? Why are you afraid to--maybe because you are not sure of yourself?" Could George Bush ever do that. I understand that he will not meet with the "Log Cabin Republicans".
[I don't know if you ever saw the piece Molly Ivens wrote when Ross Perot was making his first bid to become President. She began by saying it is very difficult to be a man in Texas. It is especially difficult if you are a short man in Texas. You always have to be proving you really are a man, and short men in Texas political life have proven themselves to be individuals we should be very wary of. She listed John Tower, several Speakers of the House who were short Texans, and I believe a few others who
were hardly models of what we would want in a President. It was a wonderful piece. I wish I had saved it.]
dlw:sure, I accept the validity of the insecurities associated with males proving their manliness as playing an important role in how we view homosexuals.
John:Additionally, I believe people need to know that homosexuality is not "transmitted" by homosexuals. I do believe that a society that is tolerant of homosexuality will see a higher number of those who are biologically bisexuals act on their bisexuality. But that is not "creating" homosexuals. The true heterosexual male remains heterosexual from birth until death, and has nothing to fear from homosexuality.
dlw:I don't know if I agree with this part. I think there is potential ambiguity to all of our sexualities, though, perhaps more so for females than males as shown by the film, "Kissing Jessica Stein". As you pointed out, there are circumstances whereby males can commit acts with other males as demonstrations of power. As I recall, films like Satyricon by Federico Fellini showed that it was such power-acts that were more common in Roman-times as ways of manifesting one's power over others.
Also, from a religious standpoint, this raises the question of how bisexuals should act on their sexuality. Sure, it must be tough, but if we can't expect constitutional homosexuals to be likely to change, what sort of expectations should we have for bisexuals? Does it really just not matter how they come to express their sexuality when they really do have a choice? That is a good deal of what I think is at the heart of the cultural wars on this issue. Do we perceive homosexuality as akin to left-handedness or as like having a genetic propensity to alcoholism or schizophrenia.
John:And finally, I believe homophobia will be reduced if society stops defining masculinity in such hyper-aggressive, hyper-muscular, hyper-competitive, and narrowly defined terms. Why should a professional football player be seen as more masculine than a professional male tennis star, or J.S. Bach--who fathered many
children, or an Albert Einstein? Whom we view as worthy of adulation and emulation needs to change. That Mike Tyson should be looked at as an example of masculinity has something really foul smelling about it. Does he like to stick his only in women, and does he disparage any guy who sticks his into another guy, or takes another guy into him? Absolutely he does.
So, does that make him "a man", or more of a man than a Leonardo da Vinci?
dlw:I agree. "To become a man" shouldn't be associated with committing the sex act with a female.
John:For Christians can there be any higher example of what is a man than Jesus? Jesus was never portrayed as an athlete, never as a body-builder, never as a guy who liked to challenge the maleness of other men, never as a person who was a competitive businessman, never as a guy who was a swinger. From the Gospels we clearly get a picture of him as a man who liked to debate about religious ideas, who liked to socialize with people, who liked to comfort people, and as someone who believed in self-control, or, battling the demons that are within, and unquestionably as a man unafraid to stand up for what
he believed in, and willing to face a horrible death rather than to deny what he believed. Did he not display more courage than the soldier who carries into battle with himself some object by which he hopes to save his life at the expense of his enemy's?
dlw:Amen.
John:What are conservative Christians doing to topple the insane ideas our society has of what constitutes masculinity? Are they protesting the social constructs that buttress them, like the high salaries professional athletes get? Are they out with pickets before professional boxing matches asking "What would Jesus say about this?" Why is a naked body so much more offensive to them than repeated displays in the media of murders, of the
exploitation of the weak, of the constant appeals to accumulate more and more material things? Why aren't they angry that big corporations are not sponsoring television shows that are about courage, rather than car crashes or marital infidelity? Some say that vices are more interesting than their corresponding virtues, that "sin sells". That certainly is not the case when courage is pitted against cowardice. Are violence and hatred really more interesting than doctors going into a part of Africa where Ebola has broken out, and risking their lives to save the people there? Is a movie where people machinegun others more interesting than one about an attorney who manages to get an innocent convict freed from jail by taking on the whole establishment? I am not for censorship, but look at how narrow the range is that we get, and how absent more noble examples of maleness are.
dlw:I agree. "Evangelicals" tend to absorb mainstream culture too much and are very selective and hypocritical over what they get worked up about. I think this lies very much in a crisis in leadership, whereby personal holiness is raised up as their personal goal and implicitly held as avoiding all traces of "sin" and thereby politics. Then, their leaders can persuade them that somethings are "non-political", while others are political.
This can make for very effective collective mobilization on a rather limited set of issues that, from an objective factual standpoint, may have more sides to it and more facts that people are generally unaware about.
John:Modern western culture has let athletics and material acquisition and body type define what masculinity is. This is truly suffocating. Conservative Christian movements are not pointing us to role models to counter these trends, even when there are good ones around. Jimmy Carter should be held up, Ralph Nader, Nelson Mandela, the current Secretary General of the United
Nations, people out in the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, it seems,
ideological purity trumps every other personal virtue. Because Carter does not support their Constitutional Amendment, everything else that is exemplary about him fails. Because Bush does, all his failings get overlooked. Because of Biblical prophecies about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, Ariel Sharon, a man who will certainly be condemned by history as cruel, ruthless, unjust, murderous, untruthful, and much more,
can be called "a man of peace" without any howls of protest from the Christian right, and Israel's crimes against her brothers and sisters and the cries of the unjustly persecuted go unheeded.
dlw:Yes, selective perception is quite pervasive. My favorite example is with how apparently while the religious right was hounding clinton over the monica-scandal they didn't make a peep about the evidence that was coming out about how tobacco executives had lied to the US gov't about the addictiveness and harmfulness of their products. Apparently, tobacco companies themselves helped fund Ken Starr's fees and media-suction to shelter themselves from getting bad publicity.
John:Tell me, David, if you know, do those people who march to protest the elevation of a gay man in New Hampshire to be a bishop in his church ever feel stirred to protest Sharon being called "a man of peace" or to protest his abominable policies? Anyone who does not want to be a member of the bishop's denomination can leave. The same is not true for the Palestinians
who have their houses blown up if anyone suggests a person who lives there is fighting Israel's occupation and expropriation of their land. No trial is needed. No chance to refute the charges is possible. Just, "You have five minutes to leave before we blow this house up and make you homeless."
dlw:I don't know. I know that seeking peace in Israel and Palestine would certainly be a more important way for us to let our lights shine before the world.
John:Well, it seems I have strayed from a critique of Brooks' article. But we have not strayed from what I believe should characterize a dedicated Christian's response to social issues of the day. Brooks suggests that marriage would be good for homosexuals. He has some interesting views as to why that would be the case. Might gays getting married and might social
acceptance of them reduce promiscuity, or "the number of sex partners" that gay men seem by reputation to have? Logic suggests it would. Would society and those men involved be better off for that? Just from the standpoint of disease transmission, and all its costs, makes that seem like an obvious
reason to be for gay marriages.
dlw:I'm not sure logic suggests it should. It would also depend on other premises about what governs the habits that are formed by homosexuals. I think your point is that accepting homosexuality as a fact should make homosexuals more likely to accept social mores that could/should be applicable to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as suggested by Brooks. I think society would be better off by this, in general. However, the opposite argument could also be argued. I.e., since a vocal number of gay-rights activists are currently in opposition to many inherited social mores then, by granting them equality/legitimacy associated with marriage, they would not change in their views and others may be encouraged to similarly reject such received social mores.
On the plus side, I think accepting homosexuality as a fact would also require a much wider dispersion of understanding about the biological/psychological factors that influence the development of our sexual orientation. For this to take place, the facts would need to be presented in such a manner that tried to be as neutral as possible over normative questions that are prevalent in the cultural wars. Understanding the facts does not by any means settle the debate or prove the Bible is wrong or whatever. They help to lay a foundation that both sides presumably can accept and which would facilitate the debate over the issues raised by homosexuality.
John:Brooks, however, must make a stronger case to win many converts within the Republican Party's Christian conservative ranks, I believe. Unfortunately a stronger case becomes longer, requires more thinking on people's parts (a very hard obstacle to overcome these days; slogans are so much easier than thinking). It requires that people learn some things that they have been taught are wrong, like, homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals and cannot become heterosexuals. It is amazing how hard it is to convince people that homosexuality is not chosen. And for those who insist the Bible is inerrant, there are huge exegetical problems that Brooks, as a Jew, is unlikely to be able to make convincingly to fundamentalist Christians.
dlw:I know, it is amazingly difficult. Even when they get the facts, there is often resistance to the role that tradition, which is fallible and subject to change, plays in how their religion determines they should act is hard to accept by many, since it undermines the certainty, psychic balm they associate with religious teachings.
John:I do appreciate having his article sent to me, though, because, as I said before, he brings interesting ideas to the discussion.
John
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/25/2003 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/26/2003 12:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | See CT one page article. There are not "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"... JUST SEXUALS. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/28/2003 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3242686.stm
HIV rate jumps among US gays
The report suggested that "prevention fatigue" was partly to blame for the rise
There has been a big rise in the number of new HIV cases among gay men in the United States, a report says.
The latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed a 17% increase in new HIV cases among gay men between 1999 and 2002.
The figures cover 29 US states - not including New York, California and Washington DC.
"The fight is as urgent as it was 20 years ago," CDC director of HIV/Aids prevention Robert Janssen said.
'Treatable disease'
CDC officials say the report shows there is a need for new prevention strategies.
Earlier this year, the centre launched a campaign urging safe sex and discouraging needle-sharing, but Mr Janssen said that "prevention fatigue" had probably set in as many now regard HIV/AIDS as a "treatable disease".
The report, released ahead of World Aids Day on 1 December showed that overall, the number of men diagnosed with HIV between 1999 and 2002 had risen from 17,556 in 1999 to 18,843.
HIV IN THE US, 1999-2002
Up to 950,000 infected
40,000 people infected yearly
Black people account for 55% of infected
Men infected rose from 17,556 to 18,843
Gay men infected rose from 9,988 to 11,686
In the same period, the number of homosexual men diagnosed rose from 9,988 to 11,686.
The Hispanic community showed the largest increase in HIV cases, at 26%, while HIV among whites increased by 8%.
The report showed there was no considerable increase in infection rates among African and Asian Americans, but black people account for 55% of all new HIV cases.
Mr Janssen noted that while HIV largely remains a black and Latino infection in the United States, the report indicates that lifestyle is more of an issue than ethnicity.
The report also found that although the number of Aids cases had been on the decline, between 1999-2002, the number of cases increased by 5.1%.
It is estimated that there are between 850,000 and 950,000 HIV-positive people in the United States.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/7/2003 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Judge: 'Gay'-diversity week violated rights of Christian
Rules in favor of student whose religious views against homosexuality excluded from program
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35999
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal judge in Detroit has upheld the constitutional right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality during her high school's 2002 "Diversity Week" program.
The case involved a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen, whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the program held at Ann Arbor's Pioneer High School.
During the program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the "Homosexuality and Religion" panel, and they censored a speech she was asked to give on the topic, ''What Diversity Means to Me.''
School officials claimed Betsy's religious view toward homosexuality was a ''negative'' message and would ''water-down'' the ''positive'' religious message that they wanted to convey – that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful.
The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleged that school officials violated Hansen's constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the Constitution.
School officials handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school's pro-homosexual "religious" belief to sit on the panel, and they denied Hansen's request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexuality.
Judge Gerald Rosen's 70-page opinion began with blistering criticism of the school:
"This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating 'diversity' by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of 'one-way diversity,' unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling – both constitutionally and ethically – by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student's speech about "what diversity means to me," removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.''
Judge Rosen held that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated Hansen's constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also concluded that the school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-gay clergy to hold a panel on "Homosexuality and Religion."
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, applauded Judge Rosen for his strongly worded opinion, ''Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda.''
Here is another article on the same case.
http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=142
Federal Judge Declares Ann Arbor High School Violated the Constitutional Rights of Christian Student During Homosexual Diversity Week
Fri, Dec 5, 2003
Related Stories
ANN ARBOR – In a strongly worded opinion, Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality during her high school’s “Diversity Week” program that was designed to promote the homosexual agenda. The case involved a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the 2002 “Diversity Week” program held at Ann Arbor’s Pioneer High School.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, applauded the opinion. “Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda.”
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, commented, “We are extremely pleased with the result. It is a complete vindication of our client's constitutional rights. This case should be a warning to school officials across this country: stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the homosexual agenda. ”
During the 2002 Diversity Week program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel, and they censored a speech she was asked to give on the topic, “What Diversity Means to Me.” School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school’s pro-homosexual “religious” belief to sit on the panel, and they denied Hansen’s request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexuality.
Judge Rosen’s 70-page opinion began with blistering criticism of the school:
“This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating "diversity" by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an "unwelcomed" viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of "one-way diversity," unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling—both constitutionally and ethically—by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student’s speech about “what diversity means to me,” removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.
All of this, of course, raises the question, among others presented here, of what "diversity" means and whether a school may promote one view of "diversity" over another. Even accepting that the term ‘diversity’ has evolved in recent years to mean, at least colloquially, something more than the dictionary definition, the notion of sponsorship of one viewpoint to the exclusion of another hardly seems to further the school’s purported objective of "celebrating diversity." In this context, it would do well to recall the Supreme Court’s admonition in another school speech case:
In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. . . [and] students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.” (quoting from Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)).
The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleged that school officials violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the constitution.
Judge Rosen held that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also concluded that the school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-gay clergy to hold a panel on “Homosexuality and Religion.” Rosen instructed Hansen’s attorneys to file with the court an application for attorneys’ fees, which could cost the Ann Arbor Public Schools up to $100,000.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/17/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | http://www.isteve.com/
Here is an interesting commentary from Steve Sailer a conservative gay commentator.
Edward Rothstein of the NYT reviews a book by Arthur Crompton called "Homosexuality and Civilization," which is a denunciation of Christianity for persecuting homosexuality. A key paragraph:
"Mr. Crompton offers a very different interpretation from the influential theory outlined by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. In Mr. Crompton's view, the concept of homosexuality was not something created in 19th-century Europe when it was first considered a medical condition, nor was it, despite cultural variations, so drastically different in other times and places."
Now, I'm not Foucault's biggest fan, but I've come believe that it's pretty clear that he was on to something, that homosexuality in First Century AD didn't have much to do with homosexuality in the Twentieth Century.
Indeed, Crompton looks back on what he evidently considers the good old days:
"In ancient Greece, homosexuality was philosophically praised and institutionally sanctioned, associated with virtues of courage and mentorship. In ancient Rome, it was primarily cultivated in relationships between masters and slaves... In Japan, for example, before the mid-19th-century Western influence, homosexuality was "an honored way of life among the country's religious and military leaders so that its acceptance paralleled, and in some respects even surpassed, ancient Athens." It was common among Buddhist sages, part of samurai culture and an accepted aspect of the Kabuki theater world."
From this description, it's pretty clear that back then homosexual behavior wasn't much at all like modern Castro Street homosexuality. To a very large extent, it was an indulgence practiced by the powerful on the weak: what we think of as child molestation, prison rape, and sexual harassment. (Modern homosexuals often fail to realize that they would have been scorned in Athens as womanish for wanting to please another man.) Even at it's least abusive, ancient homosexuality reflected youthful male-male infatuations that only flourished when women were sequestered or despised. The triumph of Jerusalem over Athens came both by negative sanctions on vice but also by the increased status of women under Christianity, which made companionate marriage the ideal
My best guess is that due to the success of Christianity at stigmatizing homosexual vice, we are left then, largely, with men who are innately homosexual. But that also explains why Christians and orthodox Jews have a hard time agreeing that homosexual behavior stems from innate homosexual orientations -- in their historical experience, most homosexual behavior was not an innate orientation, but was controllable by social sanctions.
Here is the original article from the NYTIMES.
Annals of Homosexuality: From Greek to Grim to Gay
By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/books/13SHEL.html?pagewanted=2&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1071464361-ch/f6c+zIqXivkmMkop0sw
Published: December 13, 2003
n Tony Kushner's "Angels in America," which concludes tomorrow night on HBO, homosexuality is associated with religious martyrdom; salvation is found in the embrace of sexual identity. In American courts, homosexuality is being associated with bourgeois family life; salvation is being sought in social routine.
Advertisement
And in Louis Crompton's sober, searching and somber new history, "Homosexuality and Civilization," homosexuality is associated with the inner workings of civilization itself. The book provides the background to the resentments and passions that erupt in Mr. Kushner's play and haunt debates about gay marriage, and it, too, offers a promise of salvation.
It begins in the gladness of early Greece, where homosexuality had an "honored place" for more than a millennium and concludes with the madness of 19th-century Europe. In between is what Mr. Crompton calls a "kaleidoscope of horrors" lasting more than 1,500 years. In the 13th century, a French law stated: "Whoever is proved to be a sodomite shall lose his testicles. And if he does it a second time, he shall lose his member. And if he does it a third time, he shall be burned." Beginning in 1730 in the Netherlands, 250 trials of "sodomites" took place, followed by at least 75 executions. Between 1806 and 1835, 60 homosexuals were hanged in England.
Mr. Crompton, an emeritus professor of English at the University of Nebraska and the author of "Byron and Greek Love," a much-praised study of Byron's sexuality, was one of the first American professors some 30 years ago to teach the history of homosexuality, a project that was at the time both daring and inherently polemical.
But this is a restrained, careful, clear book of scholarly exposition; it is no martyrology. It also hopes to be a post-mortem. Mr. Crompton ends the book "at the moment when executions finally cease in Europe," promising both the fading of homosexuality's stigma and the slow healing of its stigmata.
But what led to this "kaleidoscope of horrors"? In ancient Greece, homosexuality was philosophically praised and institutionally sanctioned, associated with virtues of courage and mentorship. In ancient Rome, it was primarily cultivated in relationships between masters and slaves, but homosexual behavior was common to Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavius. "Of the first 15 emperors," Gibbon pointed out, "Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct."
Why did such indulgence, tolerance and even sanction disappear? Mr. Crompton offers a very different interpretation from the influential theory outlined by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. In Mr. Crompton's view, the concept of homosexuality was not something created in 19th-century Europe when it was first considered a medical condition, nor was it, despite cultural variations, so drastically different in other times and places.
Mr. Crompton argues that Christianity created the most radical change in attitudes toward homosexuality. "The debt owed by civilization to Christianity is enormous," he writes; but so, he believes, have been Christianity's sins. In Japan, for example, before the mid-19th-century Western influence, homosexuality was "an honored way of life among the country's religious and military leaders so that its acceptance paralleled, and in some respects even surpassed, ancient Athens." It was common among Buddhist sages, part of samurai culture and an accepted aspect of the Kabuki theater world.
Christianity attacked such customs when it gained access, Mr. Crompton argues, but its assault began in the West as early as the 4th century (not the 12th century, he says, as the historian John Boswell believed).
Mr. Crompton traces Christian hostility to Leviticus, which may have been written around 550 B.C., at the very time that homoerotic poetry was thriving in Greece. It mandated death for homosexual acts. Mr. Crompton suggests that this law was an attempt to differentiate the Jews from Mediterranean cults in which transvestite priests, eunuchs and sexual activity played a central role in ritual and worship.
As filtered through the severity of the writings of the Apostle Paul, though, that condemnation became central to Christianity, strictly distinguishing it from Roman and pagan cultures. In Mr. Crompton's view, it also ended up influencing the later criminal codes of France, Spain, England, the Holy Roman Empire, the Italian states and Scandinavia.
Judging from this history, though, prohibition seems to have been unable to quash the practice in any social class; in the European aristocracy, at any rate, it flourished. In 1610, when Louis XIII came to the French throne, Mr. Crompton notes, "one `sodomite,' James I, ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland; another, Rudolph II, presided over the Holy Roman Empire; and France had its second homosexual king within a generation."
The relationship between homosexuality and political liberty is also marked by peculiarities. Mr. Crompton points out that by the Enlightenment, in Roman Catholic countries anticlerical feeling swept ancient antisodomy laws away, along with the church's authority. But countries already affected by the Reformation had no need to rebel; their antisodomy legislation remained intact. So by the 19th century, homosexuality was tolerated far more in countries like France, Spain and Italy than in England, the Netherlands or the United States.
What, then, does contemporary salvation consist of? For Mr. Crompton, it is heralded by figures like Jeremy Bentham, who argued for reform of antisodomy laws in the late 18th century. But history, while it provides context for contemporary debates, offers no clear guidance. Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome, for example, involved pederasty, and in Rome, slavery. Liberal democracy has recognized that neither is compatible with human autonomy; both take advantage of those unable to exercise their will and reason fully. So whatever evolves in coming years will not be based on past models but on ones yet to evolve, models in which martyrdom, at the very least, should become superfluous.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/24/2003 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by CommittedHusb
DLW, Steve Sailer is not a gay commentator (he is married with a couple of kids; who daily rejoices at at having beaten lymphoma a few years back) as far as I know- I've never seen anything he has written that suggests that he is- if I am wrong, please correct my misapprehension. Sailer is the ultimate biological determinist, and to a large degree also tends to follow a social Darwinism slant as well. He talks about most everything, but from the standpoint of one who sees genetics as the primary driver; hence, he does not appear all that often in mainstream "conservative" journals these days.
I was told by a poster at another board that he was gay. I could be wrong.
quote:
You haven't stated a position here regarding the Christian response to homosexuality. Are you in agreement with Brooks?
I've stated my position elsewhere.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2760&SearchTerms=,homosexuality
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2802&SearchTerms=,homosexuality
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1864&SearchTerms=,homosexuality
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 1/6/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
Now, this is wrong....
US girls embrace gay passion fashion
Richard Luscombe in Miami
Sunday January 4, 2004
The Observer
--------------
Edited by ataraxia
DLW,
I removed the article you cut and pasted. Please, no more cut and pasted articles. Note their Terms of Service:
“You must not reproduce any part of Guardian Unlimited or the material or transmit it to or store it in any other website or disseminate any part of the material in any other form, unless we have indicated that you may do so.” (The Observer obtained the article by permission I take it; you did not.)
Anyhow, please just provide the URL and invite others to go read it form themselves. Don’t post any more articles.
Thanks,
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|