Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 6)

I've been asked to revisit the backlash theory, giving more weight to the perceived seriousness of the threat. In doing so, it has been suggested, I should also revisit the demagogue theory, giving more consideration to the possibility that there really are barbarians at the gate -- big, gay, fabulous barbarians, apparently.

Those who have asked me to reconsider this -- in a series of e-mails that included some which were quite civil -- seem to think I've been going about this question all wrong. They don't deny the accuracy of the recent findings from the Barna Group --

The most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else.

-- but they see this alteration in the very identity of American Christianity as the legitimate and necessary response to a very real life-or-death struggle over the meaning of Christianity and America. To get a sense of how they view this threat, let's turn again to G.K. Chesterton's mind-bending thriller The Man Who Was Thursday. Chesterton's ultra-anarchist, Gregory, explains his true aim:

"To abolish God!" said Gregory, opening the eyes of a fanatic. "We do not only want to upset a few despotisms and police regulations; that sort of anarchism does exist, but it is a mere branch of the Nonconformists. We dig deeper and we blow you higher. We wish to deny all those arbitrary distinctions of vice and virtue, honor and treachery, upon which mere rebels base themselves. The silly sentimentalists of the French Revolution talked of the Rights of Man! We hate Rights and we hate Wrongs. We have abolished Right and Wrong."

Proponents of the backlash theory believe that this is exactly what is at stake in their effort to reinforce legal, moral and cultural condemnations of homosexuality. They may not all believe that this "radical homosexual agenda" is motivated by Gregory's deep hatred for society, but they believe the consequences of this agenda succeeding would be the same. If homosexuals are accorded legal equality and cultural acceptance, or even tolerance, then, according to this view, every distinction between vice and virtue, between right and wrong, will melt away, the Bible, religion, morality and the rule of law will lose all meaning and society will crash to the ground like a kite without a string.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria.

They really believe this.

Pam Spaulding highlights a WorldNetDaily post from J. Matt Barber titled "Homosexuality: What's all the fuss?" that lays this out clearly (or at least as as clearly as Barber's prose allows). Barber starts with the "they started it" claim of the innocent backlash theory, but quickly works himself up into a Stage 4 case of exegetical panic:

Unlike the sin of homosexuality ... other sins ... do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity." Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous -- as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." ...

And so, fervent and relentless homosexual propaganda goose-steps along, trampling upon those who observe traditional notions of sexual morality. This sets homosexual sin worlds apart from the other sins you reference. Therefore, we Christians are left no choice but to assign homosexual sin significance commensurate with that which it demands.

Thus we find ourselves -- back against the ropes -- in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for. It's a clash of worldviews in a zero-sum-game. Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality.

The very firm response by defenders of biblical truth ...

As Barber grows firmer in response to this struggle, let's try to remember that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a massive penetrating weapon that thrusts deep before exploding is just a bunker-buster bomb.

I would say that Barber is confusing the categories of ethics, morality and the law, but that gives him too much credit. He does not accept that these are separate categories. For Barber, all that is immoral must also be illegal, and all that is legal is explicitly endorsed. This is the logic of Prohibition. It is also the logic of Blue Laws and adultery statutes. In a different cultural and religious context -- but an identical spiritual context -- it is the logic of the Taliban.

Those of us from the Baptist tradition of religious liberty cannot help but be embarrassed for Barber because we recognize this for what it is: a confession of a frail and flimsy faith and of a moral character that is wholly dependent on external crutches. Barber argues, explicitly, that his understanding of right and wrong cannot be sustained without the active support of the state, the courts, the police. ("Lord I believe. Help thou Caesar my unbelief!") Take away legal prohibitions to homosexuality, he says, and morality itself is destroyed. Thus for Barber it is wholly appropriate and necessary to reinvent the meaning of Christianity in just the strange way that Barna shows it has been reinvented. That is the only way to ensure victory in the "culture war"/"clash of worldviews"/"war against morality."

The tragic irony here is that for all of his obsession with being a culture warrior, Barber has himself been wholly assimilated by the spirit of the age. Christianity, he says, is at war -- and that means Christians must do whatever it takes to win. Even if that means fundamentally altering your character. Even if it means demoting, disregarding or dismissing the texts that tell you who you are in favor of new approaches that contradict them. Whatever it takes to win. Yes or No -- do you want to win the culture war? Yes or No?

Sound familiar? He didn't get that idea from the Bible. The Gospel According to Cheney isn't in the Bible.

Earlier we discussed what I called the inner-demons theory -- the dynamic demonstrated by the seemingly endless parade of closeted, self-loathing homosexuals desperately clinging to a vehemently anti-gay agenda in the hopes that they can fake it 'til they make it as heterosexuals. Despite the Freudian minefield of his rhetoric, I don't think J. Matt is that kind of closet-case. I think, rather, that he is a closeted, self-loathing nihilist, desperately clinging to a vehemently anti-gay agenda in the hopes that he can fake it 'til he makes it as a religious believer.

Comments

[Geds]

For Barber, all that is immoral must also be illegal, and all that is legal is explicitly endorsed.

That's one of those things that I totally don't get.

There are any number of things in America that are legal but not compulsory. I am legally allowed to vote, but I am not forced to do so. I am legally allowed to own a gun but am not forced to.

The same thing goes for everyone in the church down the street and its pastor. The church as an organization is legally allowed to have a luau on church property, too, but it's probably not going to do so. On a more serious note, churches are allowed to open schools, but most don't. Churches are allowed to hire women as clergy or elect women as deacons/elders, but most fundie churches refuse to. The government does not send in a SWAT team to point guns in their faces and tell them otherwise.

So what's the big deal (I have a few theories, but I like the open-ended questions...)?

[Jesurgislac]

Curiously enough, at work this morning I had occasion to reference the Barna survey, while we were discussing the issue of the Bishop of Hereford having won the title of Bigot of the Year at the Stonewall Awards last Friday.

He was awarded the title because, earlier this year, he asked a series of humiliating questions of a youth worker who had applied for a job in his diocese. (The youth worker had already been offered the job: the bishop grilled him for two hours about his capacity to remain celibate, and denied him the job because, the bishop said, he didn't believe the man would be able to remain celibate. An industrial tribunal concluded that the bishop's behavior was illegal, and the diocese has had to pay compensation to the youth worker.)

Various Christians have got up on their hind legs and complained vocifierously... about the Stonewall Award. It was OK, apparently, for the Bishop of Hereford to be a bigot. It was not OK for several thousand LGBT people to criticize the Bishop publicly (the Bigot of the Year award is nominated and awarded by popular vote) nor for Stonewall to facilitate their doing so.

In the no.5 thread, the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat accused me of being "bitter and angry" because of how I reacted to F-N-S-G's endorsement of the Christian abuse of children to "make" them change their sexual orientation.

This is the problem with the "backlash" theory: homophobic Christians are complaining because LGBT people aren't reacting nicely to anti-gay bigotry from Christians.

[Richard Hershberger]

I think all of the various reasons given so far are true to some extent. My own thought is that homosexuality is a special case of the general Ban on Sex. Or rather, the Ban on Good Sex: sex for procreational purposes is permitted, but ideally no one should have much fun doing it.

Gay sex has two strikes against it. It obviously isn't occurring for procreation, so it lacks that excuse. Worse, gays stubbornly insist on being gay. When the pastor is caught shtupping the church secretary in the supply closet, this is a scandal but it isn't a threat. The pastor can give a tearful confession and promise not to do it again. He might even be sincere. There is a well-understood model for confession and forgiveness, and everyone can move on.

Gays typically don't fit within this model. A gay who proclaims that being gay is a central part of his identity isn't playing his assigned role of repentant sinner. Some are willing to do this: Ted Haggard got himself de-gayed over a long weekend. Promising chastity is another classic. But the problems with these approaches are too obvious, and not many gays are willing to play these games nowadays.

Why has intolerance of homosexuality become so central to conservative evangelical identity? For a change, they really are conservative. I don't doubt that similar churches a hundred years ago didn't have similar attitudes toward homosexuality. But a hundred years ago this was uncontroversial mainstream opinion. The difference is the Will & Grace effect. Mainstream American society more and more accepts homosexuality. The conservative churches are fighting and losing a rearguard action. As they get more out of touch with the mainstream, people on both sides naturally emphasize the issue.

[Abelardus]

Perhaps I shouldn't say this, or maybe it's poorly phrased, but I've enjoyed these series of posts; enjoyed them for their pithy remarks, their understanding of oft-overlooked points and concepts. Fred has a talent with the written word perfect for his duty, for I wonder if he sees this as a duty: straightening the crooked road, exalting every valley, leveling every mountain smooth.

And finally -- FINALLY!! -- someone has called out these so-called "culture warriors" on their hypocrisy: holding something to be so sacred, then changing it round to suit your purpose, as though it needs the backing of worldly law (antithesis much?) to maintain its gravity. A flimsy faith indeed.

Rant over.

[hapax]

the Ban on Good Sex: sex for procreational purposes is permitted, but ideally no one should have much fun doing it.

Just this morning I was skimming the memoir of a former member of a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist sect. As a fourth generation polygamist, she mentioned how deeply hostile the members were to "outsiders" who wanted to join the group (almost always men), since they were viewed as "perverts" who were titillated at the notion of having sanctioned sex with multiple women. Real believers who grew up with the lifestyle, she said, understood that "the Principle" of polygamy always meant hardship, struggle, and suffering, for both women AND men. That was the point, after all; the greater the suffering, the greater the eternal glory that would accrue.

The author said that it took her decades to overcome the deeply pathological view of sexual relationships that this kind of belief inculcated.

[Chris Koeberle]

This post led me to realize, I think, why some people are so opposed to granting any legal recognition to same sex partnerships. I think they honestly believe that every single benefit the law provides to married couples, from spousal immunity to alimony, is a hard-won recognition of the virtuous state a married couple has entered. These things don't exist in order to benefit society and the marriage alike. They are, rather, an award, granted by a benevolent Christian nation, in recognition of the honor a married couple has bestowed on the divine by entering into the holy state of marriage. To bestow these precious awards on someone who comes by their status through sin, rather than grace, is an affront.

Now that I realize this, it seems obvious, but I honestly didn't understand what "the right not to be testified against by one's spouse" had to do with Jesus Christ.

[straight]

Unlike the sin of homosexuality ... other sins ... do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence

Unless you count greed. Or envy. Or covetousness. Or gluttony. Or wrath. Or hatred. Or sloth. Or lust. Or pride. Or idolatry. Or sabbath-breaking. Or disrespecting your parents and elders. Or selfishness. Or dishonesty. Or uncharitableness. Nah. Never seen an expensive advertising campaign encouraging any of these things...

[hapax]

You may be correct in the broader point, but I think that actually the right is "not to testify against one's spouse" -- not to BE testified against. A spouse can certainly choose to testify against his/her husband/wife if s/he chooses (it happens all the time, in child abuse cases, for example) -- and (I think) can be legally compelled to do so. (Anybody know this for sure? ako?)

The conflict here is partially to avoid forcing an individual to choose between to commitments -- to the marriage bond and to the broader society -- and more practically, that testimony by a spouse would tend to be discounted as too colored by a desire to exculpate, or punish, depending on circumstances.

[balt]

hapax: Spousal privilege goes both ways, but is often limited in cases where the spouses are adverse or in cases of abuse. Wikipedia's got a pretty good summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege

[Jesurgislac]

hapax: and (I think) can be legally compelled to do so.

Not in the UK. If you are legally married, you cannot be legally compelled to testify against your civil partner, husband, or wife in a court of law. (You can, of course, voluntarily agree to do so, but you can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to do so.)

[Keith]

Richard Hershberger said:

I don't doubt that similar churches a hundred years ago didn't have similar attitudes toward homosexuality. But a hundred years ago this was uncontroversial mainstream opinion. The difference is the Will & Grace effect. Mainstream American society more and more accepts homosexuality. The conservative churches are fighting and losing a rearguard action. As they get more out of touch with the mainstream, people on both sides naturally emphasize the issue.

I think you've hit on somethign here. It's the erosion effect. As the culture progresses, it's like sand being blown away from the pillar that supports a building. You knew the pillar was there (in this case the pillar represents traditional Morality as Biblically Defined) but now you can see it and it isn't the grand rock of tradition you expected but a spindly old thing that's creaking with age and starting to wear thin with the passing of time and movement of cultural sand.

Culture is a living and breathing thing that changes over time. Morality changes with it, adjusting to reflect the beliefs and values of the people who live inside of it. If the culture moves, so must the cultural institutions or they will just become old ruins left in remote places.

Or overextended metaphors.

[Toby]

I kinda feel that something is sorely missing in this series of posts thus far. The reactions of many of the anti-gay folks (both Christians and non) are really really visceral. The thought of two guys making out or having sex is immensely gross and disgusting to a whole lot of people. And I think that's pretty significant. (Sexual or sensual contact between two women is a different story, but the anti-gay types tend not to worry about lesbians that much at all.)

Note that this sense of disgust distinguishes homosexuality from most other things which are counted as sins. Lying, theft, pride, and even garden-variety instances of murder, don't strike most people as disgusting in the same way. Even the sexual sin of adultery tends not to disgust people in the same way. (Of course, certain other sexual sins, like bestiality, do provoke similar reactions of disgust. Which might help explain why some rhetoric tends to treat homosexuality and bestiality as more or less equivalent.)

And it's hard to see this as the product of political demagoguery. I rather think the order of explanation goes the other way: it's common for people to be disgusted by gay guys, and this helps explain why homosexuality is such a good target for demagogues. And a better target than other sins. A society full of gay guys isn't just a sinful society, it's a disgusting society.

[Bugmaster]

Unless you count greed. Or envy. Or covetousness...

Not to mention the evil, evil shellfish.

[Rosina]

Not in the UK. If you are legally married, you cannot be legally compelled to testify against your civil partner, husband, or wife in a court of law. (You can, of course, voluntarily agree to do so, but you can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to do so.)

But there isn't a right not to be testified against, as Chris originally said. I mean, that would rather negate allowing a spouse to testify at all.

[The Modesto Kid]

"As Barber grows firmer" would be funny even if it weren't immediately followed by the reminder about cigars.

[burgundy]

it's common for people to be disgusted by gay guys

That may not be the result of political demagoguery per se, but it's definitely culture-bound. Is there the same level of visceral disgust in the countries where same-sex marriage has already been legalized? Was there a visceral reaction in, say, ancient Greece?

[Jesurgislac]

Toby: The thought of two guys making out or having sex is immensely gross and disgusting to a whole lot of people.

That explains the total failure at the box office of Brokeback Mountain, doesn't it...

I'll agree that the thought of two guys making out/having sex is immensely gross and disgusting to a lot of straight men, and since straight men are a group with a whole lot of privilege, and part of that privilege is "if I'm disgusted by something it should just stay well out of my sight" rather than "so I should just shut up to avoid my personal feelings of disgust spoiling everyone else's enjoyment".

In a similar way, when eating a meal in a restaurant with friends who have ordered steaks, or haggis, or trout, I have learned to avoid looking too closely at their plates, and have a well-practiced and convincing routine to assure them that I feel no disgust at all at what they're eating. Because they're my friends, and their eating meat doesn't affect me providing I don't pay too much attention to it, whereas my loudly-expressed disgust would affect their enjoyment of the meal (and mine, since I assume they would stop wanting to eat with me).

Straight men who feel disgust at the sight of two men kissing should learn to behave politely. If they can't stop feeling disgust, they can learn to behave as if they didn't.

[Vendor X]

I think Toby has a strong point, and it would also explain why the real explosion of cultural rivalry came over the marriage issue. The idea of two gay men being married brings other married couples one step closer to a real bond of empathy, compelling them to recognize and associate with homosexuality.

It's the traditional cop out (on par with, "Some of my best friends are ,") the claim that, "I don't mind homosexuality, as long as they keep it to themselves." This is, of course, a very two faced manner in which to approach a civil right, it's 'legal' but I don't want to have to recognize or witness it. Sure, blacks are equal, as long as they're at the back of the bus and entering through another door and using another bathroom and where I don't have to see them acting like me. Where I don't have to empathize with them or really believe or think they're equal or human. But it gets worse in the case of homosexuality, because many of the popular images associated with homosexuality are of sexual practices which a lot of people find outright disgusting.

Many people do have a truly phobic reaction to the idea of two members of the same gender in sexual relations, most especially if those two people are men, and that has to be a factor in why this insane hatred against homosexuality has blown so far out of proportion.

And it is a hatred and it is insane. It doesn't matter how civil a tone the idea is presented in, the fervent need to 'defend' your faith against people who simply don't want to live it, with unfounded declarations that if you let them have their way, all society will collapse, this constitutes irrational hatred. It is not, as was pointed out, a genuine or solid faith, much less a reasoned or useful social attitude. To illustrate, if your marriage can actually be threatened by two other people getting married to one another, then your marriage was pretty flimsy and worthless to being with.

[Nenya]

Which is why "ew, ick!" isn't a really firm foundation to base laws on.

[Geds]

Jesu:

Right on. I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm disgusted by the thought of two men having sex with each other, but I've certainly got about a 0% desire to watch it (really, the thought of wanting to watch two other people have sex is a little bit odd to me, anyway. Sex is kinda icky from an outsiders perspective, at least in my book. It's why once I got out of the, "God's going to strike me down if I watch porn," attitude I didn't start watching porn. I knew by then that I really didn't want to watch it, thankyouverymuch). However, my lack of desire to watch or engage in hot man-on-man action does not give me the right to tell others they can't do it. Really, all it gives me the right to do is not watch videos about it or politely suggest that it would be best if I was in a different room from the sex. I'm not going to stop it, although I might try to stall it until I was in another part of the building.

I mean, that's only polite, right? You should never knowingly have sex with anyone in front of an unwilling third party.

[mmack]

Unlike the sin of homosexuality ... other sins ... do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence.

Excuse me, Fred, has Mr. Barber ever heard of lobbyists for the gambling industry (and the fact damned near every state in the US has some form of lottery) and for the liquor industry? And that's just two "sins" that have lobbying groups that are powerful enough to get pols to listen to them when they want things done.

"What was a vice becomes a virtue when the government gets their cut."

[Scott]

For Barber, all that is immoral must also be illegal, and all that is legal is explicitly endorsed.

Which is exactly what the religious left believes about 'greed', 'exploitation', 'selfishness', etc.

[pepperjackcandy]

has Mr. Barber ever heard of lobbyists for the gambling industry (and the fact damned near every state in the US has some form of lottery) and for the liquor industry?

Also usury.

[Jason Pitzl-Waters]

"Was there a visceral reaction in, say, ancient Greece?"

Attitudes towards (what we now call) homosexual behavior was very different in Ancient Greece and Rome. There were rigid protocols for what (and who) was acceptable in having a same-sex liaison, and the entire social construction of a "gay" identity was entirely foreign to them. A man publicly claiming sole physical and emotional love for the same gender (to the exclusion of the opposite gender) would indeed incite a "visceral" reaction to the public at large. That person would be, at best, mocked and thought to be mentally perverted (to varying degrees depending on which era and society we are referencing). In more extreme scenarios that person could find themselves beaten, exiled, fined, or even killed for stepping so far outside the "rules" concerning such things. Sure you would get the occasional poet or philosopher to come close to such sentiments, but they were very much the "bohemian" outsider element of those ancient societies. Certainly any figure of established rank would be loathe to "come out" in such a manner.

To put it simply, (male) homosexual relations were generally OK so long as you had a wife, produced children, and engaged in sex with other men as the "top" with boys of lower social class/rank than you (who you were in turn to "educate" and be a role-model). Female same-sex relationships were rarely spoken of, or admitted to. Certainly no woman of rank would "shame" her husband (or family) by being caught openly engaging in such scandalous behavior.

I merely remark.

[Jesurgislac]

Geds: You should never knowingly have sex with anyone in front of an unwilling third party.

I'd say that's a good rule. Also, you should never watch porn videos in front of someone who really, really doesn't want to know that much about your sexual tastes.

But, two men kissing? Or holding hands, or hugging, or any of the other things that it's considered perfectly normal for a mixed-sex couple to do in public to express affection?

I can appreciate that some people feel visceral disgust, and they really can't help it. But really, they should learn to be polite about expressing it.

[Geds]

Which is exactly what the religious left believes about 'greed', 'exploitation', 'selfishness', etc.

Mark it down, folks.

Scott is in agreement with Fred about something.

[Geds]

But, two men kissing? Or holding hands, or hugging, or any of the other things that it's considered perfectly normal for a mixed-sex couple to do in public to express affection?

Yeah, that doesn't really bother me.

I actually have a much worse visceral reaction to ugly people kissing or any two people slobbering all over each other. Oh, and Kiss Cams at ballparks. Those are always uncomfortable.

[Edo]

@straight: Maybe Fred got it backwards, and the reason homosexuality is intolerable is because it doesn't have multi-billion-dollar lobbyists on par with the seven deadlies...

[mcc]

Barber argues, explicitly, that his understanding of right and wrong cannot be sustained without the active support of the state, the courts, the police.

A particularly fascinating expression of this phenomenon would be the odd case of Stephen Dunne, a law student who last year failed the Massachusetts state bar by 2 points. Dunne then sued "the test administration agency, the state Supreme Judicial Court and four individual justices" for ten million dollars in damages because one of the questions on the bar exam had involved gay marriage. Note that it was not a question about gay marriage-- the bar exams consist of like ten or fifteen questions, each of which present a contrived legal scenario and end with "what are the rights of the parties?", expecting testees to elaborate, of the people listed in the scenario, who is allowed to sue whom for what, and what defenses that anyone sued might raise. One of the questions, this time, had been a contrived divorce scenario involving child custody issues and a baseball bat-- in which both parties involved in the divorce just happened to have been female, as is legal in Massachusetts. Apparently Dunne had left the question blank.

Dunne claimed that the question violated his first amendment rights, as answering it would have required him to "affirmatively accept, support and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting.", thus impinging his freedom of religion. This quote is worth stressing, because he used it over and over word for word, with the phrase "affirmatively accept, support and promote" pathologically appearing over and over in basically everything he wrote and filed about this case.

The interesting thing here is that Mr. Dunne was not just complaining that his freedom of religion was hurt by the law's failure to endorse that religion, but that, given the existing state of the law as something he religiously disagrees with, he shouldn't ever be forced to talk about, look at, or otherwise be reminded of the existence of that law. Law students taking a bar exam aren't being asked if they agree with a law, or what they want the law to be; they're being asked what the law is, tested on whether they can apply the state of the law to some ends if it comes up in a lawsuit. Dunne however demanded that he should get to exist in a state of complete ignorance about the law where the law differs from his religious beliefs; that in order for him to exercise his freedom of religion he requires his own little pocket universe where nothing ever breaks the illusion that the law and his morality are one and the same.

Dunne eventually quietly dropped his case after so much time passed that the next bar administration came up; the gay-divorce question was not on the spring test, because as always questions are not repeated between successive administrations of the bar exam. Dunne triumphantly declared victory over this.

[Joolya]

To put it simply, (male) homosexual relations were generally OK so long as you had a wife, produced children, and engaged in sex with other men as the "top" with boys of lower social class/rank than you (who you were in turn to "educate" and be a role-model).

Right. Because it's really about maintaining the hierarchy of privilege and authority. That a higher-status person should act like a lower-status person is deeply troubling because it challenges the "natural" basis for the hierarchy, which is why male homosexuality is more disturbing to most people than female homosexuality. Whenever it happens, you've got a dude acting like a lady; but if the lady-dude is already lower status, and the dudely-dude can produce his manliness creditials, it's okay, because it's a normalized inversion that falls within the set-out categories of status in the society.

Tangentially: the ick factor and the titillation factor are two sides of the same coin, which says something about why it's such an obsession, no?

[Geds]

Joolya:

Oddly enough, same sex sex in Greece and Rome had nothing to do with maintaining the heirarchy of privilege and authority. It was, quite simply, that it was expected that men had sex with other men and the existing social heirarchy dictated who was on top. The younger man was the bottom and there was never a situation where two men of equal stature engaged in the activities (well, probably not "never," but it was certainly far from the norm). The older man then operated as a mentor or patron until the younger man came of age, at which point the relationship generally ended and the younger man found a younger man and the cycle continued.

The use of sex to determine social status never came up. The social status itself determined the use of sex.

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

.I would say that Barber is confusing the categories of ethics, morality and the law, but that gives him too much credit. He does not accept that these are separate categories. For Barber, all that is immoral must also be illegal, and all that is legal is explicitly endorsed. This is the logic of Prohibition. It is also the logic of Blue Laws and adultery statutes.

Yeesh. I am opposed to most laws against behavior that is considered immoral (sodomy laws, laws against adultery, heck, drug laws) because for the most part, enforcing them requires law enforcement, or neighbors who might report to same, peeking into folks' bedroom window, and that is a notion I find to be invasive and, well, creepy.

In a different cultural and religious context -- but an identical spiritual context -- it is the logic of the Taliban.

I once read a story in the proverbial somewhere about one of the early Muslim Caliphs. One of his followers came to him and denounced a neighbor for drinking wine. The Caliph asked, "How do you know he was drinking wine?" The man said, "I was walking past his house, and I looked into his window and saw him." The Caliph then asked, "What were you doing looking into his window?"

In other words, MYOB.

On another note, I would be only slightly more squicked by the sight of two men kissing in public than I would by two opposite-sexed people. I'm not talking a hug and a peck on the cheek or mouth here- I'm talking the extended tongues, ass groping type of PDA. I don't want to see that between hetero couples either. There is a level of affection that is appropriate for expression public. Then there is a level that is best kept behind closed doors. Some people, regardless of sexual orientation don't seem to get that.

The thought of two men having sex together for me would elicit an "eew, anal sex," but I have the same reaction to oral sex. I just squick easily, I guess. But I really don't think that the squick factor should be a basis for legislation. If it were, then it would be against the law to eat calamari or raw oysters, both of which I love.

[Jesurgislac]

The thought of two men having sex together for me would elicit an "eew, anal sex,"

But you're not boggled by the thought of a man and a woman having anal sex, and you're going "eew, anal sex" for two men even if they're having some pleasant frottage?

You know, you really need to take your own advice, quit peering into your neighbors' beds and speculating about how they have sex, and no, you may not regulate how much tongue it's OK to use when you kiss in public.

[Joolya]

The social status itself determined the use of sex.

Right - I think that is what I meant. That male love between two equals would be weird and unnatural in that context, because sex is about more than sex then as it is now. Just in a different way.

[Chris Koeberle]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. "The right not to be testified against by one's spouse" is not a complete right in the United States, and hasn't been since before 1839. The right does not apply "where the husband commits an offence against the person of his wife." Stein v. Bowman, 38 U.S. 209 (1839). In 1980, the Supreme Court of the United States further eroded the right in federal criminal court: "the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying." Trammel v. U.S., 445 U.S. 40 (1980). I believe, but am not certain, that Mississippi still has a rather liberal spousal immunity, requiring in many cases the consent of both spouses before a spouse can testify.

I certainly did not mean to imply that a defendant has a complete immunity to adverse testimony by the defendant's spouse in all cases. Again, I'm sorry I didn't state that more clearly.

[Joolya]

PS: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs? I used to mind them, when I was a teenager and intensely uncomfortable about everything I or anyone else did in public, but now? Don't care. Like to kiss my boy in public, don't mind seeing other people kiss and hug, and admit to having speculated, idly and to my private amusement, on the sex lives of people around me now and again. Makes me giggle, for the most part, but not squirm. I put this down to having gotten more at ease in my own skin and accepting of my own - and by extension, others' - sexuality.

[Anna]

Hi. This is my first time to post here, but I've been following the 'Gay-Hatin' Gospel' series with interest.

What Fred said today reminded me of an article I'd read about a completely different topic. It's about a video taken at an abortion clinic, wherein various protesters are asked whether women who have abortions should go to jail. Not to derail this discussion onto the abortion track, but the person who wrote the article came to this conclusion: "These people don't understand the purpose of the law. What they want from the law is a validation of their religious belief, and that's not what law is for."

The same thing seems to be happening here. People who want homosexuality to be illegal often seem to think that making it illegal will stop the practice that they find so repulsive (why they find it repulsive is a different topic). It's thinking of the legal system in terms of 'sin' instead of 'law'. Churches make it worse by using terms like 'God's laws' for sin, which equate the legal system and the moral system. Fred, I think, is right about the problem this presents to Christianity: Christians shouldn't need federal laws to make them do the right thing.

This doesn't, of course, really say anything about the Barna findings (why people perceive Christianity to be so wholly defined by the anti-gay movement), but I think it goes a long way towards explaining why so many Christians see this as a zero-sum issue. The law is an instrument of crime and punishment. If they can't get morality legislated into law, then there is no punishment for people sinning by being gay or having abortions. There's a punishment if people sin by stealing or by killing someone, but there's no visible punishment for gay people. I think that's a big part of the vocal anti-gay movement: there's a perceived need for anti-gay legislation to punish sinners, and if the laws can't be changed, then perhaps the sinners can be punished by other methods (public shaming, slurs, etc). Whereas if queers were granted equal rights, even the secondary methods would be inefficient at best (what happens if job discrimination is made illegal? That's one less way to punish the sinners). Hence the vocal character of the anti-gay movement. Similar logic can be applied to other fundie pet projects: anti-abortion, anti-obscenity, etc.

[Anna]

Silly me, here's the link to the article I mentioned.

[Jesurgislac]

Joolya: Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs?

I will admit to getting a little jealous sometimes - in an abstract and impersonal kind of way - when I see two people being very affectionate with each other and I'm feeling lonely. (Girlfriend 500 miles away. Girlfriend several thousand miles away. Girlfriend dumped me. No girlfriend. Jes sad. Jes sadly stares at even two moderately unattractive people being PDA all over each other and gets impersonally jealous and annoyed that I'm not getting any.)

Other than that, no, I don't mind.

[Joolya]

Poor Jes! That does indeed suck. If I weren't already married, I'd give you a big smooch. ;)

I really think that the ick-factor and the sexual politics are inextricably intertwined, though, and that combination either leads to or reinforces a lot of the rabid anti-gay stirrings in the fundie communities.

[Geds]

Joolya: Right - I think that is what I meant. That male love between two equals would be weird and unnatural in that context, because sex is about more than sex then as it is now. Just in a different way.

I went back and re-read your original post and think I read sarcasm in to the wrong parts of it. Sorry.

Anna: You might want to consider sticking around and posting more often...

Jesu: I will admit to getting a little jealous sometimes - in an abstract and impersonal kind of way - when I see two people being very affectionate with each other and I'm feeling lonely.

I have that problem sometimes, too. And since I've spent an inordinate amount of my life being single or dating bitches, I've gotten that a lot...

[hapax]

Doesn't anyone else here really NOT mind PDAs?

Mmm. I dislike PDA intensely, whether it's mine or someone else's, whether it's homo-, hetero-, or group-puppy-huggin'. I don't even like public verbal expressions of affection between decades-bonded couples. Just, ick.

But not nearly as much as I dislike, say, Public Display of Affluence, of even Public Display of Spirituality -- even though this is (primarily) a religious blog, and I talk about God and theology a LOT (y'all may have noticed), I am intensely uncomfortable discussing personal spiritual experiences -- I'd be more likely to mention what my spouse said to me in bed than what God said to me in prayer.

But that isn't a moral thing -- that's a cultural thing. To be precise, that's an upper-class whitebread Midwestern thing. (Oh, and there I've indirectly mentioned money! eeewww and ewww and ick!)

[Toby]

burgundy: That may not be the result of political demagoguery per se, but it's definitely culture-bound. Is there the same level of visceral disgust in the countries where same-sex marriage has already been legalized? Was there a visceral reaction in, say, ancient Greece?

Sure, it's culture-bound. Although I'm not sure those two sorts of cases you bring up demonstrate that particularly well. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a pretty recent phenomenon. Would the average Canadian find an image of two guys kissing any less icky than the average American? Well, being a Canuck myself, I'd like to think so, but I have my doubts. As for ancient Greece, see other posts above.

[hapax]

Oh, before anyone asks, posting a video of myself on YouTube screaming, "I'm coming, Lord!" while flinging wads of cash at a prostitute would be Right Out.

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

But you're not boggled by the thought of a man and a woman having anal sex,
Actually, I would be quite thoroughly squicked by the thought of a man and a woman having anal sex. I think anal sex is inherently squick-inducing, no matter what the gender of the parties involved.

You know, you really need to take your own advice, quit peering into your neighbors' beds and speculating about how they have sex, Actually, I don't peer into people's beds and speculate about how they have sex. I really don't think about it all that much, unless I run onto a discussion such as this one, or someone else mentions it in conversation. I have better things to do with my cerebral cortex.

and no, you may not regulate how much tongue it's OK to use when you kiss in public.

Then I hope you don't mind if I turn away and not watch.

[Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Goat]

But now that I am thinking about it, who would have been on top- Gilgamesh or Enkidu?

[hapax]

Speaking of normalization of gay marriage, I've just learned that NYT Bestselling romance author Suzanne Brockmann has made a male-male wedding the centerpiece of the latest (and Christmas!) installment in her mainstream romantic suspense Troubleshooters series.

Not a big fan of the author, but her books do very well here. I will keep my ears open for public response in this very conservative area.

[hapax]

who would have been on top- Gilgamesh or Enkidu?

Inanna.

[Tonio]

I think, rather, that he is a closeted, self-loathing nihilist, desperately clinging to a vehemently anti-gay agenda in the hopes that he can fake it 'til he makes it as a religious believer.

That sounds too complicated. I suspect he is simply terrified of social change and believes he has found The Reason Why Everything Is Screwed Up. Plus, if he has a son, he probably worries about his son turning gay and thus being doomed to hell.

[A teacher]

I'd be more likely to mention what my spouse said to me in bed than what God said to me in prayer.

Show off. Ooh, look at me, I'm having sex. Oooh, look at me, the Deity communicates in a completely clear and verbal manner with me.

;P