Wow, I have to say that this video was quite moving for me. To be honest I felt a sense of shame in our society for the non acceptance of homosexuals and the unwarranted amount of disapproval that society has inflected upon homosexuals. It is interesting because I am religious and have never had the personal experience of being part of a church that openly dismissed gays and lesbians. What I hold sacred from my religious upbringing is the positive experience of being part of a church community ... not at any means a strict accordance to scripture etc. This video made me angry in the way that people use information to create a point that they believe in even if the information does not allow them to do so. It is upsetting to me that people use the Bible to invoke negative lashes towards the homosexual society.
As the proud sister of a gay brother I hope that society learns to value gay and lesbian member of this society not for there sexuality but for who they are as people and for their positive actions and decisions. Although my brother remains within the same walls of a liberal DC school it is upsetting to me that he could face adversity throughout his life for such unwarranted reasons. It is hard for me to find hope in our future for this issue when I feel the opposition has such deeply rooted words for their feelings. I can only hope that our future society is that of an open one, but sometimes I am skeptical that this could ever occur.
DR. GREENFIELD – Thanks for the posting the “The Bible Told Me So” youtube clips. I’ve seen them before and it was nice to replay them and their entirety. I’ve shared these clips with many of my friends. They are certainly powerful and shed light on almost every question and indiscretion people have about homosexuality.
CLASS - Is homosexuality a sin? Is homosexuality a choice? These are perhaps two of the most controversial questions with respect to sexuality and religion. Everyone refers to Leviticus 18:22 when comments about homosexuality being an abomination are discussed.
The most two important video clips are were #3 and #5. In addition to homosexuality, the Bible condemns a host of things (video clip #3). Everyday people are gay (discussed on video clip #5)
It is a brutal world out there. And while people are entitled to their OPINIONS, many use their opinions as a weapon to torture and torment others with opposing views. Why do we take the Bible so literally?
I have a lot to say but I’ll start with my thoughts on homosexuality NOT being a choice. Brace yourself, as I mentally prepare for our future discussion on these issues as well as my thought s on LGBTs openly serving in the military.
Great comments and questions, I missed the mark on trying to provoke more discussion in my own post. I believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice ... what does this mean for society? More importantly if homosexuality is not a sin what are the repercussions that the Church face? How would the Church hold its argument if it is proven that in fact, homosexuality is not something in which we choose?
I think it is interesting that Rev. Irene Monroe focused on positionality in her critique of the situation. Whatever position you may find yourself in could potentially change the way you interpret and use the Bible.
I also agree with the others in the video that Christianity's core message is about love. Jesus also cared for the discarded and needy such as the tax collectors and the prostitutes. However, I am not here to make sweeping generalizations about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or something you are born with. Every Christian is different (from the standpoint of positionality, denomination, and human variation).
It was hard for me to watch this video, believing what I believe and seeing misconceptions about the purpose for the Bible and Christianity. I will say that as long as there is still question into the birth or choice discussion, homosexuality should be viewed by the church as any other sin such as gossip, lying, stealing, etc. Therefore a change does need to be made within the church structure, not necessarily for acceptance of the "sin," but regarded with less hatred, violence, and fear. It is important to note that the Bible also says "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
I found the video to be extremely challenging and also very one-sided. I think it is important to note the positionality of media and representation when watching a video of this type. The biases of one side will come out depending on what positionality the video's creator has. This is a good thing because without bias you wouldn't have the video to begin with! I agree with Candice that this video was difficult to watch. I think the video might have instilled in some folks the stereotype that the majority of Christians who take the Bible literally are right-wing fundamentalist extremists. I know that Mr. Robinson, the Episcopal bishop from New Hampshire, made it in the video and was championed as being a bringer of unity between the church and the LGBT community, so I'm not saying that it was completely lop-sided on its biases. I do think that the Christian community overall in soceity at large is labeled wrongly thanks to an outspoken few. The Bible, if taken from a literal standpoint, is a book that potentially no one would likes unless they truly believed in it. It rubs everyone wrong eventually in its words. It points out faults that all of share on a daily basis but we try to cover up - for examples -borrowing these two examples from Candice - gossip and lying. If you take it, bits and pieces, or only the parts that agree with your positionality or worldview, it is a little easier to swallow. So can the Bible be taken literally and not end up polarizing people? I guess that's my question for the blog at the moment. I want to see what some others post.
I think I’ll begin with looking back at RACHAEL’s post. You say that “that people use information to create a point that they believe in even if the information does not allow them to do so” and I ask you if you could further explain that statement. Right now, after reading your post, I’m reading that statement as you believing that people twist information to prove points that are not “valid.” If this is wrong I hope you’ll correct me. But from this reading I ask is validity in thought not completely based on positionality. I will interpret a statement completely different than you will and will develop a different truth than you do because I am a different person. In affairs of religion and God can there be a right answer? Everyone has to interpret their thoughts their way, God isn’t sitting next to me explaining what he thought and, thus, I can only guess. Now I do agree that developing truth and then hurting others for that truth is wrong, but I still question if you can say that their thoughts and feelings on the topics are incorrect.
I also look at this statement: “It is hard for me to find hope in our future for this issue when I feel the opposition has such deeply rooted words for their feelings. I can only hope that our future society is that of an open one…" What constitutes an “open society” and is it possible? We can ideally work towards a society where all homosexuals are accepted, but imagine that day. If you wake up tomorrow and homosexuals are completely accepted has society changed? Will there not be another group to pick on, to degrade, and to challenge? I know that we all hope to overcome the situation where different groups are picked on, but can that be accomplished?
As CANDICE mentions, Irene Monroe from the video talks about positionality for an extended period of time. Whatever position you are in will change your interpretations of situations and readings. I think these statements and conversations that she begins are essential to our class.
LEETHANIEL – “Why do we take the Bible so literally?” You ask this question, yet say that people are entitled to their own opinions. Is reading the Bible, accepting it literally or as a guide or however you might or might not accept it any different than having an opinion. It is my right to read the Bible how I choose and interpret it in the way I choose. Again there is no right or wrong to that. So when you ask that question I would look at your own positionality, why do you not take the Bible literally? Why do you choose to look at it differently?
I feel, overall, the video made the entirety of the Christian religion look bad. The movie made it look as though all Christians shunned and banished (for lack of a better word) homosexuals from their churches. However, many Christians I know have been taught to accept all people. Christianity’s core is rooted in love – which the movie did touch upon – and caring for all those that are rejected or needy. I don’t know many that throw homosexuals from their doorsteps as they have been taught to love the person, no matter the “sin” (if it is indeed that).
On another note I question what exactly this has to do with the new LGBT military movement. Now I am in no way versed on the matter of military or LGBT topics. But I do poise questions to further my learning. What is the military’s main stance on not allowing openly LGBT folk into the military? Does it have to do with changes they would have to make as different genders are bunked separately? And if there is so much aggression still out there against homosexuals is placing them in military situations safe?
You bring a good point to my conversation. Yes, we all interpret the Bible in a different way, so it is impossible for there to be a right or wrong interpretation. It is hard to imagine what makes an improved society, or a more open society but I know that there is always room for improvement. I can not explain what it will be like, but I can hope that there will be a society when there is not a group that is being oppressed. Will we ever get there? Probably not ... but who knows ... we can try!
To answer your questions about LBGT in the military, I believe that the military has held the following stance on LGBT being open: "what openly gay service would mean for privacy especially in combat zones, how it might affect the military's unique rules and regulations governing personal conduct, and the possible impact on unit cohesion." (Boston Globe) It is interesting to me that there is a statement included there on unit cohesion. Is the military saying that the fact that people are heterosexual is the binding glue that makes a unit a cohesive team? I certainly hope that military groups are bonded by more than heterosexuality.
These are a very emotionally stirring set of video clips. In many ways seeing a video impacts me far greater than reading about this in a book or an article. First, seeing the images of people who have been tortured and shunned is tough. Thinking about the physical and emotional pain that they had to go through makes this issue come to the surface more for me. Second, (and this is what sticks out to me the most) seeing the true expression of love in the parents' eyes when talking about their kids, after they deal with their own biases concerning homosexuality is truly moving. The last clip where Jake's parents are arrested with him, was particularly impactful for me.
Growing up, I remember people referring to things they didn't like as "gay" or they would say "that's so gay"... something to that effect. I'd be a liar if I were to say I never used those words. Coming from a small southern town, phrases and words like that were common. I am certainly ashamed of comments like those that I made in the past. I never really meant for them to be hurtful, but I am sure that to someone they were.
Leethaniel- good questions to start off this discussion. I don't see the world through a very religious set of eyes, so I can't quote the Bible on homosexuality. My family stopped going to church when I was eight years old. Homosexuality is not something I view as a sin, or really wrong at all for that matter. I tend to view homosexuality as something that someone just is or is not. They are born that way. Just as I was born heterosexual, others are born homosexual.
That said, even if it is a choice, who am I to say it is wrong?
I was also disappointed in the religious context in which these clips were presented. Taking the Bible literally (and by literally, I am referring to the four Gospels), Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. Or divorce for that matter. He emphasized loving your neighbor as yourself. A good friend of mine once pointed out, if you think someone is going to hell for whatever his (or her) life choices are, why not be super nice to them if their situation is going to suck in the afterlife? I would also like to point out the censureship of translation and by the various churches who chose which books to put in the Bible. I understand that the Catholic Bible has different books than the Protestant one (does anyone know?). And more have been discovered recently including the Book of Thomas and Mary Magdeline. So not only is G-d speaking through people (specifically those who are literate), but He is again censured by human editors.
As far as homosexuality is concerned, I've noticed that people do, like that one woman's mother, think of gay couples only in terms of sexuality and disregard all of the other qualities a relationship has. Why is Brittany Spears more qualified to marry someone in Vegas for three days and divorce him more qualified to have a "marriage" when a same-sex couple who has been together for years can't?
And did anyone else notice that one of the "reasons" given for understanding homophobia was the fear men have of being perceived as feminine? What do you guys - I mean y'all - think?
The part of the film that resonated with me the most was the discussion of schools and how disaffirming these environments can be. Schools should embrace and encourage students, not isolate and torment them. There are obvious things I know I can do as a teacher, like being on the look-out for bullying and little things like saying “partner,” but I’m looking forward to learning more strategies to create an inclusive and empowering classroom.
LEETHANIEL, thanks for posting the link to the finale! I agree with you in that I suspect homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, and like JOHN JACKSON said, even if someone does “choose” his or her orientation somehow, I don’t see that as wrong either. Your question about whether or not it is a sin doesn’t concern me because I’m not religious; however, it does concern me when people use their religious opinions to deny others their civil and human rights.
RACHEL, I feel you. The film included clips from TV shows and news broadcasts that were twenty years old, and it’s disheartening to see how we’re still hearing the same silly drivel today. So many countries already have openly gay men and women serving in their militaries with little to no problem, and it’s shameful we’re so behind.
I like the question that DAWN's post rose. The question about how a male may feel about the comment that homophobia stems from the fact that it makes men feel "feminine" and that is the ultimate "put-down" according to the film. As a heterosexual male who feels very strongly about my role as a male and being happy in my positionality as a male, I think that the argument that homosexuality threatens males because it somehow feminizes or puts them in a place of subordinance is a moot point and untrue. The film takes the scene of Denzel Washington from "Remember the Titans" to highlight the fact that men are motivated by being compared negatively to females, especially in a sports environment. I do agree that men don't want to be perceived of as push-overs but I would say the same holds true of females as well. I think that crosses genders and is a human trait that boils down to a desire for self-control and self-autonomy. Women and men both desire to be respected, understood, loved, and needed. I do believe men and women express these elements differently because gender does come into play and defines us differently. I don't think the feminizing of manhood is the ultimate cause of homophobia. I think it could contribute to the feeling thanks to the rhetoric which is used in our culture like JOHN JACKSON was talking about. If we don't like something sometimes we refer to it as being "gay". There is a negative connotation with the word. I really think that homophobia is bred just like other phobias, its basis is in fear of something not understood by the individual - it comes from a misunderstanding of something (not unlike the fact that claustrophobia convinces some people that an elevator is unsafe). This does not excuse homophobic attitudes but I do think it stems from fear and some people simply write off what they fear or don't strive to understand. I think understanding is the beginning of being empathetic to someone. I think this is an interesting question to ponder for the blog: Do you have to agree with/believe in the same thing as someone else to be empathetic with them or to their situation?
This video was quite interesting, and I think I may have seen it before a long time ago.
I have some initial personal thoughts, and then some initial thoughts on the video itself.
My 2 initial thoughts in regards to the subject of homosexuality and religion:
1) Thank God I grew up in a milieu inhabited by people of every stripe, and in particular, many homosexual men and women. Sexuality is not a "choice."
2) Thank God I was not raised with any formal religion. I'm not anti-religious, but I enjoy the freedom of not being religious.
I say those things because as a young man, in my teens through my 20's, the world I spent most of my days in was the dance and theatre scene in New York City. Being part of that world gave me an initimate perspecive on so many things... All I can say is that my opinion of homosexual people is simply that... they are people. Good, bad and everything in between, like everyone else. Many of my friends, my teachers and my heroes were gay. Some girls I was attracted to were gay. I can still recall an awkward conversation with a pretty little dancer named Lisa, who I took class with back when I was around 18. We were walking together along 10th Ave., and I basically asked her out, and she became quiet for a moment, then thanked me but explained that she was dating a woman (our teacher, as it turned out). And that was that - my only disappointment was of course, that damn, she was cute! Growing up as a young man in that setting was wonderful, because I knew I was free to be whoever I really was. It just so happened that I lusted after the pretty little dancer girls. But I was free to be attracted to whoever I was attracted to, and I wish everyone had that same sense of freedom.
Regarding religion, I wasn't raised with any formal religion. Yet I have great respect for the teachings of Jesus, and some vague connection to Judaism given my half-Jewish roots. I won't tell the entire story, I KNOW I can talk and write way too much when I'm not careful. But essentially, once again I feel my lack of formal religious identity has been a source of freedom in my life, as much as I admire many elements of the religious world. No dogma, no text, no idealogue at the pulpit holds sway over my life.
OK, here are my thoughts on certain aspects of the video itself...
The stories told in the video were heartbreaking, heart-touching, and poignant. And it's a shame that certain Christian sources aggravate and instigate homophobic behavior. Clearly there is a path of reform and self-rediscovery that Christianity as a whole needs to go down in relation to sexuality issues, and as the video demonstrated, in some denominations that walk has begun. But while I am a great believer in homosexuals being treated as the full human beings they are and always have been, and agree with the underlying themes of acceptance and humanity presented in the stories that grace this video - I think the real story is much bigger than what is presented.
1) Too much focus on religious reasons for hatred of gays.
I think there are other reasons that weren't touched upon very much. At one point the video does talk about hatred of gays possibly coming from male fears of being treated like females, the overthrow of patriarchy etc. I'm not so sure it's necessarily just that. I suspect some element of survival instinct is there. For example, despite my open-mindedness about homosexuality - if I had a son, I wouldn't want him to be gay. I would love and accept him if he were - but my preference would be for him to be straight. And I ask myself why, and the answer I find in my mind is that I would want him to be able to sexually reproduce. The other answer is that I love the female body and I would want my son to know that joy. Yes, I realize the many flaws in both statements, but those are the pure psychological responses I find in my mind when I pose that question. So I think the possible, deeply seated reasons for homophobic behaviors and thought patterns many be more complex and varied than this video suggests. Of course one source can't cover everything, but just as a literal reading of one biblical passage can give some people wrong ideas, so can a somewhat biased, simplified piece of media.
2) Too much focus on Christianity as the source (due to misinterpreted scripture, or not) of hatred of gays.
The cartoon of "Chistian," who sighs painfully at the mention of science, is unproductive in my opinion. You don't change hearts and minds with ridicule. Trading stereotypes is not the way to win hearts and minds, in my opinion.
Having said that, it's worth noting that homophobic behavior comes from many religious sources. In many Islamic countries, homosexuals are still executed by the state and local authorities, and homophobia is preached in American Mosques as well. Christian fundamentalism is only one aspect of the issue. I don't like to see Christianity singled out and stereotyped anymore than I like seeing any other group. There is a lot of hate to go around in the world, and it comes from many directions. Yes, I realize the video tries to balance its views on Christianity, but the overall _TONE_ comes across as somewhat anti-Christian to me, and I'm not religious at all.
What would be fascinating, is a similar documentary covering many religious and secular traditions in relation to sexuality and homophobia in particular. But essentially, I just think the issue is far more massive and multi-faceted than this video shows. I'm also probably being too picky, and missing the forest...
OK, enough from me. Please keep in mind these are my initial impressions and thoughts, and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong.
I also wanted to address other people's posts (I did read them) but it's after 1AM and I'm exhausted, and I already wrote way more than I should. /END/
PAUL – I’m in total agreement with you –many religions have the same feelings, it might be more beneficial to show the society stance rather than the focus on one religion. The movie edges on creating a mudslinging atmosphere, which will get society and this conversation nowhere.
I talked to a few people I know that are in the military or were in the military yesterday about the LGBT military movement. And they pointed out that violence against homosexuals is strong, especially in military situations. Those in the military often fight each other for “fun” and in an atmosphere where violence is almost rewarded they question the safety of those that label themselves as homosexuals until their is a society wide acceptance. There have been many situations over the years where openly homosexuals have been beaten to death on military bases, so is it safe for them?
On another note – what becomes the housing situation for homosexuals? Currently sleeping bunks are split: women and men bunk separately. How do you then change housing? Obviously if you followed the same rules that are in place now the homosexual male could not sleep in the male bunk house and vice versa for the female, so where do they fit in? I’m in no way saying that homosexuals should not be allowed into the military, but I am saying that these things need to be worked out before they can safely and fairly be admitted.
ELIZABETH, your concerns about gays in the military are warranted. The main problem is that we've had over a decade to work out these concerns, but we're still dragging our feet (while other countries have managed to do it just fine). The military is a can-do organization--when they're told to do something, they do it. They can't guarantee everybody will be safe all the time (women and ethnic/racial minorities haven't had the easiest time over the years), and in the case of protecting gay people, they'll do what they always do: lay out the code of conduct and punish the people who break it.
I've got a lot of confidence in the US military. If they can build a hospital in three days while incurring enemy fire, I think they can figure out some sleeping arrangements. And I think it's really unfair to tell somebody that until they are accepted "society-wide," they have to either stay closeted or not serve. They shouldn't have to wait.
Furthermore, society often follows policy, not the other way around. For example, there was a tremendous amount of resistance to Civil Rights in some parts of the country. Should we have waited for society-wide acceptance?
After watching the video I watched a Larry King Live interview with Dr. Deacon. They were discussing Dr. Deacon's friend Ted Hoggard (a fundamentalist Christian preacher who is facing backlash for engaging in what they call 'homosexual acts'). I was astounded at how both Ted Hoggard and Dr. Deacon think homosexuality can be taught out of you. It would have seemed to me that Mr Hoggard, after having these experiences, would understand that homosexuality isn't something you could control.
As a scientist, it's so hard for me to accept that not everyone accepts scientific evidence- in this case for homosexuality. Though I'm not sure the validity of the certain studies mention, I have read about well-run scientific studies proving that homosexuality is due to chromosomal development. It just scares me that the 'word of God', which was written thousand of years ago, has gone through hundreds of revisions and translations (and is written only by white men) is read and interpreted so literally. And why is only this law talked about so much? For goodness sakes, there are laws in Deuteronomy that determine when parents can stone their children to death. Why don't they read that law literally? By the way... to see an interesting literal interpretation of some biblical laws (actual laws found in the Bible... look 'em up), go to bricktestament.com (a priest got really bored one day) and go to 'laws'. I swear you will not be disappointed.
Oh and just for fun, I recommend you go to 'funnyordie.com' and search for 'Prop 8 the Musical'. They bring up several interesting Biblical points.
Thanks to Candice and others who raise the point of positionality. I found the movie relieving in the sense that it pointed out that the extreme homophobia assumed to be part of Christian teaching is really a misreading and misunderstanding of the scripture. The folks they interviewed came from a wide range of Christian traditions and were typically leaders within those traditions. I did not take an anti-Christian message, but an effort to point out that somewhere along the line the message of love gets co-opted and corrupted into a message of hate. I saw this as an effort to expose those who would corrupt the scripture and an affirmation of those who had done the work to better understand the word God.
I agree with Leethanial that one of the important (albeit somewhat embedded) messages is that gay and lesbian people are "normal" folks. There is also some interesting statistics suggesting that there some generational effects with regard to recognizing this fact. Younger folks tend to know more people who are "out" than older folks and as a result tend to be less fearful. How does this relate to gays in the military? Tom Ricks has been doing some interviews with the rank and file that suggest that the issue with gays in the military really isn't a problem for the rank and file, who are much younger than the military leadership.
As for sleeping arrangements, I would raise the question that sexuality isn't really a dichotomy. What about bisexual folks? Where do transgendered folks fit in? The issue of sexuality in the military goes beyond strict homophobia. But like I wrote above, I wonder for whom it is truly a problem.
TO EVERYONE - Watching “The Bible Told Me so” video clips sparked so many thoughts and feelings for me that is was incredibly challenging for me to focus writing on just one or few issues. I guess you could say that I was “thoroughly” bothered. Being a Baptist member of the Christ of God In Christ (COGIC), for me to speak about homosexuality in the church, this is the ONLY place I can speak from. With that being said, I’ve decided to keep my focus on homosexuality and the Black church. I will then attempt to tie these thoughts back to my opinions on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy being lifted from the US military.
First off, I've often said that homophobia would end in the Black church if every Black LGBT person simply came out. The first thing we would realize is that many of the people running the churches are themselves gay. And I'm not just talking about the choir members, the organists and the music directors. I'm talking about the ushers, the deacons and the pastors themselves.
I recall a couple of years ago when Rev. Benjamin Reynolds, a prominent black pastor in Colorado Springs came out of the closet. Although the Rev. Reynolds ended up stepping down as senior pastor of the Colorado church after telling the congregation that he is gay, his decision to come out caught many members of his congregation off guard, it later surfaced that he had been a longtime advocate for gay and lesbian rights.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude in the Black church saddens me, so every time I hear of someone stepping outside of the box, I am overjoyed. I feel that the Black church is a paradox. On the one hand, it is the most homophobic institution in the Black community. On the other hand, it is the most homo-tolerant institution in the Black community. The homophobia typically comes in the form of the pastor's "hell and damnation" sermon on homosexuality from time to time. The fire and brimstone are quickly cosigned with a “Amen” from the pews. But when you look past the pastor, the homo-tolerance is clear once you realize that gays and lesbians are everywhere in the church. Many of our Black churches would stop running if the gay, lesbian and bisexual members dropped out. That's why nobody ever asks them to leave. Instead they beat them down in the hopes that the gay members will not become strong enough to challenge their own oppression. Therein lies the paradox. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy and religious bigotry about homosexuality in the Black church is killing us as a people. It is killing the people who are dying of AIDS because the church won't talk to them candidly about sexuality. And it is killing the people who are dying in the streets because they feel morally authorized to regulate public expressions of homosexuality.
Which brings me back to Colorado Springs. I've been there before, and I know the city is a breeding ground for conservative politics and it's the location of the U.S. Air Force Academy.. So the culture of the community is already somewhat conservative. That's what makes Rev. Reynolds's announcement so bold and courageous. I think that when leaders of the Black church address homosexuality head on, others have no choice but to acknowledge that it, indeed, exists. First and foremost, I feel the people should recognize and understand that “we” have no heaven or hell to put anyone in, so who are “we” to judge? Even though I could go on and on about this issue, I’ll conclude by shedding light on the fact that perhaps less-than-frequent churchgoers would attend services and build their spiritual relationships with God and his followers if they felt more “accepted” and if the environment was more inviting. Some people are so sanctified that they can’t see past what they considered to “holy”. And this is such a disadvantage, especially if they are truly dedicated to leading others to Christ.
On another note, I see the decision to lift the “don’t, ask, don’t tell policy from US military personnel as a breath of fresh air. LGBTs that wish to serve their country should have the same rights and opportunities to live a peaceful life that are afforded to everyone else. Although I feel we have a long ways to go in fight for human equality, I can definitely see the improvements that have been made just in my lifetime, and I anticipate being able to witness even further advancement days, weeks, months, and years to come.
Leethaniel - I really thought the fact that you brought up the church's (the church being all Christian denominations together overall) response to AIDS interesting. It is a crisis, not only in Africa but also in the USA and around the world. People are dying everyday and many children are orphaned leaving them homeless and some of them are also very sick. I think the church overall has done a poor job of addressing this issue of helping AIDS victims. I look at it from a historical perspective - in the ancient world and the early days after Christ, the church was responsible for both health care and education. Good point Leethaniel!
I have a lot to say, so please bear with me. I am a Christian, seen by many as a religious conservative. I'm a fan of Dr. Dobson. I worked for the NC Family Policy Council to get a marriage amendment passed in North Carolina (which was unsuccessful). BUT PLEASE LISTEN TO ME AND DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME! I'm not what that video would make you think I am. Us "Dr. Dobson followers" are in the words of Beverly LaHaye, not angry at homosexuals. I have gay friends and I don't pretend that they work from the same premise as me when they make their life decisions. The media and politics have created this Christians versus homosexuals dynamic, which has been detrimental to both sides being able to express what's going on, and in the mix the words of God have been completely distorted.
(Candice-Beautifully said.)
At the NC Family Policy Council, I edited a radio show. We had several speakers interviewed about this issue. My conclusion on all those interviews is I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or a choice. It won't shake my faith. The bible works from the position that we all sin and are born into sin. We all struggle with different sins. Alcoholism in itself is not sinful unless you act upon it. Dobson's ministry never claims that it is what changes people. God changes people. The ministry aims to show people God. If they choose to have a relationship with God, then it's up to God, through the Bible, to show those people how to battle whatever sins they struggle with.
Matthew 6:1 (NASB--a super close translation from Greek) says "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them." For all of us who are Christian, this must be a huge focus when approaching homosexuality issues, not to proclaim that we are more righteous. As Paul says in the New Testament, I will only boast in Christ and what He has done for me.
I think one thing I would like for you all to consider is how to interpret the Bible. I loved the quote in the video that said most Christians haven't read the Bible. So sad how true this is...something I'm very passionate about changing! My thoughts on Scripture, which I love reading!:
I am not going to deny that men put pen to paper for the Bible to exist, but I do believe that the Bible is inspired by God to teach and direct Christians. "Literal" interpretation is bad terminology. In the theology I hold, we say that we aim for a good hermeneutic--this means to seek out the author's intent when reading scripture. This means scripture needs to be read in context. How does it fit in the whole? What type of passage is it--is it a narrative like the gospels or is it a poetic writing like the psalms? etc.
My reasoning for wanting a marriage amendment is not based on my Christian beliefs; it's based on wanting what's best for society. Marriage involves children, and the ability to adopt children. Those children who live in a homosexual-parented family have been shown to have higher levels of depression and higher levels of instability. I think that as a society, we need to give children an opportunity to have a mother and a father. Similarly, I don't think children should be adopted by a single person. I know there are disapproving faces from some of you right now, but my logic is consistent on issues of adoption, which leads me to my opinion on homosexual marriage. Civil unions, new topic entirely. Now about the military, I am still not sure how I feel about this--you all raise interesting questions which I want to hear more about in class, because I haven't formulated an opinion on this yet.
Despite how situations may seem, I want you to know that my priority as a Christ follower is to tell people about Christ. Once someone accepts Christ, then it is up to God to change that person's mind and/or actions. My position is not to judge. My position is to love. All people are messy. Christ wants to save all of us messy people. Homosexual struggles are no different in my mind than premarital sex or lust or gluttony or my thoughts that I am better than someone else. Christ is above all that.
Here's also some links that you guys might want to check out. First is NC Family Policy Council... links to radio shows that have influenced me a lot.
www.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2007.html go down to "Pro Homosexual Theology", interview with Joe Dallas
www.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2008.html God and the Gay Gene, The Impact of Homosexual Parenting 1 and 2 (this is someone who grew up with a homosexual father and influenced my views on adoption)
Focus on the Family website www.focusonthefamily.com
If you want to hear Dr. Dobson's view on choice vs. genes...www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHb1NDoUMOI
The video was very interesting. It showed a variety of experiences of parents and their gay children. I wonder what the Episcopal bishop's children thought when he and their mother split up so he could be with another man? It also showed that the Bible being interpreted literally often leads to unrealistic situations for the modern world which is absolutely true. I wonder though that it did not say how individuals being part of the GBLT community affected society as a whole. I would like to have seen more exploration of the effect of GBLT relationships on the community other than the video-taped protest marches.
I did take the time also to listen to one of the radio shows listed by other students: **www.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2008.html The Impact of Homosexual Parenting 1 and 2 (this is a 1st hand account of one person's experience with the GBLT community)**
This woman's story was about being emotionally, physically and socially scarred by being in a home where promiscuous homosexual behavior was constant and where the needed family structure and support was non-existant. This is one person's true story. This is the very real nightmare that the conservatives and the Christians and others are deathly afraid of. The true question is whether this kind of bad parenting and bad community citizenship is the exception or the norm. These videos showed a handful of gay and lesbian adults who grew up in strong mom and dad families often with strong religious faith as well. These children grew up to be gay/lesbian but were raised in a heathly, loving household that happened to be heterosexual. Would they be the same people strong, healthy individuals if they were raised in the GBLT community?
The GBLT community can contribute to society but it needs to be in a framework where it is appropriate and reflective of society's overall goal of safety for everyone.
I have mixed feelings about the documentary. I have watched it before for a film class several years ago, and it was interesting to watch it again in the context of this class. My reaction the first time I watched it was defensive. As a Christian myself I felt the documentary gave the impression that the Bible is responsible for LGBT discrimination. After watching it for the second time I think I now have a better idea of what the documentary was trying to accomplish. My defensive attitude had kept me from actually listening and internalizing the message, and watching the video as a social justice thinker definitely gave me a different perspective.
I think the purpose of the documentary was to shed light on how the Bible can be used negatively, and not to attack Christianity. It does an excellent job of pointing out that the Bible really does preach love first and foremost, and it also shows that there are Christians out there who do not use the Bible to promote hatred or discrimination. I do think it is important to note, as many of you already have, that it seems like more importance than necessary is being placed on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the route of the problem. I know plenty of people that interpret the Bible literally and believe homosexuality to be a sin, but still do not practice acts of exclusion and instead embrace LGBTs as they believe Jesus would.
My point is that yes, there are people who consider themselves to be Christians that use scripture to back-up their anti-gay sentiments, but I'm not sure the Bible is the source of where they are formulating their opinions. It seems to me that they are simply using the Bible as a tool, but in actuality their feelings towards LGBTs are a product of something else entirely, like external factors or simply the misguided need to find a target group to discriminate against.
Overall, I think the documentary poses some very interesting questions for everyone to consider. It definitely got me thinking about why out of all the pages and lessons in the Bible, people choose the few instances where homosexuality is mentioned and latch on. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin then what makes it any more important or significant than all the other sins in the Bible?
I thought that the rabbi in the last segment had a lot of great points and succinctly summarized a lot of what I was thinking when listening to some of the religious arguments against homosexuality. I have seen Christian conservatives try to defend that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally on some subjects (like science, evolution, creationism) and then use word for word passages to make a case that homosexuality is to be condemned. The rabbi spoke about this very well, and I would be interested to learn more about what the Jewish faith’s stance regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage is like. I’ve never really given much thought to the whole question regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I think it would have a huge effect on some people. And not being from a religious family/household, I’m not entirely sure how different religions would view people who chose to be gay, or were born that way, or however it works. Would one be better than the other in the eyes of Christians? In the small ski resort town where I have lived for the past five years, there was a Gay Ski Week in the middle of January every year. It was awesome. It was a very liberal town, and I guess all the participants felt comfortable and welcome, because it has returned every year and I have never heard of any sort of anti-gay incident or demonstration in town. One of my many jobs in town was as a bartender, and I got to talk to a lot of these guys and girls over the years. Many were in very serious relationships, and had kids at home. Some were biological, with one of the men acting as sperm donors, and some were adopted. But it seemed like everyone I spoke with was able to create a great family atmosphere and gave their kids tremendous opportunities, especially those that had chosen to adopt kids. What was also interesting was that most couples I spoke with didn’t think that their kids were being treated poorly by other students because of their gay parents. I feel that the family dynamic and “traditional family” have changed a lot in the quarter century since I was a kid. In many parts of this country, two same-sex parents are more than accepted, and their kids don’t face many of the prejudices they faced in the past. Of course this is not true in all, or probably even most, cases, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. This definitely has implications for many of us in the class who will be working with same sex couples as parents of our students. It kind of scares me when I think back to the video, and imagine that some of the anti-gay marriage and anti-homosexuality activists were teachers. How would they treat students in their class after they met both of their mothers, or fathers, on back to school night? How would this affect the educational experiences of these kids?
Rachel Harris says: I wanted to think about things for a few days before I posted. The video had me on the uncomfortable learning edge, mostly because I'm not entirely sure how I feel about some of the related issue and how freely to share my thoughts without misrepresenting myself...
I will share a very strong positionatlity though - my father is a Lutheran pastor. The national church debates and policies discussed in both the stories of Jacob Reitan (who grew up in a Lutheran family as I did) and Gene Robinson have been a part of his life. As a pastor, my father wants to faithfully lead his congregation in the traditional Lutheran faith. He's been highly involved in online message boards and forums with the group LutheranCore who are considering pulling out of the ELCA (current national church body) over sexuality and other issues. Once I went away to college and started making decisions whether or not to go to church on my own I've been trying to make my own decisions and figure out my own opinions on many of these and other controversial issues. It's a work in progress and I'm not sure I know what I believe in many ways. I have decided church and my faith will always be a part of my life, but not the same way it is/was for my parents. I'm not always sure what to think, or if I want to go into some of that on this public of a forum, but I'd love to talk to any of you about it in person.
I do feel like the documentary tried to make us believe that the families shown were a large variety, but at this point in time, all but one of the family seem to have very similar beliefs. I think the spectrum of views on the matter is much broader than the view the video gave us between hell fire and brimstone preaching, old biased new stories, and the activists families. I'd probably say most people including my father and myself fall somewhere in between. Does social justice require all of us to be out there campaigning and demonstrating to not be ignoring opression of people? I've been struggling with that idea for the last few days. I hope that my ability to love and validate individual people and people in my life is enough...
And one other comment... I know single parent families are not ideal, but I've been thinking for a few years now that if I'm still single and/or haven't started a family in 10 or 15 years I'd love to become a foster or adoptive parent. I never shared some people's need to have their own biological children, but I would love to form a family. And I wonder if it's really true that a loving single parent family, while not ideal, isn't better than the situation many children grow up in around the world. The best we can do is love people as they are for who they are to the best of our abilities.
I remember that clip from West Wing when it originally aired and really liked it at the time. It was one of my favorite parts of the video. In case you didn't know, the President Bartlett character was a highly religious man as well and had considered becoming a priest himself before he got married and had kids.
Also, I've included my last name to try to help yall keep me and Rachael distinct - I had hoped the difference in spelling would be enough but maybe last names or at least initials would be helpful.
I absolutely loved the video. As a Christian, it has always pained me to see other Christians perverting the messages of the Bible, whether it was against mix-race couples or against homosexuals. The Bible has always been about love, and I think that anyone who really prays on these topics comes to a conclusion that God loves them and God loves the love that homosexuals have for each other. I wish that this video could be shown to more Christians and that this view would spread instead of the hatred that has been spreading.
I really enjoyed the stories of the families and the personal journeys that the homosexuals and their families took. It was wonderful to hear and see.
I liked that the video took into account what the Christian perspectives are, and potentially why people feel the way they do. It tried to show many sides of the argument, which made the arguments against those points a lot more valid to me, since there was an understanding for the homophobic point of view.
MORGAN - you mentioned that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are disadvantaged. However, many studies have not found that to be the case. To quote an article by the American Psychological Association on Gay and Lesbian Parenting (2008), "not a single study had found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
Here's a larger article that is a compilation of findings from articles...it's a bit lengthy, but thorough: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=villanovalwps
KATE- the American Psychological Association had already taken a stance on homosexuality before they conducted this study, so I would be wary that it might be a biased perspective. The studies that I have looked at have been from countries such as Canada and various countries in Europe that have legalized same sex marriage. I've read a lot, so I may have trouble tracking it all down. Here are a few examples:
Adolescence Journal reports that 29% of adult children of homosexual parents have been subjected to sexual molestation compared to .6% of adult children of heterosexual parents
Homosexual relationships have a higher rate of disruption (separation and divorce). Saghir and Robings "Male and Female Homosexuality" (1973--I realize this is old, but I believe I've read stats that are more recent that speak similarly)
"Adolescents from intact 2-parent (mother/father) families were less likely to be suspended or expelled from school, less likely to commit...crimes, less likely to be reported for problem behaviors at school, less likely to receive low grades in 2 or more subjects" Manning and Lamb, Journal of Marriage and Family (2003)
RACHEL-I believe your willingness to adopt to be kindhearted and sincere, but here is something I would like you to consider since we are already on this rabbit trail. A Swedish study found that children in 1-parent homes had more than double the risk of psychiatric disease such as severe depression...suicide and alcohol-related disease. The researchers controlled a wide range of demographic variables and Sweden has a system that widely decreases economic variability, so these stats cannot be attributed to poverty. "Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in Sweden" (2003) So while you may be a fantastic single mom, when we are making policy for the whole of society, it seems that the non-optimal circumstances could be harmful. I respect your decision to adopt, but just wanted you to know where I was coming from in my stance.
Though the movie can be counted as extreme, I feel the focus was pushed so hard to one side make us realize that that point of view is very real and very present--not that it's the only one out there. Just because we don't see it every day doesn't mean that anti-homosexual sentiments--and yes, even violent ones, do not still run throughout this country, and all over the world. Most of us, since we have largely admitted heterosexuality, probably won't really see the things presented in the video because it isn't directed toward us. In college I marched for Equal Rights to Marriage Day and was told to my face by more than a few people that I was going to Hell and other various terrible things. I'll note that this was a peaceful march consisting of about 15 people we were dressed up in "wedding dresses" or suits and carrying signs saying that we all deserve equal rights (or something to that effect). We were not in the middle of a crowd, simply walking down Lumina Ave. in Wrightsville Beach on a Saturday afternoon. No chanting, no yelling, nothing offensive on the part of the marchers, only our message. These were what would seem like "normal good ol' folks" that if I'd met under any other circumstance would have been very polite to me, but in this situation they looked at me, did not know me at all or any details about my sexuality, my values, and told me that I'm going to Hell, I was even a little nervous someone might spit on me the way they were looking. I don't know what faith these people held or if they had any at all, but the point is the discrimination is very real and people are not afraid to put it out there.
One of the major things that threw my faith in religion and Christianity in particular (because that was all I had ever been exposed to) was the example given in the church of my upbringing of intolerance and discrimination-- as a young girl, I internalized this as the view to be that of all Christians and rejected it. I have realized now, through exposure to accepting and loving Christians, and through my own exploring of religion, that this vehement intolerance is not always the norm, but it does exist, as much as we do not want it to.
I think in the instance of people thinking that children growing up in homes with homosexual parents is different from any other situation of kids growing up is a misconstrued argument. We are given an example in which display of "promiscuous homosexual behavior" was scarring to a child. Yes, I can see how that would be scarring, but would heterosexual promiscuity of parents not also be just as damaging?? The sad truth is that yes, children are (and have been for a long time) growing up in less than ideal situations. It would be great if every child were able to have two loving parents, but the fact is, unfortunately that's not our reality. In reality if we can give two loving parents to each child should it matter if the parents are both male or female?
I listened to a man on the radio speak about his book on "denialism" not too long ago and it was really intriguing. His thesis for the book was that personal belief is stronger than empirical fact for many people. That if someone believes something is true, that belief can outweigh evidence that it is not. I think this can be applied in the context of using the Bible as divine law and whether or not we want same-sex parents, homosexual teachers, church leaders, town officials, etc. You will be able to find evidence to prove your argument either way, but what gives that evidence meaning is your own personal belief.
I have one question about the military issue. It seems that we are only discussing if it is safe for homosexuals to participate in the military and only talking about their homosexuality as the issue. Perhaps some thought given to why their safety would be an issue and the fact that perhaps there should be some education there on the part of those making it "unsafe." Is the issue homosexuality or is it hate? Erin, I wonder if you are on to something in saying that younger generations of military are less hostile toward the idea of homosexual military members. I think another good point is that we are thinking of these "homosexuals" only in terms of their sexuality. Why are we so concerned with who people sleep with only if they are gay?? And does their sexual orientation mean they are going to go prowling around showers scoping out their comrades? Probably not. That would be a sure fire way to get your ass kicked. We assume that the heterosexual soldiers know what is appropriate in terms of sexual display and when. Can we not give the same benefit to soldiers who are gay?
Aah, just way too much to be said about this issue.
Morgan, it looks like you have some pretty substantive evidence for the parenting thing, but I'm wondering about a larger issue, the fact that we don't disallow heterosexual parents, even if they don't seem like promising parents, to not have children. How, then do we have any right to tell someone, based solely on their sexuality, that they don't have that right? I wonder, with the denialism idea, that if the statistics proved that homosexual parents were just as "effective" as parents, that people would still find reason to say it's not okay. I do realize, that I am operating on my own "denialism" here, looking at facts that say they do not perform as well as parents and persisting that they have the potential to be. I think that's all any of us have in the area of parenting: potential.
To Jack and your questions on Judaism and its views on homosexuality... Like Christianity it depends. A lot of the Christian scripture condemning homosexuality is found in the Torah. Ie. Leviticus. Just like Christians, Jews have more conservative sects and more liberal (orthodox vs. reform)but from my experience in the Jewish faith, I find the religion and those practicing it to be very open to homosexuality. I know there are many homosexual rabbis in orthodox, reform, reconstructionist, etc movements and that a lot of Jews view same-sex marriage as a religious right.
As for Rachel, I totally agree with you on your stance of single-parenthood. As someone who loves children but doesn't always see marriage in her future, I've also considered adoption. For all of the research that's been done on the negative psychological outcomes in children of homosexual parents or single parents, I'd like to see what kind of support system they had aside from their parents. The 'It takes a village' philosophy is a popular one, and I think anyone with sense, love in their hearts, and a good support system should be able to raise children, no matter if they're doing it alone or if they're in what some people consider an 'unconventional' relationship.
(Rachel H) So I had lunch with a friend and talked about some of the things that have been on my mind since watching the video the other day. It's helped me to settle my thoughts on some things and reassure myself that while I am not protesting and marching in defense of his rights, I have done a lot to make sure he knosw that I value him as a person and to make him feel comfortable talking to me about his boyfriend and his life as I would with any friend.
I went back and rewatched the part of (6:25 7/9) where the Reitan family specifically talks about the Lutheran church as well. I think most of my discomfort comes from some of the words and attitudes used.. the family is referred to as a group of militants. They lead a protest outside of the synod's conference. Why did they need to protest outside the conference? For those of you who may not know, every congregation sends delegates to such meetings and decisions are made democratically. The church's stance is blamed for rejection of children by their parents. Why must it be a "fight" to change the church? In my experience I have never been in Lutheran church that preached about the abomination of homosexuality, and certainly never felt that it was considered any differently than other lifestyles or even sins that may not be that which the church would not encourage if you want to look at it that way.
If I have time I'd like to rewatch the videos now that my thoughts have settled a little and see if I feel any differently about it. Have the rest of you had your perspective change on anything as you consider your reaction to the video?
Thanks for the support Rebecca. I agree the support system and surrounding network for a child is vitally important. Growing up we may not have lived near my extended family, but there were church families who treats us as if we were related. I even called several people I was not related to Grandpa Jim & Grandma Lila and Grandpa Stan. I missed out on some of the advantages of family nearby, but I think I also had an enhanced sense of the people who matter to you ARE family regardless of blood ties.
MORGAN I'm trouble by the idea when we are making policy for the whole of society, it seems that the non-optimal circumstances would be harmful. How much should policy be based on optimal expectations for circumstances? and how much should it be designed to deal with and raise the level to more acceptable overall conditions with less drastically awful situations? It's an impossible dilemna, while we'd all prefer optimal circumstances, we need policies in place to deal with many unfortunate realities.
I found the article Dr. Greenfield posted from the New York Times very enlightening. It draws some interesting conclusions based on data to support that children in same sex homes are actually not that different from children with heterosexual parents. It even gives evidence that the differences that do exist are in favor of the children with same sex parents. In the many debates over gay adoption and gay marriage we usually always hear facts and statistics proving that having same sex parents is not beneficial to the children, but is this really the case?
The article makes a good point in that all of our previous data has been limited because there simply have not been enough same sex families until recently with children old enough to have any conclusive evidence. And it would seem that recent evidence points to the only significant difference for children with same sex parents is that they are more likely to see beyond traditional gender roles and be more tolerant. I, personally, have not spent much time researching or reading up on this subject matter, but I do find it very interesting to read a different side of the argument. You do not often hear about the benefits of having same sex parents, and so I found the article to be refreshing in offering a different perspective. It is definitely something to think about and consider.
Wow a lot of great posts. I am encouraged by the honesty in the blogs. I found the videos helped me understand the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I did not consider the negative implications of that policy. I find that the military a unique culture of its own. And that what we ask of them to do in behalf of our defense is quite incredible. I would think that the military’s concern would be that of unit cohesion. The combat soldier is a very macho individual. The military honed these young men to an edge so that when told they follow orders with out question. It would not be a very successful Army with anyone questioning any order. The Spartans were one of the most fierce, feared armies of the world. Their sexuality was not questioned even though many of them had homosexual partners. It was even proposed that they fought with even more tenacity because they fought for their lovers. If you have spoken to anyone who has seen combat they will tell you that they do not fight for God and Country. They fight for each other. It is that closeness that bond that propels them to extraordinary things for the safety of their comrades. Does having known gays in the military upset that cohesion? I am not sure. I am thinking that during WWII the US had segregated units. The Tuskegee Airman comes to mind. They were the first all black fighters. They served with distinction in combat as fighter cover for American bombers. They proved themselves in combat and earned the respect of all the other pilots. Does this mean we need to have an all gay unit to prove their fitness as soldiers? This is a very difficult question that the military I think will have to take the lead on. I think to the point Alison made about safety. I think that they current policy is in place for the safety of the gay soldier. But I don’t think that a diversity class will produce a positive effect quickly for the soldiers in the field. One of the things that intrigued most about the videos was the kid with the ball cap that thought it was fun to beat gays. His cold, callousness about beating somebody that was different than him scares me. How do we reach that segment of society that is so extreme?
The parts of the video that kept referring to religion and the Bible did not bother me as much. I guess that it was expected. The Bible is used to defend anyone’s actions. The Old Testament which is used in Christian, Judaism and Islam is harsh. I do not think that we are taught to judge each others actions but that we are only responsible for our sins not our brothers. I am not saying that homosexuality is a sin. I am saying that if we have a religious belief, most tenets of most churches believe that we are accountable for ourselves. It is not for us to judge others much less punish them. It is for us as educators to be able to see individuals for what they are
As an educator and as the guide for future students, I would have to be open to all possibilities and believe in each of my students and thier abilities to become more than they currently are and let them know that I believe in them regardless of any one characteristic they have.
As for gays in the military, I think Bill has a good summary of the practical issues of the miltary. What takes precedence: our safety as a nation or displaying our dedication to equality?
I agree with Alison that basing someone's fitness to be a parent solely on their sexuallity is bad. Especially since we have so many bad heterosexual parents that are not barred from having children. Who should be a parent and who is allowed to be a parent by law are both very complicated questions that seem not to have an answer in sight.
Is there a way that can allow both pragmatism and idealism coexist in these situations?
One issue that came up in the video that closely pertains to "don't ask, don't tell" is that by denigrating homosexuality and not allowing non-heterosexual people to be open and affirmed, we force a whole segment of the population to lie. Even if we as individuals, or even the towns Jack described, are welcoming and supportive, it does not change the society in which these folks must live. The idea that we can simply force certain people to ignore a major facet of humanity (love) is, to me, ludicrous and inhumane and the movie did address some of the negative ramifications of having to suppress identity. I feel like in the case of non-heterosexual lifestyles, we forget that these relationships are not just about sex, but support, partnership, and love.
So, the military connection... Imagine how much better our fighting force could be if we allowed soldiers, in such high stress positions, to just be themselves and put their energies into their work, without having to keep up some farce in order to keep their job. It seems like, of all jobs, this is the one where true support and honesty would be paramount.
Rachel-I am working from the accepted American premise of greatest good for greatest number of people (or kids). We can debate what "good" means all day long, but my definition of "good" is optimal circumstances. This brings up tons of minority issues, so we probably want to leave this discussion for a later blog.
Alison and Shannon-Great questions! I'm not saying all homosexual parents are good parents by any means. There are a lot of heterosexuals who should not be allowed to adopt! We must consider, though, that if homosexuals could have biological children the debate would change entirely. They have no other means to have children besides adoption, and I think this is why there bears the question of adoption being a right, because me saying they can't adopt is saying that they can't have kids at all. I don't think that making the statement that there are bad heterosexual parents is fair in the adoption category. There are heavy screening processes with adoption and unfit heterosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. With kids in bad circumstances in biological homes, the position of government is reactive--we take the kids away from a bad situation, but with adoption the idea is preventative--to avoid bad circumstances and give these kids the best opportunity for success that the state can provide them. In my opinion the best circumstance for these kids is giving them an opportunity to have a mom and a dad. I think there are specific roles that both genders play that is helpful, and I also have some statistics on well-being of kids on this one, but I will forgo for now. The key in my mind here is kids who are up for adoption are the responsibility of the state, so they are a liability and must be taken special care of in placement. I've been operating under the premise of "greatest good for greatest number" and I realize some good single parents or homosexual parents would be at a loss because of my policy ideas, but that is a risk I'm willing to take for the greatest good.
My question for you guys is if America votes and decides marriage is between a man and a woman is homosexual marriage still a right that people have in your mind? Everyone has the right to have one spouse of the opposite sex now. If America widely votes against the notion, would you accept it since it would be a majority decision? Similarly, is adoption a right? If most Americans said homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt, would you be okay with the law since it's what the people wanted?
Bridget-I grew up listening to Dr. Dobson's kid programs on the radio. I got the job at the NCFPC through a friend. I don't really find myself in disagreement with these groups on my stance, but how I defend those stances is sometimes different. I do recognize that my Christian worldview is my motivating factor for seeking out these issues, but I try to look at them as objectively as possible, but as we all know, positionality affects a lot.
Article posted by Dr. G--Very interesting point. It made me start thinking, though, are these gender issues based on our views of sexuality or is are these stereotypes just a result of American culture? There are many other countries where female doctors or male nurses or more commonly accepted, but yet hold to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just something to chew on...
The article Dr. Greenfield posted was enlightening. When watching the videos and seeing the parents with gay children, I wondered about children with gay parents. I had always assumed that children who had gay parents would have a much harder time finding friends and fitting in due to the homophobia prevalent in many schools. I wonder if had the study group been comprised of mostly homosexual male couples (since this research is based off of mostly lesbian couples), if the results would have been a bit different. I also wonder how, specifically, the gender of the child affects how they fit in.
As far as openly gay people serving in the military goes, I do not believe that one's sexual orientation determines whether they are a good soldier or not. When I think of the ideal soldier, I think of one who is a good decision maker, one who can follow complex orders, and one who is physically strong enough to handle the rigors of combat. But, like Bill pointed out, the military is a culture of its own.
Recent polls do however show less opposition among current military personnnel in regards to gays serving openly:
MORGAN, you mentioned the rigorous screening process that heterosexual couples must go through before they adopt. Since homosexual couples go through the same rigorous screening process, why do you have a problem with them adopting?
You can point to small studies that identify correlations, but for an issue like this it’s important to look at causes. In your opinion, what causes gay people to overall be such bad parents that you would enact policy to prevent all of them from adopting?
I mean, I can find studies that show negative outcomes for children of black parents. According to your “greatest good for the greatest number” argument, we should heed these studies and enact laws to prevent black people from adopting, too.
Or maybe, just maybe, we could use the screening process to determine people’s fitness for parenthood instead of just assuming entire groups of people are unfit.
Sorry Im a little late on the post. I have been out of town. The video gave me very mixed emotions. I have always grown up in a Christian home where where religion was a very big part of my life. I have grown up reading and learning the Bible. The Bible to me is about love and acceptance. I think that everyone in the world needs to be loved and needs to feel accepted. On one hand i feel that since the Bible says heterosexual love, then thats the way it is. On the other hand, I feel that as humans we have a choice. Humans have a choice to decide who to love and how to love. I think God would be more proud of us if we accepted homosexuals, instead of condone them. One thing that struck me about the video was the torture and hatred that some people possess towards homosexuals. I don't think that any human being should have to go through pain caused by other humans. Its scary to think that some homosexuals live in fear all the time. One man in the video said he had to live a split life. He had to portray to the world that he was not gay, when he really was. Its sad to see that he cant be proud of who he is because of the world around him. On link 4, it was talking about positionality. The Bible is interpreted different by everyone, so people read and understand it differently. I think thats why there are so many mixed feelings about these topics. This video really got me thinking, and i really enjoyed it.
Shannon Good point about having to believe in each of your students. As future educators, we have to be open-minded and still treat everyone fairly, no matter what their sexuality.
MORGAN, to answer your questions about whether or not I would accept a law against gay marriage and gay adoption if a majority of Americans wanted it...no, I would not accept that law (in the same way that right now I don't accept the notion that Two and a Half Men is the #1 comedy on television).
Just because a whole bunch of people say or believe something does not make it right. Civil rights trump bigotry (even if that bigotry is widespread).
Bridget--As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm still opposed because kids wouldn't have a male and female in the home. Again, I have statistics that show the benefits of having parents of both genders, but I know that a lot of you guys are thinking of this as I'm bigoted because I am withholding something from a particular group even if I have statistics. I really don't want to seem like I'm just trying to be a hater, truly this is not my position. There is actually a group of homosexuals that is for a marriage amendment, believe it or not. I truly am concerned about the well-being of children, and my positionality is that children are best served in a 2-parent, mother and father home. Interesting point about adoption by different races, and about causality. You're really throwing out some thought provoking questions! With stats, it's all about interpretation. My inferences about stats from homosexual couples are different than stats about different races because of my inferences about causality. You're right we don't know direct causality and we bring our own judgments and positionality in how we interpret numbers. Ultimately, I'm bringing to the table that I think the best for kids is a mom and a dad. I know I have people who disagree with that for various reasons to which I say okay. Your definition of good and my definition of good are different. I think that's why we have majority rule.
Also, I still don't see adoption as a civil right. Voting sure...that's having a voice in our society. Adoption.... I'm not so sure. We already have a screening process, which means it's not like voting. That's why I'm okay with majority opinion and standing on whatever America decides on this one, but I totally understand that if you do see it as a civil right, then sure, it would make your view very different than mine, and would make you not accept it. Your Two and Half Men explanation is funny, but a good way of explaining that you can go against the grain. If I thought adoption was a civil right, then I would agree that we would need to go against the grain. You've given me food for thought. Thanks, Bridget!
Yay, MORGAN! I'm glad you responded because I totally get more where you're coming from now and why we disagree. I don't really value the roles that men and women presumably play in childrearing, maintaining a home, or having a relationship. In my mind, even though they exist and we're all socialized to them, strict gender roles don't really serve a purpose anymore.
I grew up in a home with two parents who embraced non-traditional gender roles, and at times, I was resentful towards my mother for it. But I wasn't resentful because somewhere deep inside I actually felt lacking. I was resentful because my mother didn't act like the mothers I saw on TV.
As we loosen up and become more flexible and open, I think everybody, including children, will be better off.
Anyway, thanks for posting. Your position is a lot less troubling and makes much more sense to me now.
To echo Bridget, I'm glad you are willing to explain your position, Morgan. Reading and paying attention to my response to your posts is helping me work through the bigoted perspectives I have. That said, they are still bigoted perspectives. You wrote “I really don't want to seem like I'm just trying to be a hater, truly this is not my position” but we can’t have our cake and eat it too. If you want to systematically deny people a right or privilege because of some aspect of who they are, you’re hatin’. I truly respect your conviction and your right to your perspective and opinion. However, we all need to be realistic and honest. We cannot avoid being a bigot while we maintain a bigoted perspective. I want to be clear that I am not above reproach on this and I hope eventually to be as brave as you are now to deal with my bigoted perspectives when we get to them. But I think we have to start by acknowledging that they are not value neutral positions and are, in fact, bigoted. In short, we all be hatin’ and we can't stop until we recognize.
Wow, so many amazing posts. That was a fascinating read.
MORGAN - I've enjoyed your discourse on the subject of finding the best home for kids in adoption. I think that is the crux of the issue - the kids have to come first, and as you said, adoption is not a right, but a privelege. The only kink in there, is that there are many children in need of a good home, so it would be a tricky issue to deny a homosexual couple the right to adoption. I think every case should be studied individually, and it's my personal belief that all other things being equal - a male/female couple offers the most complete environment for child rearing. Not necessarily better, but complete. These are such tricky issues... and I'm no expert. For my part, I've worked with children being raised by homosexual couples in the past, and I had no issues with them or the children, who seemed perfectly adjusted.
BILL - Man you made some interesting points about the military. Funny you mentioned Sparta, because I just recently watched "300" for the first time a few weeks ago, and then saw the Saturday Night Live gay skit about "300" rerun a week later. Your idea of a "gay brigade" similar to the black and Japanese brigades in WWII was also interesting. Obviously we won't see such a thing now, but despite the racism that caused those racial/ethic brigades to become manifest, now they're points of pride and proof against the very prejudices that engendered them. In that spirit, perhaps it would've been a wonderful thing had there literally been a "gay brigade" back then. An interesting tangetial thought for sure. But yeah, as you said, the military is its own culture, its own world, and faces challenges that no other culture has to face. As I wrote in my earlier post, I don't believe anyone should have to be in a closet of any kind, and I have to suspect that many military people are already aware of who might be homosexual or not, at least in some cases. The real problem isn't homosexuality anyway - there have been homosexuals in the military all along, since time began - it's other people's attitudes and prejudices toward homosexuality. And I suspect in a hyper-macho environment, filled with mostly very young men, there might be a new can of worms to deal with without the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place. But maybe it's time to open that can, and deal with it? Then again, I'm not military, so I don't pretend to have the right answers. I know they face a massive number of challenges and issues, so I also see how stuffing social issues into the back closet can happen.
ERIN - wow, yes. You make a good point. I think I just a found a blind spot despite all my experience and acceptance of homosexuality. I will openly admit (as I just did a moment ago) that I believe a male/female couple is the optimal environment. Mainly because I feel it gives children a balanced experience. Offhand I don't have any scientific studies to point to, and honestly IMO studies can be skewed in all sorts of directions anyway. So at the end of the day, I'm just biased. Yes, I fully accept homosexual couple child rearing, but at the same time, I do see hetero couples as the optimal situation.
I am hating? Hmm. Well, I don't know if I'd call it hate... But am I contributing to the sort of oppression we're studying in the context of this class? In my own little way, then yes. I suppose I am. :-/
Paul, I'm going through the same thing. It's hard to acknowledge things that we hold as "true" or "right" might be oppressing others and therefore not "true" or "right". I used the word "hater" in its euphemistic/slang meaning...but isn't there a nugget of truth to that? So, if I am oppressing others by holding onto my "truth", but that "truth" is so much a part of me, how do I stop oppressing others but remain true to myself, not give up my faith (which for me is not tied to religion)? Is that possible? I am struggling with this mightily...
As far as the ancient Greek military example, there was the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite unit composed entirely of male couples specifically selected for their devotion to one another. They were highly regarded as a fighting force for decades until they were annihilated by the Macedonians at Chaeronea in 338 BC. But that's something of a tangent.
With regard to the desirability of both a male and female parent in the home, that's quite simply a ship that has largely sailed in this country. The nuclear family is a pipe dream in many cases (and I question to what degree it prevailed for much of our history, in light of early mortality and family abandonment, even in the good old days). The options for kids being adopted is not same-sex couple or male/female couple. It's often knocking around the foster care system or getting adopted by whoever is willing. Ultimately, as Erin argues, it's a home suitability assessment that determines who ought to be adopting and I just don't think it matters that much if the adults involved are two males, two females, a male and a female, or a single person.
Regardless, marriage isn't something the state should be in the business of, anyway. Marriage is for churches. Certain contractual rights which have been needlessly attached to marriage and which can be legally separated from marriage should be what the state does. I'm for outlawing marriage and instituting domestic unions universally. As a disclaimer, I don't do religion, of any sort, whatsoever. The Bible (Christian or Hebrew) is an interesting book to me, but carries no special moral weight. I know that some of you put a great deal of stock in it and I respect that, but some of the conclusions folks draw from their reading of the Bible proceed from what I consider unsupportable premises.
The tide in this country is toward full normalization of homosexuality. It's probably accelerating in that direction, if anything. In twenty years, I suspect we won't think much of today's "controversial" matters. Which is nice.
This blog has been an interesting read for me for several reasons. I´ll begin by commenting on some of the previous posts.
MORGAN - good point on the subjectivity of research studies. You seem to have done a considerable amount of research on this and I admire your willingness to remain open to discussion when your views differ so widely from many of the class. On that point, statistics have shown that stats can say pretty much whatever you want - and I'd like to challenge that it goes both ways. I've no thad a chance to look at the articles you've posted but I'm really excited to see what they have to say and to examine how the research was conducted. I hope I can be as open as you have been while reading them :)
SOMEONE pointed out that an optimal society is one that would have both a male and female parent in the household. This touches a few interesting ideas. 1) What is "optimal"? (Please keep the Eah exercise in mind while considering this.) And is "optimal" the process or the product? 2) My parents divorced when I was 14. My brother and I, although living in the same house and being only 15 months apart in age had completely different experiences. Is it because I had a strong female role model and my brother didn't so much have a male one? How do gender roles play a part in that? Do you need a father/ male role model to learn how to be a man? What role does the extended family play in raising a child? Generally speaking, non-Anglo communities are much more closely tied to their extended families and family friends that they consider like family than European-Americans (Risk and Resilience textbook). Would that extended support network make a difference in how the children of heterosexual, homosexual, or single parents grow up? These are questions a society with a divorce rate of more than 70% needs to consider regardless of whether the divorce is hetero or homosexual. (I just noticed that my positionality created a blindspot of single dad families. Having not been a part of one, would anyone like to suggest how single dad families might differ than single mom ones?)
Side point: I am having trouble understanding how marriage and church go together at all. It certainly makes an interesting case considering the separation of church and state. If a church won't marry a couple for certain reasons, will the state not recognize it? I'm speaking more about my parents than the hetero/homosexual thing. My dad had been divorced before he married my mom and the Baptist church wouldn't marry them because of it (ironically, his divorce was Biblically legal considering adultery had been the reason). They just got married somewhere else. I can't imagine the government intervening and telling them they couldn't get married because that church hadn't allowed it.
Through most of history, most marriages were outside church. Even in Christianity, it was only in the Middle Ages that the Church made much of an effort to seize control of the practice.
Wow, I have to say that this video was quite moving for me. To be honest I felt a sense of shame in our society for the non acceptance of homosexuals and the unwarranted amount of disapproval that society has inflected upon homosexuals. It is interesting because I am religious and have never had the personal experience of being part of a church that openly dismissed gays and lesbians. What I hold sacred from my religious upbringing is the positive experience of being part of a church community ... not at any means a strict accordance to scripture etc. This video made me angry in the way that people use information to create a point that they believe in even if the information does not allow them to do so. It is upsetting to me that people use the Bible to invoke negative lashes towards the homosexual society.
ReplyDeleteAs the proud sister of a gay brother I hope that society learns to value gay and lesbian member of this society not for there sexuality but for who they are as people and for their positive actions and decisions. Although my brother remains within the same walls of a liberal DC school it is upsetting to me that he could face adversity throughout his life for such unwarranted reasons. It is hard for me to find hope in our future for this issue when I feel the opposition has such deeply rooted words for their feelings. I can only hope that our future society is that of an open one, but sometimes I am skeptical that this could ever occur.
DR. GREENFIELD – Thanks for the posting the “The Bible Told Me So” youtube clips. I’ve seen them before and it was nice to replay them and their entirety. I’ve shared these clips with many of my friends. They are certainly powerful and shed light on almost every question and indiscretion people have about homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteCLASS - Is homosexuality a sin? Is homosexuality a choice? These are perhaps two of the most controversial questions with respect to sexuality and religion. Everyone refers to Leviticus 18:22 when comments about homosexuality being an abomination are discussed.
The most two important video clips are were #3 and #5. In addition to homosexuality, the Bible condemns a host of things (video clip #3). Everyday people are gay (discussed on video clip #5)
It is a brutal world out there. And while people are entitled to their OPINIONS, many use their opinions as a weapon to torture and torment others with opposing views. Why do we take the Bible so literally?
I have a lot to say but I’ll start with my thoughts on homosexuality NOT being a choice.
Brace yourself, as I mentally prepare for our future discussion on these issues as well as my thought s on LGBTs openly serving in the military.
EVERYONE - The video clip cuts off abruptly. However, the finale can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SpD1CAoS8Y&feature=related
ReplyDeleteLeethaniel ...
ReplyDeleteGreat comments and questions, I missed the mark on trying to provoke more discussion in my own post. I believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice ... what does this mean for society? More importantly if homosexuality is not a sin what are the repercussions that the Church face? How would the Church hold its argument if it is proven that in fact, homosexuality is not something in which we choose?
I think it is interesting that Rev. Irene Monroe focused on positionality in her critique of the situation. Whatever position you may find yourself in could potentially change the way you interpret and use the Bible.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the others in the video that Christianity's core message is about love. Jesus also cared for the discarded and needy such as the tax collectors and the prostitutes. However, I am not here to make sweeping generalizations about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or something you are born with. Every Christian is different (from the standpoint of positionality, denomination, and human variation).
It was hard for me to watch this video, believing what I believe and seeing misconceptions about the purpose for the Bible and Christianity. I will say that as long as there is still question into the birth or choice discussion, homosexuality should be viewed by the church as any other sin such as gossip, lying, stealing, etc. Therefore a change does need to be made within the church structure, not necessarily for acceptance of the "sin," but regarded with less hatred, violence, and fear. It is important to note that the Bible also says "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
I found the video to be extremely challenging and also very one-sided. I think it is important to note the positionality of media and representation when watching a video of this type. The biases of one side will come out depending on what positionality the video's creator has. This is a good thing because without bias you wouldn't have the video to begin with! I agree with Candice that this video was difficult to watch. I think the video might have instilled in some folks the stereotype that the majority of Christians who take the Bible literally are right-wing fundamentalist extremists. I know that Mr. Robinson, the Episcopal bishop from New Hampshire, made it in the video and was championed as being a bringer of unity between the church and the LGBT community, so I'm not saying that it was completely lop-sided on its biases. I do think that the Christian community overall in soceity at large is labeled wrongly thanks to an outspoken few. The Bible, if taken from a literal standpoint, is a book that potentially no one would likes unless they truly believed in it. It rubs everyone wrong eventually in its words. It points out faults that all of share on a daily basis but we try to cover up - for examples -borrowing these two examples from Candice - gossip and lying. If you take it, bits and pieces, or only the parts that agree with your positionality or worldview, it is a little easier to swallow. So can the Bible be taken literally and not end up polarizing people? I guess that's my question for the blog at the moment. I want to see what some others post.
ReplyDeleteI think I’ll begin with looking back at RACHAEL’s post. You say that “that people use information to create a point that they believe in even if the information does not allow them to do so” and I ask you if you could further explain that statement. Right now, after reading your post, I’m reading that statement as you believing that people twist information to prove points that are not “valid.” If this is wrong I hope you’ll correct me. But from this reading I ask is validity in thought not completely based on positionality. I will interpret a statement completely different than you will and will develop a different truth than you do because I am a different person. In affairs of religion and God can there be a right answer? Everyone has to interpret their thoughts their way, God isn’t sitting next to me explaining what he thought and, thus, I can only guess. Now I do agree that developing truth and then hurting others for that truth is wrong, but I still question if you can say that their thoughts and feelings on the topics are incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI also look at this statement: “It is hard for me to find hope in our future for this issue when I feel the opposition has such deeply rooted words for their feelings. I can only hope that our future society is that of an open one…" What constitutes an “open society” and is it possible? We can ideally work towards a society where all homosexuals are accepted, but imagine that day. If you wake up tomorrow and homosexuals are completely accepted has society changed? Will there not be another group to pick on, to degrade, and to challenge? I know that we all hope to overcome the situation where different groups are picked on, but can that be accomplished?
As CANDICE mentions, Irene Monroe from the video talks about positionality for an extended period of time. Whatever position you are in will change your interpretations of situations and readings. I think these statements and conversations that she begins are essential to our class.
LEETHANIEL – “Why do we take the Bible so literally?” You ask this question, yet say that people are entitled to their own opinions. Is reading the Bible, accepting it literally or as a guide or however you might or might not accept it any different than having an opinion. It is my right to read the Bible how I choose and interpret it in the way I choose. Again there is no right or wrong to that. So when you ask that question I would look at your own positionality, why do you not take the Bible literally? Why do you choose to look at it differently?
I feel, overall, the video made the entirety of the Christian religion look bad. The movie made it look as though all Christians shunned and banished (for lack of a better word) homosexuals from their churches. However, many Christians I know have been taught to accept all people. Christianity’s core is rooted in love – which the movie did touch upon – and caring for all those that are rejected or needy. I don’t know many that throw homosexuals from their doorsteps as they have been taught to love the person, no matter the “sin” (if it is indeed that).
On another note I question what exactly this has to do with the new LGBT military movement. Now I am in no way versed on the matter of military or LGBT topics. But I do poise questions to further my learning. What is the military’s main stance on not allowing openly LGBT folk into the military? Does it have to do with changes they would have to make as different genders are bunked separately? And if there is so much aggression still out there against homosexuals is placing them in military situations safe?
Elizabeth ...
ReplyDeleteYou bring a good point to my conversation. Yes, we all interpret the Bible in a different way, so it is impossible for there to be a right or wrong interpretation. It is hard to imagine what makes an improved society, or a more open society but I know that there is always room for improvement. I can not explain what it will be like, but I can hope that there will be a society when there is not a group that is being oppressed. Will we ever get there? Probably not ... but who knows ... we can try!
To answer your questions about LBGT in the military, I believe that the military has held the following stance on LGBT being open: "what openly gay service would mean for privacy especially in combat zones, how it might affect the military's unique rules and regulations governing personal conduct, and the possible impact on unit cohesion." (Boston Globe) It is interesting to me that there is a statement included there on unit cohesion. Is the military saying that the fact that people are heterosexual is the binding glue that makes a unit a cohesive team? I certainly hope that military groups are bonded by more than heterosexuality.
These are a very emotionally stirring set of video clips. In many ways seeing a video impacts me far greater than reading about this in a book or an article. First, seeing the images of people who have been tortured and shunned is tough. Thinking about the physical and emotional pain that they had to go through makes this issue come to the surface more for me. Second, (and this is what sticks out to me the most) seeing the true expression of love in the parents' eyes when talking about their kids, after they deal with their own biases concerning homosexuality is truly moving. The last clip where Jake's parents are arrested with him, was particularly impactful for me.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I remember people referring to things they didn't like as "gay" or they would say "that's so gay"... something to that effect. I'd be a liar if I were to say I never used those words. Coming from a small southern town, phrases and words like that were common. I am certainly ashamed of comments like those that I made in the past. I never really meant for them to be hurtful, but I am sure that to someone they were.
Leethaniel- good questions to start off this discussion. I don't see the world through a very religious set of eyes, so I can't quote the Bible on homosexuality. My family stopped going to church when I was eight years old. Homosexuality is not something I view as a sin, or really wrong at all for that matter. I tend to view homosexuality as something that someone just is or is not. They are born that way. Just as I was born heterosexual, others are born homosexual.
That said, even if it is a choice, who am I to say it is wrong?
I was also disappointed in the religious context in which these clips were presented. Taking the Bible literally (and by literally, I am referring to the four Gospels), Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. Or divorce for that matter. He emphasized loving your neighbor as yourself.
ReplyDeleteA good friend of mine once pointed out, if you think someone is going to hell for whatever his (or her) life choices are, why not be super nice to them if their situation is going to suck in the afterlife?
I would also like to point out the censureship of translation and by the various churches who chose which books to put in the Bible. I understand that the Catholic Bible has different books than the Protestant one (does anyone know?). And more have been discovered recently including the Book of Thomas and Mary Magdeline. So not only is G-d speaking through people (specifically those who are literate), but He is again censured by human editors.
As far as homosexuality is concerned, I've noticed that people do, like that one woman's mother, think of gay couples only in terms of sexuality and disregard all of the other qualities a relationship has. Why is Brittany Spears more qualified to marry someone in Vegas for three days and divorce him more qualified to have a "marriage" when a same-sex couple who has been together for years can't?
And did anyone else notice that one of the "reasons" given for understanding homophobia was the fear men have of being perceived as feminine? What do you guys - I mean y'all - think?
The part of the film that resonated with me the most was the discussion of schools and how disaffirming these environments can be. Schools should embrace and encourage students, not isolate and torment them. There are obvious things I know I can do as a teacher, like being on the look-out for bullying and little things like saying “partner,” but I’m looking forward to learning more strategies to create an inclusive and empowering classroom.
ReplyDeleteLEETHANIEL, thanks for posting the link to the finale! I agree with you in that I suspect homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices, and like JOHN JACKSON said, even if someone does “choose” his or her orientation somehow, I don’t see that as wrong either. Your question about whether or not it is a sin doesn’t concern me because I’m not religious; however, it does concern me when people use their religious opinions to deny others their civil and human rights.
RACHEL, I feel you. The film included clips from TV shows and news broadcasts that were twenty years old, and it’s disheartening to see how we’re still hearing the same silly drivel today. So many countries already have openly gay men and women serving in their militaries with little to no problem, and it’s shameful we’re so behind.
I like the question that DAWN's post rose. The question about how a male may feel about the comment that homophobia stems from the fact that it makes men feel "feminine" and that is the ultimate "put-down" according to the film. As a heterosexual male who feels very strongly about my role as a male and being happy in my positionality as a male, I think that the argument that homosexuality threatens males because it somehow feminizes or puts them in a place of subordinance is a moot point and untrue. The film takes the scene of Denzel Washington from "Remember the Titans" to highlight the fact that men are motivated by being compared negatively to females, especially in a sports environment. I do agree that men don't want to be perceived of as push-overs but I would say the same holds true of females as well. I think that crosses genders and is a human trait that boils down to a desire for self-control and self-autonomy. Women and men both desire to be respected, understood, loved, and needed. I do believe men and women express these elements differently because gender does come into play and defines us differently. I don't think the feminizing of manhood is the ultimate cause of homophobia. I think it could contribute to the feeling thanks to the rhetoric which is used in our culture like JOHN JACKSON was talking about. If we don't like something sometimes we refer to it as being "gay". There is a negative connotation with the word. I really think that homophobia is bred just like other phobias, its basis is in fear of something not understood by the individual - it comes from a misunderstanding of something (not unlike the fact that claustrophobia convinces some people that an elevator is unsafe). This does not excuse homophobic attitudes but I do think it stems from fear and some people simply write off what they fear or don't strive to understand. I think understanding is the beginning of being empathetic to someone. I think this is an interesting question to ponder for the blog: Do you have to agree with/believe in the same thing as someone else to be empathetic with them or to their situation?
ReplyDeleteThis video was quite interesting, and I think I may have seen it before a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteI have some initial personal thoughts, and then some initial thoughts on the video itself.
My 2 initial thoughts in regards to the subject of homosexuality and religion:
1) Thank God I grew up in a milieu inhabited by people of every stripe, and in particular, many homosexual men and women. Sexuality is not a "choice."
2) Thank God I was not raised with any formal religion. I'm not anti-religious, but I enjoy the freedom of not being religious.
I say those things because as a young man, in my teens through my 20's, the world I spent most of my days in was the dance and theatre scene in New York City. Being part of that world gave me an initimate perspecive on so many things... All I can say is that my opinion of homosexual people is simply that... they are people. Good, bad and everything in between, like everyone else. Many of my friends, my teachers and my heroes were gay. Some girls I was attracted to were gay. I can still recall an awkward conversation with a pretty little dancer named Lisa, who I took class with back when I was around 18. We were walking together along 10th Ave., and I basically asked her out, and she became quiet for a moment, then thanked me but explained that she was dating a woman (our teacher, as it turned out). And that was that - my only disappointment was of course, that damn, she was cute! Growing up as a young man in that setting was wonderful, because I knew I was free to be whoever I really was. It just so happened that I lusted after the pretty little dancer girls. But I was free to be attracted to whoever I was attracted to, and I wish everyone had that same sense of freedom.
Regarding religion, I wasn't raised with any formal religion. Yet I have great respect for the teachings of Jesus, and some vague connection to Judaism given my half-Jewish roots. I won't tell the entire story, I KNOW I can talk and write way too much when I'm not careful. But essentially, once again I feel my lack of formal religious identity has been a source of freedom in my life, as much as I admire many elements of the religious world. No dogma, no text, no idealogue at the pulpit holds sway over my life.
I'll post the rest of my comments next...
OK, here are my thoughts on certain aspects of the video itself...
ReplyDeleteThe stories told in the video were heartbreaking, heart-touching, and poignant. And it's a shame that certain Christian sources aggravate and instigate homophobic behavior. Clearly there is a path of reform and self-rediscovery that Christianity as a whole needs to go down in relation to sexuality issues, and as the video demonstrated, in some denominations that walk has begun. But while I am a great believer in homosexuals being treated as the full human beings they are and always have been, and agree with the underlying themes of acceptance and humanity presented in the stories that grace this video - I think the real story is much bigger than what is presented.
1) Too much focus on religious reasons for hatred of gays.
I think there are other reasons that weren't touched upon very much. At one point the video does talk about hatred of gays possibly coming from male fears of being treated like females, the overthrow of patriarchy etc. I'm not so sure it's necessarily just that. I suspect some element of survival instinct is there. For example, despite my open-mindedness about homosexuality - if I had a son, I wouldn't want him to be gay. I would love and accept him if he were - but my preference would be for him to be straight. And I ask myself why, and the answer I find in my mind is that I would want him to be able to sexually reproduce. The other answer is that I love the female body and I would want my son to know that joy. Yes, I realize the many flaws in both statements, but those are the pure psychological responses I find in my mind when I pose that question. So I think the possible, deeply seated reasons for homophobic behaviors and thought patterns many be more complex and varied than this video suggests. Of course one source can't cover everything, but just as a literal reading of one biblical passage can give some people wrong ideas, so can a somewhat biased, simplified piece of media.
2) Too much focus on Christianity as the source (due to misinterpreted scripture, or not) of hatred of gays.
The cartoon of "Chistian," who sighs painfully at the mention of science, is unproductive in my opinion. You don't change hearts and minds with ridicule. Trading stereotypes is not the way to win hearts and minds, in my opinion.
Having said that, it's worth noting that homophobic behavior comes from many religious sources. In many Islamic countries, homosexuals are still executed by the state and local authorities, and homophobia is preached in American Mosques as well. Christian fundamentalism is only one aspect of the issue. I don't like to see Christianity singled out and stereotyped anymore than I like seeing any other group. There is a lot of hate to go around in the world, and it comes from many directions. Yes, I realize the video tries to balance its views on Christianity, but the overall _TONE_ comes across as somewhat anti-Christian to me, and I'm not religious at all.
What would be fascinating, is a similar documentary covering many religious and secular traditions in relation to sexuality and homophobia in particular. But essentially, I just think the issue is far more massive and multi-faceted than this video shows. I'm also probably being too picky, and missing the forest...
OK, enough from me. Please keep in mind these are my initial impressions and thoughts, and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong.
I also wanted to address other people's posts (I did read them) but it's after 1AM and I'm exhausted, and I already wrote way more than I should. /END/
PAUL – I’m in total agreement with you –many religions have the same feelings, it might be more beneficial to show the society stance rather than the focus on one religion. The movie edges on creating a mudslinging atmosphere, which will get society and this conversation nowhere.
ReplyDeleteI talked to a few people I know that are in the military or were in the military yesterday about the LGBT military movement. And they pointed out that violence against homosexuals is strong, especially in military situations. Those in the military often fight each other for “fun” and in an atmosphere where violence is almost rewarded they question the safety of those that label themselves as homosexuals until their is a society wide acceptance. There have been many situations over the years where openly homosexuals have been beaten to death on military bases, so is it safe for them?
On another note – what becomes the housing situation for homosexuals? Currently sleeping bunks are split: women and men bunk separately. How do you then change housing? Obviously if you followed the same rules that are in place now the homosexual male could not sleep in the male bunk house and vice versa for the female, so where do they fit in? I’m in no way saying that homosexuals should not be allowed into the military, but I am saying that these things need to be worked out before they can safely and fairly be admitted.
ELIZABETH, your concerns about gays in the military are warranted. The main problem is that we've had over a decade to work out these concerns, but we're still dragging our feet (while other countries have managed to do it just fine). The military is a can-do organization--when they're told to do something, they do it. They can't guarantee everybody will be safe all the time (women and ethnic/racial minorities haven't had the easiest time over the years), and in the case of protecting gay people, they'll do what they always do: lay out the code of conduct and punish the people who break it.
ReplyDeleteI've got a lot of confidence in the US military. If they can build a hospital in three days while incurring enemy fire, I think they can figure out some sleeping arrangements. And I think it's really unfair to tell somebody that until they are accepted "society-wide," they have to either stay closeted or not serve. They shouldn't have to wait.
Furthermore, society often follows policy, not the other way around. For example, there was a tremendous amount of resistance to Civil Rights in some parts of the country. Should we have waited for society-wide acceptance?
What an absolutely amazing video.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video I watched a Larry King Live interview with Dr. Deacon. They were discussing Dr. Deacon's friend Ted Hoggard (a fundamentalist Christian preacher who is facing backlash for engaging in what they call 'homosexual acts'). I was astounded at how both Ted Hoggard and Dr. Deacon think homosexuality can be taught out of you. It would have seemed to me that Mr Hoggard, after having these experiences, would understand that homosexuality isn't something you could control.
As a scientist, it's so hard for me to accept that not everyone accepts scientific evidence- in this case for homosexuality. Though I'm not sure the validity of the certain studies mention, I have read about well-run scientific studies proving that homosexuality is due to chromosomal development. It just scares me that the 'word of God', which was written thousand of years ago, has gone through hundreds of revisions and translations (and is written only by white men) is read and interpreted so literally. And why is only this law talked about so much? For goodness sakes, there are laws in Deuteronomy that determine when parents can stone their children to death. Why don't they read that law literally?
By the way... to see an interesting literal interpretation of some biblical laws (actual laws found in the Bible... look 'em up), go to
bricktestament.com (a priest got really bored one day) and go to 'laws'. I swear you will not be disappointed.
Oh and just for fun, I recommend you go to 'funnyordie.com' and search for 'Prop 8 the Musical'. They bring up several interesting Biblical points.
Thanks to Candice and others who raise the point of positionality. I found the movie relieving in the sense that it pointed out that the extreme homophobia assumed to be part of Christian teaching is really a misreading and misunderstanding of the scripture. The folks they interviewed came from a wide range of Christian traditions and were typically leaders within those traditions. I did not take an anti-Christian message, but an effort to point out that somewhere along the line the message of love gets co-opted and corrupted into a message of hate. I saw this as an effort to expose those who would corrupt the scripture and an affirmation of those who had done the work to better understand the word God.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leethanial that one of the important (albeit somewhat embedded) messages is that gay and lesbian people are "normal" folks. There is also some interesting statistics suggesting that there some generational effects with regard to recognizing this fact. Younger folks tend to know more people who are "out" than older folks and as a result tend to be less fearful. How does this relate to gays in the military? Tom Ricks has been doing some interviews with the rank and file that suggest that the issue with gays in the military really isn't a problem for the rank and file, who are much younger than the military leadership.
As for sleeping arrangements, I would raise the question that sexuality isn't really a dichotomy. What about bisexual folks? Where do transgendered folks fit in? The issue of sexuality in the military goes beyond strict homophobia. But like I wrote above, I wonder for whom it is truly a problem.
Leethaniel Brumfield III said:
ReplyDeleteTO EVERYONE - Watching “The Bible Told Me so” video clips sparked so many thoughts and feelings for me that is was incredibly challenging for me to focus writing on just one or few issues. I guess you could say that I was “thoroughly” bothered. Being a Baptist member of the Christ of God In Christ (COGIC), for me to speak about homosexuality in the church, this is the ONLY place I can speak from. With that being said, I’ve decided to keep my focus on homosexuality and the Black church. I will then attempt to tie these thoughts back to my opinions on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy being lifted from the US military.
First off, I've often said that homophobia would end in the Black church if every Black LGBT person simply came out. The first thing we would realize is that many of the people running the churches are themselves gay. And I'm not just talking about the choir members, the organists and the music directors. I'm talking about the ushers, the deacons and the pastors themselves.
I recall a couple of years ago when Rev. Benjamin Reynolds, a prominent black pastor in Colorado Springs came out of the closet. Although the Rev. Reynolds ended up stepping down as senior pastor of the Colorado church after telling the congregation that he is gay, his decision to come out caught many members of his congregation off guard, it later surfaced that he had been a longtime advocate for gay and lesbian rights.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude in the Black church saddens me, so every time I hear of someone stepping outside of the box, I am overjoyed. I feel that the Black church is a paradox. On the one hand, it is the most homophobic institution in the Black community. On the other hand, it is the most homo-tolerant institution in the Black community. The homophobia typically comes in the form of the pastor's "hell and damnation" sermon on homosexuality from time to time. The fire and brimstone are quickly cosigned with a “Amen” from the pews. But when you look past the pastor, the homo-tolerance is clear once you realize that gays and lesbians are everywhere in the church. Many of our Black churches would stop running if the gay, lesbian and bisexual members dropped out. That's why nobody ever asks them to leave. Instead they beat them down in the hopes that the gay members will not become strong enough to challenge their own oppression. Therein lies the paradox. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy and religious bigotry about homosexuality in the Black church is killing us as a people. It is killing the people who are dying of AIDS because the church won't talk to them candidly about sexuality. And it is killing the people who are dying in the streets because they feel morally authorized to regulate public expressions of homosexuality.
Leethaniel Brumfield said:
ReplyDelete(continued)
Which brings me back to Colorado Springs. I've been there before, and I know the city is a breeding ground for conservative politics and it's the location of the U.S. Air Force Academy.. So the culture of the community is already somewhat conservative. That's what makes Rev. Reynolds's announcement so bold and courageous. I think that when leaders of the Black church address homosexuality head on, others have no choice but to acknowledge that it, indeed, exists. First and foremost, I feel the people should recognize and understand that “we” have no heaven or hell to put anyone in, so who are “we” to judge? Even though I could go on and on about this issue, I’ll conclude by shedding light on the fact that perhaps less-than-frequent churchgoers would attend services and build their spiritual relationships with God and his followers if they felt more “accepted” and if the environment was more inviting. Some people are so sanctified that they can’t see past what they considered to “holy”. And this is such a disadvantage, especially if they are truly dedicated to leading others to Christ.
On another note, I see the decision to lift the “don’t, ask, don’t tell policy from US military personnel as a breath of fresh air. LGBTs that wish to serve their country should have the same rights and opportunities to live a peaceful life that are afforded to everyone else. Although I feel we have a long ways to go in fight for human equality, I can definitely see the improvements that have been made just in my lifetime, and I anticipate being able to witness even further advancement days, weeks, months, and years to come.
Leethaniel - I really thought the fact that you brought up the church's (the church being all Christian denominations together overall) response to AIDS interesting. It is a crisis, not only in Africa but also in the USA and around the world. People are dying everyday and many children are orphaned leaving them homeless and some of them are also very sick. I think the church overall has done a poor job of addressing this issue of helping AIDS victims. I look at it from a historical perspective - in the ancient world and the early days after Christ, the church was responsible for both health care and education. Good point Leethaniel!
ReplyDeletePt I
ReplyDeleteI have a lot to say, so please bear with me. I am a Christian, seen by many as a religious conservative. I'm a fan of Dr. Dobson. I worked for the NC Family Policy Council to get a marriage amendment passed in North Carolina (which was unsuccessful). BUT PLEASE LISTEN TO ME AND DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME! I'm not what that video would make you think I am. Us "Dr. Dobson followers" are in the words of Beverly LaHaye, not angry at homosexuals. I have gay friends and I don't pretend that they work from the same premise as me when they make their life decisions. The media and politics have created this Christians versus homosexuals dynamic, which has been detrimental to both sides being able to express what's going on, and in the mix the words of God have been completely distorted.
(Candice-Beautifully said.)
At the NC Family Policy Council, I edited a radio show. We had several speakers interviewed about this issue. My conclusion on all those interviews is I don't care if homosexuality is genetic or a choice. It won't shake my faith. The bible works from the position that we all sin and are born into sin. We all struggle with different sins. Alcoholism in itself is not sinful unless you act upon it. Dobson's ministry never claims that it is what changes people. God changes people. The ministry aims to show people God. If they choose to have a relationship with God, then it's up to God, through the Bible, to show those people how to battle whatever sins they struggle with.
Matthew 6:1 (NASB--a super close translation from Greek) says "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them." For all of us who are Christian, this must be a huge focus when approaching homosexuality issues, not to proclaim that we are more righteous. As Paul says in the New Testament, I will only boast in Christ and what He has done for me.
I think one thing I would like for you all to consider is how to interpret the Bible. I loved the quote in the video that said most Christians haven't read the Bible. So sad how true this is...something I'm very passionate about changing! My thoughts on Scripture, which I love reading!:
I am not going to deny that men put pen to paper for the Bible to exist, but I do believe that the Bible is inspired by God to teach and direct Christians. "Literal" interpretation is bad terminology. In the theology I hold, we say that we aim for a good hermeneutic--this means to seek out the author's intent when reading scripture. This means scripture needs to be read in context. How does it fit in the whole? What type of passage is it--is it a narrative like the gospels or is it a poetic writing like the psalms? etc.
Pt II
ReplyDeleteMy reasoning for wanting a marriage amendment is not based on my Christian beliefs; it's based on wanting what's best for society. Marriage involves children, and the ability to adopt children. Those children who live in a homosexual-parented family have been shown to have higher levels of depression and higher levels of instability. I think that as a society, we need to give children an opportunity to have a mother and a father. Similarly, I don't think children should be adopted by a single person. I know there are disapproving faces from some of you right now, but my logic is consistent on issues of adoption, which leads me to my opinion on homosexual marriage. Civil unions, new topic entirely. Now about the military, I am still not sure how I feel about this--you all raise interesting questions which I want to hear more about in class, because I haven't formulated an opinion on this yet.
Despite how situations may seem, I want you to know that my priority as a Christ follower is to tell people about Christ. Once someone accepts Christ, then it is up to God to change that person's mind and/or actions. My position is not to judge. My position is to love. All people are messy. Christ wants to save all of us messy people. Homosexual struggles are no different in my mind than premarital sex or lust or gluttony or my thoughts that I am better than someone else. Christ is above all that.
Oh and Paul--thanks for noting that the Christian church is not fully to blame for what has horribly happened to homosexuals in our past.
ReplyDeleteHere's also some links that you guys might want to check out. First is NC Family Policy Council... links to radio shows that have influenced me a lot.
ReplyDeletewww.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2007.html go down to "Pro Homosexual Theology", interview with Joe Dallas
www.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2008.html God and the Gay Gene, The Impact of Homosexual Parenting 1 and 2 (this is someone who grew up with a homosexual father and influenced my views on adoption)
Focus on the Family website www.focusonthefamily.com
If you want to hear Dr. Dobson's view on choice vs. genes...www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHb1NDoUMOI
The video was very interesting. It showed a variety of experiences of parents and their gay children. I wonder what the Episcopal bishop's children thought when he and their mother split up so he could be with another man? It also showed that the Bible being interpreted literally often leads to unrealistic situations for the modern world which is absolutely true. I wonder though that it did not say how individuals being part of the GBLT community affected society as a whole. I would like to have seen more exploration of the effect of GBLT relationships on the community other than the video-taped protest marches.
ReplyDeleteI did take the time also to listen to one of the radio shows listed by other students: **www.ncfamily.org/radioshowarchives2008.html The Impact of Homosexual Parenting 1 and 2 (this is a 1st hand account of one person's experience with the GBLT community)**
This woman's story was about being emotionally, physically and socially scarred by being in a home where promiscuous homosexual behavior was constant and where the needed family structure and support was non-existant. This is one person's true story. This is the very real nightmare that the conservatives and the Christians and others are deathly afraid of. The true question is whether this kind of bad parenting and bad community citizenship is the exception or the norm. These videos showed a handful of gay and lesbian adults who grew up in strong mom and dad families often with strong religious faith as well. These children grew up to be gay/lesbian but were raised in a heathly, loving household that happened to be heterosexual. Would they be the same people strong, healthy individuals if they were raised in the GBLT community?
The GBLT community can contribute to society but it needs to be in a framework where it is appropriate and reflective of society's overall goal of safety for everyone.
I have mixed feelings about the documentary. I have watched it before for a film class several years ago, and it was interesting to watch it again in the context of this class. My reaction the first time I watched it was defensive. As a Christian myself I felt the documentary gave the impression that the Bible is responsible for LGBT discrimination. After watching it for the second time I think I now have a better idea of what the documentary was trying to accomplish. My defensive attitude had kept me from actually listening and internalizing the message, and watching the video as a social justice thinker definitely gave me a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose of the documentary was to shed light on how the Bible can be used negatively, and not to attack Christianity. It does an excellent job of pointing out that the Bible really does preach love first and foremost, and it also shows that there are Christians out there who do not use the Bible to promote hatred or discrimination. I do think it is important to note, as many of you already have, that it seems like more importance than necessary is being placed on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the route of the problem. I know plenty of people that interpret the Bible literally and believe homosexuality to be a sin, but still do not practice acts of exclusion and instead embrace LGBTs as they believe Jesus would.
My point is that yes, there are people who consider themselves to be Christians that use scripture to back-up their anti-gay sentiments, but I'm not sure the Bible is the source of where they are formulating their opinions. It seems to me that they are simply using the Bible as a tool, but in actuality their feelings towards LGBTs are a product of something else entirely, like external factors or simply the misguided need to find a target group to discriminate against.
Overall, I think the documentary poses some very interesting questions for everyone to consider. It definitely got me thinking about why out of all the pages and lessons in the Bible, people choose the few instances where homosexuality is mentioned and latch on. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin then what makes it any more important or significant than all the other sins in the Bible?
Food for thought...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html
I thought that the rabbi in the last segment had a lot of great points and succinctly summarized a lot of what I was thinking when listening to some of the religious arguments against homosexuality. I have seen Christian conservatives try to defend that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally on some subjects (like science, evolution, creationism) and then use word for word passages to make a case that homosexuality is to be condemned. The rabbi spoke about this very well, and I would be interested to learn more about what the Jewish faith’s stance regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage is like.
ReplyDeleteI’ve never really given much thought to the whole question regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I think it would have a huge effect on some people. And not being from a religious family/household, I’m not entirely sure how different religions would view people who chose to be gay, or were born that way, or however it works. Would one be better than the other in the eyes of Christians?
In the small ski resort town where I have lived for the past five years, there was a Gay Ski Week in the middle of January every year. It was awesome. It was a very liberal town, and I guess all the participants felt comfortable and welcome, because it has returned every year and I have never heard of any sort of anti-gay incident or demonstration in town. One of my many jobs in town was as a bartender, and I got to talk to a lot of these guys and girls over the years. Many were in very serious relationships, and had kids at home. Some were biological, with one of the men acting as sperm donors, and some were adopted. But it seemed like everyone I spoke with was able to create a great family atmosphere and gave their kids tremendous opportunities, especially those that had chosen to adopt kids. What was also interesting was that most couples I spoke with didn’t think that their kids were being treated poorly by other students because of their gay parents. I feel that the family dynamic and “traditional family” have changed a lot in the quarter century since I was a kid. In many parts of this country, two same-sex parents are more than accepted, and their kids don’t face many of the prejudices they faced in the past. Of course this is not true in all, or probably even most, cases, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. This definitely has implications for many of us in the class who will be working with same sex couples as parents of our students. It kind of scares me when I think back to the video, and imagine that some of the anti-gay marriage and anti-homosexuality activists were teachers. How would they treat students in their class after they met both of their mothers, or fathers, on back to school night? How would this affect the educational experiences of these kids?
Rachel Harris says: I wanted to think about things for a few days before I posted. The video had me on the uncomfortable learning edge, mostly because I'm not entirely sure how I feel about some of the related issue and how freely to share my thoughts without misrepresenting myself...
ReplyDeleteI will share a very strong positionatlity though - my father is a Lutheran pastor. The national church debates and policies discussed in both the stories of Jacob Reitan (who grew up in a Lutheran family as I did) and Gene Robinson have been a part of his life. As a pastor, my father wants to faithfully lead his congregation in the traditional Lutheran faith. He's been highly involved in online message boards and forums with the group LutheranCore who are considering pulling out of the ELCA (current national church body) over sexuality and other issues. Once I went away to college and started making decisions whether or not to go to church on my own I've been trying to make my own decisions and figure out my own opinions on many of these and other controversial issues. It's a work in progress and I'm not sure I know what I believe in many ways. I have decided church and my faith will always be a part of my life, but not the same way it is/was for my parents. I'm not always sure what to think, or if I want to go into some of that on this public of a forum, but I'd love to talk to any of you about it in person.
I do feel like the documentary tried to make us believe that the families shown were a large variety, but at this point in time, all but one of the family seem to have very similar beliefs. I think the spectrum of views on the matter is much broader than the view the video gave us between hell fire and brimstone preaching, old biased new stories, and the activists families. I'd probably say most people including my father and myself fall somewhere in between. Does social justice require all of us to be out there campaigning and demonstrating to not be ignoring opression of people? I've been struggling with that idea for the last few days. I hope that my ability to love and validate individual people and people in my life is enough...
And one other comment... I know single parent families are not ideal, but I've been thinking for a few years now that if I'm still single and/or haven't started a family in 10 or 15 years I'd love to become a foster or adoptive parent. I never shared some people's need to have their own biological children, but I would love to form a family. And I wonder if it's really true that a loving single parent family, while not ideal, isn't better than the situation many children grow up in around the world. The best we can do is love people as they are for who they are to the best of our abilities.
Rachel Harris says
ReplyDeletePart II
I remember that clip from West Wing when it originally aired and really liked it at the time. It was one of my favorite parts of the video. In case you didn't know, the President Bartlett character was a highly religious man as well and had considered becoming a priest himself before he got married and had kids.
Also, I've included my last name to try to help yall keep me and Rachael distinct - I had hoped the difference in spelling would be enough but maybe last names or at least initials would be helpful.
I absolutely loved the video. As a Christian, it has always pained me to see other Christians perverting the messages of the Bible, whether it was against mix-race couples or against homosexuals. The Bible has always been about love, and I think that anyone who really prays on these topics comes to a conclusion that God loves them and God loves the love that homosexuals have for each other. I wish that this video could be shown to more Christians and that this view would spread instead of the hatred that has been spreading.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the stories of the families and the personal journeys that the homosexuals and their families took. It was wonderful to hear and see.
I liked that the video took into account what the Christian perspectives are, and potentially why people feel the way they do. It tried to show many sides of the argument, which made the arguments against those points a lot more valid to me, since there was an understanding for the homophobic point of view.
MORGAN - you mentioned that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are disadvantaged. However, many studies have not found that to be the case. To quote an article by the American Psychological Association on Gay and Lesbian Parenting (2008), "not a single study had found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
ReplyDeleteHere's a larger article that is a compilation of findings from articles...it's a bit lengthy, but thorough:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=villanovalwps
KATE- the American Psychological Association had already taken a stance on homosexuality before they conducted this study, so I would be wary that it might be a biased perspective. The studies that I have looked at have been from countries such as Canada and various countries in Europe that have legalized same sex marriage. I've read a lot, so I may have trouble tracking it all down. Here are a few examples:
ReplyDeleteAdolescence Journal reports that 29% of adult children of homosexual parents have been subjected to sexual molestation compared to .6% of adult children of heterosexual parents
Homosexual relationships have a higher rate of disruption (separation and divorce).
Saghir and Robings "Male and Female Homosexuality" (1973--I realize this is old, but I believe I've read stats that are more recent that speak similarly)
"Adolescents from intact 2-parent (mother/father) families were less likely to be suspended or expelled from school, less likely to commit...crimes, less likely to be reported for problem behaviors at school, less likely to receive low grades in 2 or more subjects" Manning and Lamb, Journal of Marriage and Family (2003)
RACHEL-I believe your willingness to adopt to be kindhearted and sincere, but here is something I would like you to consider since we are already on this rabbit trail. A Swedish study found that children in 1-parent homes had more than double the risk of psychiatric disease such as severe depression...suicide and alcohol-related disease. The researchers controlled a wide range of demographic variables and Sweden has a system that widely decreases economic variability, so these stats cannot be attributed to poverty. "Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in Sweden" (2003) So while you may be a fantastic single mom, when we are making policy for the whole of society, it seems that the non-optimal circumstances could be harmful. I respect your decision to adopt, but just wanted you to know where I was coming from in my stance.
Though the movie can be counted as extreme, I feel the focus was pushed so hard to one side make us realize that that point of view is very real and very present--not that it's the only one out there. Just because we don't see it every day doesn't mean that anti-homosexual sentiments--and yes, even violent ones, do not still run throughout this country, and all over the world. Most of us, since we have largely admitted heterosexuality, probably won't really see the things presented in the video because it isn't directed toward us. In college I marched for Equal Rights to Marriage Day and was told to my face by more than a few people that I was going to Hell and other various terrible things. I'll note that this was a peaceful march consisting of about 15 people we were dressed up in "wedding dresses" or suits and carrying signs saying that we all deserve equal rights (or something to that effect). We were not in the middle of a crowd, simply walking down Lumina Ave. in Wrightsville Beach on a Saturday afternoon. No chanting, no yelling, nothing offensive on the part of the marchers, only our message. These were what would seem like "normal good ol' folks" that if I'd met under any other circumstance would have been very polite to me, but in this situation they looked at me, did not know me at all or any details about my sexuality, my values, and told me that I'm going to Hell, I was even a little nervous someone might spit on me the way they were looking. I don't know what faith these people held or if they had any at all, but the point is the discrimination is very real and people are not afraid to put it out there.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major things that threw my faith in religion and Christianity in particular (because that was all I had ever been exposed to) was the example given in the church of my upbringing of intolerance and discrimination-- as a young girl, I internalized this as the view to be that of all Christians and rejected it. I have realized now, through exposure to accepting and loving Christians, and through my own exploring of religion, that this vehement intolerance is not always the norm, but it does exist, as much as we do not want it to.
I think in the instance of people thinking that children growing up in homes with homosexual parents is different from any other situation of kids growing up is a misconstrued argument. We are given an example in which display of "promiscuous homosexual behavior" was scarring to a child. Yes, I can see how that would be scarring, but would heterosexual promiscuity of parents not also be just as damaging?? The sad truth is that yes, children are (and have been for a long time) growing up in less than ideal situations. It would be great if every child were able to have two loving parents, but the fact is, unfortunately that's not our reality. In reality if we can give two loving parents to each child should it matter if the parents are both male or female?
I listened to a man on the radio speak about his book on "denialism" not too long ago and it was really intriguing. His thesis for the book was that personal belief is stronger than empirical fact for many people. That if someone believes something is true, that belief can outweigh evidence that it is not. I think this can be applied in the context of using the Bible as divine law and whether or not we want same-sex parents, homosexual teachers, church leaders, town officials, etc. You will be able to find evidence to prove your argument either way, but what gives that evidence meaning is your own personal belief.
I have one question about the military issue. It seems that we are only discussing if it is safe for homosexuals to participate in the military and only talking about their homosexuality as the issue. Perhaps some thought given to why their safety would be an issue and the fact that perhaps there should be some education there on the part of those making it "unsafe." Is the issue homosexuality or is it hate? Erin, I wonder if you are on to something in saying that younger generations of military are less hostile toward the idea of homosexual military members. I think another good point is that we are thinking of these "homosexuals" only in terms of their sexuality. Why are we so concerned with who people sleep with only if they are gay?? And does their sexual orientation mean they are going to go prowling around showers scoping out their comrades? Probably not. That would be a sure fire way to get your ass kicked. We assume that the heterosexual soldiers know what is appropriate in terms of sexual display and when. Can we not give the same benefit to soldiers who are gay?
ReplyDeleteAah, just way too much to be said about this issue.
Morgan, it looks like you have some pretty substantive evidence for the parenting thing, but I'm wondering about a larger issue, the fact that we don't disallow heterosexual parents, even if they don't seem like promising parents, to not have children. How, then do we have any right to tell someone, based solely on their sexuality, that they don't have that right? I wonder, with the denialism idea, that if the statistics proved that homosexual parents were just as "effective" as parents, that people would still find reason to say it's not okay. I do realize, that I am operating on my own "denialism" here, looking at facts that say they do not perform as well as parents and persisting that they have the potential to be. I think that's all any of us have in the area of parenting: potential.
ReplyDeleteTo Jack and your questions on Judaism and its views on homosexuality...
ReplyDeleteLike Christianity it depends. A lot of the Christian scripture condemning homosexuality is found in the Torah. Ie. Leviticus. Just like Christians, Jews have more conservative sects and more liberal (orthodox vs. reform)but from my experience in the Jewish faith, I find the religion and those practicing it to be very open to homosexuality. I know there are many homosexual rabbis in orthodox, reform, reconstructionist, etc movements and that a lot of Jews view same-sex marriage as a religious right.
As for Rachel,
I totally agree with you on your stance of single-parenthood. As someone who loves children but doesn't always see marriage in her future, I've also considered adoption.
For all of the research that's been done on the negative psychological outcomes in children of homosexual parents or single parents, I'd like to see what kind of support system they had aside from their parents. The 'It takes a village' philosophy is a popular one, and I think anyone with sense, love in their hearts, and a good support system should be able to raise children, no matter if they're doing it alone or if they're in what some people consider an 'unconventional' relationship.
(Rachel H) So I had lunch with a friend and talked about some of the things that have been on my mind since watching the video the other day. It's helped me to settle my thoughts on some things and reassure myself that while I am not protesting and marching in defense of his rights, I have done a lot to make sure he knosw that I value him as a person and to make him feel comfortable talking to me about his boyfriend and his life as I would with any friend.
ReplyDeleteI went back and rewatched the part of (6:25 7/9) where the Reitan family specifically talks about the Lutheran church as well. I think most of my discomfort comes from some of the words and attitudes used.. the family is referred to as a group of militants. They lead a protest outside of the synod's conference. Why did they need to protest outside the conference? For those of you who may not know, every congregation sends delegates to such meetings and decisions are made democratically. The church's stance is blamed for rejection of children by their parents. Why must it be a "fight" to change the church? In my experience I have never been in Lutheran church that preached about the abomination of homosexuality, and certainly never felt that it was considered any differently than other lifestyles or even sins that may not be that which the church would not encourage if you want to look at it that way.
If I have time I'd like to rewatch the videos now that my thoughts have settled a little and see if I feel any differently about it. Have the rest of you had your perspective change on anything as you consider your reaction to the video?
Thanks for the support Rebecca. I agree the support system and surrounding network for a child is vitally important. Growing up we may not have lived near my extended family, but there were church families who treats us as if we were related. I even called several people I was not related to Grandpa Jim & Grandma Lila and Grandpa Stan. I missed out on some of the advantages of family nearby, but I think I also had an enhanced sense of the people who matter to you ARE family regardless of blood ties.
MORGAN I'm trouble by the idea when we are making policy for the whole of society, it seems that the non-optimal circumstances would be harmful. How much should policy be based on optimal expectations for circumstances? and how much should it be designed to deal with and raise the level to more acceptable overall conditions with less drastically awful situations? It's an impossible dilemna, while we'd all prefer optimal circumstances, we need policies in place to deal with many unfortunate realities.
For those who are curious like I was, here's more information from/about Jacob Reitan re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-reitan/ending-dont-ask-dont-tell_b_443186.html
and a video of his arrest after staging a sit in at a military recruiters office knowing he would not be allowed to enlist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FI2HPV6lJM
I found the article Dr. Greenfield posted from the New York Times very enlightening. It draws some interesting conclusions based on data to support that children in same sex homes are actually not that different from children with heterosexual parents. It even gives evidence that the differences that do exist are in favor of the children with same sex parents. In the many debates over gay adoption and gay marriage we usually always hear facts and statistics proving that having same sex parents is not beneficial to the children, but is this really the case?
ReplyDeleteThe article makes a good point in that all of our previous data has been limited because there simply have not been enough same sex families until recently with children old enough to have any conclusive evidence. And it would seem that recent evidence points to the only significant difference for children with same sex parents is that they are more likely to see beyond traditional gender roles and be more tolerant. I, personally, have not spent much time researching or reading up on this subject matter, but I do find it very interesting to read a different side of the argument. You do not often hear about the benefits of having same sex parents, and so I found the article to be refreshing in offering a different perspective. It is definitely something to think about and consider.
Random thing to share - there was just a Focus on the Family ad during the Super Bowl.
ReplyDelete(Yes, I am a nerd and a sports fan at the same time, sitting in front of my laptop watching the game.) =p
http://www.comcast.net/articles/sports-cfb/20100125/Tebow-Super.Bowl.Ad/
Wow a lot of great posts. I am encouraged by the honesty in the blogs. I found the videos helped me understand the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I did not consider the negative implications of that policy. I find that the military a unique culture of its own. And that what we ask of them to do in behalf of our defense is quite incredible. I would think that the military’s concern would be that of unit cohesion. The combat soldier is a very macho individual. The military honed these young men to an edge so that when told they follow orders with out question. It would not be a very successful Army with anyone questioning any order. The Spartans were one of the most fierce, feared armies of the world. Their sexuality was not questioned even though many of them had homosexual partners. It was even proposed that they fought with even more tenacity because they fought for their lovers. If you have spoken to anyone who has seen combat they will tell you that they do not fight for God and Country. They fight for each other. It is that closeness that bond that propels them to extraordinary things for the safety of their comrades. Does having known gays in the military upset that cohesion? I am not sure. I am thinking that during WWII the US had segregated units. The Tuskegee Airman comes to mind. They were the first all black fighters. They served with distinction in combat as fighter cover for American bombers. They proved themselves in combat and earned the respect of all the other pilots. Does this mean we need to have an all gay unit to prove their fitness as soldiers? This is a very difficult question that the military I think will have to take the lead on. I think to the point Alison made about safety. I think that they current policy is in place for the safety of the gay soldier. But I don’t think that a diversity class will produce a positive effect quickly for the soldiers in the field.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that intrigued most about the videos was the kid with the ball cap that thought it was fun to beat gays. His cold, callousness about beating somebody that was different than him scares me. How do we reach that segment of society that is so extreme?
The parts of the video that kept referring to religion and the Bible did not bother me as much. I guess that it was expected. The Bible is used to defend anyone’s actions. The Old Testament which is used in Christian, Judaism and Islam is harsh. I do not think that we are taught to judge each others actions but that we are only responsible for our sins not our brothers. I am not saying that homosexuality is a sin. I am saying that if we have a religious belief, most tenets of most churches believe that we are accountable for ourselves. It is not for us to judge others much less punish them.
It is for us as educators to be able to see individuals for what they are
As an educator and as the guide for future students, I would have to be open to all possibilities and believe in each of my students and thier abilities to become more than they currently are and let them know that I believe in them regardless of any one characteristic they have.
ReplyDeleteAs for gays in the military, I think Bill has a good summary of the practical issues of the miltary. What takes precedence: our safety as a nation or displaying our dedication to equality?
I agree with Alison that basing someone's fitness to be a parent solely on their sexuallity is bad. Especially since we have so many bad heterosexual parents that are not barred from having children. Who should be a parent and who is allowed to be a parent by law are both very complicated questions that seem not to have an answer in sight.
Is there a way that can allow both pragmatism and idealism coexist in these situations?
MORGAN, how did you become involved with James Dobson, Focus on the Family, NC Family Policy Council, and other similar groups?
ReplyDeleteDo you disagree with any of the stances that these groups advocate? If so, which ones?
One issue that came up in the video that closely pertains to "don't ask, don't tell" is that by denigrating homosexuality and not allowing non-heterosexual people to be open and affirmed, we force a whole segment of the population to lie. Even if we as individuals, or even the towns Jack described, are welcoming and supportive, it does not change the society in which these folks must live. The idea that we can simply force certain people to ignore a major facet of humanity (love) is, to me, ludicrous and inhumane and the movie did address some of the negative ramifications of having to suppress identity. I feel like in the case of non-heterosexual lifestyles, we forget that these relationships are not just about sex, but support, partnership, and love.
ReplyDeleteSo, the military connection... Imagine how much better our fighting force could be if we allowed soldiers, in such high stress positions, to just be themselves and put their energies into their work, without having to keep up some farce in order to keep their job. It seems like, of all jobs, this is the one where true support and honesty would be paramount.
Rachel-I am working from the accepted American premise of greatest good for greatest number of people (or kids). We can debate what "good" means all day long, but my definition of "good" is optimal circumstances. This brings up tons of minority issues, so we probably want to leave this discussion for a later blog.
ReplyDeleteAlison and Shannon-Great questions! I'm not saying all homosexual parents are good parents by any means. There are a lot of heterosexuals who should not be allowed to adopt! We must consider, though, that if homosexuals could have biological children the debate would change entirely. They have no other means to have children besides adoption, and I think this is why there bears the question of adoption being a right, because me saying they can't adopt is saying that they can't have kids at all. I don't think that making the statement that there are bad heterosexual parents is fair in the adoption category. There are heavy screening processes with adoption and unfit heterosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
With kids in bad circumstances in biological homes, the position of government is reactive--we take the kids away from a bad situation, but with adoption the idea is preventative--to avoid bad circumstances and give these kids the best opportunity for success that the state can provide them. In my opinion the best circumstance for these kids is giving them an opportunity to have a mom and a dad. I think there are specific roles that both genders play that is helpful, and I also have some statistics on well-being of kids on this one, but I will forgo for now. The key in my mind here is kids who are up for adoption are the responsibility of the state, so they are a liability and must be taken special care of in placement. I've been operating under the premise of "greatest good for greatest number" and I realize some good single parents or homosexual parents would be at a loss because of my policy ideas, but that is a risk I'm willing to take for the greatest good.
My question for you guys is if America votes and decides marriage is between a man and a woman is homosexual marriage still a right that people have in your mind? Everyone has the right to have one spouse of the opposite sex now. If America widely votes against the notion, would you accept it since it would be a majority decision? Similarly, is adoption a right? If most Americans said homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt, would you be okay with the law since it's what the people wanted?
Bridget-I grew up listening to Dr. Dobson's kid programs on the radio. I got the job at the NCFPC through a friend. I don't really find myself in disagreement with these groups on my stance, but how I defend those stances is sometimes different. I do recognize that my Christian worldview is my motivating factor for seeking out these issues, but I try to look at them as objectively as possible, but as we all know, positionality affects a lot.
Article posted by Dr. G--Very interesting point. It made me start thinking, though, are these gender issues based on our views of sexuality or is are these stereotypes just a result of American culture? There are many other countries where female doctors or male nurses or more commonly accepted, but yet hold to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just something to chew on...
As usual, this is a great thread of posts.
ReplyDeleteThe article Dr. Greenfield posted was enlightening. When watching the videos and seeing the parents with gay children, I wondered about children with gay parents. I had always assumed that children who had gay parents would have a much harder time finding friends and fitting in due to the homophobia prevalent in many schools. I wonder if had the study group been comprised of mostly homosexual male couples (since this research is based off of mostly lesbian couples), if the results would have been a bit different. I also wonder how, specifically, the gender of the child affects how they fit in.
As far as openly gay people serving in the military goes, I do not believe that one's sexual orientation determines whether they are a good soldier or not. When I think of the ideal soldier, I think of one who is a good decision maker, one who can follow complex orders, and one who is physically strong enough to handle the rigors of combat. But, like Bill pointed out, the military is a culture of its own.
Recent polls do however show less opposition among current military personnnel in regards to gays serving openly:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/military-poll-shows-less-opposition-to-gays-serving-openly/1
MORGAN, you mentioned the rigorous screening process that heterosexual couples must go through before they adopt. Since homosexual couples go through the same rigorous screening process, why do you have a problem with them adopting?
ReplyDeleteYou can point to small studies that identify correlations, but for an issue like this it’s important to look at causes. In your opinion, what causes gay people to overall be such bad parents that you would enact policy to prevent all of them from adopting?
I mean, I can find studies that show negative outcomes for children of black parents. According to your “greatest good for the greatest number” argument, we should heed these studies and enact laws to prevent black people from adopting, too.
Or maybe, just maybe, we could use the screening process to determine people’s fitness for parenthood instead of just assuming entire groups of people are unfit.
Sorry Im a little late on the post. I have been out of town. The video gave me very mixed emotions. I have always grown up in a Christian home where where religion was a very big part of my life. I have grown up reading and learning the Bible. The Bible to me is about love and acceptance. I think that everyone in the world needs to be loved and needs to feel accepted. On one hand i feel that since the Bible says heterosexual love, then thats the way it is. On the other hand, I feel that as humans we have a choice. Humans have a choice to decide who to love and how to love. I think God would be more proud of us if we accepted homosexuals, instead of condone them. One thing that struck me about the video was the torture and hatred that some people possess towards homosexuals. I don't think that any human being should have to go through pain caused by other humans. Its scary to think that some homosexuals live in fear all the time. One man in the video said he had to live a split life. He had to portray to the world that he was not gay, when he really was. Its sad to see that he cant be proud of who he is because of the world around him. On link 4, it was talking about positionality. The Bible is interpreted different by everyone, so people read and understand it differently. I think thats why there are so many mixed feelings about these topics. This video really got me thinking, and i really enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteShannon Good point about having to believe in each of your students. As future educators, we have to be open-minded and still treat everyone fairly, no matter what their sexuality.
MORGAN, to answer your questions about whether or not I would accept a law against gay marriage and gay adoption if a majority of Americans wanted it...no, I would not accept that law (in the same way that right now I don't accept the notion that Two and a Half Men is the #1 comedy on television).
ReplyDeleteJust because a whole bunch of people say or believe something does not make it right. Civil rights trump bigotry (even if that bigotry is widespread).
Bridget--As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm still opposed because kids wouldn't have a male and female in the home. Again, I have statistics that show the benefits of having parents of both genders, but I know that a lot of you guys are thinking of this as I'm bigoted because I am withholding something from a particular group even if I have statistics. I really don't want to seem like I'm just trying to be a hater, truly this is not my position. There is actually a group of homosexuals that is for a marriage amendment, believe it or not. I truly am concerned about the well-being of children, and my positionality is that children are best served in a 2-parent, mother and father home. Interesting point about adoption by different races, and about causality. You're really throwing out some thought provoking questions! With stats, it's all about interpretation. My inferences about stats from homosexual couples are different than stats about different races because of my inferences about causality. You're right we don't know direct causality and we bring our own judgments and positionality in how we interpret numbers. Ultimately, I'm bringing to the table that I think the best for kids is a mom and a dad. I know I have people who disagree with that for various reasons to which I say okay. Your definition of good and my definition of good are different. I think that's why we have majority rule.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I still don't see adoption as a civil right. Voting sure...that's having a voice in our society. Adoption.... I'm not so sure. We already have a screening process, which means it's not like voting. That's why I'm okay with majority opinion and standing on whatever America decides on this one, but I totally understand that if you do see it as a civil right, then sure, it would make your view very different than mine, and would make you not accept it. Your Two and Half Men explanation is funny, but a good way of explaining that you can go against the grain. If I thought adoption was a civil right, then I would agree that we would need to go against the grain. You've given me food for thought. Thanks, Bridget!
Yay, MORGAN! I'm glad you responded because I totally get more where you're coming from now and why we disagree. I don't really value the roles that men and women presumably play in childrearing, maintaining a home, or having a relationship. In my mind, even though they exist and we're all socialized to them, strict gender roles don't really serve a purpose anymore.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in a home with two parents who embraced non-traditional gender roles, and at times, I was resentful towards my mother for it. But I wasn't resentful because somewhere deep inside I actually felt lacking. I was resentful because my mother didn't act like the mothers I saw on TV.
As we loosen up and become more flexible and open, I think everybody, including children, will be better off.
Anyway, thanks for posting. Your position is a lot less troubling and makes much more sense to me now.
To echo Bridget, I'm glad you are willing to explain your position, Morgan. Reading and paying attention to my response to your posts is helping me work through the bigoted perspectives I have. That said, they are still bigoted perspectives. You wrote “I really don't want to seem like I'm just trying to be a hater, truly this is not my position” but we can’t have our cake and eat it too. If you want to systematically deny people a right or privilege because of some aspect of who they are, you’re hatin’. I truly respect your conviction and your right to your perspective and opinion. However, we all need to be realistic and honest. We cannot avoid being a bigot while we maintain a bigoted perspective. I want to be clear that I am not above reproach on this and I hope eventually to be as brave as you are now to deal with my bigoted perspectives when we get to them. But I think we have to start by acknowledging that they are not value neutral positions and are, in fact, bigoted. In short, we all be hatin’ and we can't stop until we recognize.
ReplyDeleteWow, so many amazing posts. That was a fascinating read.
ReplyDeleteMORGAN - I've enjoyed your discourse on the subject of finding the best home for kids in adoption. I think that is the crux of the issue - the kids have to come first, and as you said, adoption is not a right, but a privelege. The only kink in there, is that there are many children in need of a good home, so it would be a tricky issue to deny a homosexual couple the right to adoption. I think every case should be studied individually, and it's my personal belief that all other things being equal - a male/female couple offers the most complete environment for child rearing. Not necessarily better, but complete. These are such tricky issues... and I'm no expert. For my part, I've worked with children being raised by homosexual couples in the past, and I had no issues with them or the children, who seemed perfectly adjusted.
BILL - Man you made some interesting points about the military. Funny you mentioned Sparta, because I just recently watched "300" for the first time a few weeks ago, and then saw the Saturday Night Live gay skit about "300" rerun a week later. Your idea of a "gay brigade" similar to the black and Japanese brigades in WWII was also interesting. Obviously we won't see such a thing now, but despite the racism that caused those racial/ethic brigades to become manifest, now they're points of pride and proof against the very prejudices that engendered them. In that spirit, perhaps it would've been a wonderful thing had there literally been a "gay brigade" back then. An interesting tangetial thought for sure. But yeah, as you said, the military is its own culture, its own world, and faces challenges that no other culture has to face. As I wrote in my earlier post, I don't believe anyone should have to be in a closet of any kind, and I have to suspect that many military people are already aware of who might be homosexual or not, at least in some cases. The real problem isn't homosexuality anyway - there have been homosexuals in the military all along, since time began - it's other people's attitudes and prejudices toward homosexuality. And I suspect in a hyper-macho environment, filled with mostly very young men, there might be a new can of worms to deal with without the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place. But maybe it's time to open that can, and deal with it? Then again, I'm not military, so I don't pretend to have the right answers. I know they face a massive number of challenges and issues, so I also see how stuffing social issues into the back closet can happen.
OK, see you all later.
One more...
ReplyDeleteERIN - wow, yes. You make a good point. I think I just a found a blind spot despite all my experience and acceptance of homosexuality. I will openly admit (as I just did a moment ago) that I believe a male/female couple is the optimal environment. Mainly because I feel it gives children a balanced experience. Offhand I don't have any scientific studies to point to, and honestly IMO studies can be skewed in all sorts of directions anyway. So at the end of the day, I'm just biased. Yes, I fully accept homosexual couple child rearing, but at the same time, I do see hetero couples as the optimal situation.
I am hating? Hmm. Well, I don't know if I'd call it hate... But am I contributing to the sort of oppression we're studying in the context of this class? In my own little way, then yes. I suppose I am. :-/
Paul, I'm going through the same thing. It's hard to acknowledge things that we hold as "true" or "right" might be oppressing others and therefore not "true" or "right". I used the word "hater" in its euphemistic/slang meaning...but isn't there a nugget of truth to that? So, if I am oppressing others by holding onto my "truth", but that "truth" is so much a part of me, how do I stop oppressing others but remain true to myself, not give up my faith (which for me is not tied to religion)? Is that possible? I am struggling with this mightily...
ReplyDeleteAs far as the ancient Greek military example, there was the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite unit composed entirely of male couples specifically selected for their devotion to one another. They were highly regarded as a fighting force for decades until they were annihilated by the Macedonians at Chaeronea in 338 BC. But that's something of a tangent.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the desirability of both a male and female parent in the home, that's quite simply a ship that has largely sailed in this country. The nuclear family is a pipe dream in many cases (and I question to what degree it prevailed for much of our history, in light of early mortality and family abandonment, even in the good old days). The options for kids being adopted is not same-sex couple or male/female couple. It's often knocking around the foster care system or getting adopted by whoever is willing. Ultimately, as Erin argues, it's a home suitability assessment that determines who ought to be adopting and I just don't think it matters that much if the adults involved are two males, two females, a male and a female, or a single person.
Regardless, marriage isn't something the state should be in the business of, anyway. Marriage is for churches. Certain contractual rights which have been needlessly attached to marriage and which can be legally separated from marriage should be what the state does. I'm for outlawing marriage and instituting domestic unions universally. As a disclaimer, I don't do religion, of any sort, whatsoever. The Bible (Christian or Hebrew) is an interesting book to me, but carries no special moral weight. I know that some of you put a great deal of stock in it and I respect that, but some of the conclusions folks draw from their reading of the Bible proceed from what I consider unsupportable premises.
The tide in this country is toward full normalization of homosexuality. It's probably accelerating in that direction, if anything. In twenty years, I suspect we won't think much of today's "controversial" matters. Which is nice.
This blog has been an interesting read for me for several reasons. I´ll begin by commenting on some of the previous posts.
ReplyDeleteMORGAN - good point on the subjectivity of research studies. You seem to have done a considerable amount of research on this and I admire your willingness to remain open to discussion when your views differ so widely from many of the class. On that point, statistics have shown that stats can say pretty much whatever you want - and I'd like to challenge that it goes both ways. I've no thad a chance to look at the articles you've posted but I'm really excited to see what they have to say and to examine how the research was conducted. I hope I can be as open as you have been while reading them :)
SOMEONE pointed out that an optimal society is one that would have both a male and female parent in the household. This touches a few interesting ideas. 1) What is "optimal"? (Please keep the Eah exercise in mind while considering this.) And is "optimal" the process or the product? 2) My parents divorced when I was 14. My brother and I, although living in the same house and being only 15 months apart in age had completely different experiences. Is it because I had a strong female role model and my brother didn't so much have a male one? How do gender roles play a part in that? Do you need a father/ male role model to learn how to be a man? What role does the extended family play in raising a child? Generally speaking, non-Anglo communities are much more closely tied to their extended families and family friends that they consider like family than European-Americans (Risk and Resilience textbook). Would that extended support network make a difference in how the children of heterosexual, homosexual, or single parents grow up? These are questions a society with a divorce rate of more than 70% needs to consider regardless of whether the divorce is hetero or homosexual. (I just noticed that my positionality created a blindspot of single dad families. Having not been a part of one, would anyone like to suggest how single dad families might differ than single mom ones?)
Side point: I am having trouble understanding how marriage and church go together at all. It certainly makes an interesting case considering the separation of church and state. If a church won't marry a couple for certain reasons, will the state not recognize it? I'm speaking more about my parents than the hetero/homosexual thing. My dad had been divorced before he married my mom and the Baptist church wouldn't marry them because of it (ironically, his divorce was Biblically legal considering adultery had been the reason). They just got married somewhere else. I can't imagine the government intervening and telling them they couldn't get married because that church hadn't allowed it.
Through most of history, most marriages were outside church. Even in Christianity, it was only in the Middle Ages that the Church made much of an effort to seize control of the practice.
ReplyDelete