Then, when Nathan was 14, he decided to confide in his minister that he had feelings for other boys. He wasn't sure why it was happening, but he wanted some guidance about this and to know if it was sinful. Two days after this chat with the minister, he returned to choir practice (conducted by the minister's life) and found the congregation transformed in their attitude toward him. He went from being part of the bosom of this congregation to being an absolute outcast. The experience, Nathan told me, created a real wound in his heart and has since made him very deprived of a spiritual community. He has tried a few other times to find congregations where he might be welcome, only to learn that the church, whether a liberal christian of the Ba'hai faith didn't accept his homosexuality. Nathan said: "I am looking for a spiritual community, but unless they accept all of who I am, I cannot believe in their doctrines."
So, I told Nathan about my church, the Unitarian Universalists, and his interest seemed piqued. He was considering bringing his partner and seeing what this community was really like. Lo and behold, he showed up today. I sat next to them, and then the president of the board got up to greet everyone. It was then that I realized how important the opening words of the service are. This is the part where the greeter tells the audience that the Unitarian Universalist church is a religious community that is inclusive to all people, whatever their ethnicity, gender, political views and sexual orientation are.
For the first time, sitting next to Nathan and his partner, I realized how utterly important that opening phrase is. Because I am--despite being a woman--rather in the mainstream, I never fully understood why it was necessary to say this out loud before the service began. But, putting myself in Nathan's shoes, I heard those words as an unbelievably embracing welcome. I realized how important it is to say this out loud, and profess it as a community, so that those like Nathan, who show up having been utterly heartbroken in places of worship before can finally find a home.
I thought about how amazing my church is today, what a relief to find a place so inclusive and welcoming to all and committed to making the world a place of deep humanity and justice.
The Unitarian Universalist church is an oasis in a world that leads a mother to have to write an op-ed like this one:
Valley News, VT P.O. Box 877 White River Junction VT 05001 Op-Ed Sharon Underwood of Hartford, Vermont Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6. In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity. You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can? A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters." You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man. You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?" Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that? |
Technorati Tags: homosexuality, christianity
This is truly horrible. I have heard other stories like this and each one never fails to sicken me.
ReplyDeleteI do believe acting on homosexual attractions is wrong, but nothing like this should EVER be allowed to happen. Truly, those tormenting your friend did something much worse than they accused him of.
Ed
Dear Ed--
ReplyDeleteI simply cannot understand or be part of any faith that would ever dictate that acting on homosexual attractions is wrong. And, I simply cannot understand how anyone could hold such hateful views.
Gburgkid--
Thank you for your thoughts and they way you point out that such attitudes towards those who are gay are not Christian acceptance.
However, you point out something that all Christians often say: "That we are all sinners." This is why I left the Lutheran church and chose not to be part of any church that begins with the premise that we are all born sinners. I find this so anti-human. Perhaps I have read too much Nietzsche. :)
Gburgkid--
ReplyDeleteI really dig what you write above. I like the idea that we become who we are through the choices we make, the obstacles that we overcome, etc. I also know that alot of who we become is the result of decisions that were less than fully chosen: extraneous events, contingencies that we didn't have any part in (e.g. sexual orientation or physical ability). You should read Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex. It is by far the most amazing book I have ever read in my life on so many levels: her notion of freedom, identity and subtle careful readings of the conditions of a society that mold our personalities.
:)
This was an excellent post, and that OpEd...whew...there should be more like them. My best friend is gay (doesn't everyone have a gay best friend?) and we both came of age in a very anti-gay area. His mother is a Jehovah's Witness, and though she's very accepting of him now, it wasn't the case at the time. Things were very hard for him. I had a conversation with him recently regarding the whole gay marriage debate, with it's obvious Christian underpinnings, and he simply said "I'm not really concerned about what they think, I know God accepts me as I am." It was very simple, yet powerful in the sense that it wasn't something we discussed often, but it was clear that that he had thought a lot about it, likely wrestled with it for years and years, and was able to come to such a distinct and positive conclusion. I was really proud of him.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I'm an Atheist--first and foremost (and this will insult some people, though it's not my intention) because I find the concept of a god, or gods, to be completely illogical. Secondly, because I see so much damage done by it. I can understand why it's quite popular. There were certrainly times in my life when I could have used a god to pray to, or to give hope when there was none. But, not only can I not allow myself to just throw common sense out the window in a moment of weakness; I won't allow myself to be associated with something that has caused, and continues to cause, so much damage. It seems to be fine and good to the individual who practices any given faith, but hell on those around them who don't.
Gburgkid, you're proposal above is exactly what I always hoped a Christian would be like. In that, I could have no argument but in the case of logic, and *in that case*, there's no point in arguing. In the case that someone's faith helps them and helps others, I'm more than accepting of it.
Thanks for this post. :)
I'm also interested in the point about the Bahai (sp?) faith. They're supposed to be so all-inclusive. Must check this out with my bahai relative. It would be interesting if homosexuality were the one group not tolerated. The bahai stress universalism, interracial relationships and marriages, and the inclusiveness of all faiths (of course all faiths culminate in Bahai--how convenient). But of course, as we know, a lot of otherwise oppressed communities can be highly homophobic. Homosexuality really is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteThe Kitáb-i-Aqdas
ReplyDeleteThe Most Holy Book
http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdafiles/aqd.htm
107
"It is forbidden you to wed your fathers' wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires."
The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.
The Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá'í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:
No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature. To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy.
Almost all inclusive, I guess. :)
I don't quite see how thinking that it is wrong to act on homosexual attraction is hateful. One can have the thoughts, the feelings, but not act on them. Part of being human, my view (and mostly a Catholic one as well), is mastering yourself. If one action such as sex, albeit one that does have a very powerful pull, can control you I don't think that is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteGranted, people slip and make mistakes. One might even struggle and fail many times. That shouldn't be looked down upon, but be a tribute to their faith and strength.
I have also heard the argument that forbiding someone to love is hateful. Last time I checked, sex isn't a pre-requisite for love. It enhances love in a marriage, true, but isn't needed for love to exist and even flourish.
As for the "everyone is a sinner" thing. Well, I don't think anyone is claiming they never made a mistake, but rather that infants/children are liable for something they didn't do.
First, I would say that we can all certainly see the effects of the first sin. That is, we used to live in paradise, and now we don't. What I found interesting was that paradise wasn't called so because we could have anything, but because we only desired what we should have. That is, our minds and bodies (souls and flesh) were in unison, with our will controling our actions. So, there wasn't any passion overriding your will. We know longer have that, and so that mark is on all of us.
There are some other explanations (mine isn't really complete), but I don't want to make this too long.
Ed
"I don't quite see how thinking that it is wrong to act on homosexual attraction is hateful. One can have the thoughts, the feelings, but not act on them. Part of being human, my view (and mostly a Catholic one as well), is mastering yourself. If one action such as sex, albeit one that does have a very powerful pull, can control you I don't think that is a good thing."
ReplyDeleteDear Ed,
The reason you don't see this as hateful is because you are failing to see that telling someone that their "natural" feelings are a sin is wholly dehumanizing.
Where we radically disagree is in our moral foundations. From what I can tell, you make moral judgments based on a rather narrow Christian theological basis. You accept conservative views that homosexuality is wrong and abortion is murder.
I, however, make moral judgements from a rational framework, that makes explicit its principles, as well as leaving those priniciples up for debate. I do not make moral judgments based on conservative church dogma. I also don't think that the Christian bible is the only text from which we can glean our moral principles. I think that my ethical orientation is an uneasy alliance of Kantian and Virtue ethics (which comes from the work of Immanuel Kant and Aristotle respectively).
Due to the nature of my discipline--Philosophy--I also think its important to be able to rationally defend your moral judgments, not theologically mandate them. I have real problems with Divine Command Ethics (see Plato's Euthyphro or Kierkeegard's Fear and Trembling for more on that).
I believe that human beings are autonomous, and therefore capable of discerning what is right or wrong without the need of a priest or an ur-Text like the Bible.
That is all very informative, but you didn't really answer my question.
ReplyDeleteYou said:"The reason you don't see this as hateful is because you are failing to see that telling someone that their "natural" feelings are a sin is wholly dehumanizing."
I said nothing of the sort. I said the action was a sin, but perhaps you need an example.
I can have the fleeting impulse, or even a continued feeling/urge, to have sex, but that isn't a sin. Acting on it whenever I want is. Cerainly you would say anger is a perfectly natural emotion as well, but acting on it whenever one feels the urge would be immoral and dangerous. Would you say I am being hateful by telling a hot tempered person that his "natural feelings" are wrong when expressed that way?
This is exactly what I am saying regarding your friend. Sex has its proper place and time. I can tolerate your calling me narrow minded and irrational, but at least make valid arguments instead of throwing out words full of negative connotations like "hateful".
Ed
Ed--
ReplyDelete"I can have the fleeting impulse, or even a continued feeling/urge, to have sex, but that isn't a sin."
Fine, you want to make this distinction: urge vs. acting on urge, and call the latter sinful. Where we disagree, as I tried to say before (perhaps not clearly enough), is that I do not think that healthy sexual urges or acting on healthy sexual urges is sinful.
I don't view healthy sexual impulses as akin to violent manifestations of anger. This analogy simply does not hold for me.
Perhaps we might have a more fruitful conversation if we shared our different views about what is a healthy sexual urge. I will begin this dialogue with a start: homosexual or lesbian sexual desires are healthy urges. And, I should point out again that I do not overlay any notion of healthy or natural sexuality with a narrow Christian theological framework. I am not sure if that makes it possible for us to continue further down this line of thought together or not.
As for my interpretation of our conversation, for what it's worth, I never called you hateful. I do however call the actions of the "Christian" (purposefully chosen scare quotes) communities toward the op-ed writer's son and toward Nathan as hateful. If you think I am talking directly to you, then you have personalized my post. I am pointing out hateful sentiments among communities that I would hope could show more love and acceptance. But, I am sure we can both agree that institutions are only as good as the people who belong to them.
I also think, Ed, that explaining to you that I take a rational approach to ethics is not the same thing as calling you irrational. I don't know you and I don't know if that description of you holds.
I certainly don't think a moral judgment that homosexual urges or any sexual urges (outside of the marital bond)are a "sin" has any rational basis. But, I am willing to hear your argument.
Again, I didn't call you narrow minded. I asserted that the interpretation of the bible that you seem to hold (correct me if I am wrong) is narrow.
I hope this helps Ed. I am addressing your ideas, I am not addressing your character. I am puzzled that you have chosen to see this as an ad hominem.
--Aspazia
Aspazia--
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose that is the key then isn't it. HEALTHY. My point, and clearly you agree, is that giving in to any urge isn't good and saying so isn't hateful. We just disagree on what is healthy. I should also draw a distinction between focusing/lusting/ect on sexual thoughts and the fact that they can also just pop into ones head. Lust, even for ones own spouse, is a sin. This is because lust makes the other not a partner, but an object for satisfaction. It is good to enjoy yourselves, but remember that sex is a giving act. Wife to husband and husband to wife (not wife to husband all the time or vica-verca).
Also, lust only leads to deepening lust/disorder and obsession. Anyway...
I would say sex is not sinful in marriage (man and woman) when open to procreation. This definition is the most concise, but doesn't express the fulness of the reality of sex.
you said: "I simply cannot understand or be part of any faith that would ever dictate that acting on homosexual attractions is wrong. And, I simply cannot understand how anyone could hold such hateful views."
That was in direct response to my comment that acting on homosexual thoughts was wrong. You were adressing it to me, you were referring to my views as hateful...
so how wasn't that calling me hateful? How is anyone hateful if not because of their views?
You said:
"From what I can tell, you make moral judgments based on a rather narrow Christian theological basis.....I, however, make moral judgements from a rational framework, that makes explicit its principles, as well as leaving those priniciples up for debate."
The HOWEVER implies I don't/am not rational. If you didn't mean it that way then I apologize, but it certainly appears that you did.
Again, also, how am I rational/not rational except by the views I hod and actions I take?
yehudster---
First I would say I don't advocate a homosexual trying to be a heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.
I don't think I can give factual proof about it being wrong because too many people consider morals relative these days. I can say that the idea of sex as only for pleasure has caused a lot of problems, the spread of STDs not being the least. Someone once said "tradition is the accumulated wisdom of the ages". Its better not to mess with such integral parts of society, at least not all at once. I am not sure what else to say. I will answer any other questions though...
Oh, also I think it is possible to be intimate and not have sex (and still not die--from starvation or lack of intimacy). I have many close friends/confidants and we all keep our pants on.
Ed
Well Ed, if you insist in parsing my sentences to find an ad hominen against you, I relent. I not interested in that conversation.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am fascinated by is your steadfast belief that lust is wrong or that it necessarily turns your lover into an object. I don't share those views. I might agree with you that objectification dehumanizes people, but that would be a nuanced conversation. Lust in my worldview is not the same thing as objectification.
But, I tend to sing the praises of human desire and find lust an all-too-human, and oft life-affirming response, e.g. our phrases "she had a lust for life."
Perhaps another place where we could find some common ground is on the sex serving as an instrument for increased intimacy. Of course, I don't think that sex is only for married people, nor do I think it is only for the purposes of procreation.
I do think that sex requires that both partners are consenting and can communicate well what they desire or do not desire. If those conditions are present, then the rest is none of my business.
It appears to be the case that most of our disagreement stems from semantics rather than actual conflict. In my view, lust is the objectifying of another person/ obsession with personal pleasure (and not caring about your spouse) to an unhealthy degree. You (and many others) appear to view lust as sexual desire which, in and of itself, isn't wrong and shows your healthy and, whats more, human. (Which you too seem to agree with)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I thought it was ZEST for life.. not lust. Lust would imply, with my deffinition, an inordinate attachment to something. In my deffinition, lust can also apply to material things and likewise is a sin. In the life analogy, it could mean the unwillingness to sacrifice for another. Again though, you seem to agree with me except in calling it lust. So, we come to semantics again.
As for sex, please don't misunderstand me. I don't, nor does the Church, purport that sex is only for procreation. It should be both unitive and open to creation. These two things should be present always. Uniting two people in love and creating new life (at least open to it). Pleasure is attached to it, but it is only the motive/means, not the end or purpose. I think I have written this before, but like many things marriage is a symbol of heaven, of God and His Church. The marriage act, sex, is the single greatest show of love, of self giving, we have and is intended, my view, to be the ultimate sign of God's love for His bride, the Church. This is why I hold sex in such high regard and cannot condone anything less than two people using it, in the way of total self giving, as an act of love and complete commitment to each other.
Ed
ps
ReplyDeletethis has been quite an interesting conversation and I hope to have more, if its ok with you (this is YOUR blog).
Ed
Ed--
ReplyDeleteYou are always welcome to read and comment on my blog. I expect discourse to remain as civil as possible on my blog. If I were to stumble across a great deal of hostile comments, I would delete them and ban their use.
Having said that, I am sure we could find some common ground on issues, however I also strongly believe that our religious differences, affecting our worldviews, are significant. Where you want to see mere semantic disagreements, I see metaphysical/epistemological disagreements. However, I appreciate the discussion.
--Aspazia
Well, I still don't know what causes homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) so I can't say whether it can be changed. I wouldn't think so, but I have thought a lot about why.
ReplyDeleteIt (my opinion) can't be COMPLETELY genetic because identical twins can have opposite sexual preferences. It can't be completely environmental because of the same effect among twins being reared together. (Granted there is a certain amount of variablitity, but I don't think its one great enough to undermine what I am saying). The last reason I can think of would be biological (which seems most reasonable) and, in this case, would mean an imbalance which could probably be corrected. This doesn't seem very likely though, at least as the SOLE cause for all sexuality. I think it must be a combination of all three, to varying degrees. I also think the biological explanation probably has the greatest influence because of the twin thing, but who knows.
As for the infertile question, it is cause for an annulment in the RCC, though I don't think anyone should do such a thing, because marriage is to unite a man and woman together when they wish to start a family. It isn't sinful, though I would have to ask/research for some cases, for an infertile woman (or man) to have sex. This probably goes along with the many stories of people appearing to be infertile (in the bible) and God blessing them with children later in life. Certainly, God could do that. I have also heard the argument that homosexual acts can be "open" to creation, it just won't happen. To that I would say no same gender couple can (without an operation) naturally conceive and bear children. If, however, God somehow made this happen I would change my view on homosexual sex. A main reason why it is sinful is because it doesn't stay true to the purpose of sex. If it did, it would be much closer to being ok.
Ed