A while back I said I'd share the real reason for which I think people get so insane about homosexuality. So lemme do that now. (And then on to all things Christmasy!)
The reason is power. It's all about power. The problem Christians and others have with homosexuality isn't about sex. Nobody cares that much about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Sure, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is bad. And of course that matters. As a Christian, what the Bible says certainly matters to me. But the Bible also says that slavery is good, and that women shouldn't speak in church, and that Christians should never eat shellfish, and on and on an on. We've long ago made our peace with the idea that sometimes we have to modify our understanding of Biblical texts---especially when (as is true with the Pauline proscriptions of homosexuality), there are sound reasons to question the way the text has been translated.
What fuels the fiery hatred that so many Christians and others harbor for gays can't be explained by pointing to the Bible alone. Clearly something more visceral is going on with that.
And for so many people, that something is everything.
When you hear the word homosexual, what's the first thing that comes to mind? A gay man. It's always a gay man. It's gay men that get people out on the street waving signs and screaming. It's gay men about which people tend to get so emotional; in the main, that's what all the hate and anger is about.
Zillions of people are a long way from being okay with lesbians; I don't mean to in any way minimize the bigotry against which lesbians constantly fight. But generally---on an instinctual, immediate level---the lion's share of the rabid anti-gay energy is focused upon "fags."
And so that becomes the $83 million question (which is how much total was spent to promote and pass California's Proposition 8): Why are we, both personally and societally, as reactive to gay men as we are? What is it about them that we hate so much?
And the answer to that question is simple: they threaten the traditional power base of men.
Here's the basic run of it inside a man's brain/heart/subconscious:
I may not be much. But I'm a man. And that entitles me to a lot.
Two women together? That's kind of cute---sexy, even. But it doesn't scare me. Because neither of those women can threaten my power. They can't undermine the truth that, as a man, I'm still (figuratively and literally) on top. Two women together doesn't change the fact that it's still a man's world.
But two men together? Yikes. That's a problem for me. That's when all the walls in my world begin to crumble.
Each of those men is my equal, my peer; they're my kind. If it's okay for them to be romantic with each other, then, for me, everything gets upended. [Oh, will you just stop already?!] Because where the heck does that leave me?
I'm a man. I get to be a man. That means I'm ... the man! I'm in charge. I'm at the head of the table. I make the money. I have the muscles. I build the castles. I'm number one! But I can't be number one without people below me to be number one over. You're not a boss unless you have subordinates. My whole organization---my entire power structure, everything that keeps me being The Man---absolutely, 100% depends upon me---and, by extension, upon my kind---being in charge.
And what we're in charge of is women.
Hello? Muscles. Castles. Food on the table. Conquering hero.
Swinger of clubs. Thruster of weapons.
Head of household.
That's how it's been. That's how it's supposed to be. That's my goddamn right as a man. And if you try to take that from me, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you fail.
And we're not joking now. I'll beat you. I'll make sure my kids learn to hate you.
I'll have no pity for you when you commit suicide. I'll happily supply the gun for that. Or the pick-up truck and the rope, if you're having a problem with gettin' her done.
You're screwing with my life now, you see? And I will see you in hell before I'll sit back and let that happen.
And that's how that goes. That's how that's always gone.
And it's hardly men alone who have invested their all into the traditional patriarchal power hierarchy. There's much in that power structure that has always worked for women, too.
It's traditional for a reason. Men are stronger than women. They do have to go out and hunt, and chop down trees, and build homes. Women do have to stay home and have the babies. Nobody wants to see a woman in her seventh month of pregnancy trying to chase down a delicious animal. That's just wrong.
Gender matters. It's real. And it's sure mattered in the past.
But today? When meat's for sale at any grocery store, and most guys wouldn't know an ax from a fax? When women can tap a keypad with the best of 'em? When it's brains that matter, and not brawn at all? When the winner is the one who is the most creative, the quickest to adapt---the one who's best at relationships?
Today, the ground beneath the personal politics and power of gender is shaking like a California earthquake.
And grabbing onto your Bible won't stop that movement. Nothing can.
Men are going to kiss men. And that will always seem intensely weird to straight people---just like men and women kissing will always seem intensely weird to gay people.
It's a new world, y'all. And it's time to be brave about it.
And mostly, of course, it's time to realize that when it comes to men loving men and women loving women, straight people have nothing---nothing---to fear but fear itself.
John Shore also blogs on JohnShore.com (where you can read more of his writings on Christians and gays). He invites you to "like" his Facebook page. He also invites you to check out the Thruway Christians.
Follow John Shore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnshore
Christianity and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality: Understanding the ...
John Shore: Gay Teen Suicides, Bullying and Christianity: A Talk ...
Personally, I don't think acknowledging that being gay is NOT a sin makes the entire religion a sham, and I find it sad that so many people feel that way - but I have no doubt that they do, that you are absolutely correct.
HELLO, is anybody home...
I can't procreate and I'm straight. I have gay friends who have biological children, some using the same techniques I would have had to use.
Power... and here I thought it was simply ignorance that caused people to object to anything "gay".
There is not a single reason gay individuals, couples, or soldiers should not be treated as equals.
That includes sects who believed that the teachings of Christ represented a break from the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament that is used to condemn gays (and others). They believed that when Jesus said things like:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34)
this superseded all the hate and condemnation of the earlier text. When people like Fred Phelps or Steven Anderson (or many others) say they hate guys, I can't help but think of this quote:
“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15)
So hating gays is equivalent -- in Jesus' eyes -- to murder.
It's painful (and dangerous) that so many modern "Christians" have totally misunderstood what Christ was about.
(this is my first comment, so please excuse the formatting errors! i can't figure out how to fix them.)
This one point is perhaps the most important in the article. The crux of the matter: "the Bible says" (literalism and text-proofing) vs. a deeper examination of the texts and the evolving nature of mankind's understanding of the divine.
Insisting there is nothing to fear does not address legitimate concerns, but simply attempts to marginalize them.
Like to hear those. I could use some humor today.
I've had people tell me that Islam isn't so homophobic -- that it is actually a beautiful and loving religion -- but when I hear that, I can't help but think of the picture of the two teenage boys who were hanged in front of a taunting crown for being gay.
Images are powerful subliminal motivators, which causes me to wonder if fundamanetal Protestants, even some liberals, aren't tappping into an old grudge with the RCC, and combining that image of men in dresses, with scriptural texts; an entanglement exists that is difficult to unravel because it is so multifaceted. Quantumly, the very image of a priest in a dress unites the Protestant with the priest regarding not just homosexuality, but women. Foes unite and each embraces both the old testament (old law) and Pauline Christianity because they are compatible.
Contrast that with, "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it". Thus some embrace the old law, out of ignorance, others reconsider, Episcopals for example.
Law destroyed creates chaos. Mankind needs laws if injustice even potentially exists. Does it?
To fulfill something is to both fully fill, and fully end at the same time. A glass fully filled with water, fully ends it's lack, emptiness. Unjust, irrational, cruel and unusual law is empty of justice. It shames man and God.
We project onto others our grudges, prejudices, hopes and dreams. And, as people do, we seek justification of those things, or not, through scripture, or more accurately, what is written, because that would include secularists as well. People, not just scientists, seek knowledge, and we seek support of what believe to be the truth, hold dear.
Black and white represent extremes. The middle ground is negotiation between extremes. Negotiation requires and implores us by it's very nature us to avoid extremism of either kind.
Much of Christian teaching embraces extremism to this day when it embraces extreme scriptures such as Pauls.
That a woman's body belongs to her husband, and is not her own, has led to all kinds of abuses of women, including rape. Embracing Paul as "anointed" Christianity propagates not just abuse, but injustice. Commands that women submit to their husbands reinforces the Torah condemation of women as disobedient infidels, adulterer's, unfatithful, inferior, and in need of subjugation.
The misogyny of the Old Testament, and Abraham religion, takes on a whole new level in Paul and spills over to all whom Pauline Christianity considers, disobedient infidels, adulterer's, unfaithful, and inferior.
Paul shrewdly "turns the tables" of the OT and the NT in the minds of men by usurping objectionable laws such as food restriction and circumcision (the way to a man's heart is through his stomach and lower head), but rejects rational justice, and subjugates women even worse then the Old Testament by refusing them the right to divorce and remarriage, completely against the teaching of Jesus. Paul is an extremist.
If it weren't for the enlightenment, some semblence of salvation for the Western world would never have been achieved.
Certainly changing gender and sexual roles are threatening to people who were comfortable under the old system. But that does not explain the visceral response to gay men in particular. People lose their power by losing the people below them, not by having the people on their own level not wanting people below them.
The idea of women being involved isn't a dominance threat, it's sometimes a dominance *target,* though, you see. (They sure rationalize applying the bigotry and violence to us gals easy enough, but 'rational' doesn't quite so much enter into those.) Lesbians and other women are on some levels more or less the same to male bigotry: ie, need controlling as much as any other: quite often in fact, the homophobic bigotry/violence comes when a male feels *personally* rejected over it. ie 'women not in their place.'
With male-on-male sex part of the issue is that penetrating other males is cast in terms of *dominance* to the alpha-primate instincts. Religious and social teaching triggers that to mean that males, particularly insecure alpha-inclined breeder types, see *only* sexual aggression in male-on-male sex: that's why 'F you' is an insult/there's constant joking about it between males, and why homophobia often takes the form of homophobes perpetrating rape or other sexual violence. The 'visceral response' is carefully-cultivated, essentially. Made 'righteous' and tied into the 'This means someone is an 'other' to be subdued and destroyed.'
Especially if they fear attractions in themselves that might lead to losing status.
Mostly, the roles aren't changing: people aren't so much changing. Our willingness to accept injustice is.
"Nobody cares that much about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Sure, it says in the Bible that homosexuality is bad. And of course that matters. As a Christian, what the Bible says certainly matters to me. But the Bible also says that slavery is good, and that women shouldn't speak in church, and that Christians should never eat shellfish, and on and on an on. We've long ago made our peace with the idea that sometimes we have to modify our understanding of Biblical texts---especially when (as is true with the Pauline proscriptions of homosexuality), there are sound reasons to question the way the text has been translated."
The fact that gay men are the focus of so much of the hatred is due to the fact that so much of the hatred comes from heterosexual men who are disgusted by the thought of having sex with another man (or sometimes bothered that it's not entirely unappealing) and aroused at the thought of two women having sex with one another, as revealed in the hetero porn industry. So many rabid homophobes seem obsessed with gay anal sex even though the CDC revealed that 40-something percent of heterosexuals engage in this behavior. When you consider lesbians and the fact that many gay men don't like it, it's probably close to an equal percentage. That's my take on it, irrational fear and hate is not that difficult to understand.
The hick in back-woods Indiana or Texas thinks you are. But thats because thats what he has been told to think. The person who told him to think that is his religious leader, who knows damn well that you are strong, and getting stronger every day.
The religious right (which in my experience is neither) has built its kingdom on the strategy of convinceing people that their enemy, is weak in the areas in which they are actually strong.
They convince their followers that Democrats are bad for the economic interests of the poor and middle class; while they line the pockets of their corporate benefactors. They convince them that we are bad for the military, while we reinforce the GIBill, overhaul the VA, and prevent major terror attacks. And they convince their followers that you are weak girly men, when most of the gays I know are tough as nails, because they have had to be.
The sheep who follow, buy that lie. But don't think for a second that the leaders they follow believe it.
(And I don't mean this in a glib manner -- Christianity was rocked in its early days when they realized that Christ WASN't coming back as soon as they thought, and it was rocked when Constantine legalized it and it was suddenly no longer persecuted, and thank goodness for Julian the Apostate for providing a boogeyman to scare up some enthusiasm among Christians...
I could go on, but I feel like it's being once again demonstrated that a PERCEIVED threat receives a stronger reaction because there are those who find it useful in creating a larger and tighter community, here based upon fear...)