Something vague I think I've noticed. Actually, it's staring at me, and I don't know what to make of it. But my last couple of posts, more generally addressed than specifically, have given me a possible perspective worth bringing up.
Let us define the homosexual "community", for the sake of this post, as all persons homo- and bisexual. I do not seek, initially, a political definition. (For the political definition is part of the point.)
At X point in history, we can begin, for there are many points-X which would suffice. At this time, homosexual persons exist in the world in unknown proportions. In some cultures, they are regarded as habitually different; in others, homosexuality bears a ritualistic aspect; in the one most relevant to the here and now of most--but not necessarily all--of our readers and posters at Exoscience, homosexuality is considered vastly and profoundly negative. (To hear Umberto Eco's perspective on the matter of the Knights Templar, more disturbing than the rumors of rituals to Baphomet--capital B intended--were the "sodomite" portion of that ritual in which the members kissed one another's buttocks, the meaning of which escapes my memory; point being that kissing ass was, in some historians' views, the kiss itself was more disturbing to church officials than the fact that it was a Baphomet-ritual; such are the rumors of the Templars.)
As near as I can tell, every time we recognize something about the larger society which needed learning, homosexuality moves a step closer to the mainstream. Because of our cultural heritage that these people are dangerous, social deviants, we continue to look upon this issue as if we can "bump" other social concerns into place. For, certainly, the argument did exist--though is largely unused today--that homosexuals chose to be what they were, unlike women or racial minorities. Unfortunately for this idea, a significant portion of the artistic and philosophical world maintained a perspective on certain motivating factors of this superstition--i.e. religious sentiment and faith--that could work past fundamental motivating difficulties.
I find some common link between the modern, American, conservative-Christian homophobia and our American foundations among a new land. Spaniard Catholics enacted encomienda, believing that the enslavement of indigenous persons gave the heathens an opportunity to save themselves by converting to the faith. (Always notable is a literal historical footnote about an unnamed tribal chieftan in Cuba who, when advised that yes, there would be Spaniard Catholics in heaven, chose to maintain his indigenous faith, and thus to forfeit his life.) Indeed, we practiced a form of this in prayer towns, a vague, colonial-Protestant effort to save their own souls by "saving" the native heathens. In the modern day, groups like Exodus International, Kerrusso Ministries, and others, attempt to "convert" and thus "redeem" their gay neighbors; does this still bear the archaic sentiment that one must attempt to convert, reeducate, or otherwise, the homosexual, in order to facilitate one's own salvation? Or else, how is it that the modern American Christian comes to choose homosexuality as the target of their calling? In the sense of Exodus International: why choose homosexuality to address?
It really does seem that the quarrel against homosexuality really does begin in Christian quarters; the bleeding hearts and artists look upon a group of people who are merely asking for what cannot be established as a special privilege--equality--being suppressed based either on dubious religious assessments, or else based on socially-reinforced prejudices arising from a society derived from an homogenous idea. Where Y portion of the population might have its own difficulties thinking of gay sex without getting queasy, it seems only the Christian portion going forward and behaving aggressively. Others in the rank and file wouldn't care except that they're being asked. If this were not true, I would expect to see more non-religious homophobia groups on the web.
Which brings up the central gist: There is much confusion, then, everywhere, regarding which Christians are doing what. Kerrusso and Exodus ministries are homophobic and persecutory, but in the faith that they must convert homosexuals. These groups resent the idea that they're trying to make homosexuality illegal, because what they think they're doing is a favor to the gay people they harrass. On the other hand is Mabon's OCA, which legislates against homosexuality. Out of the culture? Well, you tell me ... when it's five years down the line, and someone's got a revocation measure on the ballot against Mabon's Monster, what will the opposition say? Gay people trying to force themselves on the culture ... they're just trying to legalize homosexuality. Trying to invade our schools--look, the law already says they can't be there.
Out of the culture? You tell me. Imagine a child who grows up in Oregon, learning in school according to Mabon's Law, so that anytime it comes up homosexuality is described as abnormal, perverse, or otherwise detrimental; that or else the child is told directly that such questions should not be asked at school. Neither of these is a positive state of mind for the child. Even if the child grows up to be Dr. Child, s/he is still subject to Mabon's Law at University. Dr. Child never read the articles that would tell him what he needs to know in attending to a homosexual patient (on those times when homosexuality is relevant) because certain aspects of the medical journals in question sanction homosexuality by discussing prevention for practicing homosexuals. Guess what? That article cannot be used in the education of Dr. Child.
How are you going to teach law school? (Okay, I admit, a thinning of the herd among lawyers might be good for the country, but beyond that ....)
Literature without Oscar Wilde or Truman Capote. Don't get me wrong; I think conservatives would have just as much of a problem with Salinger's A Perfect Day for Bananafish because, on the surface, a man accosts a girl and then there's gun violence. But there's no law against viewing this frame of reference sympathetically. And the bit about violence surrounding a homosexual violation in Catcher in the Rye, it seems, would fit Mabon's criteria, since it's filtering such issues at their surface. OF course, what would they think about the bit with the prostitute?
What happens, then, when Oregon students--according to Mabon's Law--go out to universities in other states and countries? What happens when they find themselves without the rudiments of their field due to the wholesale exscinding of homosexuality that must occur.
When a conservative, "concerned" parent comes before the school board and points out that such-and-such vendor on contract with the school is "for th' homasekshal agend'r" because it offers domestic-partner benefits (to both hetero- and homosexual unmarried couples), includes homosexuality and transgendered persons on its harrassment policies, EOE, ad nauseam? After all, state money is contributing to the payroll and benefits of the employees, the latter of which clearly endorses homosexuality by covering them in domestic-partner benefits, harassment poicies, EOE, ad nauseam.
...in thought or deed .... I mean, Dr. Child won't even have teachers who have ever let it be known that they think it possible that a homosexual is okay to exist in the world. Think about it: any record of your term papers you might have posted online; as the University owns your term papers (at least, as of 1993), any they have catalogued for future reference (this was not unheard of in my time at University of Oregon); any candlelight vigils you might have been photographed at by a newspaper after attending in honor of homosexuals murdered for their sexual orientation; any letters to the editor; any work of fiction, poetry, or essay you might ever have published; any joke or political point or even phrase you might have said that may have been overheard by someone who has motive and access to the school board; any convention or conference you might have attended which addressed the topic of homosexuality not according to Mabon's Law. In thought or deed: What does this mean, if not what it says?
The short (ha!) point I was actually trying to get to is that the final result is the wholesale alienation of homosexuals by a movement which largely derives its motivations from Christian ideas.
But how are homosexuals expected to respond? Apparently, they are to do the "natural" thing and either lay down and die or else magically lose their lucky charms. On the one hand, they're being told to convert, to the other, they're taking heat on the ballot, and all from one general direction. Yet the different factions don't seem to recognize each other, or else they are truly just stupid.
And here we see the perspective of ... well, now, I guess that one speaks for itself.
But it's exactly what I'm talking about. The whole point is that everyone on that conservative front involving the homosexual issue either tenderfoots (a la Buchanan's complaint about the GOP cozying the Log Cabin Society), or else moves toward the issue with the assumption that homosexuality is negative and must be "changed" in some way: the sum effect is the attempted removal of homosexuality from society. Psychology is always too liberal, though, unless it's "regressing" people to in utero in the abortion fight, or else "converting" homosexuals to straights. How are people who feel compelled toward their own gender to respond?
Certainly, it's not necessarily Mabon, or Bowser, or Kerrusso Ministries out beating the living tar out of people for the "crime" of being gay. But then they object to attempts to minimize the occurrence of such events. They object to the notion of a gay person being equal to them in the sense that the simplicity of who they are is no reason to kick the shite out of someone. They object to the notion that being homosexual is no reason to suspend a person's constitutionally-guaranteed rights. If homosexuality is genetic, then they have a better claim to their identities than the religious. If homosexuality is symptomatic, then why not address the cause? (Answer, because any social "symptom" requires reflection on the self, something which cannot be tolerated when cruelty is countenanced in the glass.) If homosexuality is a liberty, then stop assaulting liberty. The very ideas of liberty which protect us apply. For instance: there is no federal right to privacy. Why are we only singling out drug users and homosexuals and prostitutes, as such? Why not invade the privacy and constrict the rights of child abusers in the home, who create drug users and prostitutes. If homosexuality is symptomatic, as some claim, then these people also create the wicked homosexuals
.
What it means, to me, is that the complaints by conservatives about homosexuality are empty. Whether a choice, a symptom, or simple nature (in the end, it doesn't matter to me), there is simply nothing that anyone can do which does not directly contradict the greater interpretation of liberty recognized by the public. Beyond that, one must choose a target (homosexuality), decide to have a problem with it (based, for instance, on two millennia of acceptance of a religious book, speciously interpreted), and go forward creating an issue.
I always wonder how women feel when people make a big deal out of a man raping a man. There's a good notion of it right there. Sure, it happens, but I always figured a violation is a violation.
In 1991 and '92, when this issue first became a part of my living reality, I thought I understood Mabon's points, but disagreed with him. In the intervening nearly-ten years, the homophobe uprising has made less and less sense; it seems as if a bunch of witless, ultraconservative authoritarians have run out of visible differences to persecute. The more I learn about Christianity, the less it has to do--in reality--with people like Mabon or Kerrusso Ministries or Exodus International. Unfortunately for Christianity--and, probably, everyone else--there is little in-house effort to neutralize this threat, giving the appearance of complicity or endorsement by the faithful. Christianity is represented to the rest of American society as homophobic. Of course, it is also represented to the American public as being anti-sexual, invasive of liberty and confidence, subversive to individual will, and fanatically authoritarian. There are allegedly millions of American Christians who do not think or behave this way. I have to admit, a few of them voted for decency in Oregon, else decency would not have won. But, Hello! we can't see you. We don't actually know for sure that you all exist. As experience (and Exosci) have taught me, we cannot allow the visible aberrations to be definitive, except that the apparent fear that results in homophobia seems to be vocally consistent. After these years, I have no idea whatsoever why Mabon and company are bothering; it makes absolutely no sense. In that sense, I've lost whatever sympathy I had; I am no longer capable of understanding the arguments, apparently. There's something fundamental that I must be missing.
Otherwise it's just the greed that comes from the arrogance that comes from the fear that comes from ignorance.
It's just plain sad. It looks like a playground fight. What are you going to say, that the gay boy pushed you? Well, you shouldn't have kicked him, much less repeatedly.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 14, 2001).]
Let us define the homosexual "community", for the sake of this post, as all persons homo- and bisexual. I do not seek, initially, a political definition. (For the political definition is part of the point.)
At X point in history, we can begin, for there are many points-X which would suffice. At this time, homosexual persons exist in the world in unknown proportions. In some cultures, they are regarded as habitually different; in others, homosexuality bears a ritualistic aspect; in the one most relevant to the here and now of most--but not necessarily all--of our readers and posters at Exoscience, homosexuality is considered vastly and profoundly negative. (To hear Umberto Eco's perspective on the matter of the Knights Templar, more disturbing than the rumors of rituals to Baphomet--capital B intended--were the "sodomite" portion of that ritual in which the members kissed one another's buttocks, the meaning of which escapes my memory; point being that kissing ass was, in some historians' views, the kiss itself was more disturbing to church officials than the fact that it was a Baphomet-ritual; such are the rumors of the Templars.)
As near as I can tell, every time we recognize something about the larger society which needed learning, homosexuality moves a step closer to the mainstream. Because of our cultural heritage that these people are dangerous, social deviants, we continue to look upon this issue as if we can "bump" other social concerns into place. For, certainly, the argument did exist--though is largely unused today--that homosexuals chose to be what they were, unlike women or racial minorities. Unfortunately for this idea, a significant portion of the artistic and philosophical world maintained a perspective on certain motivating factors of this superstition--i.e. religious sentiment and faith--that could work past fundamental motivating difficulties.
I find some common link between the modern, American, conservative-Christian homophobia and our American foundations among a new land. Spaniard Catholics enacted encomienda, believing that the enslavement of indigenous persons gave the heathens an opportunity to save themselves by converting to the faith. (Always notable is a literal historical footnote about an unnamed tribal chieftan in Cuba who, when advised that yes, there would be Spaniard Catholics in heaven, chose to maintain his indigenous faith, and thus to forfeit his life.) Indeed, we practiced a form of this in prayer towns, a vague, colonial-Protestant effort to save their own souls by "saving" the native heathens. In the modern day, groups like Exodus International, Kerrusso Ministries, and others, attempt to "convert" and thus "redeem" their gay neighbors; does this still bear the archaic sentiment that one must attempt to convert, reeducate, or otherwise, the homosexual, in order to facilitate one's own salvation? Or else, how is it that the modern American Christian comes to choose homosexuality as the target of their calling? In the sense of Exodus International: why choose homosexuality to address?
It really does seem that the quarrel against homosexuality really does begin in Christian quarters; the bleeding hearts and artists look upon a group of people who are merely asking for what cannot be established as a special privilege--equality--being suppressed based either on dubious religious assessments, or else based on socially-reinforced prejudices arising from a society derived from an homogenous idea. Where Y portion of the population might have its own difficulties thinking of gay sex without getting queasy, it seems only the Christian portion going forward and behaving aggressively. Others in the rank and file wouldn't care except that they're being asked. If this were not true, I would expect to see more non-religious homophobia groups on the web.
Which brings up the central gist: There is much confusion, then, everywhere, regarding which Christians are doing what. Kerrusso and Exodus ministries are homophobic and persecutory, but in the faith that they must convert homosexuals. These groups resent the idea that they're trying to make homosexuality illegal, because what they think they're doing is a favor to the gay people they harrass. On the other hand is Mabon's OCA, which legislates against homosexuality. Out of the culture? Well, you tell me ... when it's five years down the line, and someone's got a revocation measure on the ballot against Mabon's Monster, what will the opposition say? Gay people trying to force themselves on the culture ... they're just trying to legalize homosexuality. Trying to invade our schools--look, the law already says they can't be there.
Out of the culture? You tell me. Imagine a child who grows up in Oregon, learning in school according to Mabon's Law, so that anytime it comes up homosexuality is described as abnormal, perverse, or otherwise detrimental; that or else the child is told directly that such questions should not be asked at school. Neither of these is a positive state of mind for the child. Even if the child grows up to be Dr. Child, s/he is still subject to Mabon's Law at University. Dr. Child never read the articles that would tell him what he needs to know in attending to a homosexual patient (on those times when homosexuality is relevant) because certain aspects of the medical journals in question sanction homosexuality by discussing prevention for practicing homosexuals. Guess what? That article cannot be used in the education of Dr. Child.
How are you going to teach law school? (Okay, I admit, a thinning of the herd among lawyers might be good for the country, but beyond that ....)
Literature without Oscar Wilde or Truman Capote. Don't get me wrong; I think conservatives would have just as much of a problem with Salinger's A Perfect Day for Bananafish because, on the surface, a man accosts a girl and then there's gun violence. But there's no law against viewing this frame of reference sympathetically. And the bit about violence surrounding a homosexual violation in Catcher in the Rye, it seems, would fit Mabon's criteria, since it's filtering such issues at their surface. OF course, what would they think about the bit with the prostitute?
What happens, then, when Oregon students--according to Mabon's Law--go out to universities in other states and countries? What happens when they find themselves without the rudiments of their field due to the wholesale exscinding of homosexuality that must occur.
When a conservative, "concerned" parent comes before the school board and points out that such-and-such vendor on contract with the school is "for th' homasekshal agend'r" because it offers domestic-partner benefits (to both hetero- and homosexual unmarried couples), includes homosexuality and transgendered persons on its harrassment policies, EOE, ad nauseam? After all, state money is contributing to the payroll and benefits of the employees, the latter of which clearly endorses homosexuality by covering them in domestic-partner benefits, harassment poicies, EOE, ad nauseam.
...in thought or deed .... I mean, Dr. Child won't even have teachers who have ever let it be known that they think it possible that a homosexual is okay to exist in the world. Think about it: any record of your term papers you might have posted online; as the University owns your term papers (at least, as of 1993), any they have catalogued for future reference (this was not unheard of in my time at University of Oregon); any candlelight vigils you might have been photographed at by a newspaper after attending in honor of homosexuals murdered for their sexual orientation; any letters to the editor; any work of fiction, poetry, or essay you might ever have published; any joke or political point or even phrase you might have said that may have been overheard by someone who has motive and access to the school board; any convention or conference you might have attended which addressed the topic of homosexuality not according to Mabon's Law. In thought or deed: What does this mean, if not what it says?
The short (ha!) point I was actually trying to get to is that the final result is the wholesale alienation of homosexuals by a movement which largely derives its motivations from Christian ideas.
But how are homosexuals expected to respond? Apparently, they are to do the "natural" thing and either lay down and die or else magically lose their lucky charms. On the one hand, they're being told to convert, to the other, they're taking heat on the ballot, and all from one general direction. Yet the different factions don't seem to recognize each other, or else they are truly just stupid.
And here we see the perspective of ... well, now, I guess that one speaks for itself.
But it's exactly what I'm talking about. The whole point is that everyone on that conservative front involving the homosexual issue either tenderfoots (a la Buchanan's complaint about the GOP cozying the Log Cabin Society), or else moves toward the issue with the assumption that homosexuality is negative and must be "changed" in some way: the sum effect is the attempted removal of homosexuality from society. Psychology is always too liberal, though, unless it's "regressing" people to in utero in the abortion fight, or else "converting" homosexuals to straights. How are people who feel compelled toward their own gender to respond?
Certainly, it's not necessarily Mabon, or Bowser, or Kerrusso Ministries out beating the living tar out of people for the "crime" of being gay. But then they object to attempts to minimize the occurrence of such events. They object to the notion of a gay person being equal to them in the sense that the simplicity of who they are is no reason to kick the shite out of someone. They object to the notion that being homosexual is no reason to suspend a person's constitutionally-guaranteed rights. If homosexuality is genetic, then they have a better claim to their identities than the religious. If homosexuality is symptomatic, then why not address the cause? (Answer, because any social "symptom" requires reflection on the self, something which cannot be tolerated when cruelty is countenanced in the glass.) If homosexuality is a liberty, then stop assaulting liberty. The very ideas of liberty which protect us apply. For instance: there is no federal right to privacy. Why are we only singling out drug users and homosexuals and prostitutes, as such? Why not invade the privacy and constrict the rights of child abusers in the home, who create drug users and prostitutes. If homosexuality is symptomatic, as some claim, then these people also create the wicked homosexuals
.What it means, to me, is that the complaints by conservatives about homosexuality are empty. Whether a choice, a symptom, or simple nature (in the end, it doesn't matter to me), there is simply nothing that anyone can do which does not directly contradict the greater interpretation of liberty recognized by the public. Beyond that, one must choose a target (homosexuality), decide to have a problem with it (based, for instance, on two millennia of acceptance of a religious book, speciously interpreted), and go forward creating an issue.
I always wonder how women feel when people make a big deal out of a man raping a man. There's a good notion of it right there. Sure, it happens, but I always figured a violation is a violation.
In 1991 and '92, when this issue first became a part of my living reality, I thought I understood Mabon's points, but disagreed with him. In the intervening nearly-ten years, the homophobe uprising has made less and less sense; it seems as if a bunch of witless, ultraconservative authoritarians have run out of visible differences to persecute. The more I learn about Christianity, the less it has to do--in reality--with people like Mabon or Kerrusso Ministries or Exodus International. Unfortunately for Christianity--and, probably, everyone else--there is little in-house effort to neutralize this threat, giving the appearance of complicity or endorsement by the faithful. Christianity is represented to the rest of American society as homophobic. Of course, it is also represented to the American public as being anti-sexual, invasive of liberty and confidence, subversive to individual will, and fanatically authoritarian. There are allegedly millions of American Christians who do not think or behave this way. I have to admit, a few of them voted for decency in Oregon, else decency would not have won. But, Hello! we can't see you. We don't actually know for sure that you all exist. As experience (and Exosci) have taught me, we cannot allow the visible aberrations to be definitive, except that the apparent fear that results in homophobia seems to be vocally consistent. After these years, I have no idea whatsoever why Mabon and company are bothering; it makes absolutely no sense. In that sense, I've lost whatever sympathy I had; I am no longer capable of understanding the arguments, apparently. There's something fundamental that I must be missing.
Otherwise it's just the greed that comes from the arrogance that comes from the fear that comes from ignorance.
It's just plain sad. It looks like a playground fight. What are you going to say, that the gay boy pushed you? Well, you shouldn't have kicked him, much less repeatedly.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited January 14, 2001).]
