20081119.ChurchLies

Ah, it's been a while. The ill will do that to you. So in the week and a bit that I've been sick, I really didn't want to continue in the political vein when I got back, but there was one last piece leftover from the recent elections. I'll try to make it less political and more... er, relevant.

So in the wake of California's election, Proposition 8 (the constitutional ban on gay marriage) passed by a resoundingly slim margin. Like 52% or something. The actions of the church in very vocally supporting Proposition 8 has drummed up all kinds of stuff, most notably numerous protests from a previously largely dormant segment of society. In this post, I will try not to say, "I told you so."

One of my issues with Proposition 8 and the Evangelical charge in its honour was that a victory would do very little save for stick it to people we don't prefer. And while the the proposition itself came off as rather petty, the propaganda used to support the prop seemed pretty, well, unconscionable for a group that purports to uphold Truth and Love above all. More on this in a bit.

In any case, while Evangelical Christians may have won a small battle in their war for a culture that has nothing to do with them, I think they've sealed their fate here. It's my guess that more than just make the church look like a bunch of evil people (which is what we look like to much of the world), the rabid support of Prop 8 and its narrow success at banning gay marriage will have mobilized the gay-friendly community to such an extent that it's only a skinny matter of time before gay marriage is legalized nationally and some of the liberties whose removal the religious right has long feared begin being assaulted.

See, here's the thing. The Christians' campaign against homosexual marriage was not landed with anything that we might actually report as quote-unquote honesty. Lies, exaggerations, and untruths. That is the legacy of the Yes on 8 campaign. At one of the protests last week in front of Saddleback Church (since Rick Warren was a Yes on 8 supporter), picketers held signs aloft that said among other things: YOU LIED. On the one hand, the church has shown that it is as deft as any at playing the game of Politics-as-Usual; on the other hand, well... there's really only one hand isn't there?

In case you're not ready to hop on board with the idea that the church played in the mud like the rest of the world, here's an example from an official Yes on 8 mailer we received days prior the election. Imagine. Bold, fearful text. Warnings that if 8 failed to pass, teachers would be required to teach even kindergartners that having two dad's was a perfectly acceptable. And to demonstrate what the future would hold, they pointed to current state law:

Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

If marriage were open to same sex unions, they argued, teachers would have to teach that it would be perfectly fine if little Susie grew up and found she had a taste for the fairer sex. The thing is, even after the passing of 8, this is still the case. Note the Committed Relationships bit there. Teachers have to teach respect for any kind of committed relationship. Gay. Straight. Liquid. So long as there's commitment, it's considered on the up-and-up to the state.

For the Yes on 8 campaign to use scare tactics as they did is a diminishment to the reputation of the church and a defamation of the name of Christ by their association to him. Really, some honesty would have been refreshing. Maybe,

Support Yes on 8 because homosexuality is sin.

And leave it at that. Then people know what you're all about. Of course the campaign's fear was that such honesty wouldn't garner votes, so they dipped their toe then and waded flailingly into the mire of the political. They dirtied themselves for a vote. Politics is a known whore and in its embrace of the Yes on 8 campaign, the church at large bedded said harlot. Let's just hope the church stops contracting political VDs.

Do your part, readers, don't get suckered by the lies and spiritual treasons of those who speak loudly.

20080828

So, question.

Wait. First the set-up.

So typically, when a non-Christian polygamist converts, we are careful to neither encourage him to divorce his additional wives nor to only have sexual relations with just one of those wives (at least in those cultures in which polygamy is legal). In various times past we would have but through, I think, experience and careful thought, the consensus had shifted to support these new-found citizens of heaven rather than damage lives further through the putting away of wives.

So. Question.

How should the church advise converts who are part of homosexual marriages? Should they continue as an active member of a far-less-than-ideal union, as with the polygamists? Should we recommend divorce? How do the ethics work out here?

20071022

So Dumbledore is gay. I have to admit that it makes sense for the character. He did seem to at the least have a terrific man-crush on Grindewald.

I had, for the most part, thought of the ol' Double-D as asexual previously. A man so overwhelmed by the enormity of his responsibility that his sexual identity just kind of became subsumed by necessity. It didn't help that the object of his affection turned out to be the Stalin of the wizarding world - a circumstance that might be enough to put anyone off trusting their own judgment in affairs of the heart. Well, maybe not. But people often suppress aspects of their natural person under the fell weight of necessity - so I could totally see Dumbledore doing this.

That weight would also tend to offer an explanation as to why he's mildly insane. And also why he hasn't gone in for that sexy minx McGonagall.

I think the most interesting thing about it is that it is reported as news. That a instance of a fictional character's sexuality makes headlines is pretty amusing to me. One of the kids we work with was pretty upset by the revelation, but that might be expected. He is, after all, a kid. As to why others are excited by the news, I can only guess.

The end.

Hm, remind me to tell you some time about why I think that the terms homosexual and heterosexual are mythological.

The Mole vs. the Gay Baby

Yesterday, Tom posted a link to an article on Al Mohler's recent comments regarding homosexuality and genetics. The day before, I was browsing through comments on the subject by Metafilter's muddle-headed user base (it was great cause for mirth, reading their descriptions of what Al was saying and why he was a hypocrite). Amusing stuff, really.

I'm always fascinated by the things that will anger people. Mohler's stance here is surprisingly rational (I'm not a big Mohler booster and find some of his thoughts to be pretty thoughtless) - and it just happens that this is the one that gets under the broadest range of skins.

Now, some points:

A) The believer should have no more trouble accepting the possibility that homosexual proclivity may in fact be sometimes related to genetic disposition. Just like alcoholism, anger, and total depravity. It kinda puts homosexuality in well-tread territory.

B) Even granting the popular-yet-asinine definition of homophobia, the desire to solve what amounts to a genetic difficulty doesn't betray any more necessary a hatred of the homosexual than a desire to solve cerebral palsy in the infant necessitates a hatred of the handicapped. Homosexual society has been lobbying for several decades now for the widespread acceptance of homosexual orientation as a genetic condition rather than a learned (and therefore, deprogrammable) condition. They should have more carefully considered the implications of their quest.

C) Some of the rhetoric bouncing around is ingeniously silly. E.g.:

What bothers me is the hypocrisy. In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child.

That this could be contrary to the idea of the sanctity of unborn life is laughable. And that the messenger is hypocratic more so. I presume the speaker wouldn't oppose a medical intervention to solve cerebral palsy (even though there's nothing wrong with the handicapped). We, as a people, just prefer that other people be run under optimum conditions. So we try to fix their inadequacies. Give that child some Ritalin so he'll be "better"! Use occupational therapy with that child so that his motor skills are "better." Abstain from antibiotics during your pregnancy so your child will be "better."

We make values judgments all the time. This is just another one. The only difference is that this one threatens to strip people of their raison d'etre. Whatever.