The Leviticus Strawman

Many are quite fond of the following clip:



I am not. I see it as a strawman argument that if anything only weakens the position of homosexuals who still consider themselves Christians (like me).

Humorous yes. Persuasive, no. The big problem is that the whole argument relies on the Old Testament.

Even the Fundies recognize that the Old Covenant was broken, and Jesus created a new one. That's why Paul goes to such great lengths to show that Gentiles may be Christians and that many of the old laws are just not important (in particular I am thinking of a time when Paul argued that it's okay for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed). The big problem for homosexuality in the eyes of the Fundies is that while Paul argued that many of the old laws about works were unimportant, he still lumped homosexuality as one of those things that is still bad.

That's why any defense of Christian homosexuality must be functional as opposed to formalist, i.e. consider the themes of Christ's message, such as love and the way that religious legalism ruins faith. The problem is that for the Fundies, that just doesn't cut it. In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan argues that one appeal of fundamentalism is that it is that it is easy to apply: the Bible says that this is bad, so it always is, and we don't have to think any more about it. That means that functional arguments aren't enough. It might be if the New Testament were silent on the issue, but it is not. Case closed: this satisfies prong one of Chevron. (I can't believe I just made an administrative law joke)

The best that homosexuals can do with the Fundies right now is a "love the sinner, hate the sin" + "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of relationship.

Another Republican Sex Scandal

We aren't talking Foley proportions, but another Republican, this time a Senator from Idaho, was involved in something that may be, uh, inconsistent with his voting record. Apparently Senator Craig was arrested for lewd activity in which he was allegedly soliciting sex in an airport bathroom (ew). He plead guilty.

Why bring this up, it's just another scandal, and a relatively small one at that? He paid a $500 fine and his 10 day jail sentence was stayed. In the course of human events no one really cares.

Well, some people might care, since Craig has a predictably dismal voting record with regards to gay and lesbian issues (according at least to the HRC, the be all and end all of gay and lesbian policy positions--thank God we have them to tell us what to think). So it's easy to get smug and shout "hypocrite." That's a rather appropriate reaction, but that's not what I want to talk about.

Over at Sully's blog a guest blogger expressed some guarded sympathy for deeply closeted gays and lesbians. The blogger then noted that his sympathy does not extend far enough to accommodate those closeted gays and lesbians who, in order to protect their "shameful secret," are openly hostile to other gays and lesbians. Particularly those who are in a position to influence national policy. Fair enough. When I hear these kinds of stories I sort of feel something similar, a mix between pity and disappointment.

Don't get me wrong I am trying to defend his record at all. Instead, I am just noting that it must be awful to be someone like that. Really, all I can say is that thanks to some close friends and this blog, I'm grateful that in 40 years I will not be another Senator Craig.

Makes Me Like Rudy more

James Dobson writes off Rudy Giuliani. I disagree with Rudy on abortion and gun control, but anyone Dobson disapproves of is worth a second look in my opinion. Note, it looks like Dobson's beef is with Giuliani's position on abortion:

"Can we really trust a chief executive who waffles and feigns support for policies that run contrary to his alleged beliefs?"

This no doubt refers to Rudy's position of being personally opposed to abortion, but in favor of the right to choose it. When will Dobson learn that the President's role in abortion policy is minimal at best? Rudy claims to favor appointing "strict constructionist" judges, which would be more likely to overturn decisions supporting abortion rights (though I have my doubts as to whether "strict constructionist" means anything, especially when Rudy uses it--indeed my gut tells me that these judicial labels are nonsensical, and judges and justices only use them to justify decisions reached by naked consideration of political outcomes).

Also, I think Dobson is bluffing. Would he really prefer President Hills to President Rudy?

I know immigration is big now, and I have a few thoughts, but I'm still learning about the issue and I don't think my comments are ripe yet--I'll post them when they are.

Jerry Falwell

Rev. Falwell died today at age 73. I am going to refrain from saying anything ugly, except that I was never a fan of his. If he did make it to Heaven, I hope that he learns there are gays can get there too.

Oh and he is in large part responsible for my political homelessness.

The Gospel According to Pink Elephant

I am a religious person. Specifically, I am a Christian and a member of a mainstream protestant denomination. I grew up in a conservative congregation and went to an even more conservative Evangelical high school. This kind of upbringing is difficult to ignore as I am coming to terms with being gay. What is equally difficult to ignore is the reprehensible way gays have been treated by many religious groups. It's no wonder that as they come out many gays and lesbians turn their back on religion altogether.

I have discussed previously that I am confused as to why homosexuality is the SIN of SINS, being far graver than other deadlies like gluttony (speaking of which, ever notice how fat Jerry Falwell has gotten? Cheap shot I know, but I'm not sorry). Furthermore, I am not versed enough in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic to argue credibly "they didn't mean that homosexuality was a sin." Others have made arguments that the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality refer primarily to sex acts connected to idol worship. It sounds plausible, but ultimately I'm not sure about all that; however, my faith is not ruined even assuming that St. Paul was dead serious about calling any sexual acts between people of the same gender a sin.

I consider the Bible to be a reliable, but fallible, account of people trying to understand God. I don't mean to sound so "Bible as literature not scripture," but certainly I was influenced by several of my undergraduate Bible courses which tended to take a more historical and academic perspective than the Sunday school type Bible classes I enjoyed in High school. I believe that scripture was divinely Inspired, but that when humans put pen to parchment they sometimes allowed societal prejudices and mores to get confused with God's message. Nonetheless I still have faith that, God created the universe (though I am skeptical as to if he did so exactly as Genesis describes), Christ was divine, his death atoned for our sins, and Christ conquered death with the resurrection. I suppose that even despite my semi-heretical positions on the nature of Scripture, I still get to be a Christian.

The more religious among you will gasp in horror that I dare pick and choose the verses of scripture I wish to follow. "Even if humans corrupted God's message when they wrote the Bible" you may argue, "on what possible basis can I, someone two millennia removed, determine what is God's Message and what are societal prejudices?" My only answer is the same "forest not the trees" argument that the more liberal denominations have been making for some time now. Looking primarily at the New Testament (after all, that is the portion of the Bible that has the most meaning and importance to Christians) and the Gospels in particular, it becomes clear that themes of grace, compassion, and faith are foremost. Jesus ministered to prostitutes, tax collectors, and other social undesirables in bold defiance of the Pharisees, the Religious Right of Jesus' day.

Indeed Jesus spent considerable time criticizing the cold and sometimes cruel religious legalism of the Pharisees. The problem with religious legalism is that it often serves to destroy faith rather than to enhance it. That is as true today as was in Jesus' day. How many people has the church driven to agnosticism or atheism with it's harsh rhetoric condemning gay people or acts? Surely no one (save perhaps Fred Phelps) would agree that the purpose of the church is to drive people away from God because someone thinks they are unworthy. That is the real tragedy of the Religious Right. They so alienate the "unworthy" that they completely undo any evangelism to the "worthy." Besides, the point of Christianity is that we are ALL unworthy, but God gives us grace anyway.

Madam

Can't let this one slip by, exams be damned!

So there's an escort service in DC (shock!), that apparently had many high profile people as clients (double shock!). Oh and lefties are reveling in the hypocrisy of "family values" conservatives that may have engaged the madam's, ahem, services (quadruple shock, skipping triple shock altogether!).

At first I was tempted to criticize this scandal as petty and politically motivated (which it may still be), but then I realized that sex is an issue because these Theocrats make it one! So I have decided that I'm giving the lefties their day (I have almost as big a problem with "family values" conservative Theocrats as they do). Indeed I found this fun little quote about one of the Madam's clients, recently resigned Randall Tobias, in the Chicago tribune:

Among other duties, Tobias was responsible for implementing a policy that requires grant recipients to take steps against prostitution and sex trafficking and supporting efforts to fight the spread of AIDS. The AIDS policy emphasized abstinence as the first line of defense against the disease. (Emphasis added)

That made me laugh. In all fairness, Ms. Palfrey is only an accused madam, and indeed, were it up to me, even if the allegations are true, Ms. Palfrey's actions would not be illegal. But I wonder who else on Ms. Palfrey's client list is wondering why they made sex such a big, fat, and in many cases, criminal deal.

Sad

I don't often agree with the very left leaning commentary on Towleroad, but I do appreciate the work that Andy does in order to find gay interest news.

This article, and the accompanying picture (below) made me sad. Not angry, which would also be an appropriate reaction, just disappointed in the close-mindedness of certain people. Even if you disagree with the conclusions on www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com, this kind of thing seems just hateful. Again, I promise to discuss this more fully when I am not (supposed to be) studying.