Some Personal Observations

Over the last few days I’ve overheard three discussions about homosexuality in a religious context, which I take as a fairly good sign that it’s on a lot of people’s minds right now. Two of the conversations were nothing special, and I wasn’t near the participants long enough to work out which side of the issue they were on. One in particular, however, was quite revealing.

I went from being a very relaxed Christian to being a kind of vague theist to being a full-fledged atheist. My religious belief declined steadily over a number of years, leading almost inexorably towards complete non-belief. This is such a common occurence among atheists that I sometimes forget that it is possible for a person to grow dissatisfied with their religion without abandoning it altogether – some people change religion completely, while others simply move their allegiance to a different denomination. The girl I overheard yesterday was thinking about leaving the Catholic Church and joining a different one (possibly a Protestant denomination, although she didn’t say for sure). Surprisingly, one of the greatest concerns she had was that her prospective faith leader was ambivalent about homosexuality. She seemed to feel that gay people should be welcomed by Christians without feeling the need to ‘repent’, while most of her peers were of the ‘We’ll pray for them’ variety. At the time I was surprised at this, but it does appear to be something of a trend among the more moderate segment of the religious population.

Young Christians in particular seem to be particularly troubled by how the Religious Right portrays homosexuals. Although people like myself tend to focus more on groups like Exodus or Living Hope, there are others who are more than ready to embrace Christian homosexuals without demanding that they change who they are or abandon any prospect of a meaningful relationship. Sadly, these progressive voices tend to get drowned out in a flood of rhetoric about ‘preserving family values‘ and defending ‘traditional’ marriage.

You might expect that as an atheist I’d be adverse to accepting aid from theistic quarters, but I actually find it extremely heartening that there are theists who strongly disagree with the divisive politics of the Religious Right. Despite some notable setbacks, secularism and acceptance of homosexuality are both very much on the rise, and it’s important that everyone involved in the ongoing schism this is causing to be aware of who their friends are. I’m not too hopefuly about the prospects of complete reconciliation once things have settled down, but ‘winning’ here shouldn’t mean marginalising everyone who disagrees with you to the extent that their opinions no longer matter.

Kentucky Passes Adoption Ban

In a depressingly unsurprising move, the state of Kentucky has passed a bill which prohibits unmarried partners from adopting children. As ever, single people (of any orientation) are free to adopt, so long as they don’t live with an unmarried partner.

It didn’t make sense before, and it still doesn’t make sense now.

In a surprise meeting announced as the Kentucky Senate adjourned for the day, a measure that would ban unmarried couples from adopting children or becoming foster parents in Kentucky, Senate Bill 68 (SB 68), was passed by the Kentucky Senate Judiciary Committee and sent to the full Senate late last Thursday afternoon.

Introduced by Sen. Gary Tapp (R), SB 68 prohibits someone who is co-habiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage from becoming a foster parent, providing relative caregiver services, or adopting a child, and mirrors a law recently passed in Arkansas.

Sen. Tapp and supporters of SB 68 are saying that the purpose of the bill is to insure that children are placed into a home with a mother and father, however this bill does not ensure that children will be placed in homes with two parents. Singles would still be able to foster or adopt as before, just as long as they don’t live with an unmarried life partner. (Source)

I would imagine that a defence of SB 68 might go something like this: “Well, we’re protecting children. From what? From ending up in broken, dangerous homes! (Andalsogayhomeslet’snotmentionthat.) Discrimination? Nonsense.”

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the bill is probably aimed squarely at the possibility of a gay couple adopting, but I have to wonder why the Kentucky Family Foundation thinks this is a good idea. All right, they don’t like the idea of children being placed in households with same-sex parents, we get that. But was there any need to stab unmarried, heterosexual couples in the back as well? If we’re actually ‘thinking about the children’, what they’ve done is completely counter-productive.

They’re Doing It Wrong

It’s amazingly common for people to suggest, in all seriousness, that electing a certain politician or allowing a certain activity will lead to the collapse of (usually American) civilization. That might not sound all that unusual – after all, electing an incompetent or inexperienced or downright malign politican to a high public office is obviously going to be bad for the country that does it. But these people are generally not arguing that a person’s credentials are problematic, nor do they generally argue that the ‘sinful’ activity in question will have any sort of direct negative effects – or if they do, that conern is secondary. What they’re really saying is that some supernatural force will visit chaos and destruction upon a nation willing to elect person x or endorse activity y. Usually it’s God, sometimes it’s just a kind of vague, cosmic balancing act, and it is always asserted withou any sort of evidence.

If Barack Obama was gay, many on the Religious Right would be seriously suggesting that God would destroy America for electing him. Hell, he seems to be 100% straight and some are stril claiming that that will happen. Natural disasters, war, disease, and in particular, economic turmoil – all are supposed symptoms of a society plagued by supernatural vengeance.

It’s interesting, then, that Iceland has decided to do the exact opposite by electing an openly gay PM in the middle of a contuining economic crisis:

Iceland has announced a new government that will be headed by the modern world’s first openly gay leader.

Johanna Sigurdardottir was named new prime minister by the country’s coalition political parties.

Iceland’s previous coalition cabinet of PM Geir Haarde collapsed last month under the strain of an escalating economic crisis.

Ms Sigurdardottir’s government said on Sunday it would immediately start to tackle Iceland’s crisis. (Source)

Apparently, Iceland never got the memo: giving gays high government offices will  make things worse! Quick, ship some Bible-Belt loons over there before the whole country just sinks into the ocean!

Escalation

After the eightmaps.com website went live, I and a lot of other people were worried that the conflict over Proposition 8 and its ilk would inevitably escalate. Some anti-Proposition 8 activists have already resorted to intimidation and even violence, a fact that a lot of pro-gay bloggers have been curiously silent about. The last thing anyone needs is for people on both sides to lose their cool completely.

Which is why I have mixed feelings over this:

I implore all of you to think before you speak and act.  Ask yourself how being so emotional might impact those around you.  Question your judgement before you call or email somebody–will this have a positive impact on our common cause, or will it only serve to strengthen the resolve of those who disagree with us?  Like it or not, there will always be more straight people in this world than there are GLBT folks.  If we want to have equal footing, we need to prove that we’re worth it.

From now on, I will be in partnership with those targeted by your hatred.  I may disagree with some of their beliefs, but I also believe in their right to disagree and I’d rather work with them than against them.  Any phone numbers, email addresses, ISP’s and names I can collect that are linked to Prop 8 rage, I will publish it here to expose you.  I will not tolerate the open hypocrisy perpetrated by my own community.  I don’t like being called a traitor, but hopefully, in time, you’ll understand.  I’d rather do what’s best for us than continue to allow us to be our own worst enemies. (Source)

This might be a good idea, if not for the fact that it’s almost certainly not going to work. Even assuming that someone who’s thinking of taking matters into their own hands sees this, it probably won’t deter them. The sad reality is that a very large part of the intimidation and violence I’ve seen has come from the proponents of marriage equality rather than the other way around; having your name on the Prop 8 Maps website actually puts you at risk, whereas having your name on a list like the one proposed above probably will not. As a deterrant, something like this isn’t going to work unless a lot of people have access to it, and even then it must be asked whether this is really the route we want to take. Where does it end?

Before someone jumps down my throat, I absolutely agree that Proposition 8 has no place in a supposedly modern society, and that those who helped it pass should be ashamed of themselves. But it does not justify violence, particularly not if that violence is motivated by a desire for revenge rather than a need for decisive action. Although I’m less confident now in the inevitably of its downfall than I used to be, marriage inequality will probably not last for much longer. We’ve waited this long for it, and we can surely wait another few years.

Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard has become something of a joke in the debate over homosexuality, for obvious reasons – a former anti-homosexual preacher, outed in spectacular fashion? Oh, the irony. Before today, I usually just thought of Haggard as an example of poetic justice, but a recent article on Religion Dispatches made me rethink that position. Here’s a quote:

Now Haggard, scorned by his former friends, humiliated and apparently broke, is using Pelosi’s film to reintroduce himself to America, and to seek some measure of understanding. He’s been on a publicity junket, appearing on Oprah on Wednesday with his wife, Gayle, and on Larry King Live tonight. Haggard is desperate for redemption, but he can’t do the one thing that might make it possible—admit and accept that he’s gay, and work to create a more inclusive faith that won’t force other gay Christians into shameful, soul-destroying secrecy. (Source)

Before I say anything else, I will point out that it’s difficult to have too much sympathy for Haggard. He’s undoubtedly facing a problem that he helped create, and his ‘fall from grace’ involved a rather horrible crime that often gets overlooked.

Having said that, Haggard is the victim of a culture that refuses to let him be who he is. I know all about the various Biblical condemnations against homosexuality, and I’m not going to argue with those apart from saying, yet again, that I don’t believe any single book has all the answers on any issue, but did Haggard’s coworkers and supposed friends really have to ostracise him so completely? He lied, took drugs, paid a prostitute for sex, cheated on his wife and demonstrayed blatant hypocrisy – all of which can be forgiven. What apparently amounts to an unforgivable sin, however, is having sex with another man.

Would Haggard be happier and better adjusted now if he had never had to hide his desires? Almost certainly – his actions do not paint the picture of someone who’s at peace with themselves, nor is further religious ‘counselling’ likely to remove that part of himself which he finds so repulsive. Ted Haggard is an ideal example of what happens when a person is forced to choose between their deeply cherished beliefs and a fundamental part of their personality.

Few Evangelical Christians seem to look at the issue in this light. Rather than asking themselves whether there might not be a better way of handling homosexuality than treating it as a disease, the majority of them seem content to hold up Haggard as ‘one of them’, turning him into a boogeyman to frighten children with. They assume that it was his attraction to men that drove him to drug use and immorality, rather than stopping to think how they might react if forced by their community to live a lie.

Like I said, Haggard does not deserve unfettered sympathy, but nor does he deserve derision and ostracisation. I for one would be more than willing to ‘forgive’ his previous anti-homosexual campaigning, even though I know what kind of heartache and pain he’s likely caused a lot of people, but I fear that his fellow theists might be unwilling to do the same thing.

Hands Tied By The Bible

Domestic abuse is obviously an issue in any community, but one would hope that a church would take steps to protect or at least support any of its members who are going through such an ordeal. And indeed, that does seem to be the case – it’s not uncommon to see posters or leaflets for domestic abuse helplines or support groups that are backed by a local church, at least where I live. But things get a bit more complicated if that church supports the idea tha women should be subservient to men, or at least see their husband as the ‘head of the household’.

The Saddleback church, home of the ever-controversial Rick Warren, recently drew attention to itself when one of its pastors argued that domestic abuse is grounds for separation and counseling, but not for divorce. Unsusprisingly, this rather dubious advice comes from the Bible, which apparently does not give permission to end a marriage because one partner has grown violent towards the other. One would think that even this rather weak condemnation of spoual abuse would include one-off incidents, but no – according to pastor Tom Holladay, it doesn’t really ‘count’ unless someone is being beaten regularly or semi-regularly.

Keep in mind that Holladay does not seem to be insane or misogynistic (although that might be debatable). He also doesn’t seem to be particularly happy with what the Bible has to say about domestic violence:

“I wish there were a third in Scripture, having been involved as a pastor with situations of abuse,” Warren said. “There is something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says, ‘If they abuse you in this-and-such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.'”

Warren said his church’s counseling ministry advises separation and counseling instead of divorce in abusive marriages, because it’s the only path toward healing. “There’s an abusive cycle that’s been set up,” he said. “Separation combined with counseling has been proven to provide healing in people’s lives.” (Source)

(Note: I can’t seem to access the original article, and the version quoted here erroneously identifies the source as Rick Warren rather than Holladay.)

What’s striking about this is that Holladay is almost amitting that he sees a problem with how the Bible treats domestic violence – his reason, his compassion, something in him is saying that there’s a problem here. I’ve seen this before, when a depressingly small minority of Christians admit that they don’t see why homosexuality should be considered a sin, or when someone attempts to justify the Biblical idea of slavery. (And before I get a snide comment, I’m aware that the slavery described in the Bible isn’t like what most people think of as slavery.) But, almost without fail, Christians will supress or ignore the nagging voice at the back of their head and assume that the problem is with them rather than the Bible.

I shouldn’t have to point out how wrong-headed this seems to someone who isn’t religious. If the ‘word of God’ seems unfair or suspect, so much the worse for the word of God. Atheists are often accused of condemning theists for acting like sheep or for lacking the capacity to think critically, but those criticising this practice very often don’t realize where that opinion comes from. For many of us, it isn’t that believing in God is necessarily ‘stupid’ or something that only the ignorant do. We simply can’t stand to see people prostrating themselves in front of a book, particularly if doing so requires that they forfeit their intelligence.

The urge to just accept what the Bible says regardless of any problems with its message can be seen with particular prevalence in Creationists, who must literally delude themselves in order to continue believing that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. Why is it such a taboo to suggest that this particular book might be mistaken on some subjects? Surely a person’s faith is not so weak that it will collapse if they admit that that the scientific evidence for evolution is strong, or that the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality could actually just be the product of an ignorant age?

Christians, don’t use the excuse that your hands are tied by the Bible. If you believe that God gave you your intelligence and ability to reason, then honour him by using it. Ask yourself seriously whether divorcing your spouse if he or she physically assaults you might not be justified, or whether homosexuality is actually something we need to be warning our children against. I’m not asking that you become atheists, but at least try really, truly looking at your religion in a critical way for a change.

Obama Makes Crackpots Mad

Obama is obviously making a lot of people nervous, which is understandable – I’d be pretty apprehensive right now if McCain was in the White House. But the denizens further over on the ‘crackpot’ side of the political spectrum are predictably going ballistic over such heinous crimes against humanity as supporting gay marriage and same-sex adoption:

You can see Obama’s building plans for the GTBT pedestal here, just don’t eat lunch first. Here’s a snippet of what you’ll find:

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

It looks like we have our work cut out for us! (Source)

Don’t eat lunch first? Yeah, civil rights movements have a tendency to make me nauseous as well. The real gem of this post is in the comments section, though. Euripedes (who named his blog something that makes me wince: ‘Self Evident Truths‘) demonstrated what is typical of the kind of hyperbole bandied around by those who are opposed to gay rights:

After reading Obama’s agenda on WhiteHouse.gov I am more afraid than ever for our republic. That agenda list is worse than any horror novel I ever read. Stephen King move aside! Here comes a new author of horror – Obama.

I just love the subtle insinuation that supporting same-sex marriage and adoption will cause the USA to unravel and fall to pieces.

Tomfoolery aside, there are action legitimate reasons to be concerned about Obama’s GLBT stance. As many others have pointed out, he’s been weirdly inconsistent when it comes to what exactly he believes about same-sex marriage, apparently supporting ‘traditional’ marriage but simultaneously opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. His policy of inclusiveness is admirable, but it may backfire if it makes it difficult for people to work out whether or not they want to support him.

Hate Crime Legislation

I’ve noticed that when the issue of hate crime legislation comes up, the religious right goes batshit insane. In a way I sympathise with them; I’m not overly fond of such laws myself, but I see them as more of a necessary evil than anything else. Some people, however, see them as a lot more than that:

So, besides the double-standard, why should you be fuming and taking action before you even finish reading this? Because these two bills that are going to be sent to President Barack Obama’s desk will silence Christians from speaking against homosexuality or teaching our children that it is wrong. You would quite literally be committing a Federal crime and convicted. If these bills get passed, not only will Christians be silenced — but, the government is scheduled to swoop in with $10 Million dollars to drive a stake right into the heart of Christians by making sure your children hear and are taught everything against Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The two bills that I am talking about are the David Ray Richardson Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 262) coupled with the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 256). These two bills were just introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee and are expected to be signed by President Barack Obama who has supported this legislation at the state level in the past.  These two bills CANNOT get to President Obama’s desk! No way Christians! You must act now if you want to continue practicing your Christian faith and teaching it to your children. Sign the petition against Hate Crimes Legislation! (Source)

And while they’re at it, those damn public schools might teach your children that racism and misogyny are bad! Oh noes!

This kind of hyperbole is all too common when hate crime legislation is being discussed, to the point that a disturbing number of people seem to think that these laws explicitly make Christianity illegal. The page I quoted from suggests not only that the laws explicitly target Christians (they do not), but that they’re aimed at criminalising certain opinions. Needless to say, this is not the case. (And before someone jumps down my throat, I’m aware that there have been unfortunate incidents in which pastors have been sued for preaching the Bible. Claiming that homosexuality is morally wrong may be extremely stupid, but people should not be punished for being ignorant.)

If you also oppose laws like this, let me ask you something: do you think that it should be legal to fire someone from their job because they’re gay? Do you think it should be acceptable to intimidate, injure or kill someone because of their sexuality? And do you, personally, feel threatened by a law which prevents you from doing those things?

Let’s Make Homosexuality Illegal

There’s a video doing the rounds in which a group of anti-abortion protestors are asked a fairly obvious question: if abortion is as morally wrong as killing a month-old baby (for example), what should happen to women who have illegal abortions? I haven’t watched the video, but they apparently struggle to answer. If so, that’s not surprising; moral issues sometimes take on a strange extra dimension for religious people, particularly in situations where they compare something legal (abortion or pornography, say) to something illegal (murder or drug dealing). If abortion is equal to murder, does it not follow that women who have abortions should be treated like murderers? You would think so, but apparently it’s not quite that clear-cut.

This same effect is obvious when it comes to homosexuality. The following is something I just made up on the spot, but it could easily have come from any number of right-wing ‘value’ groups:

Homosexuality has an extremely negative effect on society. It would be a moral disaster if our children were taught that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones, or if same-sex couples were given the right to ‘marry’. Civilization itself would be at risk, and it’s no exaggeration to say that homosexual ‘marriage’ would be the equivalent of allowing a fourty-year old to marry a ten-year old. Morally, there is no difference.

Having said that, homosexuals should have the right to form relationships and should not under any circumstances be persecuted.

You may have spotted the problem. Many Christians, and other theists, are quick to compare homosexuality to murder or paedophilia, but are generally equally quick to assure me that they’d be horrified at the suggestion that it should be illegal.

And the reasoning behind this is…?

Let me take a stab at a possible explanation: they know that homosexuality isn’t as bad as murder. They know that it couldn’t possibly be, and that to seriously suggest that it should be illegal would be utterly insane. I’m sure they also realise that same-sex marriage is not equivalent to forced marriage or marriage between adults and children, but they can’t admit that without having their entire moral code fall apart.

So, my question to any theists reading this: if homosexuality and gay marriage are social ills on the order of murder or child molestation, why should we let it exist? This obviously only applies if you’ve made that particular comparison.

Pretending To Be Experts

One of the most irritating things about religious commentators on homosexuality is the air of expertise they tend to adopt. As they’re overly fond of telling people, nobody has all the answers when it comes to homosexuality. No scientist can tell you exactly what causes it and no psychologist can predict whether any given person can or will change their sexuality. Christian ‘experts’ will very often be the first ones to admit this – moments before giving you all of the answers.

Here’s a good example of what I mean:

While the syndicated “Dear Abby” advice column in many newspapers across the U.S. has been celebrated for decades for its wit and “common sense,” in the column I read the other day it was clear that “Abby” had struck out. The individual writing to “Abby” was a 16-year-old, struggling with seemingly overwhelming homosexual feelings. Struggling to deal with those feelings and failing to change them, the teen asks “Abby” for advice on how to “come out” and make his or her homosexuality public, expressing concern about how family and friends will react. “Abby’s” advice? Abysmal. Let’s take a look.

Strike #1: “[S]exual orientation is not a choice but something a person is born with,” we are told by “Abby.”

Interesting that “Abby” can take such a stand on a matter that experts in the scientific community continue to debate. In fact, one of the most public, prominent pro-homosexual organizations in America states on its website, “No one knows exactly how sexual orientation and gender identity are determined.” How “Abby” came to know better than the experts and advocates is truly a mystery. (Source)

So far so good, although a good number of ‘the experts’ actually do regard sexuality as mostly fixed, or, at the very least, not something that can be consciously changed. If this blogger had criticised the advice columnist simply for being imprecise, that would be one thing, but unfortunately he decides to pretend that he’s the one who knows it all:

Early in the letter the child says, “I’d give anything not to be [homosexual].” How sad that he or she has sought advice from someone who will not help that child’s wish come true. And how sad that he or she will be denied knowledge of the truth that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).

Ah, I see. Why are all of those scientists wasting their time with twin studies and psychological evaluations when they can just look to the Bible for enlightenment?

Unfortunately, this is an all-too prevalent trend among Christians who are trying to ‘help’ homosexual men and women. The formula is simple, and generally goes something like this:

1. Give assurance that one is not alone, and that there are those who want to help.
2. Inform homosexual that he/she has been lied to or deceived by the media, the establishment, ‘the man’, whoever.
3. State that nobody has ‘all the answers’ on homosexuality.
4. Proceed to act as if you have ‘all the answers’ on homosexuality.
5. Make grandiose claims about morality, homosexuality, psychology, sociology and health issues. Back up 20% or less of these statements with actual research; for the rest, Biblical quotes will do just fine.
6. Insist, repeatedly, that the only possible source of help for people who are unhappy with being homosexuals are Evangelical ‘ex-gay’ organizations. But your ‘mark’ isn’t religious? Then get out the conversion kit, my friend!

Huh. I may have lapsed into cynicism at some point there. Actually, that’s not true; if I was being cynical I’d mention the deception and outright lies that are endemic to the ex-gay movement, in which ‘overcoming homosexuality’ appears to be code for ‘repress your attraction to others and remain celibate for the rest of your life, unless you’re really, really lucky and manage to get married some day. Married to someone of the opposite sex, that is.’

More on this later.