Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Questions on Sexuality

Have you ever wondered what it felt like to be asked to justify your sexual orientation all the time? For most of us who are heterosexual, it might not be something we have to think about often (if at all). But for a lot of homosexuals, it's a whole different story.

My teacher gave this set of questions for us to answer to somehow get to know what homosexuals have to go through almost every time they "come out" to a new person. If you're heterosexual and you answer these questions, you might find yourself shaking your head because the questions seem silly. Just think, it's only silly because heterosexuality is the default sexual orientation of our society. Imagine what it feels like to have a "non-normal" sexual orientation and have to answer these silly (and sometimes hurtful) questions all the time just to justify your existence.

Food for thought. :-)

. . . . . . . .
  1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
  2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?
  3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?
  4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
  5. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay or lesbian lover?
  6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
  7. Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your lifestyle?
  8. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can' t you just be what you are and keep quiet about it?
  9. Would you want your children to be heterosexual knowing the problems that they'd face?
  10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
  11. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
  12. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
  13. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you?
  14. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you fear (s)he might be incline to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?
  15. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality, and fail to develop your natural, healthy, homosexual potential?

What the Bible Says — and Doesn’t Say — About Homosexuality

Yes, again, taken from one of my classes...

Written by Rev. Mel White, a homosexual Christian and co-founder of Soulforce.

(Note: In this work, White sets forth eight broad premises about interpreting biblical passages. This abridgement includes only a few of these premises.)  

***
LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!

Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.

We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear.
I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, though. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MY FIFTH PREMISE:
We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
If the Bible is the story of God's love for the world and not a handbook about sex, then that should shape how we read the Scriptures. So as we take a look at the six biblical texts that are used by some people to condemn homosexuality, let's ask two questions about each of them:
First, what does the text say about God that we need to hear but might be missing?
Second, what might the text be saying about homosexuality?

PASSAGE 1
GENESIS 2:21-25
THE CREATION STORY
Let's start "In the Beginning..." What does the creation story in Genesis 1-2 say about God?
I'm so tired of reading signs carried by protesters that say: "It's about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." In fact, the creation story is as important to Adam and Steve as it is Adam and Eve. Gays and non-gays alike need to know and celebrate the truth at the center of this story.
This creation story is primarily about God, a story written to show the power of God who created the world and everything in it. It teaches us that ultimately God is our Creator, that God shaped us, and that God said, "It's good." Isn't this the heart of the text?

Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are "unnatural." They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don't lead to having children:
  • couples who are unable to have children
  • couples who are too old to have children
  • couples who choose not to have children
  • people who are single
Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) "unnatural"? There's nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other, including the love I have for my partner, Gary.  So I believe the creation story says a lot about God's power and presence in the universe -- but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

PASSAGE 2
GENESIS 19:1-14
THE STORY OF SODOM
Now let's consider the second biblical text used by some people to condemn God's gay children. You remember the ancient story of Sodom. First, what does the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 say about God?

When Gary and I arrive at a college or university to speak, there are often protesters carrying signs that read, "Mel White, Sodomite." (Has a nice ring to it.) Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!

Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?  Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom.

Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate.

I admit, there are a lot of gay folk who are Sodomites (and a lot of straight folk as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more. While millions are hungry, homeless, and sick, Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts.

Whatever teaching about sexuality you might get out of this passage, be sure to hear this central, primary truth about God as well. God has called us do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn't take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.  But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing.

It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening.

The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

PASSAGE 3
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13
THE HOLINESS CODE
Let's move on. What do the two verses sometimes cited from Leviticus say about God?
Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex.

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

At the age of 10, I signed a holiness code written by the Women's Christian Temperance Union that said I would never taste beer, wine, or liquor. I thought signing it would please God and my grandmother. That's a holiness code. When I was in high school we evangelical Christians had an unwritten holiness code that went like this: "I don't drink, smoke, or chew, or go with girls who do." Now I know what you're thinking. That last part about "girls who do" proved especially easy for me. But the point is that I obeyed this evangelical holiness code because my parents said that breaking these rules didn't please God, and I knew it didn't please them.

We had another evangelical holiness code while I was in high school that prohibited dancing. I was student body president, yet I refused to go to the prom because I had promised not to dance. I did this to please God and my mother -- whose mother had made her sign a holiness code that she wouldn't go to dances either.

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.

Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

But wait, before we go any further, let's ask: What does this text say about God? Even if the old holiness codes no longer apply to us as Christians, it's important to remember that in every age, people of faith are responsible for setting moral and ethical standards that honor God. But we people of faith must be very careful not to allow our own prejudices to determine what those standards should be.

Instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let's talk together about setting sexual standards that please God -- standards appropriate for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for others.

Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality?  I'm convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here's why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: "He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10). For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

We've talked about the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that are used (or misused) by some people to condemn sexual minorities. Now let's look at three verses from the letters of the apostle Paul in the Christian Scriptures that are used the same way. Remember: First, we'll ask what the text says about God; second, we'll consider what it may or may not say about sexual orientation.

PASSAGE 4
ROMANS 1:26-27
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL
What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange "natural use for unnatural" and non-Jewish men who "leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other."  This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble.  When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

SMEDES: "The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity."

SMEDES: "The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"

SMEDES: "Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex."

SMEDES: "And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do... their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be."

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours.

PASSAGES 5 AND 6
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
THE MYSTERY OF "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI"
Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?  Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."  As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.
Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

MY SIXTH PREMISE:
The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.

We've looked closely at the six biblical texts used by some people to condemn homosexuality. But we must also remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another.  The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasn't even known until the 19th century.

The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and hell below, and that the sun moved up and down.

In 1864, almost 3,000 years after Moses and at least 18 centuries after the apostle Paul, the German social scientist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was the first to declare that homosexuals were a distinct class of individuals. It was a big moment for all sexual minorities. It's our Columbus discovering the New World. It's our Madame Curie discovering radium used for Xrays. It's our Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. It may seem like one small step for the rest of you, but it's a giant leap for us.

Ulrichs assured the world of what we who are homosexual already know in our hearts. We aren't just heterosexuals choosing to perform same-sex behaviors. We are a whole class of people whose drive to same-sex intimacy is at the very core of our being from the very beginning of our lives.

Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century, Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that we were "innately different from heterosexuals," and that our desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked "unnatural" to Moses and Paul was in fact "natural" to homosexuals.

So this is my sixth premise. The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.  The authors of the Bible are authorities in matters of faith. They can be trusted when they talk about God. But they should not be considered the final authorities on sexual orientation any more than they are the final authorities on space travel, gravity, or the Internet.

Since the writers of Scripture are not the final authorities on human sexuality, since they didn't even know about sexual orientation as we understand it today, since Jesus and the Jewish prophets were silent about any kind of same-sex behavior, I am persuaded that the Bible has nothing in it to approve or condemn homosexual orientation as we understand it.

MY SEVENTH PREMISE:
Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."

We may not be able to use the Bible as our final authority on sexual orientation. But as we search for the truth, we can and should use the Bible as our final authority on how we should treat one another along the way.

A young Jewish scholar asked Jesus, "What is the greatest commandment?" Quoting the prophets, Jesus replied, "The great commandment is this... to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the second command is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself."

"This is my commandment," Jesus said, "that you love one another, as I have loved you." On this the Bible is explicitly clear. Even if we disagree about what the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, we can agree that above all else we are commanded by the Scriptures to love God and to love one another.  Since God is the God of truth, since Jesus himself told us that the truth would set us free, one way that we love God and love one another is by seeking the truth about sexual orientation wherever we can find it.

There is a growing body of evidence from science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine, and personal experience that leads to a clear verdict: Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor a sin. Unfortunately, the church has always been slow, if not the last institution on earth, to accept new truth.

In 1632 the scientist Galileo (who was a man of faith) dared to support the radical 15th-century idea of Copernicus that all planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun. Immediately, Galileo was proclaimed a heretic by the Pope who quoted Scriptures in his attempt to disprove what science was proving.

Earlier, Protestant heroes had joined in quoting Scriptures condemning Copernicus. These weren't evil men. But they couldn't admit that the Bible was a book about God, not about astronomy -- just as good men and women today have trouble admitting that the Bible is a book about God, not about human sexuality.

Martin Luther said, "This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture in Joshua 10:13 tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

John Calvin quoted Psalm 93 in his attack on Copernicus. "The earth also is established. It cannot be moved." Calvin added, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

Melancthon, one of Luther's closest allies, used Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 to condemn Copernicus. "The sun also rises, and the sun goes down and hurries to the place from which it came." Then he added these dangerous words: "It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to obey it." In other words, believe what the Bible says -- even if science disproves it.

Because Christians refused to let their understanding of God's Word be informed by science, Copernicus was condemned and Galileo was declared a heretic and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. In 1992, 359 years later, Pope John Paul II finally admitted the church had been wrong to ignore science and to interpret the Bible literally.

The Pope said something we must never forget: "Recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past." Unfortunately, the apology came too late to relieve Galileo of his suffering. What if the biblical scholars of Galileo's day had said to Galileo, "We don't agree with your Copernican theories, but we love and trust you. As long as you love God and seek God's will in your life, you are welcome here."

Imagine the suffering that could be avoided if the church could say this to their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children: "We don't understand your views about sexual orientation, but we love and trust you. As long as you love God and seek God's will in your life, you are welcome here."  Instead, well-intentioned Christian are driving their own children away from the church, using Scripture passages that may not even pertain to sexual orientation as we understand it.

MY EIGHTH PREMISE:
Whatever some people believe the Bible says about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.

Please consider one last thing. I love the Bible. I read God's Word in it and hear God's Word through it. But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual's right to disagree. If the Bible (or someone's view of the Bible) replaces the Constitution as the law of the land, we undermine the great foundation upon which this country was built.

When I was a guest on a talk show in Seattle, I saw what might happen to me and to millions like me if a genuine literalist gained political power over this country. The other guest on the show was an independent Presbyterian pastor. When I told him that I was gay, he said without hesitation, "Then you should be killed." A Christian brother sentenced me to death, guided only by his literal understanding of Leviticus 20:13.

I asked him, "Who should do the killing, you church folk?" He answered, "No, that's the civil authorities' job. That's why we need to elect more good men of God into government." I sat there in stunned silence, until he added, "I know it must be hard for you to hear it, Dr. White -- but God said it first and it's our job to obey."

I hope we can agree that all of us must stand together against those who would replace the Constitution with biblical law. That's why, when I lecture on a university campus, I carry a Bible in one pocket and a Constitution in the other.

Can we support full civil rights for all... even if we disagree?  In this last premise, I'm asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

I hope you'll agree that we are family, all sisters and brothers of the same heavenly parent. We may be different, but we can still live together in peace.
Thanks for reading this pamphlet. I'm grateful. If you are interested in learning more, I've listed a few resources on the next few pages. You can also find resources online at our Web page, www.soulforce.org.
 
 

Excerpts from "What the Bible Says About Homosexuality"

Again, I got this in class. This is a good enough article as far presenting both sides of the argument. I suppose I don't have to tell all you loyal fans where I stand, but it was also interesting for me to see what the "other side" had to say. With the recent debate on homosexuality and the Bible's alleged stand against it, I thought those who wanted to know the other side of things would also like to read this. It's quite long, but if you have time and are interested in the topic, jump right in.

You can read the full text in Religious Tolerance.

***
(Note: the following is heavily abridged; visit the site for more information.)

How religious conservatives and liberals interpret the Bible:
Conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This leads to two distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception.

Rigidity of beliefs:
We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups:
  • Religious liberals promote homosexual ordinations, same-sex marriage, civil union ceremonies in the church, equal protection under hate-crime legislation, protection against discrimination in employment, etc. as fundamental human rights issues.
  • Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation.
We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue. We don't expect that the attached essays will change the beliefs of many visitors to this web site. However, the essays may help people understand opinions that are not their own.
  • Religious liberals have often interpreted other passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples, men intent on raping other men, etc. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship.
          For example, they might identify the sin of the men of Sodom as explained in Genesis           19 as attempting to rape strangers. Alternatively, they might quote other biblical                     passages as proof that the main sin of that city was their uncharitable behavior towards           strangers, and their uncaring conduct towards the poor, the widows, and needy.
  • Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms.
For example, they would probably identify the sin of the men of Sodom to be homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is seen as one of many manifestations of mankind's sinful nature which are a direct result of Adam and Eve's activities in the Garden of Eden. The story in Genesis is interpreted by conservative Christians as describing the fall of humanity.

Basic approach to analyzing the Bible:

The Bible refers to specific homosexual behaviors in a few passages. All references are negative.  Before considering what the Bible might say about homosexuality in today's society, one must figure out what the authors of the Bible meant when they wrote their passages about homosexuality. In order to do this, one must make a fundamental decision -- whether to:
  • Accept the teachings of one's faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable abnormal, unnatural, and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternative, normal, natural unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans which is accepted by God. It is something that a person is.
  • Study passages from your favorite English version of the Bible, which is filtered by the theological beliefs and homophobia (if any) of the translators. If so, then you will find many passages in the Bible which condemn certain forms of homosexual behavior
  • Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships.
  • There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts of the Bible.  The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Biblical authors had little or no understanding of same-sex committed relationships. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

Society in biblical times:
In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:
  • Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes anally raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Such rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consensual sex by gays and lesbians.
  • In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable.
  • It was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered extreme child abuse, a criminal offense.
  • It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times. Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote: "Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity."

People's beliefs regarding the Bible:
  • Generally speaking, Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible, as originally written, is inerrant (infallible; free of errors) and that God prevented the authors from making even a single mistake.  Every verse is useful in their understanding of God's intentions.  One should initially attempt to interpret each passage according to its literal meaning.  Many modern translations are reliable, particularly the New International Version (NIV) and King James Version (KJV).
  • More liberal Christians tend to look upon the Bible as containing many translation errors, whose verses were not inspired by God, but were influenced by ancient pre-scientific culture. Passages often relate to customs of a long-past era that are unethical when compared to today's secular and religious systems of morality. Examples are verses which accept and regulate slavery, require widows to marry their brother-in-law, requiring victims of rape to marry their rapist, or condone child disciplinary practices.  Passages which might be interpreted as condemning homosexuality might also be not applicable today.
Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Many, if not most, versions of the Bible are funded by religious organizations and employ translators who all follow a specific theological belief system. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today's society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term.

A brief description of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
Allegedly anti-gay "clobber" passages in the Bible

Genesis 1: Be fruitful and multiply....

Genesis 1:27 & 28: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, ..." King James Version.
  • A common religiously conservative interpretation: Moses recorded God as saying that he created Adam and Eve in his own image as "male and female." Having created them capable of procreation, God blessed them and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. There is obviously a limit to the number of children that Eve could give birth to. One might safely assume that God's instruction to Adam and Eve were also binding to their children, grandchildren, even down to the present generation. Thus, God intended each human to pair up with a member of the opposite sex, and to procreate. There is no room in God's plan for same-sex marriage.
  • A common religiously liberal interpretation: The creation stories in Genesis do not describe actual events and commands; they were copied and adapted from Babylonian myths by an unknown ancient Hebrew priest. The injunction to be fruitful and multiply may have had some validity in biblical times when the ancient Hebrews were continually under attack by neighboring tribes. However, today's world is overpopulated and is placing major strains on the environment. The command can hardly apply today.  Furthermore, throughout most of its history, the Christian church has rejected this passage; it has valued celibacy as a higher calling than marriage.
God stated in Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for the man to be alone." For a homosexual individual, the only suitable companion is a person of the same gender. To say that gays and lesbians should not form committed relationships is to say that it is good for them to remain alone. This is a direct contradiction of God's statement; it implies that God is a liar.

Genesis 2:23-24: About marriage: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh."
  • Conservative Christians:  God created Adam and Eve to be heterosexual, expecting them to be fertile and to populate the world with humans. During the sexual act, their bodies unite, and symbolically rejoin as "one flesh." That is God's plan: for people of opposite genders to marry, raise children and have dominion over all the earth. Homosexual behavior is apart from God's plan, an attempt to distort and pervert what God intended from the beginning. If gays and lesbians cannot change (or do not wish to change) their sexual addiction, they must remain celibate in order to fit into God's planned intent for humanity.
  • Liberal Christians: The first creation story in the Bible is seen in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. It describes that God's stated plan was for humanity to "Be fruitful and increase in number." (NIV, Genesis 1:28). The second creation story appears in Genesis 2:4 to 2:25. It states specifically that a man will unite with his wife. (NIV, Genesis 2:24).
One must interpret these sayings carefully. They obviously do not apply to all people. For example, if...

A significant portion of the population is sterile and thus cannot be fruitful and multiply.  If some people, for any number of reasons, remain celibate throughout life and never marry or have children.  If some women marry when they are beyond child-bearing age and are unable to conceive and give birth.  If some people carry serious genetic defects and choose to not conceive in order to avoid creating a child who would have disastrous health problems.  Gays or lesbians are, by definition, not attracted to members of the opposite gender, and thus are most unlikely to be able to form heterosexual relationships of one man, one woman.  The Genesis texts can thus refer only to a majority of individuals, not to everyone. It is a general plan for society, but not universally applicable to all.

Genesis 19: The story of Sodom and Gomorra:

This passage states that all of the people from the city of Sodom gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he send out two visiting angels so that the townspeople might "know" the angels. The word "know" probably implies that they wanted to have sex with the strangers. God later destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the behavior of the people of Sodom -- the Sodomites.
  • A common conservative interpretation: Moses recorded God as destroying the city. R. Albert Mohler said: "The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality." 1 This is a popular passage often quoted in conservative Churches because it so clearly condemns homosexual behavior.
  • A common liberal interpretation: The sin of the men of Sodom was to humiliate their visitors by engaging in "an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring" 2 The sin of Sodom was the intent to commit of mass rape. Same-sex rape is unrelated to homosexuality just as opposite-sex rape is unrelated to heterosexuality. Rape is a crime of power and control. Other biblical passages that mention Sodom clearly indicate that Sodom was punished for being unkind to its poor, widows, orphans, and strangers.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: The abomination

Leviticus 18:22 in the King James Version states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 20:13 is similar, except that it adds the death penalty as punishment.  Although the original Hebrew clearly refers to male-male sexual activity, both the Living Bible and New Living Translation refer to a prohibition of "homosexuality." This would include sex between two women -- a behavior not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
  • A common conservative interpretation: These verses clearly condemn sexual activity between two males. As such, they are consistent with other passages discussed in this essay. No exception is given for consensual sex between two men or for sex within a loving same-sex relationship. All are an abomination to God.
  • A common liberal interpretation: The Hebrew word "to'ebah" appears in both passages and is generally translated as "abomination." Some religious liberals interpret these passages as referring only to male Jews who engaged in same-sex behavior in Pagan temples. The term would better be translated as "ritually improper" or "involving foreign religious cult practice." Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same word is used to ban wearing of clothing made up from two materials (like cotton-polyester in today's world), or having a tattoo, eating shrimp, eating pork, seeding lawns with a mixture of grass types, etc. None of the passages invoking "T'ebah" are valid for non-Jews today.
Rev. Jill Nelson commented that the passage "... is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." 1

Deuteronomy 23:17, etc: Sodomites and shrine prostitutes

Deuteronomy 23:17 in the King James Version states: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." There are similar passages in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 & 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7.
  • A common conservative interpretation: Many Evangelicals prefer the KJV to the NIV translation of this verse. It condemns all male homosexual activity, and is thus applicable to all male gays today, whether they are engaged in casual sex or in a monogamous, consensual, committed relationship.
  • A common liberal interpretation: The Hebrew word "quadesh" is translated in the King James Version here as "sodomite." Other Bible translations use the term "cult prostitute" or "shrine prostitute."   "Qadesh" literally "means 'holy one' and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution" in a Pagan temple. 2 Among Pagan religions in the Middle East, worship often involved ritual sex in the temple, "often with a sacred prostitute who was like a priest or priestess. This sacred sexual activity was believed to encourage the god(s) to bestow fertility on the earth and its creatures." Male shrine prostitutes would have sex with females; female prostitutes with males.
Conclusions:
  • A common conservative conclusion: God's word repeatedly upholds one-man, one-women marriage as God's intent for relationships. It also repeatedly condemns same-sex behavior between men and perhaps between women.
  • A common liberal conclusion: Genesis does mention the pairing off of one man and one woman into a marriage-like relationship. But this is only one of many possible marital or family relationships. There are a total of eight types mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Genesis 19 definitely condemns rape. But this is unrelated to consensual same-sex sexual behavior. The phrases in Leviticus only apply to Jews engaging in same-sex activity in Pagan temples. The references to sodomites in Deuteronomy etc. is a clear error in translation. Again it refers to ritual sex in Pagan temples.
There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that condemns same-sex committed relationships or same-sex marriage.

With the almost complete absence of dialogue between religious conservatives and others on these topics, the massive gulf over homosexuality and the Bible -- and about the morality of same-sex sexual behavior -- will probably not be resolved in the foreseeable future. 

How Not to Talk To or About Gay and Lesbian People (Unless You Want to Offend)

I got this in class, just thought I'd share it with you guys. What an eye-opener! I realized I said some of these things before just because I didn't know any better! Hopefully, this way, I can make amends.

(Aside: Could someone verify #8 as far as Judaism is concerned? I'm afraid my friends who practice Judaism aren't very devout - which is to say, they hardly practice it all.)

***
No. 1: “You don’t look gay.”
Although this is a common response, it’s insensitive and plays into stereotypes.   (What does “straight” look like?)

No. 2: “I suspected you were gay.” 
This may be intended as genuine interest and concern, but be careful.

No. 3: "I don’t care what people do in their personal lives; I just wish they wouldn’t flaunt it.”
These speakers probably have no problem with heterosexuals talking about their spouses, or displaying family pictures, or showing tasteful affection for each other.  

No. 4: "I just don’t approve of homosexuality.”
As someone once said, that’s like saying you don’t approve of the Pacific Ocean.

No. 5:  References to “lifestyle”
Jet-setters may have lifestyles, but gay people (and straight people) have lives.  Calling anyone’s life a “style” is demeaning. 

No. 6:  “I wonder who’s the man and who’s the woman.”
These concepts are outmoded and inaccurate in all sexual orientations.  Most couples, straight and gay, have gone beyond playing roles solely based on their anatomy.      

No. 7: "I can tell if people are gay.  I can just tell.”
What this really says is that the speaker may be able to identify stereotypical gay people.  In other words, people who think they can “tell” have no special skill.  The vast majority of gay people are indistinguishable from everyone else and, in fact, may not recognize each other. 

No. 8: "I believe we should love the sinner but hate the sin.”
There are a number of religions for whom being gay is a neutral issue, including Judaism and several mainstream Christian religions. But more to the point, what it says is that you love someone as a person while also hating everything that makes that person who he or she is.  (If you say this meaning to be kind, just know that it won’t be heard that way.)


(Adapted from Diversity, Inc., 2007)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Point of Order

I am writing this here because I don't want this comment to get drowned by the myriad of other comments that have been filling up Rachelle's blog. She said so herself, she was ready to take the consequences of sharing her less-than-popular views to the world. Hey, I totally dig that. Goodness knows I've been the bearer of crappy views myself.

I just want to pause and reflect, though, on how this is shaping up to be. There have been some very personal and rude attacks on her looks, her family, and goodness knows what else. Malu Fernandez anyone?

I suppose I can't totally fault the others for lashing out in pure infantile anger (those are the fantastic kinds in which to indulge, I might add...) I do so in the confines of my own personal space. Close friends and family know that I have turned anger-lashing into a veritable art form. (Seriously. Adjectives are God's gift to angry people.) But I always force myself to tread more carefully when it comes to cyberspace. I do this not because I entertain narcissistic notions that the world waits with bated breath for every entry I write here, but because I feel as if I have a responsibility towards the lilliputian portion of the internet audience who do come to my little space.

With that said, Rachelle ought to have been more responsible with her words. What she posed as scientific research was just one fallacious statement after another, and easily disprovable. For example: Not all homosexuals are sodomites. In fact, a good portion of heterosexuals practice sodomy. Not all serial killers are homosexuals. Hitler was straight as straight can be. (I think. We weren't close. But Hollywood has not told me otherwise...)

On one level, her entry annoys me because it wasn't intelligent enough to pose itself as a strong argument against homosexuality. On another, deeper, more personal, and more existential level, her entry shook me to the core, because she condemned some of the people I love the most to eternal damnation. I don't know any murderers personally, but I have trouble flat-out condemning them to hell. I'd like child pornographers to go there, but I know very well that it's not up to me. I've already said my piece about that though, and I would hate to be redundant (over and over, again and again, ad infinitum, so on and so forth...)

She is a person whose views are entirely different from mine, and her theology is not one that I share. She and I will never ever be friends (everrrrr). The only place I can imagine being with her is on the set of Jerry Springer (wait, the film in the morning, right? Make that in one of those late-night debate shows.)

Here it comes, though. The ubiquitous "but"...

She is but one person. Her views are her own. By insulting her looks, her family, her lifestyle, we become just like her. There is a certain justice in unleashing the same kind of vitriol-fueled insults on her, but really, by doing so, have we not actually contributed to her unfounded arguments against (and here comes the shudder whenever I hear the term...) "homos" (ick-ick-ick, shudder-shudder.) Yes, what she said was hurtful. Yes, you were only acting out of anger. I get that! I was hurt and angry, too. But go rant in front of your friends and family. Don't do it on cyberspace. This goes beyond Rachelle. This is symptomatic of something so much bigger. This is sooooo not about her. Our comments are helping shape our future! Do you really want to go down in history as the one who talked smack to the person who didn't know any better anyway? You do all realize that you're becoming just as bad as she is, right?

The mob mentality is a scary-scary-scary thing to watch as it unfolds.

Take the higher road. Stop bashing Rachelle. Disagree with her, but stop attacking her below the belt. That's just mean.

Now if you excuse me, this soap box is pretty high and I'm only 5 feet tall. I'd like to get off now. Don't anybody trip on that on your way out. 

Friday, April 11, 2008

My New "Sister-With-Orange-Hair"


Wonderful news, everybody. My brother is now married!

Meet Joanna, my new sister-with-orange-hair. (A few months ago, we had some family friends over for a visit, their son called her that, tee-hee.) I've never had a sister, so I'm just thrilled - now I have two sisters! One older one (my husband's sister - hi, Thryza!) and one younger one, so I feel pretty complete now. I'm so happy for them - they really went through a lot to get to this point. Finally, they're married!

Woop-tee-doo. Happy, happy, happy!

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Beware the Bender Ball

I worked in the Customer Service industry for a very short while. One month as one of those poor agents that get yelled at and about three months training those poor agents that get yelled at. Out of all the stuff to memorize and learn, I remember this the most: Never piss a customer off (if it can be helped) because that pissed off customer will tell about 8 other potential customers who will eventually tell 8 other potential customers each, and so on and so for, ad infinitum.

Well, this customer is hoping to reach thousands, so hang on to your seats and see if you like them apples.

N.B. I know that much of the crap those goes on in these industries are really the big boss' faults. So this rant is directed to you big corporate bullies who think you can get away with swindling your innocent customers and letting your poor agents get all the flak.
My husband ordered a Bender Ball late last year. (No, I'm not providing you a link to that awful site...don't buy from them! You'll be seeing this warning a lot, by the way. It's a counter-marketing thing...) It's one of those small balls that help you do crunches (my husband's an exercise nut.) It arrived about a month after. Twice. We didn't order for another one, but since it was only about 10 bucks, we figured the hassle of returning the product wasn't worth it (they usually just refund the price of the product and not shipping and handling anyway, so why the ef bother, right?)

Quick Aside:
The ball sucks. And I'm not just saying that to be spiteful. It sucks. If you have a small child who is need of a small ball that's safe enough to play with, this might be just the thing you need. Otherwise, don't bother. Don't buy from them! 


Anyway, fast forward to today. We get another package. It's a dish doohickey that's Barney purple. No, it's the-purple-that-Barney-would-turn-into-if-he-were-gagged. Double gag. Apparently, some people would consider this some kind of exercise apparatus. We think it's something our dog would chew on for a good 53.76  hours. (Yes, it's an exact science. Shuddup.)

So I call the 1-800 number that I had to find by myself. It wasn't on the package. I had to google the bloody address on the package. At first, they didn't have our records. The poor (but idiotic) agent, at the height of her panic, lost the connection. So I called again and got a more competent agent. Too bad though, because I was already beyond irate. Turns out, by ordering that benign ball for about 10 bucks, they managed to slip in other products that would "complement" our product into the mix. The agent said that the person with whom we placed the order should have informed us about this, but she didn't. I swear by this and would give my firstborn child, because I was on that call, and I know these clauses, and I specifically said we were not interested.

This fugly dish cum chew toy? $43.97!!! Not bad for a companion product to a 10 buck crappy ball, eh!?!?! 

Don't buy from them! EVER!!!
THESE PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE CAPITALIST PRICKS WHO ARE OUT TO ROB EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, I TELL YA!!!

*deep breath*
*counting 1 to 1000*
*still not working*

So we're going to return the bloody dish, we're going to get our refund, but we'll be charged for shipping and handling. Twice. Once for the effin' dish to come here when we didn't order for it, and again to send it to them.

Gah!!!


NEVER EVER BUY THE BENDER BALL!!! EVER!!!

Friday, March 7, 2008

Every Girl Every Boy



Here's another one. :-)

For the record though, I think the women should be women without having to strip men of their masculinity. That's heterosexually speaking, of course.



Female and Male Privilege

You were warned. Here cometh the onslaught of Feminist posts...:-)


From Women in Higher Education, March 2006, www.wihe.com



THE LAST LAUGH:
A Female Privilege Checklist
Volume 15 (3), p. 32
Mary Dee Wenniger, Editor and Publisher

When I first heard Wellesley Professor Peggy McIntosh discuss her 1989 essay on “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” at a conference, I was moved.

Male privileges

I recently became aware of “The Male Privilege Checklist,” (found below - K) subtitled “An Unabashed Imitation of an Article by Peggy McIntosh.” It was written by Barry Deutsch, a cartoonist and humorist on the staff of the online Expository Magazine, a source of feminist thought and expression, where it appeared in the September 2004 issue.

Listed are 43 items of male privilege, which include males being more likely to be hired, promoted, elected, free of fear of harassment and rape, not expected to do the “most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding tasks” of homemaking and childrearing. Item 43 is, “I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.”

Female privileges

In contemplating the list with a colleague, we looked at the reverse, and created this list of 25 female privileges. Feel free to share, post, add to or comment on it, being careful to note the inspiration from Peggy McIntosh and Barry Deutsch.

1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.

Thanks, Peggy and Barry, for reminding women that there are times when we do enjoy the last laugh.

The Male Privilege Checklist

An Unabashed Imitation of an article by Peggy McIntosh

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.).

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

7. If I’m a teen or adult and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are fairly low.

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent..

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

17. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

18. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are fairly small and easy to ignore.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

35. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.

40. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

41. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”

45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

(Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. (This is a continually updated document; the most current version of The Male Privilege Checklist can always be found here . To see posts discussing the Male Privilege Checklist and various items on it, please visit this archive page).



Feminism Test

This is pretty accurate (surprisingly.) I'm a Libertarian, so this makes sense.

Yes, this is for a class I'm taking :-). We're done with Race, now we're on Sex/Gender. As my husband said, "Oh noooooo...Watch out. She only looks small, but..."

Bring it on. ;-)

.....

Your Score: Revisionist

You scored 66% Gender-Abolitionist, 100% Sexually Liberal, and 60 % Socialist

You are the Revisionist Feminist!  You are, by far, the most philosophical, the most sexually-liberated, and the most politically extreme variety of feminist.  You are very, very freedom-oriented.  You abhor oppression in all forms.  For instance, your views on sexual liberation and reproductive control adequately reflect your devotion to personal freedom.  Not only that, but you also feel gender needs to be destroyed to maximize equality and freedom, because accepting socially-constructed gender roles binds women into false categories and places upon them an unneeded identity.  Gender should not be a part of one's identity, but rather an irrelevant aspect of their physical bodies, such as their hair length or nose shape.  Not only that, but Revisionist Feminists are political extremists and feel very strongly that the oppression of class society is a big part of the cause of women's oppression.  Basically, a Revisionist feels that cultural ideas of gender, political class, and repressive sexual morality all work together to oppress women, and the only way to truly escape this oppression is to challenge all of these problems directly and extremely.  You are a Marxist, a Gender Abolitionist, and a Liberal Feminist all rolled into one.
The other feminist types:
The Housewife
The Marxist
The Liberal
The Liberal Extremist
The Gender Abolitionist
The Radical
The Gender-Liberal
The Revisionist     
This is the The Feminism Test written by saint_gasoline 

Monday, March 3, 2008

WANTED: Old Wives' Tales

So, my husband and I have been trying to get pregnant since October. Today was supposed to be the "safe" day to check (meaning, I would have been late for the correct amount of time), but then I got my period. My body is mocking me, I tell you. It lures me into thinking that this could probably be it...and then it spits out my joyful expectation in gooey...well, you know.

I've been to the doctor - I know when I'm supposed to be ovulating, I know that I shouldn't be drinking/smoking/taking drugs/base jumping (you get the picture), I'm taking pre-natal vitamins, and I'm drinking vats of water (for goodness knows what...but my doctor told me to do it, so I do it).

I've had it with sound, medical, scientific advice.

While I will continue to be a good patient and do everything my doctor tells me to do...I would like to open the floor to any pamahiins (old wives' tales) you have up your sleeve. For as long as it doesn't require me to do anything early in the morning (I'm a late sleeper and a late riser), I'm game. So please...any suggestions? (And yes, I've wiki-how-ed this thing...and I'm on it like butter on bread.)

In the meantime, I shall continue to drink all my pre-natal crap (that smell kinda funny), storm the high heavens with my prayers, and watch Sesame Street bawling my eyes out, wondering when in the world will I get to watch this show with one of my kids.

(Oh, and P.S. - have you guys seen Maria's daughter? She's all grown up! When did that happen???)