Who was the youngest son of Jacob?

Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Eve Tushnet

Home
Catholic
Religious Music & Entertainment

Last updated on: March 28, 2004 at 8:44 am by Eve Tushnet

2004-03-28T08:44:00-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

BABY, LET’S TWIST AGAIN, LIKE WE DID LAST SUMMER: My post (“Playground Twist“) on how societal response to homosexuality shapes our identities got a lot of really illuminating, personal, intense responses. I’d really like to thank everyone who wrote to me, and apologize for not replying sooner. I didn’t write back to people in anything remotely resembling a timely fashion. But I really, really appreciated every email I got.

Here’s a selection from the emails I received.

Anonyreader #1: Interesting post. Point number 2 is pretty spot on. Point number 1 differed from my experience a bit (though I believe I came out at a considerably older age than you–I was 33). Hardening of identity–probably–but it might be likened more to “siege mentality”–a very real sense that I and people like me were under attack (whether sexually active or not) and that the gay community was a vehicle to do something about it.

In the past week I have discovered yet another grand unifying theory of the sort I discover about once a month. The stereotypical gay activist appears to lump gay identity, homosexual orientation and homosex into one sort of all-or-nothing package. To have an objection to any of it is to be hateful to the entire person. Then there are the (I’ll call them) anti-gay Catholic conservative people who try to explain the distinction the Church draws between homosex (deemed immoral) and homosexual persons (fundamentally good–but possessing an objective disorder). This just explains the relationship to the homosexual person.

Both of these positions ignore one thing–the culture. I think it is fair to say that in addition to wanting homosexual individuals to live chaste lives, the Church also wants the culture to teach chastity and the ways in which the culture teaches chastity are far from precise and often quite cruel. The playground incidents you describe are just a small subset of how I’m convinced the culture used to convey disapproval of homosex–by heaping stigma on the gay person. In other words, you avoided looking for gay sex because, well, someone might get the impression that you ARE a homosexual.

While I have read, and believe I know pretty well, what the Church teaches about the dignity of the homosexual person, I do see them supporting cultural conventions that try (granted without too much success lately) to keep homosexual persons from being able to identify each other (potential partners) by encouraging them to remain silent about their orientation (which is accomplished by stigmatizing the orientation). This is what makes “love the sinner hate the sin” and “all God wants you to do in this area is avoid sodomy,” which does describe the Church attitude toward the homosexual individual, ring pretty false.

A possibly-anonyreader writes: There is some truth to your first observation. You second observation is, at best, a half truth. The most telling omission is that you neglected a sense of group identity formed by common oppression. A grown up gay man who hears some kid being called “faggot” is justifiably outraged because he knows precisely how that feels.

The problem with “Courage” is that it sweeps the last point under the rug, and that’s not acceptable or forgivable. It’s the reason so many gay-identified people hate Courage.

Elizabeth says some stuff that rings really true to me, and that does not exactly speak well for the Church’s response to contemporary culture: I’ve formed this from what I’ve heard some Christians say about homosexuality and people with SSA. They often talk as though homosexuality is the “unforgivable sin.” Non-Catholic types seem to do this more as they don’t seem to distinguish between the disorder and the person; just to be homosexual is sinful even if one is chaste.

So my theory goes like this: Homosexuality affects a minority of the population so most Christians do not live with this temptation to sin. And while they may be tempted to pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, porn etc. they are not tempted by a person of the same sex. Plus, they can reason it’s normal to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex, so it’s normal to have sex with them. And, homosexuality is never normal, even if one is not sexually active. Main point: It’s one sin they are almost guaranteed not to commit.

Now if some do happen to be living with some degree of SSA but believe that if anyone found out that they will be ostracized and condemned they may not act on it. They may be even more strident than others to deflect suspision. Once again, it’s a sin they are almost guaranteed not to commit. The cost would be to great.

I know I made some generalizations here; I hope they are not too sweeping.

Anonyreader the third: So I read the above-named post. It’s on-target. The particular stigma attached to homosexual attractions doesn’t just harden one’s identity. It creates an unhealthy disconnect between one’s inner and outer self. By this I mean not just being in the closet, but having as a result such a stark divide between inner actions and outer actions that one might view the former as existing in a sealed container. If one can help it, they do not affect one’s outer actions, so one is tempted to believe that they don’t matter.

And if the shame doesn’t harden one’s self-identity enough, the mantra to the effect that a gay leopard can’t change his spots will–even less motivation to guide one’s internal currents. I’d call it textbook vice, but this particular example doesn’t appear in the textbooks. (For the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many, etc.)

And your comment about loving care being woven into the fabric of a sinful relationship (or vice versa)? So very Brideshead–Charles and Sebastian, Charles and Julia, Julia and Rex, Lord Marchmain and Cara. There’s a reason (among many) why it’s my favorite novel.

Joe Perez responds here. I think this is condescending (I mean, Joe couldn’t know this, but I did co-found my high school’s gay-straight alliance, this is stuff I’ve had to wrestle with practically since I could read, I really am neither new to this stuff nor unwilling to put myself on the line) but it is nonetheless worth reading. I find it thoroughly bizarre that he writes, “I can honestly say that, by and large, the possibility has never seriously occurred to me that my sexual instincts, attractions, and desires could possibly be as disordered, evil, sinful, or disgusting as so much of the world around me preached.” I mean, I can’t think of anything I believe that I have never doubted, except for stuff that nobody in this society tries to make you doubt, like “genocide is wrong.” I can think of things I’ve never actually changed my mind about (the political examples are capital punishment and the drug war), but really, the fact that I desire something tends to make it more suspect for me, not less. Yet I do realize that neither attitude (“I will do what comes naturally” or “I will do what I hate in order to assert my willpower over my inclinations”) is an especially good guide to truth.

Anonyreader #4: Some unconnected points on the question you posed about why homosexual temptation get treated as unique (it’s long, and the most important part is at the end if you want to skip):

(1) I think sex (as opposed to gender) has often, maybe always, been a centrally important way for , especially for women, but for men too. With saints, you have martyrs and virgin martyrs, who get their own category. When two close friends of mine in college met as freshmen roommates at Harvard, on the first night after the lights went out, one asked the other what she most felt she needed to know about this stranger she’d be sharing space with: “Are you a virgin?” Virginity is its own complicated issue, but I think it points to people’s tendency to self-define and define others through sex. And on the other side of the Madonna-whore dichotomy, ‘slut’ is probably the schoolyard label most stigmatized after ‘gay,’ and sometimes has equally little to do with whether someone’s actually had any sex–the class ‘slut’ can be someone who’s pretty or develops early or talks to boys. I do realize this label is different from ‘gay’ in that it doesn’t deal with someone’s besetting temptation, though.

(2) I think that in parts of Evangelical America, same-sex attraction has become the scapegoat that people look at when they don’t want to think about there own sex lives. This goes both for things people might not think of as sexual sins at all and those they do think are sinful but don’t see as self-defining. Yes, it’s simplistic to accuse people of saying, “Sure, I have sex outside marriage/have been divorced and remarried three times/use abortifacient contraception/watch a lot of porn, but I’m not like those homosexuals,” but I think there’s a grain of truth to it.

(4) Which came first, viewing same-sex attraction as a unique and defining temptation or insistence by gays that being gay was a central aspect of identity, like being black or female? Maybe there’s a historical answer to this, or maybe it’s a chicken/egg problem–I don’t know.

(4) Getting more personal: when I was thirteen I considered the fact that I was odd, thought girls were pretty, and found boys my age annoying, and became afraid that I was gay. For about six months I was secretly full of angst and fear like I’ve never known about anything else, and I think the why of it is interesting. My parents are not Christian, are in fact very much opposed to organized religion in general, and I’d never thought of the belief that homosexuality was a sin as anything other than superstition. I knew gays were stigmatized, but considered that stigma a bad and stupid thing, like racism. Still, I wasn’t thrilled about acquiring a stigma I’d never grow out of (unlike ‘nerd’), but that wasn’t the thing that scared me most. What scared me most was the thought that I could never get married and have kids. Which was weird, because (a) I had never before been aware of wanting to such a thing, and (b) this was 1995, and I read a lot of TIME magazine, so I must have known that there were gay people who had partners or even kids, but that never struck me as a future life that was even within the realm of possibility for me. In a culture with almost no positive ways of thinking about celibacy that (especially in ’95) hadn’t really absorbed the idea of gay marriage, what gay really meant to thirteen-year-old me was isolated, lonely, without family. Which may have been why I started thinking I was gay in the first place, because I was already isolated in the way only over-intellectualized middle-schoolers can be. And I think that idea–that gay means isolated, cut off the deep ties of marriage and family–may help explain both why same-sex attraction gets treated so differently from other temptations and why supporters of SSM see it as a basic human right.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 28, 2004

Next Post

March 28, 2004

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the youngest son of Jacob?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Benjamin Joseph Levi Dan