Friday, October 8, 2010
The Real "Bully" Pulpit
This is Boyd Packer of the LDS Church who recently made comments about homosexuality. He is likely the next leader of that church. Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”
(I include this as merely an example (and not to single out the LDS church from others) because it happened recently and was easy to find, and also because I live in Utah and this is the predominant faith in my community. Virtually every Christian denomination, not to mention other faiths, can take responsibility for its leaders making similar statements in recent times.)
All of the recent (and some not-so-recent) efforts to reach out to bullied youth, especially gay and perceived to be gay youth, to prevent suicides are laudable. I enthusiastically support these efforts and hope you do too.Counseling bullied young people is a great thing. Stopping bullies is great too. But what if we stopped telling them who to target in the first place?
In this country there are high-profile and influential people who say hateful, bullying, things on TV, on the radio and in churches that give license to bullies and indeed, teach the bullies who to target.
Do I need to post the hateful anti-gay statements for you to know what and who I mean? Well, I'm not going to. Partly because it's sickening. And partly because it's not really what my blog is about. No doubt, they are part of the problem. But many of us can point that out and say, "That's wrong! It's cruel and mean!" It's the nice bigots I'm talking about today.
Rhetoric doesn't have to be "hateful" in the conventional sense to be oppressive and bullying. In fact, when protesters gathered in response to Mr. Packer's statements, this is what the LDS church said:
“Of course, the Church recognizes the right of groups to voice their opinion in the public square. However, those familiar with the Church’s doctrine on the importance of marriage and family know it is based on principles of respect and love for all of God’s children. We have continually emphasized that there is no room in this discussion for hatred or mistreatment of anyone.”
I've heard it all my life: "Hate the sin but love the sinner." But is it "loving" to campaign to deny that person you consider a sinner the same legal rights you enjoy? And what Mr Packer did was basically call homosexuality sinful and perverted. His words were "impure" (i.e. sinful) and "unnatural" (i.e. perverted). That's not love; it's bigotry, and it's a form of hate no matter how much you smile and say it isn't. It's hate no matter how much you apologize that it's just that way "because God said so." It's still hate, even if you say God created it.
One religious person I know said she loved her friend who is gay even if his lifestyle is sinful and she cannot condone it. Well, I'm sure he's grateful for that begrudging affection. Moreover, did he ask her to condone his lifestyle? I didn't find out.
And why was she even referring to his "lifestyle." Doesn't she mean "sex life?" I'm sure she's not concerned with whether he wears black or oxblood colored dress shoes, or if he prefers the mambo to the cha-cha, or if he prefers BMW to Audi, or if he prefers Italian to Mexican food. She's judging his sex life.
When churches of any denomination condemn "the homosexual lifestyle," they are really saying that gay sex is immoral because it involves two people of the same gender. If they were platonic roommates, would anyone care? And, these same churches say, because gay sex is immoral, gay people should not be allowed to marry one another or have protection from being fired or be allowed to adopt children or have their partners on their health insurance or whatever else they are trying to do to discriminate. The list is long. All because they are uncomfortable imagining someone else's sex life. Here's a clue - stop worrying about it and mind your own damn business!
[Without dissecting them in detail, I think we all agree that there are many common sexual practices engaged in by gay couples and straight couples alike. So does that mean straight people who engage in those activities are also engaging in an "immoral lifestyle?" Should we prevent them from marrying and adopting too? Or is it simply the absence of a single sexual act that renders gay sex "immoral?" (I really did not intend to take this route. I just ended up here. Don't worry. I'm almost done.) Is this starting to seem silly? That's my point! It is silly! Because it really comes down to condemning people because of their private sexual behavior, behavior that most people are loathe to disclose even to their doctor. It's private! No one judges - or even speculates about - the freaky stuff heterosexual married couples might do with each other, but apparently, these dirty-minded religious people cannot help but judge the imagined "deviance" of same-sex couples. It's stupid.]
More importantly, IMO, condemning the "gay lifestyle" as immoral makes no more sense than condemning the "left-handed lifestyle" or the "redheaded lifestyle" as immoral. People are born what they are. Morally condemning homosexuality from the pulpit or the floor of the US Senate or House of Representatives is bullying just the same as shoving that young gay man into a locker or making a spectacle of him on the internet. Just because it's said from a pulpit, or by an adult, or while wearing a suit doesn't change what it is: oppression of those who are different and the abuse of power to inflict pain and suffering. Like I said - bullying.
As for those of you who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I say this: same argument applies. Mind your own damn business! It's a free society! People should have the right to love whom they choose without fear of reprisals or repercussions.
Is it ironic or merely sad that in this society, there is often less condemnation for hating the "right people" than there is for loving the "wrong people?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Heather, as an LDS individual, as you know, I can tell you that I was absolutely stunned when I heard that talk. Stunned turned into upset, turned into resentful, turned into complete disagreement with many of the statements that were made. In fact, I wrote a 5 page paper about how upsetting the talk was to me - and why. I did hours of research and spoke personally with a friend of mine that is gay AND LDS, and also another friend who has same-sex attraction but doesn't want to be gay. I found it very interesting to talk to both of these individuals and it gave me great insight into this issue. My own personal views and opinions on homosexuality has evolved a lot in the last ten years or so. I believe that it is CLEAR that there is a physiological component to homosexuality - that indeed it is NOT a choice and it can NOT be "repented" of. I completely disagree with the notion of trying to "change them" into heterosexuals via therapy, counseling, etc. That being said, do I think that this is some things about homosexuality that qualify as "unnatural"? Yes. Are there some things about heterosexuality that qualify as "unnatural?" Yes. In the end, I believe that God loves ALL of us and has created us to be who we are. I don't view homosexuality as a "condition" - it is just the way some people are. It is frustrating to have leaders of the faith that I have been a part of my whole life and that I believe to be true, to make such sweeping, generalizing and totally unnecessarily harmful statements. I have never before in my life stood at complete odds with one of the General Authorities of my church. It has been a very eye-opening experience, and one that I feel has been beneficial to me in the end - but only due to my extensive thought, research and contemplation on the matter, which therefore brought me to some of the conclusions that I've shared here. I feel like it's more important than ever to have an open mind on this issue. Do I think the church will ever change it's view on the fundamentals of homosexuality or Proposition 8? Probably not. BUT, there should be significant change in how these issues are addressed and handled from here on out.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Boyd K. Packer, I believe him to be an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I continue to uphold and sustain him in that office. However, he is still a man - a human, mortal man capable of faults and wrong-doing. I'm glad that the he has revised his talk, as reported by ksl.com: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12749665. I think that's a step in the right direction.
Julianne,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comments. One interesting thing to me about churches of many religions is that their teachings and doctrines do change over time. Your POV encourages me that the future LDS church may be more tolerant than the current leadership. I actually think large numbers of LDS church members, as well as members of other churches, particularly of my age and younger, think similarly to you.
Really appreciate your POV and your taking time to comment.
Hating a minority group allows the majority to feel superior. Without judgment against the "sinners," how would the "religious" majority define how great and Godly they are? Piety defines them. It's what they are. God forbid they love unconditionally as they should... They would put them as equals with the non-pious.
ReplyDelete