We Are Used To It- You Do This Every Year

It doesn't seem to me that being gay disqualifies one from having kids or being married. I know, I know- I really hate civilization and am just trying to destroy its foundations. If I had my way cats and dogs would be living together- it would be anarchy. But now that we've settled that, I return to my point- I don't think being gay is something that disqualifies one from having kids or being married. I write that with the nagging suspicion that I'm talking out my butt. I'm not gay, and I don't have any kids. How could I know whether gay people can raise children? As for being married- I'm not done yet. Maybe I will fail and prove that I did not know what it took to be married. So what do I know?

I guess I can't know- not in the same way I know my dogs like peanut butter. It seems important. It seems like I'm supposed to think that gay people are incapable of those things that make for good families. That seems so strange to me, though, because I know people who are not gay that seem totally unfit to be married and have children yet they are and have each. And inversely, I know people who are gay that seem fit to be married and be parents yet are neither.

But again, I am speaking from ignorance.

I used to think that it was just a whole pile of cynicism and hypocrisy that led so many conservative politicians to condemn homosexuality in general and grandstand on things like gay marriage and adoption. I used to think it was a strange cultural obsession with hyper-masculinity and a twisted Augustinian understanding of our bodies that made some in the church hate gay so much. But it's becoming clearer, that perhaps the most vocal in the arena know of whence they speak.

I mean, I think we should assume that someone's public condemnation of and fixation on correcting certain sexual behaviors is a veiled confession. It's not a confession in the classic sense, but maybe it's the best confession they can manage; we need to meet them half way. This impassioned plea to not let us, as a people, let gay folks have children is a cry from the source that thinks it knows best. What they are perhaps saying is, "We know from experience that gay people should not have children, because we are gay and think we should not have children." But maybe they are confused. Sure, many of them are gay, but being gay is not the source of the trouble.

The most that Bob Allen (R), for example, should say is, "I am not fit to raise children and I make a horrible husband." I think he would be right to say that, but I think his fitness or not to raise children and what makes him a horrible husband is not a result of his finding men sexually attractive as much as it is a result of whatever makes him look for random sex partners in park restrooms (Not every gay person does this, and some non-gay people do- so gay is not the source). Saying he is not fit to raise children because he is gay is too shallow a remark. The opposite of this is true as well; assuming someone is fit to raise children because they are not gay is right out. It certainly should not follow that a whole group of people is fit or unfit for raising children because Bob Allen obliquely confesses that he is not a fit parent or spouse.

But again- I may be talking out my butt on this. Having never raised children, I don't know that being not gay may be the only criterion that matters.

I say that it is a matter of confusion, not a matter of being gay or not gay. Not only is it a confusion of what follows from my being gay or not gay, it is also a confusion of what gay might be.

???

I know we say that being gay is a matter of attraction- whether it be biological or volitional. If one is attracted to people of the same sex we say that person is gay, but why does that make any sense? I'm not saying it can't ultimately mean that (even if that's what we decide gay means, it's not a useful category), but I guess I might suggest that gay means more than that when we use it. It seems we want to say "Everything we want to suggest about someone's sexual and relational behavior" with the word gay, and that's too much.

Part of the problem might be that we, some wes at least, want to attach some sort of moral weight to the label: gay is murder. Isn't that why it's so important for some that to whom you are physically attracted be a matter of choice? Then it is not simply a morally neutral category of human, like left-handed, or green-eyed. (That line only works if you are familiar with the historic connotations of left-handedness and green eyes). If you choose gay- then we can say there is some wrong you choose. It seems pretty clear that some would like it to mean that. Or at the very least, some pray it is an issue of will that can be altered. I don't see how attraction can be that, but then, what I do see wouldn't fill a thimble.

Remember, there are many reasons to discount what I say. I am not gay. I don't have children. I seem to want to destroy civilization. I know I'm supposed to think being gay- or more specifically a man lying with a man as he would a woman- is as horrible as cursing your parents or working on the weekend or as unnatural as a woman with short hair- but I struggle with seeing that as so. But just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that's not where I should be. Someday, when I am holier, I might think being gay is on par with giving your children to Molech. But I still don't know if I would think that saying one was gay meant all that.

Back to that issue of attraction. I am not gay. What I mean is I am a man not attracted to men. Oh- I can tell when a man is ugly, so that means I can tell when one is attractive. I know what is attractive in a man, I just don't want to have sex with men, but then, I don't want to have sex with women in general either. I guess I could be lying if I said I find women attractive because I don't find all women attractive. I don't just mean I do find dark or red hair particularly appealing, but blonde hair generally does nothing for me. I mean, I don't want to have sex with women in general (now that I type that, I seem pretty gay). In fact their are possibly as many women that I would not want to have sex with as there are men I don't want to have sex with. I can't imagine any man being a catalyst for the range of physical and chemical reactions associated with physical attraction, so one might say to me, "You are straight." - But I can say the same about me and most women: I cannot imagine them being a catalyst for the range of physical and chemical reactions associated with physical attraction, so one might say to me, "Keep your gay to yourself, fag." Whatever, what I think this is related to is the silliness of the label gay. What do we mean when we say one is a person attracted to people with similar genitalia as one's own and why do we want it to mean that if attraction is such a strange and perhaps insignificant thing? Can gay really be invested with all that it seems to carry?

I guess one partial or start to an answer might be that the Bible seems to condemn being gay so that's why some mean what they mean, but it's difficult to get at what exactly the problem is with Bible gay. (At least it's difficult for me- I don't think bats are birds.) It's important to Christians, or it should be, that some seemingly relevant Bible passages suggest doing certain things matters more than thinking or feeling certain things. Though we might ask, if the factors of attraction are beyond us why we would be "given" tendencies that cannot be acted upon. (Oh right, like original sin is in the Bible.) I guess I think that attraction is itself not problematic. I don't see the gouge out your eyes passage as relevant- lust and attraction are not synonymous, but the "gave up to dishonorable passions" might be. Though there, Paul seems to argue from a sort of natural law perspective, and unless we are meant to follow some self-reflecting what-God-says-is-natural-and-what-is-natural-is-what-God-says line or traipse down the rape-is-more-natural-than-masturbation slope, what is natural or what natural is should not be overstated. But then elsewhere, intention matters more than what one does, and sometimes inclinations are the problem.

blink... blink...

Oh right- gay people and kids.

Unless we think gay has to do with more than to whom one is attracted- it hardly seems like the kind of thing that says, "Children!?- Honey, I know you love fairy tails, but you do not belong around children. We need to get one thing straight- you're not, so just get the idea of having children out of your head. Replace them with ABBA lyrics or color swatches and everyone'll be much happier." It seems that what we might collectively imagine gay to be and what makes it unsuitable for family life is not something that has to do with what one finds attractive in other people. Rather it's a caricature that we connect to what we say gay is, or we use gay as some vessel to carry our collective grief and despair over our failed families. The thing is, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or perhaps your own parents may serve that role better than the gay people you know in real life, if you need that role to be filled, which, when you get down to it, you don't. You can play that role yourself- though it would require you taking on all the crap you want to dump on the gays or Britney Spears.

I think we have the capacity to be more imaginative and thoughtful about this whole gay thing- especially as Christians. But then, just because I can convert my gas truck to electric doesn't mean I will.

I Am Listening
One Hundred Thousand- Hieroglyphics
Across the Universe- The Beatles
Pigs on the Wing- Pink Floyd
Stella By Starlight- Stan Getz
Twist and Crawl- The English Beat
Castaway- Green Day
She Was a Hotel Detective- They Might Be Giants
Thriller- Michael Jackson
Mayonaise- Smashing Pumpkins
Now Mary- The White Stripes
Una Voce Poco- Rossini
Sexy Sadie- The Beatles
High and Dry- Radiohead
Better Git Hit In Yer Soul- Charles Mingus
Is This What They Used To Call Love- The Magnetic Fields
Red Sea- Hans Zimmer
Hurricane- Bob Dylan
Wild Honey- U2
Lovely Day- Pixies
Out of the Window- Violent Femmes
And Your Bird Can Sing- The Beatles
Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me- The Smiths
The Big Country- Talking Heads
Happy Jack- The Who