(This post from occasional contributor, clinical psychologist David Blakeslee, covers some similar territory as conservative gay blogger, GayPatriot on the Kevin Jennings controversy.)
I have been a bit agitated lately, it is probably my own problem, but instead of being internally ruminative about such sensations I decided to find some object to focus these feelings on. It didn’t take long, all I had to do was visit Warren’s blog . There I could find a few outlandish assumptions, hypocritical comments and distortions of fact to justify ventilation. Apparently that was not satisfactory enough, so I am writing this posting after a couple of years of absence (Warren, I don’t know how you do this day in and day out, your energy and integrity are deeply appreciated).
Rationalization, minimization, and justification are not scientific arguments; they are psychological defenses to ward off anxiety. Sometimes they are so effective that we feel quite calm when a grave injustice, which we should agonize about, has occurred. Instead of tossing and turning at night, struggling with headaches and pacing the floor, we sleep quite soundly. Sometimes they are so effective that the weak and the vulnerable are left without an outraged and strong protector; instead they get a philosopher, who through his mental games ends up functionally being a passive collaborator with a predator.
Are gay teens vulnerable? Absolutely.
And just to whom are they vulnerable?
Some would have us believe that it is just the Christian right. They conflate hate crimes with Christian opposition to gay behavior (Christians, by belief, are equal opportunity opposers to all sorts of sexual behavior, something that is easily forgotten in this debate–perhaps by design. They have lost the argument about premarital sex; they have lost the argument about casual sex; they had lost the argument about extra-marital sex, but seem to have reclaimed some of that ground–oops, here come the polyamories).
I would argue that gay teens have much more to fear from adult sexual predators than they do from the Christianity.
The story of “Brewster” highlights this issue remarkably. A lonely, searching 15 year old adolescent is seeking something as he wanders the streets of his home town late at night. He finds an older man who willingly helps him sexualize his yearning (Nicolosi would make an easy interpretation of this). It disrupts this child’s life academically, immediately. As part of that adjustment, he seeks out a teacher at school. The then teacher, now Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of the Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools, interprets this event (incompletely) as a problem of gay secrecy and isolation. He repeats this interpretation and describes such children as “naïve” as he climbs the political and advocacy ladder for 20 plus years (he never supplements his interpretation). His interpretation has some usefulness, but it is also politically and personally propels his career.
A number of years ago Warren and I were working to correct flaws in the proposed Montgomery County sex education curriculum. One of the studies we referred to was quite remarkable; it correlated teen sex with increased rates of depression and suicidal thoughts. It seems that sex, for some adolescents, is destabilizing and correlates with despair, even when it is with peers. The study did not examine “age-discrepant” sexual relationships.
Do some adults recognize this vulnerability? Yes, and many respond with alarm, compassion and heightened supervision.
Do some exploit this vulnerability? Absolutely, and in the past, outraged adults wrote laws to protect such children who are manipulated into entering into “consensual” sexual acts with “age discrepant” partners.
When sexual exploitation of minors does occur, some wish to enforce the law as a means of both protecting the child from further acts by the perpetrator; but also validate to the victim that they deserved supervision and care from this adult, not sexual exploitation.
But others begin to engage in an odd dance of rationalization, minimization and justification. They use words like “consensual” and they begin to focus obsessively and curiously on how close the victim’s age is to the age of consent. Perhaps they wish to establish how old the child looked. Or that the child never should have been in that location, unsupervised by their parents. Some argue that such outcomes are an unavoidable casualty of an isolated, marginalized community that has few public figures to act as mentors for gay youth (The Sam Adams, Portland Mayor, manipulation)
Kevin Jenning’s error is profound. Gay children and adolescents are at risk due to his profound, enduring lack of outrage at how an older gay man shamelessly exploited an isolated, vulnerable gay youth, whatever his exact age. Kevin never “got it.” It is not a defect due to his being gay that kept him from understanding this, it was a profound defect in his ability to empathize with that adolescent completely and accurately. It makes him a poor choice for the leadership position he now holds.
It is the same defect exhibited by Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen and others in the case of Roman Polanski (then age 44) and Samantha Geimer (then age 13). If Samantha or her 2009 equivalent comes to a teacher and describes an event similar to Brewster’s, will Jennings counsel teachers to interpret this as being due to minority related issues (that we need more women in teaching positions)? If a Muslim adolescent is exploited by a Muslim adult in the deep South, will Jennings argue that this is due to Muslim isolation and minority status?
Or will he reach to a common bond between men and women, gay and straights; a bond that goes across cultures, across ethnic groups and across religions. Sexual exploitation by adults of adolescents is wrong…first, last, and always. It is a primary concern to creating “safe schools” where teachers are all too often perpetrators. Protecting adolescents from sexual exploitation: it is a common bond that both heterosexual and homosexual children and their parents share.
Got me again. but not “messing with the truth” — just (obviously) not expressing myself in a precise manner. I am sorry.
I should have said: “Based on previous discussions here, I would assume that many (not all) of you believe non-sexual ‘homosexual’ pairings are necessarily sin. Am I correct?”
That was what I was trying to get at and why I shared about my non-sexual gay lover friends. I did a poor job of it, obviously.
Was curious if folks here saw only the sex as “sin” or if you might think their relationship was necessarily sinful because they see themselves as gay lovers.
Sorry I did not express myself more clearly. I wrongly assumed that you would believe that even the non-sexual lover relationship was wrong.
I did not mean to “accuse” anyone here of anything or “mess with the truth”. I was (wrongly) making an assumption that those of you who believe that gay sex is sin might also think that non-sexual gay pairings were necessarily sin.
I stand corrected for my thoughtless error. And I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have offended by doing this.
I should not have made any assumptions. I should have simply asked. I am sorry. DId not mean to offend or confuse. Still curious as to what folks here might believe about what makes something sin.
Less miffed now, Eddy?
Michael,
I can only speak for myself and allow others to do the same for themselves. For me, I cannot put my desires, whatever they are, above my love for God and what He has asked me to do and not do. I know that sounds simple but it is what guides me in my life.
That makes sense to me, Ann. Each of us must live according to our best understanding of God’s will for us. Hope I did not offend you. If I did, I am truly sorry.
Honestly, I think every situation is independent and cannot be judged by me. But for the most part, No, I do not think such pairings are necessarily considered sin.
Less miffed but very confused. It was all in plain english…yet somehow you didn’t follow it.
Here’s the first part:
I copied and pasted the second paragraph and asked you again which of us called it sin and you answered that we all did. At about the same time of my second asking, I even posted the answer I referenced above where I believe I addressed it quite clearly.
My question is very direct and straightforward and your question that it followed was also very clear. So, I cannot comprehend the confusion or misunderstanding that you allege in your apology posts. (Please reread what I quoted at the beginning of this comment. There was no confusion as to what you asking…you were clearly referencing the non-sexual. There was no mincing of words in my follow-up question. I went directly to what you just implied and said I didn’t believe it was true.)
The only clear remedies for such confusion that I can think of are 1) that, if a direct question (such as mine was) is asked, we address that in our very next post rather than going off on some other tangent. That way we won’t lose sight of what ‘it’ is. 2) that we be very careful when using words like ‘it’ when the ‘it’ we are referring to is any further than a sentence or two away. This helps the writer to stay clearly on track and is also good for a reader who may have missed the original ‘it’ some half dozen posts away. 3) and that we avoid the cutesy comebacks. It’s no secret to anyone that the blog relationship between you and I is a bit strained. Cutesy, when typed…and when mixed feelings exist….can easily be misconstrued. We really don’t know if it’s meant with a smile, with bared teeth or is simply an attempt to deflect or minimize the legitimate concerns of another.
So color me mildly miffed…but now for the waste of my time. And confused. But, really, let’s drop it. Hazemuth reopened this discussion and did so with thoughtful comments and questions. I’m feeling that we’ve hijacked that productive conversation for this detour.
—-
Hazemuth–
I labored in this detour because Michael’s questions (that I opened this post with) echoed your own allegations that I also answered to. A part of me wonders if the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” mantra that most (if not all) of us believe in has been so twisted by our gay adversaries that it’s simple truth is obscured. We believe that the bible deems it sin to have sex with someone of your own gender. We also believe that entertaining fantasies or lusts about having sex with someone of your own gender (and heterosexually, for someone other than your spouse) is sin. (There is some wiggle room here depending on individual interpretations of ‘entertaining’, ‘fantasies’ and ‘lusts’ and also understanding that ‘objectification’ is also sin. This would be best be described as purposely ‘getting hot and bothered over an image’– even if there isn’t direct fantasy of ‘having sex’.)
In those instances, I believe the ‘we’ is pretty universal among conservatives but there are always exceptions.
Michael,
I am still pondering this. My first thought was/is anything that violates the Ten Commandments, which I believe is the basis of all civility.
Thanks Mary. I have to admit that I am somehwat surprised so far. I would have thought (and I was wrong it seems) that even non-sexual gay lover relationships would be considered “sin” by those who believe that homosexual sex is sin.
Now I am getting the feeling that it may be just the actual gay sex– and not gay love — that is problematic.
In One Nation Under God, Ralph Blair observed (and I am paraphrasing a bit), “Some have suggested that gays might live together in a committed relationship but not have gay sex…It points out that it is not homosexuality, per se, that they have a problem with but specific genital acts.”
Does that come close to expressing what some (not all) here feel?
Ann, that makes sense. I am curious as to how you see gay sex as being related to the 10 commandments…
Michael,
You did not offend me – I always appreciate the way we can reason things out.
My apology stands. I made an erroneous assumption and did not express myself well. I am sorry if I offended anyone. Enough said.
Michael,
It’s not just about sex but that is a big part of it. Some people identify as gay but think acting on those feelings is a sin but not “being” gay. Some people have strong, strong feelings for another human and know that making that relationship sexual is not what God intended (in their faith perspective) and so they don’t make it sexual (that could be for anyone really) and then there are those who feel it is a sin and go ahead and act out that sin, and then there are those who do not feel a strong and close relationship is a sin but that acting on it is a sin and of course there are those who feel niether is a sin.
You can’t lump everyone into the same boat. The relationship with God is very personal, private and intimate. To know what someone believes you have to ask. We have all been on different and yet similar journeys.
Thanks for your patience Mary. As I said, I made a very mistaken assumption about what many folks here might believe. You are right —
I should have done that in the first place. I am truly sorry. I honestly did not mean to offend.
I am curious as to how you see gay sex as being related to the 10 commandments
Michael,
I am not sure if gay sex is related to the Ten Commandments. Adultry, according to the Bible, is having sexual relationships outside of marriage.
In that context, for many, it could relate to the seventh commandment.
Ann: Thanks for that. That makes sense.
Sigh. May I suppose if I had not been the one to first respond the hazemyth and reopen this war of words, someone else would have? Forgive me.
Hazemyth, your above comment is a bit weasely, especially given the way you sought to reopen this thread by quoting a comment from David that was in his response to a comment from you saying you were not looking for a debate but some kind of mutual understanding via a discussion. You did not cite it as David’s comment but made it appear as yours. I had to take the time just now to go back and search a thread that has precious few comments from you in it. So, you created the illusion that you did, in fact, want to debate the issues here.
So tell me, how does one artfully contrast his or her views with another’s and make it appear as if those views are not a rebuttal? I’d really like to know.
Michael,
If one chooses to believe what the Bible says, then it is clearly written what makes something a sin or sinful. If one chooses to listen to that small, still voice (some call it a conscience – some call it God’s voice) then it is clear to them what makes something a sin or sinful. If one chooses to have a moral code that they value, then sin will be clarified for them. Contrary to universal beliefs, I think it is what we choose to believe that tells the true story about our perception of sin. I am not saying personal belief is an evolved way of thinking or believing, it is just how most people live their life.
Clear to them, Ann. Not so clear to others. There are many who “choose to believe what the Bible says” but who do not believe that the Bible clearly condemns all homosexuality.
For these folks — I am one of them — We use our best understanding of the Bible — and that “still small voice” (I think it is the Holy Spirit) — and a basic moral code (I use the Two Great Commandments) to guide the way we live our lives.
But I respect that others base their views on sin on what they believe the bible “clearly” says. That is just as liegit as those who approach the issue from “still, small voice” or moral code — or some combination of these. Thanks so much for sharing your views.
Clear to them, Ann. Not so clear to others
Exactly, that is why I used the word “choose” – it is what they reference when seeking clarity for themselves. No one can make anyone else believe the same thing unless they are of the same mindset.
There are many who “choose to believe what the Bible says” but who do not believe that the Bible clearly condemns all homosexuality.
Yes, again this is why I used the words “choose to believe” – when it all comes out in the wash, I think this is what people do. They choose what to believe and how to apply it to their lives.
Also, I just cited three examples of what people choose to believe and align themselves with and by – I am sure there are many others.
@ Michael,
What kinds of homosexuality do you believe the Bible clearly condemns? (my hunch is you have answered this before, elsewhere, so forgive me for asking you to repeat yourself.).
I still am pondering your earlier question about what I think makes something a sin – I have answered in general terms, leaving my personal view out of it. I think that reluctance comes from my personal understanding that God’s grace is far greater than any sin and that He will find us, in the fullness of time, and bring us to redemption. I certainly have no problem saying what is right or wrong, according to my world view, however, I believe any sin against God or what He has provided for us or His plan for our lives, ultimately is between us and God.
I believe it condemns ANY sort of sex which would violate the Two Great Commandments.
@ Michael,
Does this include the Apostle Paul’s condemnation in his epistle to the Romans?
I think Paul was speak of practices in Rome — temple prostitution, cultic sex practices.
Idol worshippers.
I agree with this, concerning Paul and Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/What%20does%20the%20Bible%20say%20about%20homosexuality.htm
I accept that it may be very clear to other Bible believers that what we gay Christians call “the clobber passages” are undeniable condemnations of ANY form of homosexuality. I disagree.
Michael–
You just spent part of yesterday and a fair part of today asking and reasking us to clarify what we thought was sin.And a few of us went to considerable lengths to answer your valid questions and to expound when you requested it. If you’d like, in the future we’ll toss out a Bible verse that can be interpreted umpteen ways when applied to sexuality as our ‘clear’ answer rather than make any attempt to seriously honor what you are asking.
Let’s try tackling David’s question from another angle. Can homosexual behaviors such as S & M or ‘tricking’ ever be accomplished while honoring the two great commandments? If yes, please provide examples. (Please, there’s no need to expound on the fact that heteros have similar issues. We get that and will apply your logic to hetero situations that are similar.)
Michael–
A note of clarification re my first paragraph….I had been composing this comment ever since reading your 12:45 response and did not check my inbox to see that you have provided some deeper response. I would however still appreciate an answer to my closing paragraph. Thanks.
Personally, I don’t see how tricking could be. S&M? i suppose that would depend. Are we talking fantasy or violence?
I think I have expressedf before that I believe that sex belongs (has its most meaningingful expression) within the context of a loving, committed, monogamous, God-centered relationship.
This is my own personal conviction based on my best understanding of the Bible, the “still small voice” of God or conscience that Ann mentioned and the moral code of Jesus as expressed in the Two Great Commandments.
I know, accept and honor that other Bible-believing Christians have their own approach to these issues based on their best understanding of Scripture and of God’s will for them.
I any event,I am sorry that you spent so much time on this and that I seemed to dereail your conversation. I did not mean to waste anyone’s time or show disrespect. I will get back to more important matters, like Uganda.
BTW, I am only speaking of what is moral for ME. As Ann and Mary pointed out, ultimately these things are between the indiviudal and God. He alone is Judge.
Michael–
Hoping you can double task, as you have been, attending to both this conversation and Uganda.
Thanks for your answer re ‘tricking’.
Re S & M, from your question, I’m guessing that you feel there may be some scenarios where a person could be involved in non-violent S & M or fantasy and still be in tune with the two great commandments. Do I guess correctly and, as I asked originally, can you provide an example?
Very true. And I believe it’s true, to a great extent, for ALL of us. But we’ve entered into a conversation based on the topic ‘Reflections on what we have in common’…then that conversation more or less died and resurrected…and we’ve come back to it. Most of us have given some voice to ‘He alone is judge’ along the way, in this thread or in others, but that still leaves us with plenty to talk about…plenty to try to understand about one another.
@ Michael,
Thanks…
Most of my struggle with applying “just” the two greatest commandments is an outgrowth of experience in human nature (not homosexual nature).
You may recall that my long-term concern is with the institution of marriage.
I am very concerned with the intersection of Biblical Taboos: “God Hates Divorce” with overarching, summarizing commands: the two greatest commandments.
It is quite possible to read the latter commands as superseding the former command…
Apparently, however, the vagueness of the definition of love leaves lots of mischief…vagueness that tends to leave children and women disadvantaged. The explicit taboo against Divorce (for example), and as reinforced by Christ, doesn’t allow for much wiggle room.
Like homosexuality, many Biblical scholars believe that divorce today is much different than divorce spoken of in the Bible…
It is all, quite vexing.
Ian Fleming has done more to undermine sexual mores than either Kevin Jennings or Hugh Hefner.
Regarding S&M: This covers many things. Fantasies and realities. “Pretending” and “play”, “dominance” and “subimision” between consenting married relationships (or in the case of gays who cannot marry, “committed” relationships) might very well be an expression of love.
Pretending to be in control, using costumes, leather, toys, etc. I don’t see a problem. Deliberately inflicting pain on someone, torture, forcing someone to do something or damaging the person physically or emotionally does not “fit” for me.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but it’s the best I could come up with right now.
I agree. That’s why I think we must be rigorous in really seeking to understand and live out these two commandments — to THINK and to PRAY.
First: Who is God and how do I treat Him? Second (like the first) Who are my neighbors and how do I treat them” — and not just throw around a vague application based on some FEELING of love. That is not enough.
It would be easier, I suppose, if I believed that only heterosexual married sex was moral. That doesn’t require much thinking or soul-searching on my part. Are they married? A man and a woman? OK.
Two guys? Nope.
The way I approach it, since I don’t think the Bible clearly condemns all homosexuality, I have to always ask, “Does this show love to God? Does this show love to others?” There is no cut-and-dried, obvious, perfectly clear answer. It is more difficult, I think, this way. I kinda envy those who just have to look at the “rules” and obey them.
Another thing to ponder – when we reflect on the decisions we have made based on our belief in God, the Bible, personal morals, etc. – have those decisions worked out in our best interest? Are we better people in our minds and hearts and bodies because of those decisions. Have our lives expanded in positive ways or contracted in negative ways? Has our decisions brought out the best in us and those we involved in our belief and decisions? For those who are aligned to a faith or religion – have our decions brought glory to God?
Ann,
I feel convicted everyday over some decision I have made in the past. Yet, I do know that leaving homosexuality behind was definitely a positive and my little cousin was able to leave , too. Thankfully.
@ Mary,
Thanks for reminding us that sometimes difficult decisions lead to very positive outcomes.
Ann, thanks for that thought. I can say that for me, accepting my homosexuality was definitely a positive, though the cost to myself and others has at times been high. It was a matter of being true to God, to myself and to those I love. Thanks be to God, I think they understand that and love me anyway.
Sorry, Mary, I got confused. I wanted to thank you.
My own personal experiences with decisions AND the effect they have had on my life has brought me to the profound realization that whenever I act outside the will of God, as my personal and true understanding of God to be, my life is contracted and my mind, body and spirit is affected in a negative way. When I make decisions based on what I know to be true about God and His will for my life, and how I am guided by this, I find my life expanding and my mind and body and spirit is affected in the most positive ways – the main one being the peace that passes all understanding.
I particularly like this thought – what David said to Mary in an earlier comment. Doing the right thing does not always have to feel good.
Michael,
The cost is always high. I come from a very liberal family. It has taken them quite a few years to get accustom to the idea that lesbians do change. Some of them still love me, I suppose.
Since this thread originally was about the Kevin Jennings problem, I thought it fitting to point out a letter to the editor of the Kennebec Journal in Maine, where they are voting next week on the gay marriage initiative. The letter writer taught in Massachusetts schools and raises some good points about free speech, or the lack thereof under the growing specter of gay rights in education.
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/7004011.html
More Kevin Jennings,
http://www.breitbart.tv/fistgate-massachusetts-teacher-speaks-out-about-infamous-glsen-conference/
Apparently a teacher who attended is asserting that Jennings knew the content of the presentations and publications at the workshop.
It strikes me as very ironic that this very serious matter of free speech taken to the extreme has been derailed by our concerns over basic free speech rights in Uganda. Could it be that Uganda isn’t blind or deaf and fears that this form of extremism could one day be legitimized in their country too?
No kiddung. With all the priviliges of free speeach, there are some things on the TV, internet, and advertising billboards I’d rather not see. It takes a real effort to avoid the sexual promiscuity in this culture. I can totally understand another country wanting to curtail that.
Not to mention the classroom and your school library!!!