Andrew Alexander is the ombudsman for the Washington Post. In this Sunday’s Post, he was compelled to address the brouhaha created by an August 28 article on the front page of the Style section titled “Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile.”
The article was a profile of Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a group leading the fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Here is Alexander’s summary of the article:
The story suggested those fighting for same-sex marriage should fear Brown because he’s civil, “instantly likable” and a “thoughtful talker.” Brown is effective because “he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.”
Alexander tells us that the author, Monica Hesse, “had expected to hear from anti-gay-marriage conservatives who might view the story as ‘snide.’” And sure as shootin’ Ms. Hesse was “buried by an avalanche” of messages angrily attacking her article.
But, as it turns out, the temper tantrums didn’t come from the pro-marriage crowd.
Instead, she heard from liberals who support gay marriage, accusing her of writing a puff piece about someone they believe fosters prejudice and intolerance. The story was shallow and one-sided, they complained.
Scores also contacted the ombudsman. It’s “one of the biggest pieces of crap The Post has published in recent memory,” wrote District resident William Grant II. “What’s next, a piece on how a KKK leader is just ‘someone next door’ and ‘really a nice person’?”
Hesse has been blistered in the blogosphere, even cast as a bigoted conservative who endorses a homophobic agenda.
Alexander and Hesse, being ever so anxious to disabuse Post readers of the opinion that Ms. Hesse is a homophobic bigot, offered this little glimpse into Ms. Hesse’s personal life to prove otherwise:
Hesse is a gifted writer, as can be seen in a piece about her marriage in today’s Post Magazine. At 28, she’s one of Style’s rising stars. But she was rocked by the angry reaction to the Brown story and spent most of last week responding to unhappy readers. Especially sensitive to accusations of a “homophobic agenda,” her e-mails offered a glimpse into her personal life.
“My current partner is a man,” she wrote them. “Before him, my partner of two years was a woman, with whom I discussed health insurance, kids, houses and marriage. You can bet that I found the fact that our marriage wouldn’t have been legal to be wrong as hell.
“That doesn’t mean that what NOM is trying to do and how they are trying to do it are not important to hear about,” she wrote.
I guess that should prove Ms. Hesse is not your average everyday homophobe.
But there’s more to the story. Alexander thinks that the misunderstanding might have been avoided if the headline weren’t so biased:
Finally, the headline: “Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile.” To many readers, The Post was saying Brown’s views are sane. The headline, written by editors, not Hesse, should have been neutral.
You would think that “being neutral” and/or the notion of “reporter objectivity” over at the Washington Post might mean giving an equal hearing to both sides of the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. But you would be wrong. The Post’s view of unbiased reporting, according to its ombudsman, is “being neutral” about whether or not those who oppose the legalization of same sex marriage are “sane.” The raging debate among the reporters over at the Post, it seems, is between those who believe same-sex marriage opponents are “wrong as hell” and yet sane or “wrong as hell” and insane.
Ms. Hesse seems to have run afoul of the “they’re both wrong as hell and insane” crowd.
September 6th, 2009 | 3:59 pm
So if I understand correctly, it doesn’t matter what opinions journalists writes about, but the only justification for Washington Post’s writers is that they are themselves homosexuals, bisexuals, or whatever the journalist actually is? Does anybody care about ideas at all?
September 7th, 2009 | 5:14 am
Insanity is taking up a “special collection” to fight gay marriage in Maine the same week you announce you are closing 5 Maine churches because you can’t afford to keep them open.
September 7th, 2009 | 10:29 am
The Church Ms. Brooks, is ultimately not a building. It is an orientation toward God’s Truth. And that truth does not endorse same-sex relationships that, by their essential nature, lead to a negation of His Creation. If your intellectual orientation was not one that seeks to defend the whims of individual fulfillment, against any such claim of transcendent Truth, you might understand why a church puts high priority on such matters.
September 7th, 2009 | 11:17 am
Marriage equality supporters were perhaps a bit overly sensitive in their reaction to Monica Hesse’s article. On the one hand there were journalistic lapses. For example, after mentioning the “James Dobsons, the John Hagees — the people who specialize in whipping crowds into frothy frenzies” she should have explained that the Family Institute of Connecticut, Brown’s former employer is a state affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. On the other hand, the story about Sue being uninvited to the Connecticut neighborhood party was revealing. Because Sue couldn’t imagine herself raising a family with a woman, she felt it appropriate to block other families from being families in the eyes of the law.
Similarly, for Brian to earn his living promulgating that position and then to say: “I have gay people who are friends and family,… We can disagree on all sorts of things and still care about each other.” Care about each other and then work full time to deny the existence of GLBT families? That’s irrational.
September 7th, 2009 | 12:58 pm
We owe each other the truth; that is true caring, the kind that lasts. To assist in bringing another person to the truth of things is one of life’s greatest privileges and a sign of respect. What is truly irrational is denial of the truth in a well-intentioned attempt to make life temporarily easier or more comfortable.
September 7th, 2009 | 2:34 pm
elder reader,
Thank you. You are exactly right. That’s why GLBT people need to go public and tell the truth and that’s why society has to except the truth that not all people are heterosexual. GLBT-phobic people can’t expect an anti-marriage equality law or constitutional amendment to make their life easier of more comfortable. It won’t. It will feel good temporarily and then they will realize that 1) their phobia is still there and 2) the enacted legislation harmed real families.
September 7th, 2009 | 3:16 pm
Disorders are a part of human life. As a parent of someone suffering from a major mental disorder, I know that this is so on a deeply personal basis. In our case, our efforts were focused on healing and change. Decades of hospitalizations, medication, therapy sessions, and much prayer have resulted in a different outcome than would have been expected. If we surrender too soon, we will never know what might have been wrought by human effort and God’s grace. A person of good will who is concerned for everyone’s best well being must never give in to despair. Carefully thought-out opposition to the normalization of homosexuality – consideration of health questions, concern for children’s need to know their mother and their father, deep anxiety about laboratory production of human children – these are legitimate concerns and not symptoms of a phobia. The fact that homosexual desires exist is something that can be respectfully addressed. Some very caring people believe that the answer does not reside in changing the definition of marriage.
September 7th, 2009 | 7:10 pm
Elder Reader,
You seem to be a little bit confused about the function of our government. It is not a vehicle for imposing a particular religion’s version of “God’s grace” on people who don’t practice/believe that religion. Many religions, including mine, sanctify same-sex marriages. By conflating the many facets of the covenant relationship that *is* marriage with “sexual desires”, you may leave readers with the impression that you have a shallow understanding of the institution of marriage.
September 7th, 2009 | 8:11 pm
Jonathan, in a pluralistic democracy, religious views have a place at the table, and to exclude them would be undemocratic. But we don’t impose anyone’s views on anyone else. We debate what’s right and wrong and what’s good for the country and what’s not, and then we vote.
September 7th, 2009 | 9:23 pm
Per:
“That’s why GLBT people need to go public and tell the truth and that’s why society has to except the truth that not all people are heterosexual”
Uh, hallo. What rock have you been hiding under? Have you visited an Episcopal Church during the last 25 years? Seen the evening news on the telly? Or read a major newspaper? Attended an institution of higher learning? Or merely a public high school? I assure you GBLT have been telling their *truths* for some time now.
Per:
“By conflating the many facets of the covenant relationship that *is* marriage with “sexual desires”, you may leave readers with the impression that you have a shallow understanding of the institution of marriage.”
Actually, it’s the GBLT’s who have the shallow view of the institution of marriage. To them it’s a mere matter of plumbing and an institution they’ve been denied by either society or The Church. When the truth is, GBLTs have just as much right as any one else to marry – as long as it is a person of the opposite sex.
September 7th, 2009 | 10:25 pm
“it’s the GBLT’s who have the shallow view of the institution of marriage. To them it’s a mere matter of plumbing and an institution they’ve been denied by either society or The Church.”
Can you support this claim, Mrs. Jackson? Because to claim that someone is only interested in sex and lacks the capacity and the desire to love another person in the full sense of the word is a particularly nasty and ignorant thing to say.
September 8th, 2009 | 7:28 am
The idea of conflating government and religious doctrine never entered my mind. I was offering a personal insight gained through personal experience, i.e., that a disorder can be healed through medical care. If you will re-read my post, you will notice that I mentioned medical care first. My understanding of marriage is based on observable facts about human beings. We are male and female – two halves of a life-giving whole. The children who are born from this union require a mother and father. Secular studies have established this again and again. Monogamous heterosexual marriage has been demonstrated to be a great good. It is the fundamental unit of civilized society. This does not minimize its difficulties nor does it ignore the fact that many abuses within marriage occur, nor does it ignore the fact that protections are necessary under state law. This, however, not religious doctrine, is the basis of my thinking. I am also aware that this fundamental fact of life can become a source of great conflict and suffering. My concern was that we are in danger of abandoning the question of human sexual behavior; relegating it to the status of a question that cannot be mentioned or explored. Meanwhile, both heterosexual promiscuity and homosexual practices have very serious health consequences for men and women. In any event, persons who have close personal and sexual relationships with others of the same sex are free to engage in whatever living arrangements they choose. You are correct; the government has no role here. They are also free under law to choose civil unions with certain necessary regulations for visitation, property matters, etc. It is not however the role of government to force all citizens to agree that these relationships are the same as the marriage of a man and a woman. It is certainly not the role of government, unless it is tyrannical, or of private citizens, to attempt to impose censorship on persons of good will who respectfully disagree that two men can marry. It is not the role of government to censor free speech on the part of religious authorities, forcing them to conform to the state’s understanding of marriage nor is it the right of the state to prevent respectful teaching of natural law understandings of human sexuality. As this issue plays out in the United States, one notices that, with frightening speed, it has changed its focus from that of decency, fairness, and civil rights, to one of censorship, force, and legal penalty on the part of those who are not satisfied with decency, fairness, and civil right but who rather want power to impose their views with the force of the state behind them. We cannot correct one wrong (abuse of homosexuals) by creating another.
September 8th, 2009 | 10:57 am
I believe that what my post and that of “Mrs Jackson” were referring is to the idea of friendship, close and loving friendship, a union of mind and heart, between persons of the same sex as opposed to that of sexual relations between persons of the same sex. Friends, no matter how close, do not marry for a reason. What is that reason? The answer is that marriage involves sexual union by defintion. This is why until now friends did not marry. To understand this is neither ignorant nor nasty but well-meaning in the most fundamental sense. It offers the truth of things to those who are confused.
September 8th, 2009 | 11:06 am
Per:
“Can you support this claim, Mrs. Jackson? Because to claim that someone is only interested in sex and lacks the capacity and the desire to love another person in the full sense of the word is a particularly nasty and ignorant thing to say.”
“Nasty and ignorant” La! What a perverse reading of my comments! Fear not, I am happy to support my claim and will do it using sanity and a smile.
Unfortunately, I cannot like the besieged reporterette of the WaPo story above say I was once a lesbian to prove to you I am not a knuckle dragger. But I can prove my homosexual credentials by admitting my cousin was Anna Frued’s lover. More than that my family’s summer home is 6 doors down the Seabank from Madame X’s summer home. Madame X of Jungian fame and Brook Farm took place on old family property so heterosexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and even intellectualism and I go way, way back. I do have more credentials if you require them.
About supporting my claim that the LGBT crowd has a shallow view of marriage – to them its about plumbing and an institution they’ve been denied by society and The Church, well take a good gander – or enroll yourself in one if you’ve got the $$$$$$$ at an all-Ivy gender studies. There the brighter than average young skulls full of mush are taught more often than not that gender is a social construct. Meaning that there is no real difference between a man or woman – except plumbing. If you do not want to go back to school, and honestly, I can’t blame you if you do not, visit your local Episcopal parish any given Sunday (but High Holy Days are usually the best). There the more dimmed by life skulls full of mush in the pews are instructed from the pulpit that even though God did make man and woman, He was wrong, they are not different, they are the exactly same. The only thing different is the plumbing. Oh, and women are superior but here I digress.
So it is amusing (from a scientific perspective) that the while the GBLT crowd overwhelmingly has for decades now ALLOWED no difference between men and women, they DO NOT ALLOW those with same sex attractions to be treated just like men and women. No, not at all. Same sex attraction is very, very diverse, very, very tolerant of others (your comment regarding my comments excepted) and not at all a social construction. There are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and who knows what else and dares to dream. Interesting no?
Actually it is positively fascinating from a scientific perspective. Especially during the Catholic priest scandal. Back then you may recall the LGBT crowd and the media kept insisting the priests involved were pedophiles. While it was true that a few were, guess what? The overwhelmingly majority weren’t. How do we know this. Easy. By science. You see, most of the victims were post- pubescent boys. Pedophiles are not interested in post-pubescent boys (or girls), only pre-pubescent boys (or girls). Otherwise they cease to be pedophiles. They are merely Gay men who are attracted to younger men. Shocking I know.
But I’m sure you will agree that being sexually attracted to someone younger than they are is a common afflicted among men, gay or straight.
It should be noted that this at this point that this is also an increasingly more common affliction among female public school teachers. Just look at all those who’ve been jailed in the last few years for fooling around with their their young male students but again I am digressing.
Anyhoo, it appears from the priest scandal that the scientifically-proven difference between gays and pedophiles as far, as the object of their attraction goes, did not matter much to the LGBT crowd. They were not interested in setting the record straight (pun intended).
It was a very good thing that First Things was there to educate us in the truth of the matter. I also found the FT article on “Surgical Sex” (from a few years ago) most fascinating. That article explained in great detail using about 25 years of collected scientific data as to why John Hopkins got out of the sex reassignment business. The short answer is – the surgery did not accomplish the main goal -full integration into society, if recalling correctly. If not recalling correctly – oops -I’m sorry. I highly recommend reading it if you haven’t already.
As far as the aspect of my claim of being denied an institution by society or The Church, if you read carefully the non-religious case for same sex marriage – it’s not about participating in a sacrament of the Church, as it should not be but merely an argument for equal treatment under the law.
LGBT can right now marry just like every one else in America can. It just has to be like it is for heterosexuals, a person of the opposite sex. To demand something different, falls under special treatment under the law.
September 8th, 2009 | 1:58 pm
[...] It does not mean questioning whether support for traditional marriage is sane. As the folks at First Things write, “The raging debate among the reporters over at the Post, it seems, is between those who [...]
September 8th, 2009 | 3:28 pm
[...] the National Review’s Media Blog made a similar–practically identical–argument. So did the folks at First Things, although arguably they were first out of the box with the [...]
September 8th, 2009 | 4:47 pm
Uh, Mrs. Jackson, I didn’t ask you to “prove” your “homosexual credentials,” I agree with what you wrote about pedophilia, and I’m an Episcopalian, and we don’t all approve of homosexuality. But believing that gender is a simply social construct is not the same as reducing marriage to sex, as you flippantly said. Not at all. You may believe that they should forgo loving each other, a view I used to hold and a view, arguably, with Scriptural support. But there are many, many monogamous gay and lesbian couples. These people _love_ each other just like heterosexuals do.
September 8th, 2009 | 6:56 pm
* Sigh *
Ken, it wasn’t too long ago when Episcopalians had great senses of humor. Why we wouldn’t have all those great New Yorker cartoons if they didn’t…
You are are spot on. You did not ask me to give my homosexual credentials but you did say I, or more accurately, my comment displayed ignorance. A perfectly acceptable way -socially speaking- of proving one is not ignorant, is to rattle off one’s credentials. In fact this was the how the reporterette in the WaPo article too chose to deal when confronted with criticism similar to yours.
Another thing that needs to be cleared up is that I never said any LGBT do not _love_ each other. Or are incapable of love. Nor did I even hint at it.
Per:
“But believing that gender is a simply social construct is not the same as reducing marriage to sex”
Really? Ok, prove that this is not exactly what is being attempted (by the Episcopal Church no less) to the sacrament of marriage. And if you can work in Bishop Gene Robinson’s humdinger of a quote :
“I believe that God gave us the gift of sexuality so that we might express with our bodies the love that’s in our hearts. I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner. In the time that we have, I can’t go into all the theology around it, but what I can tell you is that in my relationship with my partner, I am able to express the deep love that’s in my heart, and in his unfailing and unquestioning love of me, I experience just a little bit of the kind of never-ending, never-failing love that God has for me. So it’s sacramental for me.”
I’ll give you 25 bonus points.
Per:
“You may believe that they should forgo loving each other, a view I used to hold and a view, arguably, with Scriptural support.”
You know Ken, your Episcopalianism really is showing here. You, as you state, now possess enlightened as opposed to Christian thinking on same-sex sex. Interestingly, to possess this, you knowingly abandoned Scriptural teaching as well as Orthodox Church teaching so who is the real schismatic? But you can duke that one out with your fellow Episcopalians. Also, you are a brave man as the bible teaches when has done what you’ve done, you’re going on your own understanding. But here’s something you might not have pondered, knowing that all – what is it?- 6 references of homosexual sex in the bible are totally negative and indicate is not good a good practice at all for those who engage in it -salvation-wise- why is it good much less right for you and especially LGBTs who seek God to hold this non-Scriptural belief?
September 8th, 2009 | 9:42 pm
Mrs. Jackson, thank you for your sense of humor about this. I never doubted you had actual acquaintance with homosexuals. My question was focused solely on thiis statement: ““it’s the GBLT’s who have the shallow view of the institution of marriage. To them it’s a mere matter of plumbing and an institution they’ve been denied by either society or The Church.” That sounded and still sounds to me like just what I wrote, that you think they’re focused on sex to the exclusion of deepr things. Apparently that is not what you meant.
The Episcopal congreagations (mine is not among them) that want to extend marriage rights to gays want to extend marriage in all its fullness to gays. Gays don’t need a church blessing to have sex, and churches aren’t teaching that God didn’t really create us male and female and that those concepts have no value, or have only instrumental value and no deeper, ontological reality.
Any heterosexual in a healthy marriage could say the same thing Robinson said. All Robinson is really saying is “I’m just like you.”
“You may believe that they should forgo loving each other, a view I used to hold and a view, arguably, with Scriptural support.”
And I don’t blame you for thinking I believe myself to be more enlightened than Christians re: homosexuality, and that I’m ignoring the Scripture. I don’t and I’m not, and I hold my opinion lightly anyhow. (Given that I’m straight, the question fortunately doesn’t affect my behavior). And I have barely spoken of the issue with fellow congregants, so my Episcopalianism, which is of recent vintage anyhow (I don’t think one can fully _join_ the Episcopal Church, only be born into it — see, I have some little sense of humor) is not what’s showing. I really don’t feel like going into why I believe what I do, but I spent years debating this issue publicly and privately with a Christian (and getting you know what online for defending the orthodox position) who studied the question as a grad student, and I learned a lot (although not enough to convince me at the time).
Basically I believe in progressive revelation (we now know God does not sanction the bashing of enemy babies heads, or the wholesale slaughter of the unrighteous), I’m not at all sure that Paul and the other writers who speak of homosexuality knew of loving homosexual relationships between equals, and having seen them myself, I find it very difficult to believe that God does not bless them. Love is of God, and gay married sex, to come back to where I began, is an expression of love, not just a quenching of lust.
Thank you again for keeping this light. I don’t believe it’s my fault I misunderstood you, but I’m sorry I did.
September 8th, 2009 | 11:22 pm
Keith Pavlischek,
I’m not sure you understood Andrew Alexander’s response. Monica Hess ‘had expected to hear from anti-gay-marriage conservatives who might view the story as “snide.”‘ But she didn’t. Why was that? Was the article snide? Did Monica believe Brian Brown’s image of himself, that “He takes nothing personally. He means nothing personal. He is never accusatory or belittling.”
Or did she research his history and like Fred Karger, find that ‘”He is just as shrill, just as anti-gay as any of the leading gay-bashers” have been over the years.’
Neither article is about equally airing the arguments for or against marriage equality. The article is about Brian Brown’s position as head of NOM and the natural human conflicts that ensue from that position. It’s difficult to work as a professional home wrecker – to work to politically deny same-sex couples the right to civil marriage and at the same time to be seen as a nice guy. Monica tried hard to present his story. That presentation was too subtle for many of my peers and for the post editorial staff.
Brown’s behavior and the behavior of the anti-marriage equality movement speaks for itself. While we need to have empathy for Brown and allow him to tell his story, we need to be able to discern which parts of the story were his and which were Monica’s. The line about Brown being “never accusatory” was Brown’s voice. Readers thought it was Monica’s voice. That’s why the Ombudsman weighed in.
September 9th, 2009 | 5:26 am
Two fundamentally different world views are in confrontation here. At the most basic level, the question being asked is whether there is any significance whatsoever to the life-giving power human possess. No one possess this power alone; it requires a male and a female (or elements taken from a male and a female). Through sexual union we have the power to become mothers and fathers. At this level the moral question arises: Is it moral to give away or sell one’s motherhood or fatherhood? What are the consequences for the children born of such abandonment at the very beginning of their lives? The argument we have been carrying on is all about adult persons who love one another. Parenthood, now that it has become optional and deprived of its origins in our bodies, is deprived of any natural significance whatsoever. Children can be produced, virtually bought and sold. They can be taught that the identity of their parents, grandparents, and extended family is of no significance. Perhaps this fundamental need can be so weakened in their innermost selves that they no longer comprehend it. They can be made to understand themselves as connected only by adult choice. At the very first moment of their lives, they can be most profoundly orphaned by those two people from whose very bodily integrity they came. All other considerations seem trivial in comparison to this.
September 9th, 2009 | 2:30 pm
elder parent thanks for the provocative thoughts, but I guess I’m not convinced. Of course many gay couples don’t want kids, and others have them by adopting unwanted kids.
Even in cases where the missing birth parent intended all along to give the child away, can’t the child be taught to see this as a gift to the parents he knows, and a gift of life to him?
September 9th, 2009 | 6:13 pm
Ken, I enjoy keeping things light, especially when discussing serious subjects with folks you do not know.
I smiled when reading this:
“I don’t think one can fully _join_ the Episcopal Church, only be born into it — see, I have some little sense of humor)”
You see, those are my thoughts exactly regarding my own Church – the Catholic Church. In 2000 I left the Episcopal Church for Rome so in an odd way, you and I have much in common.
So keeping that in mind I will say that the woman who married us 19 years ago this month, Bishop Catherine Waynick said this to me almost exactly word for word about 17 or 18 years ago:
“I’m not at all sure that Paul and the other writers who speak of homosexuality knew of loving homosexual relationships between equals,”
Cate also did believe that the “thorn” in Paul’s side was homosexuality. Which if she was right, then gives great credence to being able – through God’s grace- to live a chaste life with same-sex attraction. St. Paul talked a lot about being strong when he kept his eyes focused on God and fighting the good fight…
Also Rev. Donald Waring said a remarkably similar thing to me at a diocesan convention about 16 years ago:
“and having seen them myself, I find it very difficult to believe that God does not bless them.”
And all these years later, I’d like to ask you a question I did not have my wits about me to ask him at the time, Is witnessing something with the eye equal to anecdotal evidence? (Fear not, you don’t have to give an answer at all – more just ponder it at your leisure)
I ask this because wasn’t St. Paul hauled up on charges made by leading Jewish authorities and appeared before Felix? Felix was married to Drusilla, wasn’t he? And wasn’t there something rather spectacularly questionable regarding their whole union? Adultery? Well, the Centurian who witnessed St. Paul speak about righteousness before Felix and Drusilla -(btw, Lincoln’s Inn has a gigantic painting done of this by one of the Masters hanging in one of their dining room’s and during the Victorian days the prudes had the painting repainted to make Paul’s hand cover the naked breast of Drusilla -completely ruining the perspective which was the very thing that made the Masters the Masters) anyway, given the outcome of the speech ( St. Paul was not released but kept in chains and Drusilla remained in Felix’s bed), wouldn’t the Centurion say the anecdotal evidence of God’s blessing Felix and Drusilla more than St. Paul?
Another good thing about the Catholic Church is that they tend to move slowly on the validity of eyewitness reports – think Lourdes. To this day a Catholic is not required to accept that what the Church believes happened there actually did though I certainly do.
In cases like this, it’s probably best for average folks to look at what does the bible teach? I know that doesn’t sound very Roman Catholic to ask that. But I’ve already said you have to be born Roman Catholic to really sound like one. Happily for me, the Roman Catholic Church backs up what the bible teaches -(Ken -ssshhh- I know just about all the Lutherans and Baptists reading that last just fainted or said to themselves, “I was with her until she said that” but, fear not it is true as it was the Catholic Church that gave us all the bible…) And after reading what the Bible teaches, a Catholic can then reference the Catechism. Anyway, I’m getting off subject and I think I’m done. Except to add, thank you, elder reader. Excellent comments.
September 9th, 2009 | 7:31 pm
The latest from Brian Brown’s boss:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546
Appropriately on topic, wouldn’t you say?
September 9th, 2009 | 10:31 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
you write, “Is witnessing something with the eye equal to anecdotal evidence? (Fear not, you don’t have to give an answer at all – more just ponder it at your leisure)”
Good question, if I understand you correctly. All I can say is that I’ve observed gay couples that look happy and stay together. That’s no small achievement, as I think you’ll agree. And how else can a couple continue to, uh, love each other, except that that in some way they receive God’s love and pass it on? Where else does love come from? Not from the deceiver.
“the prudes had the painting repainted to make Paul’s hand cover the naked breast of Drusilla”
Ahem. Ahem, ahem.
Well I suppose it Paul really _was_ gay, that’s not as bad as it first appears.
“In cases like this, it’s probably best for average folks to look at what does the bible teach?”
Again, I appreciate your instincts. I was raised evangelical and retain a “high” view of scripture. I just need to understand the scripture through the slice of reality God has given me to see.
September 10th, 2009 | 6:45 am
This discussion has been conducted in a civil manner and has been lightened by the witty sophistication of “Mrs. Jackson”. At its most fundamental level it is not about love in the sense of noble friendship between two persons of the same sex. It is about the meaning of our sexual powers, our ability to transmit life. We have tried to find a way (in the case of heterosexuality) to minimize the importance of human sexuality as if this were simply a bodily function having no serious consequences. We have also tried to find a way to ignore rather than respectfully confront ways in which the sexual impulse can become disordered. This (in my opinion) inexcusable abandonment of young people to their powerful but unintegrated passions has done grave harm. In its most radical form, this thinking has led us to deny that anything is “natural”; that we can alter ourselves in any way we so choose. Now “from the ruins” as Dr. Reno has said, we survey the damage to our culture. In this forum we are attempting to find common ground; to explore the beginnings of human wisdom. In our concern for the idea of radical freedom, our culture is attempting to re-invent the meaning of human personhood. Rather than attempt the arduous process of distinguishing the good of marriage from its many abuses, we are in the process of separating the form from the meaning. Rather than attempt the arduous process of distinguishing the good of parenthood, transmission and protection of life, we are attempting to extend this good and thereby render it meaningless. In the long run we will learn from this experiment and perhaps emerge stronger and better. At least that is to be hoped.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact