Thursday, July 26, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Here's the letter to the editor I wrote them in response, and which they published the week after the article appeared:
To the editor: I wish that I’d had the opportunity 16 years ago to read Eric Griffey’s strong, even-handed report on the damage done by those seeking to offer a “Gay Cure” (June 13, 2007). It might have dissuaded me from over a decade of painful and misguided efforts to “pray the gay away.”
Groups like Arlington’s “Living Hope” seek to reconfirm, under the guise of pseudo-scientific, professionally discredited theories and methods, the bigotry amid which we allow many of our young people to be raised. Young gay men and lesbians who read Griffey’s report will be much less likely to place themselves at the mercy of such quackery. It is unlikely they can appreciate, without the hindsight of those who fell prey to these groups, what reports like Griffey’s may have done for them, or thank him for the effort. So let me do it for them.
To the editor: I wish that I’d had the opportunity 16 years ago to read Eric Griffey’s strong, even-handed report on the damage done by those seeking to offer a “Gay Cure” (June 13, 2007). It might have dissuaded me from over a decade of painful and misguided efforts to “pray the gay away.”
Groups like Arlington’s “Living Hope” seek to reconfirm, under the guise of pseudo-scientific, professionally discredited theories and methods, the bigotry amid which we allow many of our young people to be raised. Young gay men and lesbians who read Griffey’s report will be much less likely to place themselves at the mercy of such quackery. It is unlikely they can appreciate, without the hindsight of those who fell prey to these groups, what reports like Griffey’s may have done for them, or thank him for the effort. So let me do it for them.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Just how inclusive should we be?
The folks over at Daily Episcopalian, which the Integrity site includes among its roll of progressive blogs, has included an essay by Derek Olsen, who teaches at Emory, rejecting arguments on behalf of extending communion to the non-baptized. You can read it here, but may need to find it in the July archives. Here's my response:
I share Derek Olsen's convictions about the importance of catechism, but am uncovinced that Jesus wants us to set ourselves up as gatekeepers, making decisions on the basis of outward forms about who has or has not made an “adequate” act of commitment before admitting them to the table.
I understand one might respond that the real issue is in not being a gatekeeper to baptism; that undergoing baptism is simply a part of coming to the table. That may be so, and I believe it makes sense to continue to present it as so. But, when someone who has not undergone outward, ritual baptism comes forward for communion, are we to turn them away? Is this what Jesus would do?
I suspect even the ritual of baptism can become an idol, when we fail to distinguish between its physical, outward form and the underlying spiritual reality.
Are we to take it that, in Jesus’ eyes, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, but … well, of course, there is the outwardly baptized versus the non-baptized”?
In the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman/ Canaanite woman (Mk 7:24-30 // Mt 15:21-28), there is good reason to argue that the latter–who pointedly did not belong to the “community of Israel” in her contemporaries’ eyes–takes up the role of rabbi in a “rabbinal controversy” (one of the traditional discursive forms catalogued by Rudolf Bultmann) with Jesus, and wins the argument. Jesus seems to bow to the force of her argument that she should not be excluded from the meal. Or, as she humbly–and pointedly–puts it, “Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table.”
Granted, her response may well allude to several scriptural passages, demonstrating her desire to embrace the stories shared by those “at the table.” But, ultimately, Jesus proved unwilling to exclude this woman from being fed on the basis of her not having undergone a specific ritual of induction.
She wasn’t baptized–or ritually converted to Judaism–before Jesus conceded her argument, praised her faith, and stopped treating her as an outcast. He pointedly did not tell her (utlimately), “No, first undergo the mikvah, then you can be fed.”
I share Derek Olsen's convictions about the importance of catechism, but am uncovinced that Jesus wants us to set ourselves up as gatekeepers, making decisions on the basis of outward forms about who has or has not made an “adequate” act of commitment before admitting them to the table.
I understand one might respond that the real issue is in not being a gatekeeper to baptism; that undergoing baptism is simply a part of coming to the table. That may be so, and I believe it makes sense to continue to present it as so. But, when someone who has not undergone outward, ritual baptism comes forward for communion, are we to turn them away? Is this what Jesus would do?
I suspect even the ritual of baptism can become an idol, when we fail to distinguish between its physical, outward form and the underlying spiritual reality.
Are we to take it that, in Jesus’ eyes, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, but … well, of course, there is the outwardly baptized versus the non-baptized”?
In the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman/ Canaanite woman (Mk 7:24-30 // Mt 15:21-28), there is good reason to argue that the latter–who pointedly did not belong to the “community of Israel” in her contemporaries’ eyes–takes up the role of rabbi in a “rabbinal controversy” (one of the traditional discursive forms catalogued by Rudolf Bultmann) with Jesus, and wins the argument. Jesus seems to bow to the force of her argument that she should not be excluded from the meal. Or, as she humbly–and pointedly–puts it, “Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table.”
Granted, her response may well allude to several scriptural passages, demonstrating her desire to embrace the stories shared by those “at the table.” But, ultimately, Jesus proved unwilling to exclude this woman from being fed on the basis of her not having undergone a specific ritual of induction.
She wasn’t baptized–or ritually converted to Judaism–before Jesus conceded her argument, praised her faith, and stopped treating her as an outcast. He pointedly did not tell her (utlimately), “No, first undergo the mikvah, then you can be fed.”
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wish I'd said it like that!
(From The New Statesman)
I am what I am and it's not a choice
Peterson Toscano
Published 20 July 2007
Being gay myself, many folks consider me an expert on all things gay. Did Alexander the great have a male lover? What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For my bay window, should I use lace or chintz curtains?
As a gay theatrical performance activist, the most common question I get is: “how old are you?”
Such a rude question, but completely understandable because of my wild past including the 17-year quest to transform myself into a heterosexual with side trips to Zambia, England, and Ecuador plus a five year marriage. They look at my fresh, young face and wonder 'how did you do all that?' I explain that I am a 42-year-old, non-smoking vegan who moisturizes (It is never too young to start!).
The second most common question I get is: “do people choose to be gay?”
When someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same-sex, is this nature or nurture? Genetics or a mere whim?
This is a scientific question, best left to scientists. No one knows for sure although researchers have amassed a body of evidence that points to biological factors leading to a same-sex orientation.
One recent study by J. Michael Bailey at Boston’s Northeastern University revealed that among identical twin brothers, if one is gay, the other has a 52 per cent chance of being gay. (Fraternal twins show a 22 per cent chance while brothers who are not twins and do not share the same genetic code show only an 11 per cent chance of both being gay). According to a 1997 Canadian study, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines discovered that the more brothers in a family, the higher the chance that the youngest ones will be gay.
No one has yet discovered the “gay gene”, but, then again, scientists have yet to discover a gene that causes some people to be left-handed.
Human sexuality is highly complex. We all start out in the womb as female, and then mom’s body puts some of us through a hormonal rinse cycle, which turns us male. With such a complicated transition who can say if all humans are 100 per cent male or female. Scientifically speaking we determine someone’s sex according to many factors, not simply the bits between our legs.
But I stray into murky embryonic waters. Back to choice. Did I choose to be gay?
Yes, on September 21, 1972 in 2nd grade (age 7) I said to myself: “Although most people treat gays like crap and only heterosexuality is represented and celebrated in my world, from this time forth I choose to like other boys instead of girls. Sure others will bully me, maybe even beat me up, but hey someone’s got to be society’s punching bag."
Actually, no, I never chose to be gay. In fact, for nearly two decades I even tried choosing NOT to be gay.
Growing up I knew I was different from the other boys around me. When puberty hit and all my male friends went crazy for girls while I went crazy for my male friends, I understood the difference—I was gay, a homo, a queer, a faggot. From messages I heard on the playground, in the media and at church, I determined gays are sinful and abnormal. Instead I wanted to be a good boy.
So, at the age of 17 after giving my heart (and the rest of me) to Jesus, I embarked on a journey to straighten myself out. I spent 17 years and over $30,000 USD on three continents attempting to change or at least suppress my same-sex attractions. I discovered the Ex-Gay Movement, which promises that homosexuals can live gay-free lives. I reasoned that if being gay were a choice, a product of a dysfunctional upbringing in the midst of a lost and dying world, than surely with the power of God and the guidance of ex-gay ministers, I could “un-choose” being gay or at least choose the right thing for a change.
No surprise, it didn't work. Change was not possible, at least not a change in sexual orientation. But through the years of trying I did change. I became suicidal, filled with shame and self-loathing. The ex-gay process left me depleted, discouraged and depressed. It caused emotional, psychological and spiritual harm.
No, I never chose my same-sex attractions. Also, after I came to my senses and came out of the closet, I did not choose to be “gay”—to act gay according to the current standards and stereotypes presented in both the gay and straight media. Instead I chose to be authentic, to no longer demonise my sexuality, to integrate my faith with the rest of my life. I did choose to be a Christian, a Quaker, a vegan and an activist, but I never chose to be gay.
I am what I am and it's not a choice
Peterson Toscano
Published 20 July 2007
Being gay myself, many folks consider me an expert on all things gay. Did Alexander the great have a male lover? What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For my bay window, should I use lace or chintz curtains?
As a gay theatrical performance activist, the most common question I get is: “how old are you?”
Such a rude question, but completely understandable because of my wild past including the 17-year quest to transform myself into a heterosexual with side trips to Zambia, England, and Ecuador plus a five year marriage. They look at my fresh, young face and wonder 'how did you do all that?' I explain that I am a 42-year-old, non-smoking vegan who moisturizes (It is never too young to start!).
The second most common question I get is: “do people choose to be gay?”
When someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same-sex, is this nature or nurture? Genetics or a mere whim?
This is a scientific question, best left to scientists. No one knows for sure although researchers have amassed a body of evidence that points to biological factors leading to a same-sex orientation.
One recent study by J. Michael Bailey at Boston’s Northeastern University revealed that among identical twin brothers, if one is gay, the other has a 52 per cent chance of being gay. (Fraternal twins show a 22 per cent chance while brothers who are not twins and do not share the same genetic code show only an 11 per cent chance of both being gay). According to a 1997 Canadian study, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines discovered that the more brothers in a family, the higher the chance that the youngest ones will be gay.
No one has yet discovered the “gay gene”, but, then again, scientists have yet to discover a gene that causes some people to be left-handed.
Human sexuality is highly complex. We all start out in the womb as female, and then mom’s body puts some of us through a hormonal rinse cycle, which turns us male. With such a complicated transition who can say if all humans are 100 per cent male or female. Scientifically speaking we determine someone’s sex according to many factors, not simply the bits between our legs.
But I stray into murky embryonic waters. Back to choice. Did I choose to be gay?
Yes, on September 21, 1972 in 2nd grade (age 7) I said to myself: “Although most people treat gays like crap and only heterosexuality is represented and celebrated in my world, from this time forth I choose to like other boys instead of girls. Sure others will bully me, maybe even beat me up, but hey someone’s got to be society’s punching bag."
Actually, no, I never chose to be gay. In fact, for nearly two decades I even tried choosing NOT to be gay.
Growing up I knew I was different from the other boys around me. When puberty hit and all my male friends went crazy for girls while I went crazy for my male friends, I understood the difference—I was gay, a homo, a queer, a faggot. From messages I heard on the playground, in the media and at church, I determined gays are sinful and abnormal. Instead I wanted to be a good boy.
So, at the age of 17 after giving my heart (and the rest of me) to Jesus, I embarked on a journey to straighten myself out. I spent 17 years and over $30,000 USD on three continents attempting to change or at least suppress my same-sex attractions. I discovered the Ex-Gay Movement, which promises that homosexuals can live gay-free lives. I reasoned that if being gay were a choice, a product of a dysfunctional upbringing in the midst of a lost and dying world, than surely with the power of God and the guidance of ex-gay ministers, I could “un-choose” being gay or at least choose the right thing for a change.
No surprise, it didn't work. Change was not possible, at least not a change in sexual orientation. But through the years of trying I did change. I became suicidal, filled with shame and self-loathing. The ex-gay process left me depleted, discouraged and depressed. It caused emotional, psychological and spiritual harm.
No, I never chose my same-sex attractions. Also, after I came to my senses and came out of the closet, I did not choose to be “gay”—to act gay according to the current standards and stereotypes presented in both the gay and straight media. Instead I chose to be authentic, to no longer demonise my sexuality, to integrate my faith with the rest of my life. I did choose to be a Christian, a Quaker, a vegan and an activist, but I never chose to be gay.
Monday, July 9, 2007
L'Chaim!
Yesterday, my beloved and I celebrated the first anniversary of our holy union ceremony. He had mentioned while we were still dating that he'd love to have a caricature of the two of us, so I took our wedding album to a local caricaturist, and he produced the nice-sized drawing you see, in part, at right. My sweetie is really pleased with the results, as am I. (By the way, I made out, too: he got us tickets to go see Kathy Griffin at the local performing arts hall!)
Friday, July 6, 2007
Begging your indulgence for a brief moment of whining...
I've been feeling discouraged about the Church lately. At every turn, I seem to encounter people who have no interest in the Church but clearly embody its best values, and the loud protestations of self-proclaimed Christians who embody the very worst of bigotry and pharisaism. Certainly, my fellow congregants are not like the latter, and I'm sure, neither are the majority of Christians in this country. But, they don't speak up nearly as much as the bigots, do they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
