Tuesday, October 23, 2007

On "Being Gay"

I believe we Christians do ourselves and the culture-at-large a disservice by adopting the terminology of the homosexual community. "Being gay" is their own phrase, designed to innoculate us against the morally reprehensible behavior which it represents. Part of the problem with the phrase itself is that it implies a "state of being" over which a person has no control. There is a certain inevitability assumed in the term itself...as though it were equivalent to "having cancer" or "being autistic." This is who I "am" and I must accept who I "am." This leads easily to the conclusion that to ask a person who "is gay" not to live that lifestyle, is unfairly asking them to deny who they "are." There is a fundamental problem with using this language and many Christians, desiring to appear enlightened or to shed the label of right-wing homophobes, have adopted the language. I suggest that this is not without consequence...that it leads to a paradigm shift in our thinking. Afterall, doesn't "being gay" sound much less noxious than "practicing homosexuality?"

I would also suggest that there is no such thing as "being" homosexual. We don't say that a person "is" a cleptomaniac unless he practices the sin of stealing. I don't say my son "is a liar" simply because he struggles to tell the truth...I only say he is a liar if he lies. With what other sin do we label someone according to the temptations they resist or when else do we assign a "state of being" that leads to the practice of particular sins? Is a rapist a rapist if he never commits rape? Can a man "be" a murderer who has never killed anyone? What if he hated someone enough that he wanted to kill him, but didn't? Does that make him a murderer? Well, yes, in the sense that it makes him guilty before God because heart sins "count" even if they are not acted on....BUT there is a degree of guilt here. It would be worse if that man actually followed through and murdered his fellow man. Our civil and ecclesiastical practices bear this out...we don't jail someone or ban him from the Lord's Table because of the sinful desires of his heart. It is when he ACTS on those desires that his sin leads to punishment. No one "IS gay." They either practice homosexuality or they don't.

I am not denying that some persons, as a result of biological or emotional make-up, or because of circumstances in their past, may struggle more fiercely with particular temptations. That almost certainly is the case. Original sin manifests itself differently in each of us. Some are more inclined to addiction, some to materialism, some to pride, some to adultery, some to homosexuality...often the sins with which we are not tempted remain incomprehensible to us. Though many of us might be faced with or at least understand the temptations of fornication or adultery, many of us cannot comprehend the lure of homosexuality, nor can most of us understand the desire to rape or murder. These "inclinations," if you will, or the propensity to be tempted in a particular area, does not negate liability when those lusts are conceived and bring forth sin.

My main reason for even addressing this, is JKR's announcement that "Dumbledore is gay." Not only does it seem like an inciteful, limelight-seeking move on her part, it seems absurd based on the evidence in the books. Regardless of what she claims is or was in her imagination, she took great pains to conceal it in the book. Dumbledore's character neither engages in homosexual behavior (thus my argument that he cannot "be gay"), nor does he even encounter temptations which he resists. It has been suggested by some that Rowling can make endless radical assertions about any part of her text, but that which remains absent from the story, is simply NOT relevant to the story.

And for those Christians whose "witchcraft" arguments against the book have been ridiculed, and who now arrogantly say, "I-told-you-so," remember that none of you ever criticized the books for their homosexual content, and your arguments against the wizardry remain as invalid as before. (Sorry if that sounds a little grumpy...I have a headache.)

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the 'Eulalia'* on this subject! I agree wholeheartedly. Hope your headache is gone now that you got that off your chest;)

*We learned from a comment from the last post that this means 'good speaking'.(Thanks, Mr. Dad)

Bobber said...

I think Dumbledore fell into sin in his youth and later repented. So he had only one homosexual relationship and always regretted it.

Jessie said...

I was pretty annoyed by JKRs revelation, too. I think b/c it totally seems like an afterthought to get more publicity. Like she needed it.

Angie B. said...

Good thoughts, Lori.

As for Rowling's reasons for making that revelation....I have too much respect for her creative ability to think it was simply a publicity stunt or afterthought. I've read interviews in which she discussed the extensive "backstorying" she did for the main characters--even if she didn't end up using all that info in the books, it helped her to develop more realistic, multi-dimensional characters. I have no doubt she thought of Dumbledore as gay from the beginning.

As to why she didn't bring that out in the books or talk about it before now--perhaps she (or her publicity folks) thought it might hurt sales. Now that the Pottermania has died down, she can say what she wants.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Lori Waggoner said...

Debbie - glad you clarified your meaning on "Eulalia"! At first I thought you were calling it my "battlecry!"

Bobber - Hmmmm....based on what? Nothing in the existing text points to this (unless it contains some codified language from within the homosexual community which I wouldn't recognize...) JJM had some good comments about the "real" Dumbledore being the one that lives in the story...period. He is what the story reveals him to be, not what was left in Rowling's imagination.

Jessie - I've heard fame can do weird things to people...I don't know, but it doesn't make sense, that's for sure!

Lori Waggoner said...

Angie -

You may be right...I still contend that if it wasn't important enough to make it known through the story, then it shouldn't be relevant to anyone now. Unless, of course, as you suggest it was all about the $.

That doesn't exactly make me respect her...it makes me feel manipulated and makes me think that, as a writer, the integrity of her story was less important than its marketability. I understand that is necessary to some extent, if you want to sell books, but to mask the internal character of one of your main guys, seems like an awfully big compromise.

I can't help but wonder if the fan fiction or the casting for the movie made her decide that as an afterthought...

Whatever her reasons, I'll probably never "thoreau-ly" understand it! ;-)

Angie B. said...

>>I still contend that if it wasn't important enough to make it known through the story, then it shouldn't be relevant to anyone now.<<

Well put.

Mr. Dad said...

I think you should submit "articles" like this to "World Magazine." It has both spiritual and cultural significance and should be read by a broader audience than just your "blog-o-sphere-o-friends."

Bobber said...

Yeah, I agree. Nothing in the story suggests homosexuality. I'm just trying to fit in Rowling's comments with what I read in the story. Dumbledore admitted to being deeply sorry for his many mistakes in his youth. A homosexual relationship would fit in this sense.

Lori Waggoner said...

Over at JJM's blog, a commenter referred us to this article, which is pretty good. It's worth consideration...nothing entirely different, maybe, but well-stated.

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/10/23/dumbledore-is-not-gay-taking-stories-more-seriously-than-the-author/

Bobber said...

Here's another good thought. If Dumbledore was gay, why didn't Rita Skeeter put it in her juicy biography?

Lori Waggoner said...

Excellent question, Bobber!

Anonymous said...

Good for people to know.