gaydar

[freckles_and_doubt]

A Smart Bitches link to a blog describing anti-gay shenanigans at an erotica convention hosted in Texas has sparked a random musing attack. What is it about homosexuality which makes it so utterly anathema to fundamentalist Christianity? It's not just a "thou shalt not", it's a deep-seated, frothing, disproportionate response which suggests that somewhere, something is being very profoundly threatened.

• I mean, yes, it's us/them othering, a defensive terror against a perceived threat to a particular lifestyle, but surely gay relationships aren't the worst threat to Christian family values? Heterosexual divorce strikes more deeply at those values, as do heterosexual relationships which eschew marriage, because they both partake of and reject the ideal. Reactions against gay marriage make more sense in this context, but it doesn't explain the more general fulminations against homosexuality as a whole.
• It's not just the "sex is only for procreation" thing, because that should apply equally to non-procreative heterosexual sex, and really it doesn't: a lot of fundamentalist rhetoric only really has a problem with hetero sex when it's convenient to invoke it as a means of controlling women. Uninhibited hetero male sex is frowned at, not frothed at, and in fact is often condoned. The anti-gay thing is on a wholly different level.
• It also isn't the direct biblical prohibition bit, either, those have always been completely selectively applied in fundamentalist rhetoric. (I know whereof I speak, here. Baptist teenagerhood).
• Frustrated patriarchalism? My sense is that fundamentalist rhetoric is more directed at gays than lesbians, which is all terribly Victorian (you don't have to worry about the women because they don't enjoy sex anyway), but which also suggests a kind of outrage that actual men should have moved over into Eve's camp of transgression instead of upholding male order.

I dunno. All of the above? still doesn't really explain the profound level of unease. I am at a loss. Also, very tired after the Thursday Vampire Tut and four days of sinus headache. Also, my jaw aches, my throat hurts, my stomach twinges. Woe. Send new body, this one defunct.

Random distraction: animated Bayeux Tapestry. Not just for you SCA geeks, this is beautifully done.

Bunny Threat Level: gah.

Comments

[ex-wytchfyn.livejournal.com]

Sensible answers to the actions of fundamentalists? Not 'arf, captain. I'm more disposed to regard the anti-gay character of Abrahamic-faith fundamentalism as just another random destructive twitch of the whole bullshit phenomenon, but one which - precisely because it is so vehemently opposed by gays and their allies - the fundies are now prepared to fight to death about.

These people LOVE the opportunity to get all paranoid about 'faith under fire.' And we obligingly give them that excuse by half-opposing them, i.e., discussing these things politely in public fora, and having pride marches, instead of (a) mocking fundies and ignoring them where possible, or possibly (b) making a pyramid of their skulls, metaphorically speaking. I'd like (b) to be an option, but I suspect (a) is more attainable in our lifetime.

[extemporanea.livejournal.com]

I don't think I believe in random. Religious homophobia is a completely disproportionate response, yes, but that makes me all the more curious as to what tiny raft of pseudo-reason actually supports it. It's really my own version of a passive-aggressive rejoinder: homophobia is a deliberate, frothing failure of empathy, to which I will respond, bloody-mindedly, by trying to understand what it's actually like to be in these bigot's heads. Not because I'm likely to agree, but because it'll give me more weapons in countering it. Maybe.

[ex-wytchfyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, maybe random is a poor choice of words on my part. Let me put it another way: I think the Abrahamic faiths are full of bizarre injunctions and statements about desirable and undesirable, permissable and nonpermissable. All of these, at root, stem from the belief that 'god says X'; however, some have persisted through to the modern age and accumulated a hardshell of fervency, while others have fallen by the wayside and are no longer enforced.

Now, I think that the reason for this distinction cannot be solely found in the minds of the religious types. It's dynamic; transactive; almost random from the perspective of single agency - i.e. the 'world' does A, so fundie beliefs harden in certain ways B through F. Specifically, I think that homophilia (or at least homo-tolerance) taunts religious asswads in a very specific way: neutralizing them, substituting fun for damnation, mocking the monopoly ALL religions try to maintain on euphoria and release. In this way, I think that it may be a fruitless task to ask 'what about fundies' or even 'what about homos' makes the current situation so tense: the answer may be, in large part, an inter-actor variable.

The last problem, of course, is that you can't really argue with people who moralize, whether they moralize about Iraq or whether to burn homosexuals. Moralizers, by disrespecting the platforms of those who argue with them in a way which cannot be countered ('You are a bad person for thinking that!') essentially insulate themselves from criticism in a way which, I believe, make ignoring them or annihilating them the only remaining options.

[tngr-spacecadet.livejournal.com]

interesting question, merits a longer response but here is the potted version: my belief is that if more so-called fundamentalist christians actually READ the bible and applied it to their own lives there would be a whole lot less of this.

nowhere in the bible does it say that we, humans, are allowed to judge each other. rather it does say in very clear terms that we should examine our own faults before looking at the faults of others. i can give you the references if you like...

hang in there re the sinusitis. i have been suffering too.

Fear of rape, fear of loss of power

[bend-gules.livejournal.com]

It's predominantly fundamentalist men who rant at predominantly gay men (vs. lesbians). Fundamentalist women carry the message, but don't (IMexp) carry the level of conviction.

I'd always thought it was based on fear of rape, and fear of coercion into gay sex against your will; and because rape is an expression of power, rather than of sexual desire, that the raw core of that fear is fear of being powerless.

But it's a powerlessness that has an explicitly sexual tone, that's tied to very vulnerable parts of us, that makes rape (of any kind) such a devastating experience.

The ranter's own repressed gay urges is also a likely source for that fearful hate, though a bit of a stereotype. But I think there's some truth in there. Think of the all-army fag-hating neighbour in 'American Beauty'.

Re: Fear of rape, fear of loss of power

[extemporanea.livejournal.com]

I think some rampant homophobes are closet gays, yes, and that will give a particularly frothing edge to their response, but it seems statistically unlikely that all of them are so motivated? there must be something else going on.

The power thing is a good point, and probably relates to my point about patriarchy - it's not just sexualised loss of power, it's feminised loss of power, and thus anathema to a patriarchal male. It's interesting, though, because the gay stereotype is actually the antithesis of traditional phallic power in many ways: I suspect a ranting homophobe is not actually afraid of the potential rapist, he's afraid of being the victim, and is projecting that fear. But, again, I'm not sure if that fact alone is enough to account for the energy of anti-gay feeling. Also, it somewhat sickens me that the same energy is not applied to the rape of women.

[herne-kzn.livejournal.com]

Interesting one. I thing the "all bogots are closeted" line is a bit strong and simplistic.
It's also interesting to note that it doesnt seem (in my limited experience of the religion) to be a feature of Judaism to the same loud frothy extent.
While I find m/m prose or image mildy unpleasant to see I can't imagine what would drive me to get worked up about it. The only thing that could get that reaction out of me would be some kind of sense of imminent and active threat.