Doxos

Why is this news?

Bill Moyers, whom I’ll always remember fondly for his Joseph Campbell interviews, has an interview with the Primate of the Episcopal Church. Moyers is not known for hard-hitting interviews: they are usually very informative, but friendly discussions. This is what he’s good at. Really Good At.

The point being that it’s not surprising that he does so. That’s what he’s expected to do. So when he does it with the ECUSA Primate, why should it be news?

Cuz he wasn’t hard enough on her for Mollie’s sake. And, of course, the comments go all off topic and start to sound like the Ladies’ Auxiliary for the Westboro Baptist Church with no moderation. That’s ok…

But, hey, any port in a storm: a journalist does what he always does and now it’s bloggable.

I like this part most: knowing that both sides refuse to allow for the other to be the weaker brethren, terms like “uptight about sex” push buttons. Yes, I think one side is uptight about sex – not because they do or don’t support same sex marriage but because every conversation turns out to be about sex for them. (I also don’t think everyone who opposes same sex marriage is uptight about sex. For some the issue never comes up. But some of them are definitely closet cases and, in those cases, someone doth protest too much.)

Bible repeatedly condemns homosexual behavior – says Mollie.

I don’t know if two or three verses of uncertain translation (plus Leviticus, of course) can be called “repeatedly”.

Mollie does say “behaviour” in the above quote. In most places she says, “homosexuality”. I know the ECUSA Primate and Moyers were using the same shorthand, but here’s a bunch of straight folks talking about the rest of us. Look, people: “homosexuality” is the clinical term for the condition. Go right a head and use it, but use it right. Personally, I refrain from saying “negroid” and use “blacks”, but hey, it’s A.O.K. if you guys want to use clinical terms.

I believe the Bible – in Leviticus and one understanding of St Paul – condemns the act of anal sex, not the condition of being attracted to one’s own sex (for which they had no word). Yes? If you insist that all gay men (and women) are involved only in anal sex – and that defines them… um. us… you have very little imagination.

(This post ought to be very good for the search engines, huh?)

Huw Richardson wroted this on June 11th, 2007

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Category: Teh Gay, teh internets

One Response to “Why is this news?”