Praying away the gay

This post could also be titled, "Star Tribune editors can't stop me, part 17."

When I submit things to the local newspaper, I know they won't all be published. Over the years, some have made the cut and some haven't. This past Saturday, a reader asked six questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, embedded within his questions were implicit arguments. There was something about the questions that provoked me, and so I submitted answers to them all. But, according to the StarTrib editors, they received so many responses to his questions that they could only print one representative reaction. And, frankly, they chose a good one from a woman who's an "assistant priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church-Basswood Grove." She makes many of the same points that I did--just more gently and diplomatically. And that, perhaps, makes her response the better one. Nonetheless, I do have to post my reaction somewhere--hey, how about my blog? So for better or worse, here it is:

Reader Dan Nye (Star Tribune, January 14) has asked some reasonable questions regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and I will try to provide some reasonable answers.

He wants to know if our ancestors were all “dumb and bigoted” because they thought homosexuality is wrong. Although that’s an extreme characterization, the short answer is “yes.” Human history has shown that our ancestors were not always enlightened. They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They owned slaves. They killed “witches.” They thought women belonged in the kitchen. They didn’t know about germs or genes. They did the best they could with what they knew—but they didn’t always know that much. No, our ancestors weren’t “dumb,” but they were in many ways ignorant and often very dogmatic.

Nye claims that “prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted.” That’s just factually incorrect. Whether it is visible or not, or socially sanctioned or not, homosexuality has been a part of every world culture—always—period. Indeed, I would challenge him to show even one nation on earth where a fairly predictable percentage of the population is not gay.

Mr. Nye argues that “sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.” He’s right. That’s why we have laws against rape, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Absolutely no one—straight or gay—can justify sexual violence or sex that is not consensual. So with respect to sexual orientation, it’s really irrelevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage. We can all agree that sex which is abusive or hurts others crosses a line, and Dan should not be alarmed by faithful homosexual partners. Indeed—ironically—that’s the very reason to support same-sex marriage: these people want to make a public commitment to love and fidelity.

Dan wonders, “Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?” Here the answer is certainly more murky. But it’s a bit like saying, “Don’t our mouths exist basically for eating? So how do talking, singing, and whistling square with that?” Yes, heterosexual intercourse is how babies are made, but the question assumes that everything in the human body has one and only one purpose or function. Following Dan’s logic, we should probably annul any heterosexual marriages where there are no kids, because all those folks are doing in such marriages is enjoying sexuality with no concern for progeny. Yes, our sexual organs enable human reproduction, but that is not their only function or purpose. Sex is not just a way to make babies; it’s a way to express one’s love and intimacy. And with the planet’s population at 7 billion and rising, I’m not sure why he’s worried about human reproduction anyway.

Dan’s last question is perhaps the most ominous. It implies that those who support same-sex marriage may be sending gay couples to “perdition” because God might be opposed to homosexuality. Worse, he toys with guilt by association: even straight people who support gay rights, he muses, might be in line for eternal damnation as well. Of course, these ideas are a combination or paranoia and limited understanding of the Bible, not to mention a conception of God that’s both chilling and a little presumptuous. If a loving God would create people with a homosexual orientation (this is really not a conscious choice, after all) and then send them and even their friends to hell for good measure, that’s a conception of divinity which is light years from divine. I hope and pray that Dan will re-think this idea of a vengeful, spiteful God, because it is out of character with Christian values as I understand them.

- David Lapakko, Richfield, MN

In this election year, be prepared for lots more discussion out there about same-sex marriage. It's only just begun!

Tebow Mania is Insania

"Because Tim Tebow is a religious figure rather than an athletic one, the limitations of his talent wind up testifying to the potency of his faith. The fact that he'll be almost comically inept for three quarters and then catch an updraft of mastery in the fourth serves to demonstrate not that he's a winner but that Jesus is — and, above all, that Christianity works." - Tom Junod, Esquire magazine. [Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/tim-tebow-christianity-6619366#ixzz1j0KYJ1ds]

Tim Tebow is the current poster boy for the miracles of Christian faith. And like Michele Bachmann, who believed that God had called her to run for office (and apparently, to lose!), Tebow's success on the field is due to--what else?--his faith in Jesus. At one level, all of this is warm, fuzzy, and even sort of inspirational. But at another level, it is a silly, incoherent, and even toxic way to think about one's life challenges.

All it really takes to unpack this belief system is to put it in a broader context. If it's 3rd and 7, and Mr. Tebow prays for a first down, what does it mean if he's successful? Apparently, it means that Jesus was on his side. Yet Tim Tebow is one of 54 Denver Broncos, at least some of whom are not of the same religious persuasion. So, does Jesus just figure that only the quarterback counts? If there are some non-believers on the team, are they just able to ride along on Tebow's coattails? And why does Jesus favor quarterbacks in the first place? Further, if he does succeed in converting that 3rd down, does that mean Jesus does not like the Steelers, or the Jets, or the Bears, or whoever the opponent is? If Tebow is praying for a 1st down, but two evangelical defensive lineman are praying to sack the guy, what in the heck does Jesus do? Flip a coin, I guess. At some point, the whole idea of divine intervention in a football game is nonsensical.

Even worse, in my view: attributing one's successes and failures to a higher power is to abdicate one's responsibility and one's power to choose. When Tim completes a 60-yard TD pass to win the game, as he did this past weekend, he should bow and take the credit. If he hits the receiver in stride and it all works out, that's his doing. And if he throws one that's picked off by the opposing cornerback, that's not God punishing him--no, that's Tim Tebow reading the defense incorrectly and/or a glitch in his motor skills as a passer. To think otherwise in either case is to engage in some kind of twisted, medieval claptrap.

But all of that will not faze Mr. Tebow. If the Broncos lose in the next round of the playoffs, he will still praise God for getting them there in the first place. And if they should win the Super Bowl (perish the thought), you might as well set up a revival tent outside the Broncos' locker room, because we all know how that happened.

The lesson is clear: if you want to play college football for a winner, choose either Oral Roberts or Brigham Young. They have a clear edge over those heathen public universities. And if you make it to the pros, pray that you can play your home games in Colorado, with Tim Tebow taking the snaps.

[News update: According to a telephone survey conducted Tuesday by the website Poll Position, 43.3 percent of people believe Tebow's accomplishments on the field can be attributed to divine intervention. The poll surveyed 1,056 people, and of the 756 who said they were familiar with Tebow, roughly 327 of them said they believe God plays a role in the second-year NFL quarterback's success. Only 42.3 percent of those familiar with Tebow said divine intervention does not play a role in Tebow's success (14.4 percent gave no opinion), meaning there are more respondents who do believe Tebow is receiving a little extra help than there are who don't.]

Whiny students

Lord knows I'm not perfect. And, although I could be deluding myself, I think I'm pretty well aware of my strengths and weaknesses as a professor. And, I really don't mind constructive criticism, especially when it's specific, fair, and reasoned. What I do mind are whiny people, and while my course evaluations are generally positive, I do get some "zingers" from time to time.

This past academic term has been such a case. I had one student who believed that I was dissing his informative speech because of his skin color, when in reality I was dissing it because it didn't meet some standard tests for coherence. (Nonetheless, he sent a video of that speech to two other instructors in my department, both of whom told him the same things that I did, with scores to match.) I had another student who went on record as saying that it's "impossible" to pass one of my courses, even though 80 percent of the students received either an "A" or a "B" in the class. (And let's not forget that she missed 3 of the 8 class meetings, a minor detail.) Then there are those who suggest that "if you don't agree with him, you won't have a chance" to succeed, because the course is just an exercise in being brainwashed by his opinions. (We all know what an intimidating, authoritarian personality I have.) What's even more maddening is that these comments appear in rather public and permanent places--they are in electronic form, and as such, they will never really go away. If I make negative comments about a student, they are largely confined to their exam or their paper--but their rants can be accessed by tenure and promotion committees, and in the case of ratemyprofessors.com, by anyone on the planet with an iPhone or a laptop.

It can be a cold, cruel world out there--and sometimes I just need to persevere despite such feedback. But, it's certainly not all bad news. What keeps me going are comments like those from a student on his blog that mentioned me as one of his "favorite professors" to date, "passionate" about his subject. (Josh, I thank you for that--it keeps me in the ballgame.) And on some rare occasions, I know that I've played an absolutely critical, life-changing role with respect to someone's career choice and/or their future success; that's a huge payoff.

Nonetheless, those of you who labor away in cubicles: be a little thankful that your every move is not being seen and evaluated by 25 other people. It's a challenge!