Balancing homosexuality and Islam? Impressive!

The service, known as a nikah, is a Muslim matrimonial contract. The personal account of the couple's meeting and instant connection could easily be believed to be between a man and a woman, not between two members of the same sex: " 'We met about three years ago, at an iftar - a breaking of fast during Ramadan. I think a lot of Muslims find that time of year very spiritual and very enlightening, and so I think that's why our relationship developed, because we spoke about our faith. Eventually we went on a date.' " The couple though, are without a doubt homosexual. The fact that couples just like Asra and Sarah, the couple we just heard from, are looking for religious bonds is an amazing and legitimate goal. Gay British Muslims are increasingly pushing for the right of marriage. And not just any marriage! They could be bound by a more liberal marriage, but they really want a MUSLIM homosexual marriage, and what is wrong with that? Nothing. The speed the couple seemed to move at, with Sarah proposing on the first date, is explained by the fact that relationships in general are a serious matter. The fact that the couple wanted to keep things as "pure as possible" is something to be celebrated. If a couple is that respectful to religious rites, why then can they be rejected? Not knowing much about the nikah service, investigated a little: it's normally given, as are Christian marriages, to heterosexual couples. It doesn't necessarily require an Imam though, but just some one, as the BBC article says "knowledgeable enough about the Qur'an". The by-the-book nature of Sarah and Asra's service is a beautiful thing and a testament to religious homosexuals not just of the Muslim faith, but of every faith! However, Asra and Sarah's story isn't perfect: Asra's parents were against the whole affair as 'religious Muslims' and did not attend the nikah (wedding). Not going to a daughters wedding on religious grounds is disturbing though! It's something that only really happenes once, just like in heterosexual unions. An argument of homosexuality being against the tenents of Islam is true, not knowing much about the Muslim faith I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to argue for or against it though. However, the Imam Daayiee Abdullah said something in the BBC article that really resonated with me: "By not allowing same-sex couples to wed... there is a direct attack on the Qur'an's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'. However, instead of Islam being harsh on gays, some say that it is actually the reverse: gays are strongly Islamophobic. Sarah and Asra agree, going a step further: lamenting the incidence of gays actually believing you can't believe in anything. I would lament on this point myself, looking from the outside in. Yes, Religion is sometimes not very supportive of LGBTs and their rights. However, that is not to say that you cannot be gay and religious. Faith in God is often times very straining. I would encourage homosexuals to come to God and ignore the loud personal prejudices that many groups raise. There is no reason why any group should not come to God. For this reason I applaud Sarah and Asra, and all of those just like them in their success.

Uganda on the anti-homosexuality world stage.

The material on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the Anglican Church there is actually a part of the Final Project that I am doing which involves anti-homosexuality laws around the world. So first of all, I’d like to provide a little background information. The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, put forward by David Bahati, a Ugandan parliament member, would broaden the criminalization of homosexuality if enacted by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions of being homosexual, are HIV-positive and participated in sexual acts, or engage in same sex acts with people less than 18 years of age. Also, life terms in jail, public humiliation and suffering would be supported by the law. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organizations, and/or non-governmental organizations that support LGBT rights! Despite this, a prominent member of the Ugandan Anglican Church, Canon Gideon Byamugisha, has still joined international condemnation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, saying it “will breed violence and intolerance”. He also warns that it will be little short of "genocide", a statement which is completely true by the way! The good news, though, is that international outrage has led to voting delays on the issue. This is not necessarily down to because the Ugandans have realized that it's an immoral law, but more due to the fact that nation-states such as Sweden and Germany have threatened to down-size or even stop their foreign investments should the law be passed. This is an aspect of the story which is covered to a lesser extent in the NPR story. This quote from the NPR story may explain the situation most aptly: “… Prison terms for Ugandans who fail to report a homosexual within 24 hours; lifelong prison sentences for a single homosexual act; and the death sentence for a range of acts, including having gay sex while HIV-positive, having gay sex with a disabled person or being classified as a "serial offender" — that is, someone who has gay sex more than once.” The personal experiences that we are introduced to by the NPR story are also very powerful and tell of lives lived in fear: an awful concept for those who support lesbians, gays, and the other groups. The fact that almost every important religious community has voiced their opposition to this Bill is a spot of good news. That combined with the fact that Uganda is a more Christian nation-state than other African states which are often Islamic and are anti-homosexual on the basis of religious Sharia law similarly bodes well for the fight here. In the end though, God willing, proponents of LGBT rights will win out over the at best insensitive proposed law. Uganda can be an example for the rest of Africa on homosexuality, hopefully they will choose to be the right kind of example. People like Byamugisha are working to this end and I salute them.

Constitutionality, Faith, and LGBT Rights.

As we find in the beginning of Sarah Gordon's "Covenants of Love" in the Spirit of the Law: if the letter of the law dictates a result, technicality rather than spirit rules. This is itself Biblical in origin: “for the written law (letter) condemns to death (kills), but the Spirit gives life.” from  II Corinthians Chapter 3 Verse 6. The Spirit is the driving force for many and the law is just the result of its power, not the source of said power. To those committed to secular law, those motivated by spiritual rather than secular legal concerns are often pushed into the category of lay actors, drawing on non-legal experience and sovereign loyalties that lie outside of the state. With this argument, I could see it just becoming an attack on the personal beliefs of certain people. Oh wait! That already happens to groups pro- and anti-LGBT rights. Along these and similar lines, there has always been tension between spirit-filled and the law-bound in American History since the Revolution. The Constitution does, however, protect and honor those who live by the spirit. Although, it is hard to tell where religion ends and the secular begins. When it comes right down to it, Religion makes a difference not only in the personal lives of people, but also in the law and society where faith finds expression. Rabbi Devon Lerner, a Jewish liturgical member who litigated and lobbied for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, was a member of a group of progressive religious denominations. She found that the separation of church and state was not a solid, real argument. Religion clauses in the Constitution are often used as a protection for some people/stands/groups, but they don't provide a defense for all arguments that highlight it as supporting their respective faction. It was impressive personally, after a little background research, to find that Rabbi Lerner came into the field of constitutional law through her religious commitments. That is, not on a secular/political route! I am curious; however, what the group she was involved with was called. As far as I could read, they were never mentioned by name; is there a reason for this? Also, whenever reading you must pay attention to laws to the same depth as you would religion. The old world is going, although things first changed when religion clauses and the Constitution were first put into effect. It's pretty simple that the new world is to be created by believers and religious practitioners. The letter of the law now protects spiritual concepts in a regime dedicated to religious liberty. Disestablishment was a big issue for a lot of early American History, post American Revolution, however battlefields change. The Salvation Army was quite a creative force for the agenda they were pushing: they are an example of the stubborn vitality of popular constitutionalism. Salvation Army Lieutenant Lizzie Franks was another big player, specifically in the Salvation Army’s pushes. Finally, the areas of life where believers were supposed to be in need of protection included sexuality, patriotism, parenthood, education, identity, etc. which may illustrate some points of conflict that we find today.

ACLU v.s. sore losers?

The fact that we still held people’s sexual orientation against them when it comes to adoption in the early 2000’s is something that is quite disturbing but the fact that laws banning the practice have been repealed is a step in the right direction. As the article about the repeal on the Florida ACLU page describes, the gay man had been raising two foster children on a spur of the moment notice and was a licensed foster care giver! The fact that he had invested four years in developing, teaching, and caring for the two children should be reason enough for him to continue to hold them in adoption. If the court had decided to remove the children from his care, the psychological stress that would have been imposed on the children, and the sense of loss felt by the parent, would have been a disgraceful blemish upon our state’s judicial system. The fact that we have an organization such as the ACLU in these cases is very good because this court case will hopefully remove this kind of a threat from any other families in the future. The court ruling that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out for different treatment gay people and the children they raise for no rational reason were well thought out and will hopefully provide useful precedent for further LGBT civil rights advances. The ruling also holds a special significance because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 which protects adopted children’s rights to permanency. The fact that Anita Bryant, who we read about not two weeks ago, pushed this bill through which has now been revoked illustrates the return to intelligence and understanding that our state has needed. Another factor that is important to remember is that the law was one of the most expansive that was against homosexuals. The fact that CFCE performed a preliminary home study and the home received a positive sign-off should also have been reason enough to allow the children to remain in the homosexuals’ custody. The stance taken up by the Christian Coalition and the Liberty Counsel is also a little hard to defend, as their phrasing is pretty harsh. After all, who is against “family values issues” which is what the Coalition at least is in support of. Even homosexuals are pro-family in many cases, as long as the term “family” can mean homosexual or heterosexual families. They were actually approaching this issue as if homosexuality were an illness still, as I quote verbatim: that “the 1973 American Psychiatric Association ruling reversing homosexuality as a treatable condition… It appears as if this change occurred solely as a result of behind the scenes, political maneuvering within the APA by a small group of homosexuals.” Have you ever heard of such sore losers? They are attacking a group who was legitimately taken off of the APA's list of disorders simply because they can't stop them from adopting.

Just re-posting developments on the final project with some additional resources!

Someone once said that tolerance of homosexuality was a side effect of modernization and the following examples would lend this statement some credence: England repealed anti-homosexual laws in 1967, France did the same in 1982, the unified Germany did so in 1994; and in the United States, 46 out of 50 states repealed anti-homosexual conduct laws and 36 repealed sodomy laws before the rest were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. This isn't even the whole of it though; many nations which have retained such negative laws for a lengthy period of time, or even retain them today may in practice be societies that are not oppressive of homosexuality. While this is all true, I think it's definitely possible to look at this with a religious perspective. I will plan on looking at this by seeing which countries have the death penalty for homosexuals or those taking part in homosexual acts, those who give life sentences, and those who just give "large penalties". After some preliminary research, the final breakdown seemed to go along these lines: Those which still had the death penalty for homosexuality/homosexual conduct were Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan. Life sentences are still handed out in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Uganda is actually still up in the air about a specific homosexuality law but it has been decried by even some religious leaders. Much of Africa 'just' has large penalties for homosexuality: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, and Namibia are but a few. Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are a couple others outside of Africa. With that I would like to tie in the religion aspect more closely: The religious breakdown of the countries with severe anti-homosexuality laws were as follows: 70% are Sunni Muslims in Sudan. Virtually all Mauritanians are Sunni Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, 100% of the population is supposed to be Muslim. There is a roughly 50-50 split in Yemen of Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. In Iran, 98% are Muslim with a vast majority of the Shi'a kind. Afghanistan on the other hand is 80% Sunni Muslim while 60% of the population in Sierra Leone is Muslim. Pakistan is also overwhelmingly Muslim with 95% of the population Muslim (75% of which are Sunni). Islam is also the religion of Bangladesh too. Bucking the trend is Uganda which is largely Christian with 42% identifying as Protestants and 41.9% as Catholic. With these statistics, since the majority of nations which react the most harsh to homosexuals have a majority, if not national, religion of Islam, I come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not tolerated at all in most Muslim countries while in "more Christian" countries, or nations with majorities of other faiths, homosexuality is often given some leeway. Thus, in this project I could see the study focusing on those countries, not so much on Christian nation-states, although comparisons could easily be made.
My additional resources include: For the initial list of anti-homosexuality laws, I will use the site http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world. For all of the religion percentages found in these countries I will use statistics from the United States Central Intelligence Agency's database on each of the subject countries which begins at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Freedom ratings will be based on data provided by the yearly report from Freedom House "Freedom in the World" found at: http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010. Information regarding Uganda's controversial anti-homosexual law will be based from both http://www.time.com/time/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/.

The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality. What?!?!

Doing some outside reading of Anita Bryant's experiences from her own perspective in her book The Anita Bryant Story was... Educational shall we say? I now know what it sounds like when someone takes an issue to an extreme, fiery, and religious extent. And it's pretty disturbing! The fact that she made herself and her group, Save Our Children, into the victims of the debate was just pathetic really as she painted pictures of the U.S. falling under the rule of a homosexual fourth Reich. Her fears of gay/lesbian teachers affecting the growth and development of children everywhere are baseless and obviously come from an un-educated, personal disdain which really gives Religion a bad name. The way she groups homosexuals with pornography, abortion, drugs and alcohol is also rude and unjust as homosexuality just isn't up there on the list of arguable sins. The fact that she turns any molehill such as criticism against her or the group into mountains is also wrong as conservatives directed and continue to direct more fire upon pro-homosexual rights groups than vice versa. All in all, her book was just a big publicity stunt which was directed solely at pumping up her own image. For example, how she is made out to be a real crusader who has sacrificed everything she had for this awesome goal. First of all, she was a celebrity. A talented performer, and a homemaker. Those aren't really titles which make me think of someone who is at risk of losing everything. Going back to the group itself, the group's name itself is pretty awful. The fact is, homosexuals aren't a danger to children, so saying in an indirect way that homosexuals are a danger to children is an unfair attack upon the characters of gays and lesbians.

Writing on a position of faith.

In listening and watching this documentary about the placement of an openly homosexual man into the priesthood of the U.C.C., I was first moved by the request from William Johnson's mother and the continued pro-placement argument throughout the clips: that homosexuality should not bar a well qualified person from joining the priest-hood. The argument one speaker makes that Johnson should be removed from his position of priest-hood "because of his disorientation", a phrase which amused me greatly, lost its humor when I found that the man was dead serious. How can someone be so narrow minded? The worries some express about if he were to serve as a councilor at a youth camp also proved to be baseless as statistics I pulled up illustrated to me: sexual misconduct is far more prevalent among HETEROsexuals than HOMOsexuals (including those who identify as heterosexual though commit homosexual acts). The personal testaments that some members gave about how they'd like or not like Johnson as a priest were also very stirring as they went back and forth. The personal discomfort one jerk of a woman told the camera was off-set by the clear head provided by another woman and the cheer that went up when Johnson was voted in as a priest illustrated the clear mind those members voting had: of 96 voters, a strong majority agreed that Johnson should be made a priest, no matter his sexual orientation. And that is following along the lines of the teachings of acceptance of the Lord.

Developments on the project proposition.

Someone once said that tolerance of homosexuality was a side effect of modernization and the following examples would lend this statement some credence: England repealed anti-homosexual laws in 1967, France did the same in 1982, the unified Germany did so in 1994; and in the United States, 46 out of 50 states repealed anti-homosexual conduct laws and 36 repealed sodomy laws before the rest were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. This isn't even the whole of it though; many nations which have retained such negative laws for a lengthy period of time, or even retain them today may in practice be societies that are not oppressive of homosexuality. While this is all true, I think it's definitely possible to look at this with a religious perspective. I will plan on looking at this by seeing which countries have the death penalty for homosexuals or those taking part in homosexual acts, those who give life sentences, and those who just give "large penalties". After some preliminary research, the final breakdown seemed to go along these lines: Those which still had the death penalty for homosexuality/homosexual conduct were Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan. Life sentences are still handed out in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Uganda is actually still up in the air about a specific homosexuality law but it has been decried by even some religious leaders. Much of Africa 'just' has large penalties for homosexuality: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, and Namibia are but a few. Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are a couple others outside of Africa. With that I would like to tie in the religion aspect more closely: The religious breakdown of the countries with severe anti-homosexuality laws were as follows: 70% are Sunni Muslims in Sudan. Virtually all Mauritanians are Sunni Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, 100% of the population is supposed to be Muslim. There is a roughly 50-50 split in Yemen of Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. In Iran, 98% are Muslim with a vast majority of the Shi'a kind. Afghanistan on the other hand is 80% Sunni Muslim while 60% of the population in Sierra Leone is Muslim. Pakistan is also overwhelmingly Muslim with 95% of the population Muslim (75% of which are Sunni). Islam is also the religion of Bangladesh too. Bucking the trend is Uganda which is largely Christian with 42% identifying as Protestants and 41.9% as Catholic. With these statistics, since the majority of nations which react the most harsh to homosexuals have a majority, if not national, religion of Islam, I come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not tolerated at all in most Muslim countries while in "more Christian" countries, or nations with majorities of other faiths, homosexuality is often given some leeway. Thus, in this project I could see the study focusing on those countries, not so much on Christian nation-states, although comparisons could easily be made.

Centering on Professor White's "The Historical Roots of LGBT Religious Organizing."

First off, I found reading this paper both enjoyable and informative. I really enjoyed the quote from St. Paul, a figure who is often cited in anti-homosexuality arguments, cited as seeming to be in favor of homosexuality: "No longer is there slave and freeman, Jew and Greek, male and female... but we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord..." The power of this quote can't be over-analyzed and the fact that it is used in a pro-homosexuality argument is just fantastic. Moving on, while we've discussed the MCC in class, which is possibly the most gripping story of this kind of church, I feel like we've cheated churches/groups like Dignity, The Church of the Beloved Disciple, and so on; we haven't discussed them on the list for so called 'Lavender Churches'. I would suggest that we do so in class. It also felt good knowing what was going on when I heard mention of John Hose, Richard Ploen, and Jerry Joachim, from reading 'Our God Too'. However, the figure of Father Patrick X. Nidorf is another clergy member who I would like to talk more about since he did set Dignity on its feet essentially. Another interesting aspect mentioned was that of the American Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church. Apparently Mikhail Itkin was ordained into this church of which I know very little about. Something I'd like to change. Similarly, I wasn't aware to the extent that homosexuals found themselves welcome in groups associated with the UUC and the Society of Friends (begun in 1970 and 1971 respectively) however it does make sense. Even Jews who identified themselves as gay had a group to support them which struck me as interesting because I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Judaism.

My breastplate of righteousness?

Well how about that reference to Ephesians? Anyway, who knew that the founding of the Christian Right could have such colorful characters as Billy James Hargis! While denouncing the public sexual culture and building around the politics of sexual regulation and shame, Hargis himself was involved in relationships that seem to have been homosexual in nature. Was he gay? The Christian Right's pro-family movement was offset by the fact that outwardly sexual conservatives often participated in the sexual "improprieties" they were famous for condemning. Apparently, in response to these indiscretions, men (and women?) formed something known as the concept of "the breastplate of righteousness" which caused them to hate the things that they often indulged in. This ideal would fuel moral and political crusades against sexuality in the future. My first question is: is sexual morality a bad thing really; followed by where can I find Humphreys' "Tearoom Trade", a book which is apparently an influential study of the public's sexual activity. Laud Humphreys himself seems to be an interesting individual along with the fact of having authored the book. His distinction between homosexuals and those who participated in homosexual acts was quite telling as well, furthering my interest as the subject question is one that has interested me. After all, why would a man who is not homosexual engage in such acts "desiring kicks without commitment"? Can he not receive such from a woman? And then why would someone who had those urges identify as heterosexual and actually marry? The findings of Humphreys' Tearoom experiment were surprising to me: 54% of those who had been involved in the homosexual activities were married men living with their wives! This really does, as the reading says: "(strike) a blow against the notion that the sexual universe could be neatly divided into straight and gay, perverted and normal." It sure does so for me. It will take a while to work through the idea but the fact that these same people were also politically and religiously conservative was also quite surprising. The results of Humphreys' questions based on four specific social issues were also interesting, offering more support for his conclusions. The public saint/private sinner dilemma could not be better expressed! In this way, Janice M. Irvine's reflective paper on Humphreys' "Breastplate of Righteousness" is an enthralling piece which describes and analyzes things which hold much bearing on society of today. The conclusions that she comes to are a bit odd for me to hear but I will nonetheless take them to heart. I mean this when she says "it is moral entrepreneurs who have defined it as such" (referring to sex in general but public sex in particular as problematic.) The Sociological explanation that it's all down to "social control and sexual stigma" seems to not explain the situation the best for me on a personal level but I can see where this conclusion comes from. To be sure, this occurrence is very interesting to me.

I proposition you...

                                Sodomy laws and the Bible.

                In this project, I would be seeking to look at the sodomy laws from the point of view of either an attorney trying to work to get them repealed or from a balanced perspective looking at the views of both those for sodomy laws and against them. I would initiate the project by first looking at why they are named “sodomy laws” and whether or not there is a reason why they can’t be labeled something more telling like “laws against sexual perversion,” since that was obviously how those who instituted them saw homosexuals: sexual perverts. This would continue into a definition of any terms (basic, important, or otherwise) that may find their way into the project as a whole before going into the translation issues that led to the umbrella-term of 'sodomy'. Continuing on I would try to highlight some of the verses that anti-homosexual, or pro-sodomy law, people would bring up in an argument, and then break these down and see what basis there is, if any, to institute them in the form of secular law. Depending on the direction in which I decide to go, I may then strive to illustrate why these people are wrong in their assumptions of placing constraints on homosexuals. This would entail finding the sites in Scripture which may have been used to promote the sodomy laws and tear them to pieces. There are several arguments that could be made including the mistranslation issue. However, if I go by the other route and try to approach the issue from the perspective of both (all) sides, I would have to start out by stating the two (or more but I think only two) sides that I will seek to represent or look into involving this debate. I believe this would only involve the pro-sodomy law/ anti-homosexual camp and the anti-sodomy law/ pro-homosexual camp. I’d approach this task by first naming the sides, then spelling out the views of both sides and where the two conflict. A history lesson of the two factions and the sodomy laws themselves would also be in order as these may not be common knowledge to everyone. The balanced look would probably not try to come to any conclusions but an attempt could be made to decide between the two sides. As I found in the Introduction to the Study of Religion course, it may be hard to keep my own views outside of the paper but I will try the best I can. I won’t seek to impose my views on anyone and may even put forward the fact in some sort of a foreword that I am writing with my own thoughts while trying to stay true to the historic documents that I will be discussing.
*** Extension: Looking at countries today which still have laws along the lines of the U.S.'s old sodomy laws.

Project ideas.

Here are some of the ideas for projects that have been running through my mind:
*A possible continuation along the same lines of my ISP which dealt with homosexuality and Orthodoxy. Except maybe this time I'd move outside of the theory and into the practice of the real-world: are homosexuals shunned from the Orthodox Church? What happens to the clergy who are found to be homosexual? And the laity?
*Looking at the Bible verses dealing with homosexuality and determining why laws such as the sodomy laws were put in place.
What basis do these laws have? This would look at the Bible and see what, if any, Scriptural authority they were instituted under.
*Anti-homosexuality: personal opposition or adherence to doctrine?
Looking at whether people just don't like homosexuality because they think it's "not natural" or "not right" or because they think it's an affront against God.
*Anti-homosexuality: why not just a platform against sexuality in general?
This would deal with the topic of sexual renunciation on a general basis, not on depriving homosexuals or heterosexuals their right to love.
*Why is one form of love not equal to another?
In relation to Our God being a God of Love, why would He, and by extension we, discriminate against love between those of the same gender and those of opposite genders?

John D'emilio Ch.4--- The Mattachine Society.

D'emilio's account of the founding of the Mattachine movement from Henry Hay on was quite something. Through Hay's life from a performance driven youth to a Communist party member, he met with repression from party superiors when Stalin changed his stance on homosexuality. Then, after going under cover and marrying a fellow Communist party member, how Hay eventually met Bob Hull and Chuck Rowland was yet another turn in the tale. The mysteriously named "R" and Jennings were other additions before the formation of the homosexual rights group on "a Saturday afternoon in November 1950." This was the first of many meetings the narrative says, of the Mattachine Society. The way D'emilio rolls all of this off is just fantastic as it is just such a quick, fluent reading experience. That the Mattachine's took some aspects from the Communist party in America's organization is understandable. Following the arrival of James Gruber and Konrad Stevens, the name was actually formulated. That people could come out now with this semblance of a support group seems like a very good thing for homosexuals. However, the make-up of the group even when it was starting is interesting. You would think that all peoples coming out would want a group no matter the gender but for some reason the society was largely male dominated. That's an aspect that I'd like to investigate further. Were lesbians unwelcome? Was the information not uniformly dispersed? Did they have their own groups?

On Our God Too. Chapters 1-5.

First off, the book itself was really easy to read. I was a bit surprised at how the Church leaders acted so quickly in dispatching Troy Perry. After all, they could have at least attempted to council him. Continuing, some of the logistics of the book were just confusing. For example, was it common for the spouse of a confessed homosexual to try and stay together with him? If not, what was common practice? Bleeding the spouse for all he was worth? And what about lesbian wives? Could they even get a divorce? Moving on, the homosexual culture that Troy Perry introduces the reader to is interesting to say the least. For example, his interactions with David and the other surfer. Were there undertones for a reason or did Troy Perry steer clear of any under aged misbehavior as he did with the parish boy. Also, how David then was essentially enjoying himself in the midst of the gay bar was a bit odd. He toyed with Willie before the whole group became as close as family. It was all just a little crazy. No matter, the story was still a great read in the first five chapters and will probably continue to be so. Anyway, my final question was about the undercover agents who were in the gay bar specifically to arrest homosexuals allegedly eliciting certain things. Was this undercover situation an extremely common practice and if so, when was it stamped out?

Post on Chauncey and Bailey.

The account that Chauncey gives in Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion? Homosexual Identities and the Construction of Sexual Boundaries in the World War One Era strikes me as funny because the same fighting that occurs in the anti-homosexual ranks today reared its head in as early as 1919! The creation of the subculture described by Chauncey is also quite fantastic. The battleground of choice? The local YMCA. One of the parts I'm unsure of is how "Relatively few of the men who engaged in homosexual activity, whether as casual participants... Or as partners in ongoing relationships, identified themselves or were labeled by others as sexually different from other men on that basis alone." This observation is a bit surprising as the naval authorities seemed to be quite zealous in their pursuit of gays. Then, the bombshell: some 'straight' guys apparently took part in these acts, but were gay only based on what role the man assumed! This came to be a battle between homosociality and homosexuality. In Bailey's Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition meanwhile, a well fought argument is advanced by Bailey that includes looking straight at the text that is so often cited as condemning homosexuals. Both texts gave a more or less balanced look at the issue of homosexuality in both religious and sexual contexts. Bailey's last sentence illustrates this as "This is not to say that homosexual acts may not... be sinful..." In the end, both texts served as eye-opening pieces which, more so in Bailey's case, advanced the cause of homosexuality while also illustrating the arguments against it and breaking them down.

First Post!

I'm so thrilled to be in another class with Professor White! I can't wait to start blogging.