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I would be seeking to look at the sodomy laws from the point of view of either an attorney trying to work to get them repealed or from a balanced perspective looking at the views of both those for sodomy laws and against them.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.