Gay pastors and my childhood Lutheran upbringing

I saw this story "trending" on Facebook. I was originally going to post there, but decided to do a full blog post instead.

The Rev. Matthew Makala, associate pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church and School in Midland, Mich., has resigned his position after getting "busted" for looking for hookups on a gay mobile app/website.

I wasn't sure what "audience" settings to use on Facebook, and I'll explain why.

I figured Rev. Makala was from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the denomination where I was raised, as a preacher's kid. It's the main conservative denomination within the Lutheran tradition, and would be considered on the conservative end of evangelicalism. (Conservative Lutherans, related to why the history of Lutheranism in America often gets short shrift, don't like being called "Protestant," saying that should apply only to Calvinists. They also don't like being pegged as "conservative evangelical" or "fundamentalist." If one believes in a different version of "fundamentals" than J. Gresham Machen's one for Presbyterians and other Calvinists, the name fits, though.)

Anyway, a number of fellow family members are on Facebook. I'm not friends with all of them, but those I don't have friended, are "friends of friends." I do have most my family on a "very religious" sublist. I often, for things like this, post to "friends of friends" but with the caveat of NOT sharing with "very religious."

I thought about posting to "friends of friends" and letting the chips fall where they may. Then, I decided I wanted to go longer with this.

Back to the main thread for that.

Speaking of Makala? Well, here is the gay side of his life.

For people unfamiliar with the LCMS, it still is officially anti-evolution, still believes in a literal interpretation, and literal inspiration of writing of, the bible, including creationism. It is officially pro-life (though I'm left of center on that, I'm not on the far left on that issue). And, it still is, no other way to put it, anti-gay rights.

No, it's anti-gay. Seeing being gay or lesbian as sinful, let alone a choice and nothing but a choice, is anti-gay. Beyond obvious reasons, to the degree particular gay/lesbian sexual activity may be a choice, so is particular heterosexual activity.

So, it's anti-gay, where I come from. Having a number of gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances, and having seen a number of them, for various reasons, struggle with self-acceptance, such churches need to accept biological reality.

The denomination is fine on continuing to oppose gay marriage if it wants. It's not fine for Makala to compare being gay to being alcoholic, and seemingly perpetuating misunderstandings of both LGBT issues AND alcoholism.

Or, per another Qweerty story, you can take down your Facebook page and continue the denialism.

After all, per that link, the senior pastor at Makala's church, Rev. Daniel Kempin, seems to be perpetuating the idea that gays are all perverts, and perverts seeking to "convert" heterosexuals:

“It is my grief to inform you that Pastor Makela announced his resignation as a pastor of St. John’s through a letter that was read in worship on Sunday, May 17,” he begins. That’s the day before the story broke here. 

To make matters worse,” he continues, “the details of sin that have been kept confidential are being posted online by those who seek to do harm to the Makela family and to St. John’s. This is taking an already difficult situation and making it even more painful… The facebook pages associated with St. John’s have been taken down in an attempt to remove the opportunity for malicious posters to have access to St. John’s members…”

So, it's "worse" to expose hypocrisy rather than let it grow like mushrooms, with the same fertilizers as mushrooms? And, that "access"? As in the gays all want to convert your members? 

Even if I hadn't moved all the way to secularism/atheism, things like this are why I wouldn't be a fundamentalist/conservative evangelical Protestant. Sorry.

As for posting edits? The Networked Blogs application automatically posts my blog posts to both Twitter and Facebook. It posts to "friends of friends."

And it will with this post, too. My family can do, and say, what it wants.

As for that family? Starting with the preacher who made me a preacher's kid? Sorry, but dad was some level of racist — not sure exactly how much, and maybe even I don't want to think about that more — some level of misogynist, and we didn't even talk about "teh gay" beyond jokes.

Yes, the bible is anti-gay, contra deniers

For people coming here from the AcademicBiblical subreddit go here for updates, mainly a condensed version of my responses to Aractus, including links to the two journal pieces he cites … but, no, not directly to his comments.

And no, the New Testament part of the bible is DEFINITELY NOT “pro-gay.” Go here for refutation of someone making claims as groundless as some would-be amateur historians who have claimed Abe Lincoln secretly was teh gay. Or, even more, like claiming Lincoln was an atheist.

Updated in 2015 to note that Jesus' silence about homosexuality issues as an alleged mark of liberality actually doesn't necessarily mean that. See italicized section below for details, about 25 percent down. Or just click here.

There are several passages in both Old Testament/Tanakh and New Testament that have commonly been cited by Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, and Orthodox to ultra-Orthodox Jews (on the Tanakh side) as strongly condemning homosexuality.

Two similar and interconnected but not identical questions arise:
1. Are the passages that clear about what they're condemning?
2. Are they condemning homosexual desires/status/inclination or "just" individual acts of homosexual sex? (That's assuming the two are that delinkable.)

More on both of these, with a passage-by-passage overview of the biggies, below.

Now, I can understand liberal Christians (and to a lesser degree, liberal Jews against less animosity on the issue) wanting to say, no the bible doesn't say that. For liberal Christians, I can definitely understand them wanting to say the New Testament with Jesus, love, and other pablum, wanting to say that. (That ignores the fiery Jesus of Revelation, the Jesus of "I came to bring a sword, not peace," and other things.)

I can less understand a certain strand of atheists, whether gay or straight, who try to defend the Judeo-Christian scriptures. In fact, having read nonsense by one such person, defended by another on Facebook, that's the primary trigger for this post. (I refuse to link to the post, especially since its defender hauled back down the Facebook post that linked to the original blog post. If you can't stand the debate, while attacking me, you don't deserve or get the PR.)

Working in order of appearance, we'll start with Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. On the surface, this appears to be their destruction for wanting gay sex with the angels in disguise. However, with Genesis 18 as background, we learn that they've already been marked for destruction and Yahweh has not specified for what sin or sins. Therefore, I'm in agreement that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (which the blogger above didn't cite, anyway) is not about anti-gay issues.

The biggies, on the Old Testament side, though, are Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, two similar passages that list a range of prohibited sexual activities, most of which either explicitly or by implication are deemed worthy of death.

Leviticus 18:22 says: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 says: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Now, here's where our atheist blogger starts to get fun and funky. 

First, trotting out a German phrase from biblical scholarship, "Sitz im Leben," he claims that the priestly writer can't have been condemning homosexuality because it was never so condemned, and never singled out for condemnation, anywhere in the ancient Near East.

Well, "Sitz in Leben" just means "community setting." And, yes, religious books are written to particular communities in particular settings. However, the entire ancient Near East was NOT the SiL for Leviticus! To claim such makes a mockery of the whole idea.

Also, to claim that religious scriptures can never talk about an idea de novo, even for a true SiL, not a red herring one, is false. I cited for said blogger the example of Buddhism discussing new ideas, and old ideas in vastly new ways, as compared to the proto-Hinduism contemporary with the start of Buddhism.

Said blogger was obtuse enough to not grasp that one can list two separate and independent lines of logical argument in attack on the same point, first of all. Second of all, he appeared to simply not grasp what I said about Buddhism.

Second, in the same response to my comment on his blog, he claimed that the male-male sex in Leviticus was about forcible sex only!!!

That was an easy one to shoot down. In a second comment, I noted that none of the other passages implied force, just sexual acts, period. (I said I wasn't going to return to see his response.)

The person who posted his blog post to a Facebook group then made the claim that Orthodox Judaism has never had the same opposition to being gay (or lesbian), just opposition to actual acts, kind of like some Christian denominations, or Catholics on priests and acts. 

That said, beyond the lack of forcibility, the context of both Leviticus chapters, for all the forbidden acts, at least leaves open the possibility of interpreting them as ongoing relationships. And, overall, are sexual acts really that separable from sexual orientation, inclination, or "status"? Only if one expects gays to be celibate.

Beyond that, at the time of Jesus, many a Pharisee (while not rejecting the idea of unclean foods) would have agreed with him that what came out of the heart was the ultimate definer of purity, an idea Jesus also stresses in the Sermon on the Mount. That, too, would point at sexual inclination, not just individual acts.

One thing the blogger did not do with Leviticus, though I've seen it elsewhere, is claim that because only a male-male sexual act is mentioned, that means that the Old Testament is not anti-homosexual.

Hah!!!

Every sexual act in Leviticus is mentioned only from a male-initiator point of view. The reason lesbian sex isn't mentioned in Leviticus is because Leviticus is sexist in general.

Update, March 4, 2015: Now, per the update, what about Jesus? Details below the fold.

A few skeptical thoughts about Tim Cook of Apple "coming out"

Photograph by Ashley Gilbertson for Bloomberg Businessweek

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook made national headlines by publicly "coming out" that he was gay.

Let's start with this statement:

So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.

This would be whose god? The god of conservative versions of the world's three monotheisms, whose members think that gayness is some sort of sin?

The god of liberal versions of those monotheisms, whose Santa-kind lovingness is powerless, I guess, to keep believers in conservative versions of those monotheisms from being hateful?

And, that's part of what's wrong with the mush god of liberal monotheism.

And, if gayness is a "gift," then so is straightness, right?

That's at the heart of the statement on Facebook (and Twitter) by philosopher Peter Boghossian:

I've never understood how someone could be proud of being gay. How can one be proud of something one didn't work for?

It's not PC, but it's true IF one has a certain definition of pride. And, in that case, why not "straight pride"?

Even if "gay pride" is in one's status, and not in achievements to become gay, then why is "straight pride" wrong, especially if it includes surviving in today's world of social justice warrior slings and arrows?

This gets back to another criticism of mine of social justice warriors, namely that "no one knows the misery they've seen." The martyrdom hand to back of forehead, etc.

Of course, the social justice warriors are all agog over this statement. I saw this being tut-tutted over by Gnu Atheist SJW Greta Christina, because a Facebook friend had commented on Christina's Facebook post about her blog post. Sorry, even with the ability to put a "no follow" in the HTML, out of principle, I try not to link to hardcore SJWs except when really necessary.

But onward, because I'm nowhere near done with Cook yet. He later says:

Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day. It’s made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life.

Really? So, there's a "gift of gayness"?

Erm, wrong!

I've said time and time again that being an atheist is no guarantor of intellectual superiority or better critical thinking skills. I guess I will now have to add that being gay or lesbian is no guarantor of superior empathy or emotional depth.

Need I mention that paragon of gay emotional sensitivity J. Edgar Hoover?

Anyway, I'm moving on from skeptical thoughts to cynical ones.

Cook notes that people at Apple have known this for years. So, why "come out" now? After all, gay marriage is legal in California. Beyond that, how hard is it, really, to "come out" when you're the CEO of the company? Doubling down on that, how hard is it, really, to "come out" when you're the CEO of a tech company in Silicon Valley?

And, that photo? Is it merely coincidence that there's a sundog in a position to almost give Cook a secular, nay a gay-pride rainbow, version of a halo?

Since Ashley Gilbertson does NOT work for Bloomberg, but for a photo agency, survey (of one) says: Not a coincidence. If you're a professional photographer of that level, something like that doesn't happen by accident.

Per a mobile Net joke, I could say, "There's an app for that," but of course, that would be a cheap and tawdry joke.

Besides, to be non-jokingly cynical, with the CEO of a company with post-Steve Jobs stock price turbulence, etc., there actually may be an app for that. And, an Apple product for that.

Apple Gaydar, on sale soon at your nearest Apple store.

And, I am hoping this gets read enough for SJWs to go agog over that statement, too.

Dale Hansen just nails the Michael Sam issue

The Dallas sports anchor has never been afraid of speaking his mind, and does so well on the case of just-announced openly-gay college player Michael Sam:

Several NFL officials are telling Sports Illustrated it will hurt him on draft day because a gay player wouldn't be welcome in an NFL locker room. It would be uncomfortable, because that's a man's world.

You beat a woman and drag her down a flight of stairs, pulling her hair out by the roots? You're the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft.

You kill people while driving drunk? That guy's welcome.

Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes? We know they're welcome.

Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away?

You lie to police trying to cover up a murder?

We're comfortable with that.

You love another man? Well, now you've gone too far!

Go read the whole thing.

Michael Sam has courage. "NFL officials" starting a cowardly whispering campaign don't.

First gay athelete comes "out of the closet" in major team sport

Jason Collins / Kwaku Alston for Sports Illustrated

No, not a retired athlete. An active player.

Jason Collins, I stand up and salute you. This is a must read.

I didn't set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I'm happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn't the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, "I'm different." If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I'm raising my hand.

Add in that Collins is black ... and how black males, sex on the down low, and related issues have been land mines on gay, black, and intertwined issues, including California's Proposition 8, and this is doubly huge.

Fortunately, as far as easing his journey, both Kobe Bryant and Commissioner David Stern have his back. Kobe's Kobe, and, who knows what really happened in Colorado years ago. But, kudos to him to speaking up in support right away, too.

Meanwhile, a snippet of his "journey":

The first relative I came out to was my aunt Teri, a superior court judge in San Francisco. Her reaction surprised me. "I've known you were gay for years," she said. From that moment on I was comfortable in my own skin. In her presence I ignored my censor button for the first time. She gave me support. The relief I felt was a sweet release. Imagine you're in the oven, baking. Some of us know and accept our sexuality right away and some need more time to cook. I should know -- I baked for 33 years. 

So, if you don't know someone who's gay, that's a snippet of what it's like.

At the same time, Collins is not your typical US pro athlete, black or white:

I realized I needed to go public when Joe Kennedy, my old roommate at Stanford and now a Massachusetts congressman, told me he had just marched in Boston's 2012 Gay Pride Parade.  

Nor is he your "stereotypical gay," per his own words:

Though Shaquille O'Neal is a Hall of Famer, I never shirked from the challenge of trying to frustrate the heck out of him. (Note to Shaq: My flopping has nothing to do with being gay.)  ...


I go against the gay stereotype, which is why I think a lot of players will be shocked: That guy is gay? But I've always been an aggressive player, even in high school.  

Well, and simply, put.

Finally, he knows his "position." And, although due to team loyalty, he felt he couldn't "come out" during the season, he was still sending a message, or trying to, with his jersey playing number of 98, which is not the norm in the NBA, or any sport:

My one small gesture of solidarity was to wear jersey number 98 with the Celtics and then the Wizards. The number has great significance to the gay community. One of the most notorious antigay hate crimes occurred in 1998. Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student, was kidnapped, tortured and lashed to a prairie fence. He died five days after he was finally found.

I hope what seems to be an engaging personality, along with his intelligence, transfers to support in the locker room. His No. 98 gesture has touched Shepard's parents.

One issue, though. He's technically not an active player. He's a free agent. But, with his background, even if he's the last man on the bench, dammit, some team had better sign him.

Nonetheless, it's a bit of fly in the ointment that he's technically not an active player. A 12-year vet like him, as a role player reserve, might not have gotten a new contract without this, and his announcement is going to complexify things.

On that note, ESPN's Mark Stein says it's about 50-50, among 14 NBA representatives in an anonymous survey, that he's back next year.

And, I've blogged before about black gay men, especially, and the issue of sex on the down low. Collins had a fiancee at one time, in an 8-year-relationship. She says she never knew, never even suspected.

And, per Jason Whitlock, the "haters" are out, too. Wow, Tim Brando just went WAY down in my book.

===

Meanwhile, back in the state of Texas, the homophobic Greg Abbott says that local governments cannot offer domestic partners insurance benefits.

Here's the details:

In the nonbinding opinion, Abbott determined that local jurisdictions that offer such benefits “have created and recognized something” — domestic partnerships — “not established by Texas law.” 

“A court is likely to conclude that the domestic partnership legal status about which you inquire is ‘similar to marriage’ and therefore barred” by the state Constitution, he wrote. 

The opinion was a response to a question asked by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who had raised concerns about the Pflugerville school district, as well as the cities of El Paso, Austin and Fort Worth, extending such benefits to domestic partners.

Of course it was Dan Patrick who asked him for his opinion. It's in light of House Bill 1568. Per the Trib, the bill would "revoke the accreditation and withhold funding from Texas school districts that allow employees to add a domestic partner to their health care plan." It's passed committee level and is headed to the floor.

Killed because he was black? Or gay?

Marco McMillan/AP photo

The FBI has announced it is officially investigating the death of Mississippi mayoral candidate Marco McMillan as a hate crime.

Black politicians and black civil rights groups are heralding the move.

But, given that there's a black suspect already arrested, it seems that, if this is a hate crime, it's an anti-gay one, not an anti-black one.

Will black civil rights groups address the issue of homophobia among African-Americans? How this drives sex on the "down low," which in turn is driving spiking HIV rates among heterosexual black women? 

Or will many heads remain buried in the sand, the same head-burying that happened during and after the vote on California's Prop. 8? (And I've blogged before that higher black support for the narrowly voted issue was a significant matter.)

Let's see just how this plays out in days and weeks ahead.

Including getting McMillan's family to elaborate on this:

McMillian's family said the mayoral candidate in this town of 18,000 in the Mississippi Delta 70 miles southwest of Memphis had feared for his safety. They want authorities to investigate the murder as a hate crime.

"What's been reported is not the true story of what happened to him," said McMillian's godfather, Carter Womack.

What do they think happened? I hope this isn't the setup for conspiracy theory land, but it reads like it could be.

RIP Van Cliburn

Pianist Van Cliburn performs for a packed house in the Great Hall of the Moscow Coservatory in April 1958 during
the first International Tchaikovsky Competition. Associated Press file photo via Dallas Morning News

The man who put Fort Worth in particular and Texas in general on the fine arts map of the world has died at the age of 78.

Van Cliburn's talent alone might have earned him a place among the 20th-century giants of his instrument, alongside classical pianists like Arthur Rubinstein and Vladimir Horowitz. But after a magical Moscow spring in 1958, Mr. Cliburn's fame eclipsed even those musical contemporaries, rivaling that of another young superstar of his time, Elvis Presley.

Mr. Cliburn was "The Texan Who Conquered Russia," according to a Time magazine cover. At the height of the Cold War, the lanky 23-year-old from East Texas traveled to Moscow and won the first Tchaikovsky International Competition, an event created to showcase Soviet cultural superiority. Mr. Cliburn's unlikely triumph was thus said to bring a thaw in tensions between the rival superpowers and created a mythic parable about the power of art to unite mankind.

It was an iconic moment. Not just in the Cold War, but in American classical music, demonstrating that American home-grown talent in the highly competitive world of the piano did exist.

Per the New York Times obit, he wasn't alone.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/27/4647640/van-cliburn-dies.html#storylink=cpy

At the time, America had produced an exceptional generation of pianists besides Mr. Cliburn who were all in promising stages of their own careers, among them Leon Fleisher, Byron Janis, Gary Graffman and Eugene Istomin. 

Like Rachmaninoff, one of the Russians he played in Moscow, he could span 12 white notes with his hands, allowing his technique, described like this:

He developed a commanding technique, cultivated an exceptionally warm tone and manifested solid musical instincts. At its best, his playing had a surging Romantic fervor, but leavened by an unsentimental restraint that seemed peculiarly American.

That said, I also agree with this portion of the Times' assessment:

But if the Tchaikovsky competition represented Mr. Cliburn’s breakthrough, it also turned out to be his undoing. Relying inordinately on his keen musical instincts, he was not an especially probing artist, and his growth was stalled by his early success. Audiences everywhere wanted to hear him in his prizewinning pieces, the Tchaikovsky First Concerto and the Rachmaninoff Third.

His subsequent explorations of wider repertory grew increasingly insecure. During the 1960s he played less and less. By 1978 he had retired from the concert stage; he returned in 1989, but performed rarely. Ultimately, his promise and potential were never fulfilled.  

Van Cliburn himself said he felt like he "had been at this thing for 20 years already" by 1958, and that in part explains why he didn't develop further.

It's a shame. Prokofiev and other moderns could have well stood the attention of a more mature Van Cliburn.

He did, per the NYT, sound OK on Prokofiev, but earlier composers?

Yet as early as 1959, his attempts to broaden his repertory were not well received. That year, for a New York Philharmonic pension fund benefit concert at Carnegie Hall conducted by Leonard Bernstein, Mr. Cliburn played the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 25, the Schumann Concerto and the Prokofiev Third Concerto. Howard Taubman, reviewing the program in The Times, called the Mozart performance “almost a total disappointment.” Of the Schumann he wrote that Mr. Cliburn provided “sentimentality rather than Romantic sentiment.” Only the Prokofiev was successful, he wrote, praising the brashness, exuberance and crispness of the playing. 

Reviewing a 1961 performance of Beethoven’s “Emperor” Concerto by Mr. Cliburn with the Philadelphia Orchestra under Eugene Ormandy, Mr. Schonberg wrote, “It was the playing of an old-young man, but without the spirit of youth or the mellowness of age.” ...

Despite the criticism, Mr. Cliburn tried to expand his repertory, playing concertos by MacDowell and Prokofiev and solo works by Samuel Barber (the demanding Piano Sonata), Chopin, Brahms, Beethoven and Liszt. But the artistic growth and maturity that were expected of him never fully came.

In short, Van Cliburn early on showed that he wasn't going to be Glenn Gould.

However, he did, through starting the Van Cliburn Competition, give another gift to American classical music -- its further development. For that alone, we should all be very grateful.

Scott Cantrell at the Dallas Morning News, an email acquaintance of mine from my days in Dallas describes the start of that, as well as his life in Fort Worth:

He already had many friends in Fort Worth, where in 1962 the quadrennial Van Cliburn International Piano Competition was inaugurated in his honor. He served as an artistic adviser to the competition, to be held again in May and June 2013, and he took a keen interest in its winners’ careers.

With the aura of an old-school Southern gentleman, with a velvety baritone voice, Mr. Cliburn became Fort Worth royalty. He was as warmly gracious to the youngest piano student as to the city’s movers and shakers.

“He was a true, true gentleman,” (Richard Rodzinski, former executive director of the Van Cliburn Foundation) said, “genuinely modest, self effacing, always surprised at people remembering him, appreciating him. Generosity, modesty, gentleness, incredibly loyalty as a friend, great, great kindness — these were the attributes that made people so terribly fond [of] him.”

That said, Cantrell reflects what the Times said about his later career:

In 1989, Mr. Cliburn started to revive his concert career, and he performed that September at the opening of Dallas’ Meyerson Symphony Center. He again appeared with major orchestras and continued to draw rapturous audiences, but the old magic appeared only intermittently. The rich tone of his earlier years had hardened, his memory and technique had become less reliable and his interpretations had become fussy, mannered. A couple of onstage fainting spells made headlines.

“Something died there,” Bryce Morrison, a British critic specializing in piano performance, said in a 2004 interview. “I do think he was a victim of his own success, a victim of a commercial thing that can make you and destroy you at the same time. It wasn’t a very long career before things started to crack.”

No matter. He continued to grace the Cliburn Competition with his presence, his self.

And, I may just look at going to this year's competition, in part for the tributes that will be sure to flow.

At the same time, the Times reminds us he was a person ... not just a performer. That included discreetly slipping out of the gay closet in the 1960s, then being forcefully shoved out the rest of the way by a 1995 palimony suit. Beyond that, his mother lived with him in Fort Worth until she died at the age of 97 and was his only childhood piano teacher before he went to Julliard.

I get the feeling that Van Cliburn was indeed an "old soul" in some ways. But, somehow, that did NOT transfer to his music-making ability. Had it, he might not only have been better at Beethoven, but, albeit in a different way than Gould, he might have become a great Bach interpreter.

Perhaps that's because he was, in part, smothered by his mother, too. I just get the feeling that for both better AND worse, she made him what he is.

And so, as a result, he wasn't good with Beethoven, and never really tackled Bach.. So, like many others, I've only heard his Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff myself.

And so, back to what got him started.

Here's a performance, from 1962, of the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto that won him fame in Moscow in 1958:



Remember him at his best. Just as we'll remember Gould doing Bach or Beethoven, and not Rachmaninoff. Remember him as an incubator for American pianists. Remember him as a booster for Fort Worth.

Gay? It’s in the epigenetics as well as the genes — no #gaygene, no #popevpsych

This new research and meta-research, summarized here, indicating that tendencies toward being gay or lesbian are a matter of epigenetics more than genetics in general, and ruling out the idea of a “gay gene,” makes a lot of sense to me.

The idea that it has at least a fair amount to do with epigenetic issues in the womb makes HUGE sense to me, as statistical studies show consecutive male births (no intervening females) increase the likelihood of each successive male being gay:

Here’s the key info:

Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we're born.

Specifically, the researchers discovered sex-specific epi-marks which, unlike most genetic switches, get passed down from father to daughter or mother to son. Most epi-marks don't normally pass between generations and are essentially "erased." Rice and Friberg say this explains why homosexuality appears to run in families, yet has no real genetic underpinning.

Epigenetic mechanisms can be seen as an added layer of information that clings to our DNA. Epi-marks regulate the expression of genes according to the strength of external cues. Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.

Moreover, epi-marks are usually produced from scratch with each generation — but new evidence is showing that they can sometimes carryover from parent to child. It's this phenomenon that gives the impression of having shared genes with relatives.

That said, at the same time, the io9 story looks like a bit of oversell, past the headline. I wouldn't go so far as to say homosexuality is not genetic; I would certainly say it's not solely genetic, and might say it's not primarily genetic.

And, just because you rule in epigenetic influences, you can’t rule out genetic ones by fiat.

At the same time, this theory is hugely explanatory for why a trait that reduces evolutionary fitness continues to perpetuate, too.

And, it also relates to other issues, such as gender identity problems.

Epigenetics in general also undercuts the ideas of Pop Evolutionary Psychology, especially its vaunted Enivironment of Evolutionary Adaptedness.

That’s because epigenetic influences are themselves subject to outside environmental influences. And, as the io9 story notes, and as we’ve seen in other issues like obesity, epigenetic influences can be passed on from generation to generation.

So between heredity of nongenetic factors that are environmentally determined, and such factors rapidly shifting, the EEA is all wet, again.

Gayness probably isn't 100 percent genetic

From the fact that there's more male bisexuality in societies other than America to a long history of situational homosexuality, from Greek pederasty to American West "brokeback mountain" moments, it's clear that, while inclinations to a gay/lesbian orientation are primarily genetic (and, in gay males, also, likely to some degree "environmental," but womb-environment affected) this is NOT a 100 percent genetic issue.

And I am totally with Frank Bruni -- a "gay orthodoxy" that says a Cynthia Nixon simply can't choose to be a lesbian is very, very, very wrong, in a number of ways.

Gay rights advocates should instead, in my opinion celebrate choice as well as nature in this issue. After all, this is ultimately about freedom, isn't it?

Even professional philosophers, or one at least, has/have the same take. Buying into the "it's in my gay genes" comes close to fundamentalist Christian ideas about original sin. It also undercuts claims of having science on one's side, if the science shows that choice is involved to a degree on sexual preference, level of activity within sexual preference, etc.

It's not as bad as "green" types excoriating the GOP for being anti-climate science while they're antivaxxers themselves. But, it's going down that type of road, at least to a degree.

I don't think America is 25 percent gay/lesbian

However, that's the estimate of the average American, Gallup says.

I'm not surprised lesser educated think that, but the young? Maybe that's because in that age group, so many more gays and lesbians are out that it leads to overestimates.

And the distribution is interesting, too: not a bell curve, but an exponential curve to the right.

I don't get why Dems and liberals have higher estimates. Perhaps the old Kinsey numbers, plus some of the same things that I noted about younger respondents, are factors. But, it shows that the "reality based community" meme is selective at best and not true at most.

Is "2 percent gay" wrong? Or "bad"?

The Religious Right is already trying to make hay with new demographic research saying gays and lesbians may "only" be 2 percent of the population, not 3-5 percent.

But, the study notes another 2 percent identify as bisexual. And, that many straights have "experimented."

But, the Religious Right is still trying to "run" with this.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the conservative Family Research Center, welcomed Gates' findings as further repudiation of the Kinsey 1-in-10 estimate.

Sprigg also was intrigued by the relatively high portion of bisexual people tallied by Gates.

"I see this as somewhat of a problem for the gay political movement," Sprigg said. "It undermines the idea that being born homosexual is an immutable characteristic that can't be changed."

First, many gay rights advocates have long moved beyond using "immutability" as an anchor for gay rights arguments.

Second, many gays are "gay from birth," even if many are not.

Second, as I noted, the "activity" numbers should give Sprigg additional food for thought. If as many people as identified as "gay/lesbian" or "bisexual" combined have been OK with having at least one same-sex sexual experience, it undercuts HIS argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

And, they do.

More than 8 percent of U.S. adults have had at least one same-sex sexual experience. While that's not the 1-in-10 of some estimates on gay/lesbian numbers, it's close enough, in terms of at least one-time activity, it ought to shut up the Religious Right.

Gary Gates, the researcher behind the numbers, says the lower percentage for "gay/lesbian" than conventional wisdom is probably because nobody sorted out the data like he has.

In any case, a dialogue on the numbers is part of what he wants.

"Yes, this is a credible estimate, but I'm fine to have a debate with someone about whether I'm right or wrong," he said. "The academic side of me says everything comes with caveats. But there is a level of power associated with having a number that can move dialogues along and hopefully move things forward."

And, with the exception of people like Sprigg, that's where we're at.

Gay rights advocates shouldn't worry over exact numbers, nor the "immutability" angle, for those still attached to it. Rather, the positive side is the "experimented" angle, and using those numbers to show just how many Americans are OK with same-sex sexuality.

Of course, the RR is using the number of "experimenters" for claims that gay-to-straight "cures" actually are such.

The reality? "Experimenters" in general are exactly that. Some may move more into bisexual territory, but few are likely to eventually identify as "primarily gay/lesbian." And, I'd guess that if we asked "experimenters" who do eventually identify that way if they were "repressing," we'd get at least a few yes answers. So, the "experimenters" prove nothing.

Beyond that, this might be like the Census allowing for "multiracial" identification; we might see more honest dialogue about sexuality in general.

And that, in turn, would probably really scare the Religious Right.

Gays yesterday, today and tomorrow

First, a man buried 2,500-2,800 years ago is NOT likely a gay caveman. The person may, or may not, be a transgender individual of some sort, though.

And, he's not a gay caveman. And, "he" may not even be male.

But, Vaughn Walker IS a gay judge. (Well, a retired one, now.) Walker was the federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8. He says, rightfully, he saw no reason to recuse himself, but, the Religious Right will certainly run with this.

And, the Religious Right will also likely run with the news that gay adults in America may "only" be 2 percent of the population, not 3-5 percent.

But, the study notes another 2 percent identify as bisexual AND that more than 8 percent of U.S. adults have had at least one same-sex sexual experience. While that's not the 1-in-10 of some estimates on gay/lesbian numbers, it's close enough, in terms of at least one-time activity, it ought to shut up the Religious Right.

Not that they're not trying.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies with the conservative Family Research Center, welcomed Gates' findings as further repudiation of the Kinsey 1-in-10 estimate.

Sprigg also was intrigued by the relatively high portion of bisexual people tallied by Gates.

"I see this as somewhat of a problem for the gay political movement," Sprigg said. "It undermines the idea that being born homosexual is an immutable characteristic that can't be changed."

Many gay rights advocates have long moved beyond using "immutability as an anchor, first of all.

Second, as I noted, the "activity" numbers should give Sprigg additional food for thought. If as many people as identified as "gay/lesbian" or "bisexual" combined have been OK with having at least one same-sex sexual experience, it undercuts HIS argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

Gary Gates, the researcher behind the numbers, says the lower percentage for "gay/lesbian" than conventional wisdom is probably because nobody sorted out the data like he has.

In any case, a dialogue on the numbers is part of what he wants.

"Yes, this is a credible estimate, but I'm fine to have a debate with someone about whether I'm right or wrong," he said. "The academic side of me says everything comes with caveats. But there is a level of power associated with having a number that can move dialogues along and hopefully move things forward."

And, with the exception of people like Sprigg, that's where we're at.

Black votes, gay rights and religiosity

Is it "OK" to claim that black voters aren't that much different than white voters on gay rights, and especially gay marriage issues, once you factor out their religiosity?

I say absolutely not.

That would be like saying white voters are more likely to support abortion rights while factoring out their lower religiosity.

Black-white differences on some issues, like, say, a school bond election, will have nothing to do with religiosity. But, on a moral issue, you can't just factor out, or statistically "control out," religious beliefs when demographics show they definitely exist.

But, in light of discussion on the Maryland House of Delegates has essentially killing a gay marriage bill,largely due to black opposition, aside from the expected GOP opposition, this issue has come up again.

A commenter named "s" on this Ed Brayton post about the Maryland bill wants to do that, to the point of caps-lock screaming when I called him out, and mentioned people like black lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding, proprietor of
Pam's House Blend, did the same thing with California's Prop. 8.

"S" first claimed I was mistaken, and that another blogger from her team did that.

Nope. (There was one such blogger, but not JUST him.)

I found the post Pam herself had about black voting patterns and Prop. 8. "S," when I posted that link, refused to address it.

Pam herself essentially tries to separate black voters from their greater religiosity, which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also did. The task force engaged in "hand-waving" at exit polls which pointed out the racial difference without trying to statistically debunk them.

And, there's this blog post, where Pam quotes extensively from a black woman (but not explicitly identified as gay) divinity student, who claims white in the gay rights movement are putting blacks at the back of the bus. She quotes the Rev. Irene Monroe:

But when critiquing the dominant white LGBTQ community's ongoing efforts to gain marriage equality and its treatment of blacks as their second-class allies in the struggle a reality check happens - both straight and queer African American communities bond together against their strategy for marriage equality.

I don't know if Monroe is 90, 60, 30 or 10 percent correct on her assessment. But, I do know it's anecdotal.

Contra "S" at Ed's blog, you can't, without losing logical coherency, cite your expertise in statistics to show that ethnicity was not a huge factor while "controlling out" religiosity, and then reject exit polling on Prop. 8 without providing statistically valid reasons for doing so.

And, as I blogged more than a year and a half ago, I'm not the only person by any means to pick up on this.

Even blacks who aren't currently religious, i.e., NONEs, as comments on Ed's blog note, are more likely than white counterparts to be inimical to gay rights. It appears, especially in the case of one black commenter who noted she was largely raised by a grandmother, that black "churchiness" may have made a multi-generational pass-through.

Ignoring this issue won't lessen its reality or make it go away.

Beyond her own post on Prop. 8 and voting patters, we also have, by another blogger that was part of her group blog and maybe still is a post like this, also beating down discussion of the issue, and as a straight white person, apparently engaged in concern trolling, too. And white liberal concern trolling by a "Radical Russ" ultimately probably makes the issue worse.

I'm not black. Nor gay. But, I have black friends, and gay friends, though no black gay friends of which I am aware.

And, it's not just blacks and gay rights. There's black atheists, like Infidel Guy. But, other than him, those with a "name" are few and far between, likely for similar reasons, from what I've seen online.

And, I'm a secularist, which makes me look quite askance at religious people justifying holding down a minority, while themselves being of another minority.

Otherwise, referencing anecdotal stories from or about individual black voters, gay or straight, as Pam does, doesn't erase the statistical evidence on the Ed Brayton post.

As for the source of my comment about Pam's House Blend, and a white liberal concern troller like Radical Russ, who had the particular blog post just above?

A person like Radical Russ exemplies part of the problem, to which you are a contributor, namely, the idea that white liberals, whether gay or straight, simply cannot speak on this issue because we have no "standing." I reject that.

I reject that idea, and I reject that type of concern trolling. That's why I call myself a skeptical left liberal.

Back to Pam's House Blend. Again, not by her, but another blogger of her group, a post that wants to cut off discussion just doesn't cut it. Pam herself, from what I can see on the issue, has blogged little about it; her blog on the Maryland bill is primarily straight news, a little analysis, and no commentary.

African American beliefs and gay rights

The Maryland House of Delegates has essentially killed a gay marriage bill. And, it's largely due to black opposition, aside from the expected GOP opposition.

When California passed the anti-gay marriage issue Proposition 8 a couple of years ago, beyond the big dollar spending of the Mormon church, there was a question as to whether African-American voting patterns may have tipped a close election.

I know the issue of African American voting trends and possible influence was a HUGE item of discussion after California passed Prop. 8. Some liberals wanted to dismiss discussion of the issue out of hand. One blog I recall Pam's House Blend, headed by black lesbian Pam Spaulding, but with numerous guest had posts trying to tamp down discussion.

I found the post Pam herself had about black voting patterns and Prop. 8.

Pam herself essentially tries to separate black voters from their greater religiosity, which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also did.

And, that doesn't fly in my world. Either her, or the task force's study.

That would be like saying white voters oppose an election initiative that restricts abortion because they're less religious.

And, there's this blog post, where Pam quotes extensively from a black woman (but not explicitly identified as gay) divinity student, who claims white in the gay rights movement are putting blacks at the back of the bus. She quotes the Rev. Irene Monroe:

But when critiquing the dominant white LGBTQ community's ongoing efforts to gain marriage equality and its treatment of blacks as their second-class allies in the struggle a reality check happens - both straight and queer African American communities bond together against their strategy for marriage equality.

I don't know if Monroe is 90, 60, 30 or 10 percent correct on her assessment. But, I do know it's anecdotal.

That said, I'll give Pam partial credit back for noting the NAACP took a No. on 8 position, and for this one on the Maryland bill. However, that post is almost entirely news-style, with little commentary or analysis.

But, with the Maryland House of Delegates killing a gay marriage bill due in part to the opposition of black legislators and black churches, it HAS TO BE brought up:

The difference apparently was the opposition from predominantly black churches, as well as from the Maryland Catholic Conference. Democrats hold a 98-43 advantage over Republicans in the House, but a third (34) of the Democrats belong to the legislative black caucus. With all but one Republican opposing the bill, the bill needed support from the black caucus to get the 71 votes required for passage. In the two weeks before floor debate, at least two members of the black caucus made public switches from co-sponsoring the bill to opposing it.

"The black churches -- since I've been here -- have never asked us for anything, that I can recall. They are asking now, 'Don't use the word marriage,'" Del. Cheryl Glenn, a member of the black caucus, said during floor debate. She said "my faith tells me" to vote against it.

The opposition from black churches, particularly those in Prince George's County, became so significant that The Washington Post devoted a March 8 story to the issue.

Especially when at least one black in the Maryland legislature is ignorant, whehter deliberately or not, about gay history.

Like Del. Emmett Burns:

Del. Emmett Burns, a member of the black caucus and an outspoken opponent of the bill, said he was called the "n-word" for his stance. He also said he was offended by comparisons between the civil rights movement and the "gay marriage" movement.

"Show me your Selma, Alabama," he said during debate. "... violates natural law. It always denies a child either a father or a mother. It promotes the homosexual lifestyle. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right. ... children will be taught that the homosexual lifestyle is on par with the heterosexual lifestyle."

Not heard of the Stonewall riots? Or Matthew Shepard?

Or there's Pastor Robert Anderson Jr.

A prominent Southern Baptist pastor, Robert Anderson Jr., pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., told Baptist Press in February that he, too, found comparisons between civil rights and "gay marriage" offensive.

"We didn't choose to be born black. To be black or African American is not sin," Anderson told Baptist Press. "The fact that we fought for civil rights, we were just fighting for justice for any man, any woman -- regardless of their skin color. ... To try to create a system and special laws for a group of citizens that are living in immorality and wanting to force all of us to embrace that as if it is morally equivalent, that is wrong."

Given that, outside of situational homosexuality in prison, in the old West, or Greek pederasty, lifelong orientation-based homosexuality doesn't appear to be choice-based, you're clueless. Deliberately clueless.

And disgusting.

Beyond that, I'll admit that I am a deliberate contrarian at times, and noting issues like this fits my persona.

But, as I blogged more than a year and a half ago, I'm not the only person by any means to pick up on this.

Even blacks who aren't currently religious, i.e., NONEs, as comments in this Ed Brayton post note, are more likely than white counterparts to be inimical to gay rights. It appears, especially in the case of one black commenter who noted she was largely raised by a grandmother, that black "churchiness" may have made a multi-generational pass-through.

Ignoring this issue won't lessen its reality or make it go away.

Beyond her own post on Prop. 8 and voting patters, we also have, by another blogger that was part of her group blog and maybe still is a post like this, also beating down discussion of the issue, and as a straight white person, apparently engaged in concern trolling, too.

As for the source of my comment about Pam's House Blend, and a white liberal concern troller like Radical Russ, who had the particular blog post just above?

A person like Radical Russ exemplies part of the problem, to which you are a contributor, namely, the idea that white liberals, whether gay or straight, simply cannot speak on this issue because we have no "standing." I reject that.

I reject that idea, and I reject that type of concern trolling. That's why I call myself a skeptical left liberal.

Back to Pam's House Blend. Again, not by her, but another blogger of her group, a post that wants to cut off discussion just doesn't cut it. Pam herself, from what I can see on the issue, has blogged little about it; her blog on the Maryland bill is primarily straight news, a little analysis, and no commentary.

Otherwise, referencing anecdotal stories from or about individual black voters, gay or straight, as Pam does, doesn't erase the statistical evidence on the Ed Brayton post.

And, it's not just blacks and gay rights. There's black atheists, like Infidel Guy. But, other than him, those with a "name" are few and far between, likely for similar reasons, from what I've seen online.

Update: A couple of other issues.

First, per one commenter at Ed's blog, you can't, without losing logical coherency, cite your expertise in statistics to show that ethnicity was not a huge factor while "controlling out" religiosity, and then reject exit polling on Prop. 8 without providing statistically valid reasons for doing so. Pam did the same. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study she cited basically did the same.

Second, contra that same commenter on Ed's blog, you cannot, IMO "control out" religion in such a case, since we have plenty of demographic research showing blacks are more religious than whites and this is an issue with religious overtones. If we were talking about a bond issue for a new elementary school, religiosity could indeed be "controlled out" on black-white differences, but it can't here.

But, I'm not going back to Ed's block to argue with someone who starts "all-caps" responding to me, then, when I ask him to chill a bit, does it even worse in a response six times as long.

I will, though, shortly work this into a new blog post following up on that idea.

Since, even with religiosity "controlled out" there was a 5.5 percent difference in ethnicity on Prop. 8 support (though "s" doesn't do a more specific black-white breakout) I think I can venture that without "controlling out" religious belief, the black-white gap on Prop. 8 is around 10 percent.

Sorry, "s," Pam, "Radical Russ," etc. You're wrong.

MoJo Dowd writes a sensible, serious column?

Yes, and the lunar eclipse tomorrow will be a blue moon.

Seriously she writes about wondering whether DADT repeal will have any significance for the possibility of a gay president.

I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”

She gets other insights, too, from other people.

You know, if she'd write something like this once every three months, even, people wouldn't call her out so much on all her crap.

But, she doesn't.

CareerBuilder job of the day with the BSA!

Anti-gay? Check? PR-known history of sexual abusers in your volunteer ranks? Check. Having just lost a lawsuit over that, with punitive damages tacked on? Check. Yeah, I guess the Boy Scouts of America probably do need a "public relations specialist."

Catholic hierarchy now blames gays, not Jews

From one canard to another: Now it's the old claim that homosexuality causes pedophilia. If you're a gay priest, keep your head very low.

Religious Right rejects ties to Uganda anti-gay anger

Of course, claims of harshly anti-gay Christians, including the three gay "converters" who went to Uganda, ring false. When you peddle slanders like the ones about gays sodomizing teens, of course you're going to stoke the flames of anger, even to the point of Uganda pushing the death penalty for gays.

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

If there were a hell, these three would have special spots.

Coming out gay in Oklahoma – in middle school

A must-read story, both for the self-confidence of kids coming out at this young of an age, but also, the relative amount of non-harassment, even in Oklahoma.

TABC admits fault in Rainbow raid; Fort Worth PD stalls

The Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission, after already admitting it shouldn’t have had agents at the raid of the gay bar Rainbow Lounge in June, released a detailed internal investigation yesterday; meanwhile, the Fort Worth Police Department says it will miss an Aug. 18 deadline to complete its own internal review.

Boy, Fort Worth Police Chief Jeff Halstead sounds like more and more of a sandbagger to protect bad cops by the day, especially since the TABC report makes clear the FWPD took the lead on the raid.