07 August 2008

Robinson vs. Davis - A reader's question

Well, so much for my "one thread per day" rule. I've had three different threads today. All were important, though, at least in my eyes.

David posed an excellent question in one of the threads. It was such a good question that I have decided to give it its own thread.

James, you can answer this offline if you wish. In trying to find out where the GLBT Christian side rests, I wonder if you can answer a question for me. One the one hand we have Bishop Robinson in a loving one on one relationship with another person. On the other side, we have Mac Davis who surfs the Internet for sugar daddies and had sex with two seminary boys. Is there a difference that Christians should see in this?

I think an online discussion would be beneficial, as it will allow others to take part in the discussion. If you would like to contact me off line, that would be perfectly acceptable. Those who wish to join in this discussion should be polite and respectful. This is my blog and I won't abide rudeness or crudeness.

Amongst my GLBT friends, +Robinson is the norm. Almost all of my friends are in either committed relationships or looking for committed relationships. If you have read some of my posts, you will would know that two of my friends celebrated their twentieth anniversary by being legally married here in California. In fact, you should read those posts. You will find them here, and here. Monogamy is really the norm for most gay people as the number of same-gender marriages in California will show. In the local chapter of Integrity, commitment and monogamy is the majority status of its members.

The exception to this will be found primarily among those gay and bisexual males in their 20s. This exception will be found in heterosexual males of that age group as well. I have recently completed a degree from the local university. In one of my classes, a male student received a failing grade on a quiz. The professor (a woman) told him if he wanted some extra time, to talk with her. He replied he did not care that he had failed the quiz. This startled the professor and this was the exchange:

“Well if you don’t care, why are you in college?”

“Do you want the truth?”

“Yes, I do.”

“I’m here to have as much sex as I can possibly have before I’m too old for anyone hot to want me.”

That was from a heterosexual male. One heterosexual male. I cannot project his morals (or lack thereof) on all heterosexual males.

Mr. Davis’ alleged actions are those of one homosexual male. I cannot project his morals (or lack thereof) on all gay males. They are not typical of the GLBT community as a whole.

It is that aberrant activity that the press covers though. It sells papers. No one wants to read about two men who have lived together for 47 years, have a house, two dogs and leaky water pipes. Newspapers want sensationalism and that comes from covering the atypical gay pride events or other events where extreme behaviour and the actions of fringe members of the community can be filmed and published. That is like saying Americans' Fourth of July activities reflect a typical daily life of all Americans. I would submit that 75 - 80 percent of all gay people have never been to a pride event.

Having said that, yes, there are gay/bisexual men who use the Internet to find anonymous encounters and an infinitesimal percentage of males looking for “sugar daddies.” In any community, there will be predators and those who wish to use others for personal gain. When I was much younger, we called such people “Gold Diggers.” They were young heterosexual women.

The overwhelming opinion of the GLBT community is that commitment and monogamy are “where it’s at.” They dislike Davis’ alleged actions for many reasons one of which is that it gives the entire GLBT community a black eye.

The difference that “Christians should see in this” is that committed relationships are holy and the norm. Promiscuous and predatory behaviour is not holy and not the norm. This is true whether homosexual, heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.

I must take you to task for one thing, though. The use of "seminary boys" was inappropriate and inflammatory. Seminarians are not "boys," they adults. The use of the phrase would lead many to question the sincerity of your post.

So, this is the jumping off point for the discussion.