thump (n): The muffled sound produced by or as if by a blow with a blunt object

It seems that there are people in this world who believe that if they adjust or reinterpret translations of the Holy Bible that they will be able to beat those people over the head who are disinterested in what it says. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) reads as follows:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Assuming the words are accurate, let's examine Leviticus. Now, based on the film The Ten Commandments (or so it seems), many believe that God spoke only to Moses through the burning bush or when giving him the Torah on Mount Sinai. The Jewish faith tells us that Moses was but one leader amongst a nation of Jews who heard the word of God. Christian religions are based on the Old Testament (or Jewish Bible) and then the New Testament(s) that came after the birth of Jesus Christ – yet there is disagreement on who heard the voice of God. Now where were we...

In the King James Bible, 18 Leviticus 22 is translated: "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination." More contemporary translations have broadened both the scope and interpretation of the statement by the gender neutral statement that homosexuality (rather than the implied sexual activity of men and heterosexual men) is an abomination. Of course, this statement is preceded by a long dissertation on your father being the only person allowed to see each and every female member of his family naked. In fact, it seems the only women he can't take a naked gander at is his daughter-in-law. Presumably because she is your wife and her nudity is for your eyes only. Also your daughter and any other female in the family save for your own daughter-in-law.

Now, if you follow EVERY line related to human relationships then men are permitted, and encouraged, to have as many wives as they want. So an alternate interpretation is to only have ONE male partner, and many female partners because you would not be lying with women as you laid with men since your numbers are different. It just goes to show that translating ancient Aramaic is open to everyone, though it is clearly not an exact science. Of course, you should also know the history of the "scripture" you adhere to with such steadfast certainty. Society has changed in the last 5000 years of recorded (recorded, remembered, or invented?) history. Luckily, its rules have not.

According to 18 Leviticus 29, “Whoever commits such abominations shall be cut off from among their people.” We still do that one. Check out the statistics on today's prison populations. And in 19 Leviticus 15, “You shall do no injustice in judgment” we clearly have a perfect system of laws and a perfect system of jurisprudence. Innocent people have never been sentenced to prison and the state of prisons is perfectly humane. Right? And today we are free to marry multiple wives. Women who are unfaithful are still ritually slaughtered while men who are unfaithful aren't really unfaithful at all. Polygamy is endorsed by our laws. Isn't it?

But let's get back to the LGBTQ community. 19 Leviticus 19 tells us that “A garment of mixed linen and wool shall never come upon you.” Somehow, I don't think the gays invented poly-blends but I'd have to study fashion history. I wonder if Tim Gunn is busy?

20 Leviticus 13 is more difficult to refute. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Here's my response. Don't lie. I try to be as honest as possible – with men and women. But, this is just a rehash of 18 Leviticus 22 with the added death penalty. See above.

This brings us, then, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: two cities destroyed by God when the angels he sent to investigate the cities were not turned over to the Sodomites by Lot who wished to “know them.” “Know them” has been reinterpreted in the New International Version to state “have sex with them.” It must be said that if I knew my neighbour was hosting a couple of divine beings in his house, I would want to meet them – to know them, if you will. It may be out of jealousy, or out of a selfish need to experience the divine. That being said, I don't think I would be particularly aroused by the idea. In fact, I would be scared out of my wits. Fear and sexual arousal rarely go hand in hand. Rarely.

Anyway, I am beginning to feel like this diatribe has been rather biased in terms of gender. 1 Romans 26-7 states that “God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” While it mentions women being contrary to the natural order, it really only damns men with any specificity. And yet, these are men who refuse to believe Paul, an apostle of Christ, preached the word of God with any authority. They essentially said, “Paul, I know the word of God as well as you do.” Then they went about lusting after same sex partners. Well, if someone calls you an idiot there is little chance you'll speak well of them. It sounds like Paul's version of “That's so gay.”

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Fundamentalists have used this statement to suggest that God sat down and wrote the Bible – or at least controlled the hands which wrote it down. And I quote: "Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Our sense of morality, and the metaphorical texts which permeate our understanding of divinity, is inspired by the divine. But if we follow the fundamentalist interpretation, the words are literal and unalterable. It is highly ironic that these same fundamentalists have revised the Bible according to their own contemporary belief structure almost generationally.

So, I, and others, have done your homework to ensure you are better armed to deal with the fundamentalists who seek conflict in order to further an agenda of hate and cruelty. Do with it as you will. I do urge you, however, not to seek the conflict. Simply be prepared to respond. If I have learned one lesson in this life, it is to let the offence initiate their own defeat. Remain grounded and focused and simply reorient and redirect the vitriol being spewed in your direction. Eventually, the offender will talk her/himself into a corner.

That's So Gay

I want to point out that I have not received official or professional advice. There has never been a representative who has suggested I should work from the closet. The advice has come from peers who have been left with the impression from others that being "out" can delay career aspirations. The reasons are irrational, but logical. The suggestions make sense, in a completely irrational and irresponsible way, but it makes me feel marginalized. And it makes me wonder, what are we teaching youth by being closeted?


I was reminded this evening about the internal struggles of teens and their sexual orientations. Both men and women, during adolescence, spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure out where they lay on Kinsey's scale.

Am I heterosexual? bisexual? homosexual? omnisexual?

The reminder came in the form of an intelligent, mature, young man working his way through about a half-dozen permutations of that very struggle before my eyes. He asked questions. I offered insights. He made statements, all of which were painstakingly phrased to ensure nothing was revealed and very little commitment was made. He wanted answers that I could not - or, rather, would not - give.

Now, I could offer some grandiose rationale for not giving him the answers he was crying out for - in his own silent way. I could suggest that we must all live through our own trials. That we cannot become fully actualized adults without enduring the challenges inherent to high school or, more broadly, adolescence. I could say that by giving him my answers, I might change his own natural reactions to any number of stimuli. I might unintentionally alter the choices he would make without my interference. I might have a hand in changing the very direction of his life by making him reconsider his own inclinations in favour of the voice of experience. Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened. It isn't what seems to keep happening...

You see, it has been suggested that I should keep my mouth shut where my sexual orientation is concerned. I should pass because I can. But, the way it effects me is something I am willing to endure. It is the way it effects those who are looking for a role model - the kind of thing their peers take for granted - that I find most troubling.

Adolescents who are struggling with their sexual identities need to know that there are adults who have shared their strife and have excelled. It isn't enough to read success stories or to see media representations of the ideal outcomes. People need to see real life examples - people they meet and know - in their real lives. Of course, I know that it is not my place to lead someone to a conclusion or decision, implying one way is the way things are or should be (that's the job of organized religion). And I am at a loss. I don't know what I am supposed to be feeling.

It is laughable that people think homophobia is on the way out when their peers are openly encouraged to suppress their sensibilities. My comrades live their lives without regret or concern over the potential discomfort of others. They do not have to internalize the possibility of misunderstanding or try to pass off homophobic remarks as "a different generation" or "not knowing any better" all for the good of the hypothetical overreaction to openness and honesty.

So I am still at a loss. And I could use some advice. Any takers?

Where do we go from here?

   Every now and then I’m reminded why I still need to be a little angry, why I still need to be outspoken. Today, even in a nation where gay marriage is recognized and perfectly legal, children are still struggling to find that sameness that everyone else takes for granted. Children are still struggling to find hope. And we need to give them that hope. Without it, many will not survive the struggle to persist through their tumultuous teenage years into adulthood.

   In 1981, Harvey Milk was murdered for being openly gay and for fighting for gay rights in the city of San Francisco, California. There have been times in my life when I have found myself speaking out against my peers who wear their sexual orientations on their sleeves. Personally, I think my sexual orientation is just about the least interesting thing about me. And yet, I still find myself worried about the reactions of others when I walk into a public environment – a bar, at the beach, and the workplace. So while I am not externally identifiable as gay to most, I have found myself wondering when and where it is appropriate to self-disclose my sexuality. As an educator, is it not my responsibility to offer my students the benefit of my experience? But what about principals who won't hire an openly gay teacher for fear of a public backlash from homophobic, uneducated parents? It's a pretty big question mark...

   So I find myself wondering what the right move is for me and for my peers, students, friends, and family. How can I best represent the interests of all of the people around me, while representing the very truths that underlie my own needs and wants? Usually I'll write a blog with many of my own conclusions. In this instance, I am really hoping for some input. I don't have all of the answers, and the ones I do have lack the same level of certainty that I typically possess for my conclusions. Man, I hate uncertainty.