The Gay Science

Speaking of links, an observation here pursuant to the local Christian "Family" Crusader Julaine Appling scored a couple, one from Rick Esenberg and the other via Emily Mills.

Interestingly, in their respective comments threads, Prof. Esenberg deleted one along the same lines as one that Ms. Mills let stand. The comments raise questions about Julaine Appling's own sexuality which, under any other circumstances, would be nobody's business except hers and not even remarkable.

But given her public notoriety as one of Wisconsin's highest-profile homo-obsessors, it's a matter of legitimate inquiry, at least. Esenberg wrote that the anonymous comment was "arguably defamatory." I don't know about defamatory, albeit the Shark is certainly entitled to administer his blog as he sees fit.

The comment at the Lost Albatross thread, on the other hand, leads here. Not quite anonymous, but not hard evidence either.

An outfit called the Maranatha Baptist Bible College has a "sermon" of Julaine Appling's archived at this link. But she objects to that description because, as she says, "I am not preaching, alright? I don't think that's an appropriate role for women."

If the rest of her remarks aren't preaching, then I don't know what preaching is. It's preaching related to the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, in solicitation of support for which Appling claims "God in His Providence touched me very distinctly and said, 'This one's yours, Girl.' And He, by His Grace, has enabled me at this point to do what He has asked me to do."

Did you know that God doesn't write Bibles anymore, He writes State constitutional amendments, through His personal scribes.

Therewith begins a 20-odd minute ramble on the subject of Genesis Chapter Two, which Appling apparently takes literally, right down to the creation-by-rib and the divinely selected role of women as the "help meets" to men. If you're looking for scholarly Biblical exegesis, you won't find it there. What you will find is an entirely credulous, literal acceptance of allegorical Middle Eastern folklore.

I don't get the obsession with homosexuals, which seems to be a feature of both fundamentalist style Christianity and political conservatism. Personally I don't think about gay people too often. Christian conservatives will often tell you they aren't so much concerned with gay people per se, but rather their focus is on "homosexual acts."

Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative Christian because, trust me, homosexual acts are about the last things I care to focus on.* It makes little sense to me why self-proclaimed anti-homosexuals would want to focus on homosexual acts because the only people who should be focusing on homosexual acts are, well, homosexuals.

I don't recall having any opinion about homosexuals at all, aside from the usual high school tittering, until I read the late Graham Chapman's mostly hilarious autobiography many, many years ago.

I say mostly hilarious because it does contain at least one serious moment,** where Chapman discusses his own homosexuality. Why are two men in love the objects of so much opprobrium, Chapman wondered, when what's needed in the world is more love, not less. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.

Wasn't the main Biblical character that Christians claim to follow all about the love, also? There's more than a little hypocrisy at work within these condemnations of homosexuality. And that hypocrisy just might be a manifestation of some deep closeting.

* The male configurations, at least.

** Apart from Keith Moon nearly falling off the side of a hotel attempting to retrieve a bottle of gin from the adjacent suite.