Sue
Baca
Writing 122
Essay #1 Analysis-Evaluation
15 March 2002
Tunnel Vision
Decter, Midge. “The Madness of
the American Family.” From Policy
Review Sept./Oct. 1998.
Rpt. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and Reader. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius
and Carolyn E. Channell. 3rd ed.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield,
2000. 440-449.
In the essay, The Madness of the American Family
by Midge Decter, many interesting points were brought up concerning how
Americans, who are so fortunate, have gotten themselves into such a
predicament as to debate what ‘family’ means.
Decter's main claim is that by marrying and raising a family in the
traditional way, we will fulfill the destinies intended for us, which will
give our lives full meaning (449). She explains that we can't fool
Mother Nature and if we try to, we will end up with all sorts of problems
(445). If we live solely for ourselves and not be part of a traditional
family unit, then again problems are created (449). Finally she notes
that we need to relearn the old lessons our forebears knew about time-honored
limits (449). Decter's claim is narrow, as well as some of her reasons
she puts forth in establishing her claim. Plus, she does not talk to a
diverse audience and therefore I cannot recommend her essay.
One
strength Decter brought to her essay was the background information on
herself. Before the essays starts, an important fact is mentioned.
The readers learn that she has a life outside of her deep family
commitments. She is a writer, social critic. and a trustee of the
Heritage Foundation, and these things are important to know as they added
weight to her argument. Her character is seen as honorable because she
is interested in the family unit, free enterprise, limited government,
traditional American values, and a strong national defense, which are the same
things most Americans are interested in too.
Decter's
main claim about how life should be lived--that only by marrying and being
"part of the onrushing tide of generations" can our lives have full
meaning--is very limiting. This doesn't include the possibility that
people may be very fulfilled living a single life. It also doesn't
address other situations that create single life such as death of a spouse or
divorce. After someone loses a spouse to death, they may not want to get
married again, and the same goes for divorced people, especially if there is
abuse present in the marriage.
One
of the main points that Decter states is that we can't fool Mother Nature
because our very bodily constitutions are aimed toward having a family (445,
446). If we try to change the natural order, problems will develop
(445-446). Many people would agree with this reasoning because there is
a vast amount of scientific evidence to support the fact that when one small
component of creation is missing or out of sync, this causes a chain reaction
of other problems. When looking at the common cold and what that small
problem does to us, we can then reason that if our lifestyle is not in line
with the natural order, havoc will also follow. This brings up the
questions of whether people living singly are living out of the natural
order. If people who are single know they don't want to get married, for
any reason, they should not be forced because they are hurting no one, and in
fact may become miserable, as well as their spouse, if forced to marry.
Most people today are still interested in being married and raising a family
in the traditional way, so if a small portion of individuals want to live
singly or marry without having children, there is not threat to the extinction
of the human race as she fears (445).
Decter
notes that problems also follow people if they choose to live life
concentrating on "Self" (446). Most people would agree that
concentrating solely on oneself is selfish and not a desirable attribute, and
that could cause problems, as no one enjoys the company of a self-centered
person. What she implies about single people is that they are selfish
for not being part of a family because she makes no exceptions to her idea
that all people should marry and have a family, and if they don't, they are
not fulfilling their lives (449). She does not seem to consider that
single people can be unselfish, fulfilled, and happy. Her tone is rather
light but serious at first, but as the essay comes to an end, her tone changes
to be cutting as she describes men and women waking up to becoming
"real" husbands and wives (449). Her view is very narrow at
this point and I imagine that if there had been single people in her audience,
they would have been offended.
Lastly,
Decter passionately appeals to our sense of emotion as she talks about our
forbears' sufferings and the age-old lessons that they learned about the
limits of life (449). We do live in a day and age where the limits of
living have been greatly enlarged compared to those of our forbears. The
comforts we have, the choices we can make, and the health that we enjoy can be
taken for granted, but this does not necessarily tie in with whether we are
married or not. Decter seems to think that we have lost our thankfulness
and respect for our easy way of life and that is all tied up in the fact that
we are given too many choices (447, 449). She doesn't want marriage to
become a casual choice, like deciding what to wear for the day (445), but
rather the most important choice we can make. Most people would agree
that marriage is a very important choice to make. But what they don't
agree with is that it is the only choice to make. She believes we
need to relearn to be thankful and to respect the wisdom of our forbears
(449). She states that because of our prosperity and the choices before
us, many young people are living "at bottom unnatural lives" (445),
and that has created a dangerous swamp of "willfully defined individual
freedom" (446). Also, this is the reason why single people are
always running to therapy, doing drugs, mutilating their bodies, seeking phony
excitements and emotions (446). Most people would not agree with her
reasoning that these problems are all due to people being single. Some
may be due to selfish individuals but those individual can also be
married. In fact, the reason most people need therapy is because of
relationship problems, married or not, not because of the lack of
relationships. Today's problems are complex and do not have one answer.
In
conclusion, I think Decter makes good points in her essay except that they're
too narrow. Her goal was to not let the traditional family fade away
because if it does, she fears all of human existence could fade away. I
understand her urgency and the seriousness of the subject. But if she
had realized that most people are still drawn to a traditional family life
style, she could have viewed single people as less of a threat. As
stated before, the problems of today's society are more complex than what she
proposes. Most people of today, especially young people, do have
problems directly because of negative family issues. So if more effort
could be directed toward supporting families, not just having families, then
our society could function at a healthier level, which would then give our
lives their full intended meaning.
© Sue
Baca, 2002
Jason
Graham
Writing 122
Essay #1 Analysis-Evaluation
22 February 2002
Struggling with Rights
and Wrongs
Hamill, Peter.
“Confessions of a Heterosexual.” Esquire, August 1990. Rpt. The
Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and Reader. Eds. Timothy W.Crusius and
Carolyn E. Channell. 3rd ed. Mountain View, Ca: Mayfield, 2000. 505-508.
Upon I reading Peter Hamill’s “Confessions of a Heterosexual” I
was impressed to find an individual who did not embrace or shun his faults,
but merely exposed them. In Hamill’s essay he discusses how he has had to
reconcile with his homophobic past, as well as his ever changing feelings
towards gays. Even though Hamill’s views are changing and have changed, his
crass description of his beliefs causes
one to think just the opposite of what he is saying. I myself, like Hamill, am a heterosexual and a
liberal. I too have had to
truly confront my feelings toward homosexuals rather than hiding behind the
concept of liberalism and denying emotions that need to be resolved.
Like Hamill I am tired of violent and or abrasive “exhibition(s) of
theatrical rage from the gay movement” (510).
Even though I recommend Hamill to anyone interested in researching gay
and lesbian rights, I can’t not say I liked Hamill’s description of his
opinions finding him rude and even uncaring at times despite what he may be
been illustrating verbally.
Hamill grew up in the
forties and fifties, a time in our nation’s history when gays in America
were not allowed to be gay, it was a time of depression in more ways than a
financial one. Hamill’s initial experience with homosexuals
was minimal and scary. The men in his neighborhood who were gay paid
kids and young men for sex, not exactly an ideal way to be introduced into the
world of homosexuals. As Hamill’s puts it, “sexuality was crude and
uncomplicated: Men fucked women” (510).
While this bit of information helps the reader see how Hamill perceived
the world for part of his life, his blunt description causes the reader to
believe that he is unsympathetic; as the reader finds out later this simply is
not true. Still this statement does not allow the reader to identify as
closely with Hamill’s particular view.
Hamill describes the
frustration that he feels with the rash of gay pride protests, believing that
these demonstrations only have a superficial effect towards bettering gay
rights. Again I can say that I concur with the idea that a showy ruckus will
do little but ignite contempt and enrage all those opposing homosexual views.
Once again, however, Hamill lost his appeal by stating “I am tired of …
people who identify themselves exclusively by what they do with their cocks”
(510). How is the reader supposed
to separate Hamill’s contempt for over zealous gay movements from gays
themselves?
At one point in the essay the author explains how his recklessly
homophobic past has hindered him greatly in the present . As Hamill saw it his youth and as an enlisted member of the U.S. Navy,
gays were “predators and corrupters” (511).
He did not realize that some of his friends were gay. Hamill uses this
paradox as a kind of informative appeal; he befriended only those who had
similar set of morals ; it was
some of those same friends who turned out to be gay! The fact that Hamill has
not only accepted his friend’s choices in life but ,has also asked for their
forgiveness; reaffirms Hamill’s position on equal rights for gays once
again.
Even though Hamill’s views have changed his fear of AIDS nearly
brought him back to square one. Hamill, like the majority of people concerned with AIDS wanted an explanation, an answer even a
scapegoat. Hamill confesses that
he had to struggle with his earlier ideals and beliefs. Finally Hamill came to
the conclusion that gays and straights should simply unite to fight the plague
of prejudice; as everyone is plagued by AIDS. Ending on a somber note Hamill
concludes with an excusing look
at the amount of energy being wasted with ineffective demonstrations and
accusations; As Hamill states, “there are sadder developments in American
life, I suppose, but for the moment, I can’t think of one” (513).
Hamill, like many Americans, is simply trying to struggle or even speed
up the slow process of achieving equal rights for minorities. His disgust for
needless demonstrations may come across as mean or angry, but it is merely the
fact that we all reach a boiling point at which we tire of redundancy.
It is important to recognize that Hamill, in his individual way, is
truly making a difference; he is doing something that few have the courage or
patience to accomplish; he is changing one mind at a time, starting with his
own.© Jason
Graham, 2002
Melinda Gorham
WR 122, Dr. Agatucci
Essay #1 (Analysis-Evaluation)
19 February 1999
[Untitled]
Nickel, Jeffrey.
"Everybody's Threatened by Homophobia." Christopher Street 17
Aug. 1992. Rpt. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and
Reader. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 2nd
ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1998. 527-530.
Jeffrey Nickel's article,
"Everybody's Threatened by Homophobia" (527-530) will
be analyzed in this essay. This piece was published in Christopher
Street Magazine on August 17, 1992. Christopher
Street is a literary magazine of which the readers and writers are primarily homosexual. In his essay,
Jeffrey Nickel's main concern is to show his readers that a case
can be made against homophobia that will appeal to the interests
of heterosexuals. Nickel explains that humiliation, isolation,
and even killings occur due to our country's problem with
homophobia. He also educates us on what homophobia does to
others, "those who are perceived to be gay, afraid they
might be gay, and others who clearly aren't gay, but are forced
to feel bigotry's nasty bite" (527). Nickel informs us of
how young children have a difficult time discovering their own
sexuality and how friends of the same sex feel uncomfortable
expressing affection towards each other because of our society's
problem with homophobia. He also introduces cases in which
heterosexuals have been beaten because they were mistaken to be
gay.
I recommend that everyone, no matter
what their bias, should read this essay. Nickel's approach to
this problem is presented in a way that both homosexuals and
heterosexuals can relate to. His use of graphic stories in which
heterosexuals are the victims of homophobic hate crimes awakens
everyone. It proves to us that, like racism, hatred towards others
hurts our society as a whole, those dispersing the hate, and
those whom the anger is laid upon. One of his best examples of
this type of hatred is the story of the two male heterosexual
friends. The two men were walking down the street, one friend
with his arm around the shoulder of the other, when a pickup
truck struck him and seriously injured the man. The driver began
to scream and curse at him yelling such things as
"faggot" while the other occupant of the truck
proceeded to beat him over the head with a beer bottle. The
driver, set on hurting his victim, backed the truck up to where
the man was standing, crushing his legs between the rear bumper
and some nearby mailboxes. In the end, the victim's legs were so
severely injured that muscles, tendons, and skin had to be
grafted in order to repair them. Nickel finishes his story
explaining that, "during the entire incident the men on the
sidewalk were pleading with their attackers: 'We're just buddies;
we're not gay'" (529), and explains that one of the men in
the story was a married heterosexual father. This story clearly
reveals how homophobia affects everyone, no matter who you may
be. It is such an effective story because it shows heterosexuals
that their homophobic comments or actions can come back to haunt
them.
Although Nickel's essay is powerful, it
may come off as being a little too strong for some readers. His
tone used throughout the essay may only cause some homophobics to
become defensive on the topic, rather than hearing out his ideas
and points of view. An example of this tone is displayed when
Nickel replies, "Kids in this country must not only be
straight; they must make absolutely sure that they are not gay.
They shouldn't have to make sure" (528). If Nickel intended
for his essay to reach more than his usual homosexual readers, he
might have wanted to consider writing for a larger, more diverse
audience. This, in turn, would help people to be more willing to
hear what he is trying to say.
Nickel does an excellent job of making
his readers question their own actions and awkwardness towards
themselves and their friends. Many individuals have never
realized how homophobia affects their behavior towards each
other. When two guys hug, they know inside that it feels
uncomfortable and awkward; they just forget why. As Nickel puts
it, "If there were no stigma to homosexuality, this
stultifying paranoia just wouldn't exist" (529). He states that "Prejudice against homosexuality sharply limits how
all men and women may acceptably behave, among themselves and
each other" (529).
One problem Nickel doesn't consider in
his essay is how he may be offending non-violent homophobics.
After all, not all homophobics take part in gay bashing and yell
profanities at homosexuals. Some of these people have just
learned these beliefs from relatives, friends, or even the pastor
of their church, and adopt these opinions as their own. They learn
to believe that it is normal and acceptable to have negative
opinions towards homosexuality. Nickel really should have
considered who is essay might offend if he was planning on
reaching out to a more diverse audience.
Nickel's essay does a good job of
reminding the readers to reconsider the reasons for their own opinions. Those who are for
the elimination of homophobia are reminded why they believe this
with the help of Nickel's powerful stories. Everyone has
opinions, but many often forget why they believe in something so
strongly. Nickel's essay is able to bring such reasons to the
surface, leaving readers with a better understanding of their own
beliefs.
A weakness I noticed in Nickel's work
is how he bases his essay on experiences, not actual facts.
Nickel could have added in some statistics about the number of
homosexuals assaulted by homophobics, or maybe some results from
surveys based on why homophobics feel the way they do. It might
not have been as powerful if facts were thrown in to support the
negative affects of homophobia, but it might have opened some
minds of those who are against homosexuality. They would have to
take a look at the facts and consider them as relevant evidence,
whereas the stories maybe easier for them to disregard as
fiction.
I personally believe that homophobia is
a definite problem in our society, and that those who suffer from
this phobia could use a review on the "Golden Rule":
"Do unto others as you wish to be done unto you." However, I do believe that change cannot be
forced; therefore
proper education, reasoning, and compromise must take place. And
opinions of those on opposing sides must be considerate and
reasonable to reach a solution.
In conclusion, I highly recommend
Jeffrey Nickel's essay, "Everybody's Threatened by
Homophobia." Nickel does a good job of reminding people
about the opinions they hold while also presenting new ideas to
be questioned. His tone used throughout the essay is strong and
helps to grab the readers' attention. Although Nickel doesn't
reach out to a more diverse audience, his essay still exhibits
numerous supportive reasons for the need to eliminate homophobia
in our society. We must remember that Nickel's essay was intended
for the gay population which makes his focus on one type of
audience more understandable. The strengths outweigh the
weaknesses in this essay, resulting in an essay well worth
reading.
Jacelyn
Keys
WR 122, Dr. Agatucci
Essay #1 - Final Draft
19 February 1999
The
Enemy - Ignorance
Nickel, Jeffrey.
"Everybody's Threatened by Homophobia." Christopher Street 17
Aug. 1992. Rpt. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and
Reader. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 2nd
ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1998. 527-530.
Before
reading Jeffrey Nickel's essay "Everybody's Threatened by
Homophobia," I had never stopped to honestly evaluate my
feelings toward the homosexual community. I willingly admit that
everything about the essay made me turn a deaf ear towards its
message. The fact that it was published in Christopher
Street, a magazine that catered toward
homosexual readers and writers, and Nickel's openness regarding
his own sexuality only served to strengthen my resolve to merely
"get through" this assignment.
Though I
personally disagree with Nickel's beliefs and for the most part
the reasoning behind them, I have come to appreciate the manner
in which he presents himself and his beliefs. It is because of
this that I have chosen to give his essay a favorable review. I
am not, however, recommending it to the population as a whole.
Though not abrasive or verbally abusive to those with differing
opinions, this essay might not be well received by strictly
conservative audiences because of the nature of the subject
matter. I therefore recommend this essay to those honestly
seeking to challenge their opinions and beliefs.
In the
essay Nickel outlines the causes and effects that bigotry has on
our children, nation, and future. First he examines the causes
and corollaries that homophobia has on both individuals and
communities. He then looks upon, with irony, the suffering
inflicted upon heterosexuals because of homophobia.
I think
this essay's strengths lie in the manner in which Nickel presents
a very controversial matter, the emotional involvement that he
clearly portrays, and the ability the author has of involving and
challenging each of his readers.
Homosexuality
has long been a divisive topic of this nation. From the political
podium to the religious pulpit and every place in between, we see
people divided on the moral and societal acceptance of
homosexuals. In a world where hate spews forth from both
sides, it has been refreshing to read a work focusing on promoting
a solution, albeit one I do not agree with, but a solution nonetheless. I felt Nickel's essay was heartfelt and firm in
his own bias, yet surprisingly devoid of the hateful accusations
often read in many pieces of pro-gay literature. Nickel certainly
gives the impression that the heterosexual community and their
lack of conditional acceptance of homosexuality is to blame for
homophobia and the resulting hate crimes, yet it is just
that...an impression, not an "in your face" accusation.
The manner in which Nickel bridles his passion for a topic
obviously close to his heart is admirable. While strong and
unwavering in his convictions, he is not belligerent or cruel.
That is
not to say he is passionless in his portrayal of homosexual
struggles, quite the opposite. The power of the emotion portrayed
in this essay was a key factor for me. I believe it is very
important for an author to be passionately engaged in his writing
if he is to be effective in his purpose, whatever that may be.
This is especially true of Nickel's type of essay, which is
persuasive and defensive. He passionately persuades his readers,
through personal experiences and heart wrenching stories, while
at the same time fervently defending his position, in a
non-threatening manner. I feel that Nickel wrote convincingly
with passion, emotion, and dedication for his plight.
I was
impacted not only by the emotional quality of his writing but how
that was used to help the audience identify with his viewpoint.
Nickel,
through his use of highly dramatic examples - such as the
ridicule and subsequent embarrassment of a grade-school boy
thought to have a crush on another male class-mate and the brutal
murder of the heterosexual father thought to be gay - helps us in
some way, identify, if not agree, with his cause. Only the hardest
of hearts, upon hearing of these cruelties, could merely brush
them aside without emotion. We have all probably been in the
position of that child, ridiculed in public, and can understand
the embarrassment he must have felt, and whose heart would not
ache over the senseless murder of a father of four? Nickel
brilliantly exercises the emotional power of the pen. He quite
talentedly uses his readers' emotions and human compassion by
giving them something to identify with.
It is this
strength, the use of dramatic elements, that I feel also leads to
one of Nickel's weaknesses. Nickel relays only the most horrific
of stories. While I realize this was meant to paint homophobic
attitudes in as dark a light as possible, a touch more realism
would have made this a stronger essay. Examples from day-to-day
life instead of the just the worst possible scenario would have
perhaps given the essay a more concrete and unquestionable
quality.
No matter
what position you take on this issue, your enemy is ignorance - not
other people. The ignorance of your own feelings and beliefs, and
most importantly why you
believe them, poses a greater threat to society than either
homosexuals or homophobics. Ignorance causes people to lash out
blindly in anger, hate, and fear. This essay might just be the
tool to help people discover their beliefs and the reason behind
them. I was personally challenged to discover for myself why I
believed the way I do. I had to ask questions like "Do I
believe the way I do because it is simply what my parents
believe?" and "Am I afraid to discover a larger truth
than what I was comfortable believing?" - these questions
have no easily attainable answer but require a deep search of
one's soul. If one is afraid of these questions, I suggest
another essay.
© Jacelyn Keys, 1999
Andrew Elster
WR122, Dr. Agatucci
Analysis Evaluation Essay #1
28 January 1998
Analysis of
"Homophobic? Reread Your Bible"
Gomes, Peter J.
"Homophobic? Reread Your Bible." New York Times 17
Aug. 1992. Rpt. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and
Reader. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 2nd
ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1998. 538-540.
As a Christian, I was intrigued by Peter J. Gomes's
essay "Homophobic? Reread Your Bible." The title
grabbed my attention as an essay that was involving a basic
tenant of the Christian faith. My expectations were also high
because Dr. Gomes is a minister and professor of Christian morals
at Harvard University. After reading his essay, I can say that it
is clearly written and logically organized into three parts. In
part one, Gomes introduces his case by presenting some of the
current issues surrounding homosexuality. His case or main
argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is the
second part. Thirdly, Gomes concludes with a discussion on
interpreting the Bible, using it as support for his case.
Although Gomes brings up many points, the primary focus of my
essay will be aimed towards his main argument. Does Gomes
effectively establish his case that the Bible does not condemn
homosexuality? As Gomes puts forth his important challenge to
Christianity by using the Bible, I will also use the Bible in
analyzing his arguments.
By first inspection it would appear that he does a
fairly convincing job of establishing his case. As corroboration
for every point made, Gomes cites and quotes some Bible verses.
Upon further analysis, however, I would have to conclude that he
fails to establish his case.
Gomes, in presenting his case, casts doubt on what the
Bible actually condemns. He lists Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings
14:24, I Kings 22:46, and II Kings 23:7 as "simply
forbidding prostitution by men and women" (539). The
implication here seems to be that as long as homosexuality
isn’t practiced for money, it is permissible. However,
Deuteronomy 23:17 is the only passage out of the list given that
forbids prostitution as well as
homosexuality. The references from I and II Kings explicitly
involve Sodomites. God "simply" forbids both
homosexuality and prostitution. Gomes fails to establish a basis
for doubting what the Bible condemns.
Next, Gomes discusses what he refers to as the
"Holiness Code." Gomes cites Leviticus 18:19-23 and
20:10-16, explaining that while it bans homosexuality, it also
"prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of
seed in the same field, and wearing garments with two different
kinds of yarn" (539). He has arranged these items in such a
way that he is comparing sins punishable by death to health and
successful living laws. As a result of Gomes’s arrangement,
the issue is confused and the Biblical position against
homosexuality is made to seem absurd. This is similar to saying
that our laws against murder are absurd because we have laws
against jay walking. The Bible does not make the same
presentation. In fact, the verses Gomes cites deal only with the
perversions God calls abominations such as homosexuality, incest,
beastiality, adultery, and child sacrifice. It is in the later
chapters of Dueteronomy (Deut. 22-23:17) that God presents his
laws for living healthy productive lives which prohibit the
eating of raw meat, sowing two different seeds, etc. In this same
passage, God also lists the blessings that come from obeying his
law. The comparison Gomes made doesn’t work because all
parts of God’s law are important and intended for our
benefit (II Timothy 3:16-17).
Professor Gomes then says that Jesus did not concern
himself with homosexuality in the four Gospels (539). However,
this ignores an important aspect of Jesus’s ministry. Jesus
himself said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). In fact, he raised the standards
from outward actions to an inward condition (Matthew 5:22,27,39).
Jesus did not have to explicitly speak out against homosexuality
because it was already covered in the law. The purpose of the law
was to show us our sin and God’s unreachable standard of
holiness. Jesus came to bridge the gap between our depravity and
God’s holiness.
Gomes also talks about the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah. He states that Sodom and Gomorrah were not punished for
"sexual perversion and homosexual practice," but
"inhospitality…and failure to care for the poor"
(539). Luke 10:10-13 is the scripture reference he uses to
support his claim. This passage is about the instructions Jesus
gave to his deciples whom he was sending out. Jesus tells his
deciples that if they are not received by a city it will be
"more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that
city." (Luke 10:12) These verses are not about why
Sodom and Gomorrah were punished. They are a comparison of the
degree of punishment, rather than a comparison of actions. An
analogy might help clarify the comparison being made: A father
has two sons. One night the first son irresponsibly wrecks his
dad's car and is subsequently grounded for a month. Later the
father tells his other son that if he stays out past curfew his
punishment will be worse than his brother’s. Ezekiel
16:49-50 are Gomes’s next supporting verses. "Behold,
this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
It looks like Gomes has a point about the inhospitality of Sodom.
However, he neglects the very next verse which says,
"Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou
hast multiplied thine abominations
more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations
which thou hast done" (Ezekial 16:51 [emphasis mine]). The
Bible is very clear that homosexuality is an abomination. Since
the Genesis account portrays homosexuality as the problem, Gomes
fails to establish his case about why Sodom and Gomorrah were
punished. Gomes’s final thoughts deal with interpreting the
Bible. Having seen that Gomes creates doubt, causes confusion,
and misrepresents scripture, I wonder if this is what he means by
"our ability to interpret Scripture intelligently?"
(539). I agree with Gomes that we read the Bible with our
"prejudices and personal values" (539). Gomes is
correct that it is dangerous to "cloak" our views in
the Bible’s authority (539). But rather than trying to
"interpret Scripture intelligently" (539), we should
ask ourselves, "do we change the Bible, or does the Bible
change us?"
To Gomes’s credit, his essay was logically
organized, clearly written, and he consistently cites his
sources. However, Gomes failed to establish his case that the
Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Gomes is correct that Jesus
is the "liberating and inclusive Christ" (540) and that
the Bible is about "redemption, renewal, inclusion, and
love…" (540). But these are conditional on our
acceptance of God’s plan of salvation.
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. And such
were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians
6:9-11)
The Bible condemns much more than homosexuality. We
are all in desperate need of salvation. Fortunately, Jesus came
and paid the price that we might be liberated from the bondage of
sin.
© Andrew
Elster, 1998
Crista Harrison
WR122, Dr. Agatucci
Analysis Evaluation Essay #1
19 February 2001
The Hypocrisy of
Misinterpretation
Gomes, Peter J.
"Homophobic? Reread Your Bible." New York Times 17
Aug. 1992. Rpt. The Aims of Argument: A Rhetoric and
Reader. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. 3rd
ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 2000. 516-518.
In
the last decade, American society has erupted with controversy over gay/lesbian
rights and the effects of homosexuality, homophobia, and gay lifestyles on
Americans’ success as a country. In
the midst of this controversy stands Peter Gomes, a minister and professor at
Harvard University. In
“Homophobic? Reread Your Bible,” Mr. Gomes makes a valiant attempt to
unravel some of the strangle holds of homophobia in Christian American society.
He argues that Scripture is not a valid foundation for disapproval of
homosexuals or their lifestyles. He
states that the misinterpretation of Scripture is what causes homophobia and
what leads to hate crimes committed by American Christians against homosexuals.
He attempts to support his points by clarifying what scripture really
says about homosexuality and by explaining that fundamentalism is dangerous to
American society, both heterosexuals and homosexuals. He ends his argument by stating:
“...the same Bible that…is used to condemn all homosexuals and
homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion, and
love--principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and
responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as
well”(518).
As
valiant as Mr. Gomes’ attempt is at clarifying scriptural references to his
readers, it is based on his own misinterpretation, lack of evidence, and a
misleading argument for his readers. His
points are not supported by enough evidence to make the argument strong in the
face of controversy. Because of his
lack of evidence, I do not recommend Peter Gomes’ article as valid or worth
reading by any truth-seeking audience.
The
first mistake Mr. Gomes makes is this: he does not back up his scriptural
analysis with sound or logical evidence. He
bases it instead on other scripture, historical context, and his own
interpretation (which he himself claims is not a sound argument against
homosexuality). One example of this
lies in his analysis of the biblical account of the cities Sodom and Gomorra.
In his article, Gomes states, “...lest we forget Sodom and Gomorra,
recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice.
It is about in-hospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to
care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50...”(517).
As a reader, I was curious about what these scriptural references talked
about, so I located the references in my Life Application Bible.
Luke 10:10-13 in the New International Version of the Bible states:
“But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets
and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off
against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’
I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that
town.”
According
to just these three verses, it would seem that Sodom was destroyed for its
in-hospitality, but Mr. Gomes fails to include the context around these verses.
The context states that Jesus was instructing his messengers on what to
say to the towns that refused to accept the Messiah (Jesus himself). It is not
stating that Sodom suffered because of in-hospitality; it is just comparing that
city to those that reject the Christ. It has nothing to do with sexual sin or
in-hospitality, but everything to do with acceptance of the Messiah.
Mr.
Gomes also cites Ezekiel 16:49-50 as support for his theory but fails to give a
full accounting of what these verses say. In
his article, he quotes verse 49: “‘Behold, this was the iniquity of thy
sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and
in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the
needy’” (517). If he had
continued to quote his reference verses, the readers of his article would see
that verse 50 says: “They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (Life, Ezekiel
16:50). The same terminology as “detestable” can be found in context with a
New Testament reference to homosexuality in Romans 1:26,28:
…God
gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones…Men committed indecent
acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore,
since they did not think it worthwhile to retain knowledge of God, he gave them
over to a depraved mind, to do what
ought not to be done [Italics mine]
Mr.
Gomes’ second error lies in his own historical interpretation of St. Paul, who
wrote the Book of Romans. He cites
Romans 1:26-2:1 as being one of the “misinterpreted” scriptural references
used against homosexuality. Mr.
Gomes provides support for his claim in this quotation from the article:
“...St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman
culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to
Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He
was against...sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals” (517).
Mr. Gomes fails to point out to his readers that Paul was raised in the
strict code of the Pharisees, the Jewish leadership of the time. According to
“Paul,” an article found in Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia,
Paul’s father and mother were prominent Jews. Because he was raised in a
Jewish household, he logically would have been taught from the Old Testament
scriptures, which include the book Song of Songs. Song of Songs is an entire book devoted to the joys of
heterosexual, marital sex and sensuality. Paul
was not against sensuality in heterosexual marriage relationships, but anything
that was against God’s original design for that relationship, including
homosexual sex, extra-marital sex, adultery, animal-human sex, and incest.
Mr.
Gomes’ next mistake is his claim that “religious fundamentalism” is
dangerous. He states that
fundamentalism is intolerant, undemocratic, and defines “the other” (someone
not like them) as deviant (518). However,
he does not support his claim. Where
is evidence that “fundamentalism” is dangerous?
It is true that fundamentalist groups have been successful in defeating
political causes contrary to their own, but isn’t that exactly what the
“non-fundamentalists” do to the “fundamentalists”?
His logic is unclear in this section of the essay.
If he says that fundamentalists are intolerant, isn’t he in turn being
intolerant of me, a person who believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, and
who has based those beliefs on my own studies of the Bible?
This cycle that he suggests is a vicious, illogical circle of
intolerance. Instead of evening out
some of the chaos in the gay rights movement, he adds to the confusion.
And his final mistake is this: his argument is misleading to his readers.
When he states that “the same Bible that…is used to condemn all
homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal,
inclusion, and love…”(518), he does not give any scriptural references to
these concepts. Not only does he
not give any references; he also does not include context.
The
strengths of the article lie in Mr. Gomes’ title as “minister” and his
position at Harvard University. These two things give him an edge in the field.
Because of his title, he is expected, or understood, to have a sound
explanation of Scripture, and because of his position, he is to be highly
respected. However, as with most
topics, the most knowledgeable or respected person is not always right.
Mr.
Gomes also gives strength to his writing in his qualifying statement where he
says: “those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American
Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret (518).”
He must also include himself in this category.
The Bible is not his “alone to interpret” just as it is not mine.
Calling myself a “fundamentalist” does not automatically make me a
gay/lesbian hater and calling himself a “minister” doesn’t automatically
make Peter Gomes the authority on the subject he discusses in his article.
If
Mr. Gomes had chosen to back his opinion with sound, cited, historical (or even
logical) evidence, his article might be worth considering in the controversy
over gay rights. As it is, it
should have been published in the “Letters to the Editor” column of the New
York Times with the rest of the opinions.
I question the Times’ editor’s judgment in placing such an
insanely ridiculous article in his paper at all.
Mr. Gomes chose to speak out against a large and powerful group of
people. Unfortunately, he didn’t
seem to expect his Christian readers to challenge what he said by looking at the
context of his cited scriptures. This
article only adds confusion and chaos to an already chaotic, distressed, and
violent argument between homosexuals and the “religious right.”
Works
Cited
Life
Application Bible (New
International Version). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1991.
“Paul.”
Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia. Vers. 2.01. CD-ROM.
Compton’s
NewMedia, Inc., 1994.
©
Crista Harrison, 2001
