Readers who tire of imaginative Exodus propaganda about Brokeback Mountain are invited to read David Ben-Ariel’s commentary, Brokeback Mountain Blues: Thoughts of a celibate, gay Christian. Ariel’s analysis is antigay (as I define the term) but his observations are practical and rooted in the content of the movie, not in sloppy political stuntwork.
I’ve watched Oprah have men on her program who have been heterosexually married for years, with children, who suddenly “discovered” they were gay, and in “finding themselves,” lost their wife and children. What about the commitment to their marriage they made before both God and man? I don’t care if you’re gay or straight, if you make a vow you should keep it! Why make victims of the truly innocent wife and children who didn’t ask for it? Of course some will say they’re all victims, and that’s true to an extent, but even if someone has “feelings” they should control them or nip wrong thoughts in the bud — not permit them to take root and grow.
True, some people who suffer from a compulsive or unhealthy behavior should develop self-control. And people who have made solemn covenants with other people must take their responsibilities seriously. But this is a point that gay people have made as well.
Mr. Ben-Ariel also asks:
Why do some find it fascinating for a man to cheat on his wife with another man, but would stone someone who was going through his “midlife crisis” sleeping around with younger women to prove some point to himself?
Good question. But Mr. Ben-Ariel’s column prompts me to ask two related questions:
- Why do some find it fascinating for a man to cheat with another woman, but stone a gay married man or a movie about that man?
- Marital cheating is wrong. But what about the remaining choice to be made by the couple — between honest and upfront divorce, and a marriage with little or no sexual attraction or activity?
Mr. Ben-Ariel’s commentary may not be gay-affirming, but it assesses the movie for what it is and asks some relevant questions.
Hat tip: David Ben-Ariel. Conclusion slightly revised.
Mike,
I am editor of the UPI Religion & Spirituality Forum, which makes me the one who receives and marks up for publication, David Ben-Ariel’s columns.
The issue of a person struggling with their sexual identity interests me, although I don’t see David as struggling with homosexuality as much as he is struggling with his sexual purity, as called for by his religion. His situation is somewhat similar to a hetero man struggling to remain pure to his wife in the face of the world’s temptations, although I do recognize that being gay puts the problem in rather different territory.
This is not to say that he doesn’t also struggle with the presence in him of homosexuality itself. He is a Christian (a Christian Zionist to be exact, which adds whole dimensions of complexity to his worldview, but that’s another story). And as as Christian, he has to also deal with the Bible’s admonitions against homosexuality, which judge him for his feelings even if not acted upon. A hetero who fights temptation is noble, whereas a gay has access to plenty of guilt just for existing with gay urges.
It’s not easy being David Ben-Ariel.
Of course some Christians see the Bible as not in opposition to homosexuality. My heart goes out to anyone who honestly and open struggles with issues as personally foundational as the ones David faces — issues complicated by HIV, which he wrote about in his first column for us.
As he spills his guts out for the world to examine, his writing becomes a Rorschach for each reader. In that sense, for what he contributes to the ongoing discussion, his suffering can perhaps help others.
This my first ever visit to your site. Thank you.
rgds,
Larry Moffitt
Editor
UPI Religion & Spirituality Forum
Larry,
Thank you for those insightful comments. And in most respects I agree with you, other than with one small item:
“And as as Christian, he has to also deal with the Bible’s admonitions against homosexuality, which judge him for his feelings even if not acted upon.”
The admonitions in the Bible (Leviticus, etc.) are only against specific acts. At the time, the writers did not conceptualize a gay person or a person who was emotionally oriented towards the same sex.
While this may seem harsh in modern terms, it also limited the “abomination” to particular sex acts and not to feelings of homosexuality.
I suppose the “lust in your heart” provision might suggest that there is a component of sin that does not include the consumation of the lust, but I think most would agree that this specifically refers to dwelling on a thought as opposed to feelings of attraction – otherwise free will is negated.
Nonetheless, I can recognize and appreciate David’s dilemma and I also respect and honor his decision to live according to his moral code. I may not agree with his interpretation of Scripture or his understanding of God and the message of Christ, but I commend him for seeking to live according to what he believes.
I certainly hope both you and he feel welcome to participate here. Your input is valuable.
Hey,
Just wanted to let you know that I referenced this posting in one of mine: afraid you may not like it…
C.R.A.Z.Y. Mountain
Leonard,
The only thing I didn’t like about your posting had nothing to do with us. You’re right, BBM has been analyzed here as a morality play – which (in my opinion) it is not. But XGW – due to its overall focus – tends to discuss morality more than most.
What I objected to was your determination of the occasional laughing at the “Alma sees the kiss” scene as being malicious. Personally, I think you are completely off on that.
I’ve only had one person tell me he laughed there and he said it was an automatic reaction to an unexpected scene but certainly not out of some bad intent. It quickly morphed into sorrow for Alma’s feelings.
Though I’m inclined to think I’m rights (who isn’t?) my survey of one isn’t very scientific. I’m curious if you’ve spoken with anyone at all who did laugh to see if their feeling was malicious.
Timothy, following on: (and I’m in agreement BTW)Many people do giggle or laugh at awkward or confronting moments — even at funerals. Giggles at such moments (often) seem inappropriate, but it’s simply a release mechanism and not a sign of being malicious or uncaring etc.This is particularly the case in South-East Asia — (and from extensive exerience…) Indonesians and Thais will do a distinct giggle at such times. Thais often do it when some whitey attempts but mangles their difficult language. Someone would be very wrong to simply interpret the Thai listener as making fun of the farang — they more prob. really appreciate the effort and use the giggle to diffuse the “errors” you made.Either that or you walked into a restaurant and asked someone to serve you grilled shoe with satay sauce… that WASN’T me, we witnessed someone do that 🙂
I truly wish you were right: but when you are there you feel it – and it was not a nervous giggle – I have seen other references to this but (conveniently) forget the source.
I have also had enough experience in and around the gay movement (since 1977) to be able to suss into this stream all to well – a certain easy misogeny shall we provisionally call it?
(I could bore you at length about early discussions in the what was then “Gay liberation Union” (GLU).