As a person who spent more than half my life in a country, Jamaica, known for its strong anti-gay  sentiments the question of the origins of anti-gay sentiments has been a recurring subject of my personal musings (and I will spare you the “some of my best-friends are ____ routine).”  So far I have come to believe that the same variables that supported the Crusades, the slaughter of the natives of “the Americas,” slavery, Jim Crow, “one hundred years of lynching” mostly carried out at church picnics, legalized beatings of women and children, the millions of American Christians that were members of the KKK in the twentieth century, Holocaust, and our continued segregated church in America, result in the justification of the death penalty for homosexuals. The two chief conditions are: 1. a system of thought that views difference as inherently dangerous and warranting a pre-emptive strike or exploitable- a tool to be used for our benefit, 2. unchallenged socializing agents/ agencies that buttress the aforementioned evolutionary or sinful impulses.

I know some will argue that homosexuality is a moral issue, a sin according Scriptures.  But this response clouds the issue rather than sheds light on it for me. First many of those who make the above claim also advocate for psychology programs (such as Exodus) to cure homosexuals, so is it a sin or sickness?  A more consistent argument is offered by those who view homosexuality as a wrong choice according to Scriptures.  I am aware of the frequently quoted list of prohibited sexual acts from Leviticus: incest, sexual intercourse with menstruating woman, a neighbour’s wife, another male or animals. But I am also aware that the Hebrew people whose blessing from God was to grow from a small family to a people “as numerous as the sand of the sea” placed a premium on the procreative aspect of sexuality. Hence, any sexual encounter that did not have procreation as the goal was taboo; Onan’s spilling his seed on the ground when copulating with his dead brother’s wife, Tamar, resulted in his death. Later Pauline text provide an explicit rationale,  Roman 1 indicates that homosexuality is unnatural but Pauline writers also argue in Corinthians 11 that short hair in women is unnatural (think of the kinky delicate African hair that readily breaks and was popular in Sub-Saharan Africa at that time and is still on my head). So what does unnatural really mean?

 So I guess I understand why Christians are divided on the subject of homosexuality but the visceral, fierce, hate-like response is something else. I can recall myself as a fourteen year old girl who gleefully pledged to participate in a violent anti-homosexuality rally to counter a rumoured pro -homosexual rally (fortunately for me neither came to pass). I was not consumed by the zeal of the Lord rather as a product of a mixed ethnicity, bipartisan, heritage the only people I could legitimately hate were homosexuals. Had I really been filled with the love of Jesus I would have treated “the sin” of homosexuality the same way Jesus did all sins; give up power over, incarnate, carry the cross, and as I am not Jesus point people to him- the only Truth.

Renegade- learning to hang around

In light of recent findings that black women are the least successful with online dating and my wish for an egalitarian partner, two weeks ago I registered with e-Harmony. Mine was an unpaid registration that consisted of answering questions, filling out a profile, and submitting two of my May graduation pictures during the free communication week-end (late December).  I was sent an estimated 100 matches (ethnic/racial breakdown: majority Euro-American close second African-American, one Korean and one Latino). As I was not a paying subscriber their pictures were concealed. I was intrigued by about four but I initiated contact with about twenty. In the e-Harmony system unless you specify a “fast—track approach” you go through four stages of structured communication which culminates in an open communication stage. Four  initiated communication with me, one made it to the third communication level and another to open communication both were African Americans.

• The first was a computer tech and youth minister of music, who sailed through the first two stages until premarital sex blew us off course. He sent a question about pre-marital sex and I selected the response that “I do not believe in premarital sex” then he selected “sex was okay if marriage was imminent.” My next question, a polite way of saying get lost was, “what is your theology of sex?” He abruptly “closed communication” and his stated reason was that our values were too different. The second “close match” was a cop who seemed to have all the right answers. I especially liked his response to the question about traditional gender roles where he wrote that as he could cook, clean, wash and change diapers the only role he wanted his mate to fill was to love only him. Was I in egalitarian heaven?
• Only open communication would tell. I called from a blocked number. Over the course of the conservation he ate, brushed his teeth, and apologized for doing so. He not so skilfully asked me about my immigration status.  He advised me that I would have more success on e-Harmony if my profile picture was the one of me in a spaghetti strap knee length dress rather than the one in cap and gown, to which I responded that I was not trying to attract shallow men. But what really sealed his fate was his take on egalitarianism. He became quite agitated, loud and incoherent when I told him that I believed everyone was equal. He argued that things that are different cannot be equal “women can have children and men cannot” (men can impregnate women ;-). To buttress his argument he stated that the word/bible said so.  I queried whether he an African -American male was equal to Euro-Americans and he stated that race did not impair one’s abilities. My second question was whether a neurosurgeon was superior to him a cop and he respond yes. After his rant I was silent, and realizing that something was amiss he apologized for becoming so worked up.  He indicated that he was pressed for time and needed to drop his child off. He said he was willing to discuss this further.  I appreciated his only slightly belated honesty (some men would have waited much longer) and closed communication.
• My take on e-Harmony? check out edatereview.com                                                                                                                                                                If you have seen the e-Harmony advertisements matches are allegedly based on more than “a picture and a paragraph” rather they are “based on 29 dimension of compatibility.”1. However these pre-screenings do not include background checks and you know us humans and honour systems. 2. Similarities in answers do not necessarily mean someone is a “highly compatible match” as responses are not necessarily honest or accurate. 3. Though Dr Warren is a psychologist the “29 dimensions of compatible questionnaire” does not measure psychological health 4. There are more women on e-Harmony than men. 5. Finally, I prefer the old fashion ways of  meeting “highly compatible matches;”  while living and doing  the things that make you feel most alive (not the ones you do for appearances) look out for the people doing them for similar reasons and viola your “highly compatible matches.”
• Renegade – “ One Love”