It is no secret that Americans, if not the entire
world, maintains an ideological belief that the male athlete is a superhero of
sorts. A man that has extraordinary
physical abilities that allows him to do things with his physical appendages
that the majority of us mere mortals can only exhibit deep in the gallows of
our minds via a vicariously voyeuristic perversion that is truly alive when we
watch the athlete perform on the grid iron, diamond, or hardwood. And because of these extraordinary abilities,
the athlete is able to garner attention, accolades, and a massive bank account
only rivaled by Fortune 500 CEOs, entertainers, and sheiks. The aforementioned is where the conundrum of
male homosexuality in sports morphs into a leviathan of hypocrisy, xenophobia,
and even exceptionalism. We, as a
viewing and paying audience, want to be able to control our heroes. We want our hero/athlete to be just like us,
and if he is not like us or doesn’t prescribe to our social, ideological, and
religious belief system, we feel duped.
We feel manipulated. We feel
conned. In America, we like those whom
we support to do as we say and what we want them to do, and at the least, we
want them to conform while they perform.
Jason Collins, the 12-year veteran center for the Washington Wizards,
has done all of these things, yet while he is being lauded as an activist for
Gay Rights, he is being condemned, and further marginalized, just the same.
Though
Collins is no all-star nor a future Hall of Famer, the fact that he is a highly
paid, professional athlete makes his disclosing of his sexual orientation (or
sexual preference, depending upon you subjective perception of homosexuality)
newsworthy, blog worthy, and fixture in media and social networking circles—at
least for the time being. What is
interesting is that since President Obama’s public stance in support of Gay
marriages our nation has been inundated with dialogue, both positive and
negative, concerning not only Gay marriage, but homosexuality in general. And, that is a good thing. And Jason Collins’
“coming out” in the revered public sphere of American athletics/sports is, by
some means, another way to champion the rights of gays as well as breaking down
barriers of discrimination so many homosexual Americans endure, both explicit
and implicit, on a daily basis. Collins’ Sports Illustrated article in which he
outed himself by stating, “I am Black…and I am gay” seems to suggest that he is
somehow correlating the discrimination and inequality heaped upon the African American
with the homosexual experience which seems to be far reaching. And,
I’m not so sure, “coming out” can be juxtaposed to other forms of inequality
that are solely based upon one’s physical aesthetics.
How can an employer not hire you if you are a homosexual if they do not ‘know’ you are a homosexual? Maybe I am a proponent of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’? Maybe your sexuality and sexual activity should be a personal thing, like your mate’s G-Spot or the fact that you abuse your wife or husband or children, either mentally or physically, or that you chug down a bottle of Smirnoff every evening after work to make it to the next day, or that you nasally scoff down five or six lines of Peruvian on a nightly basis to cope with your inadequacies, or that you eat a ‘family size’ platter of Popeye’s chicken while locked away in your bedroom to satisfy your pleasure principle. In my opinion, some things should be an individual’s own business.
I am concerned that when Gay individuals compare their movement to that of the African American Civil Rights Movement they are minimizing the sociopolitical and economic restrictions that exist when discriminatory actions persist because of one’s appearance. Black don’t come off, but you can hide Gay. For instance, unless one walks around adorned in the androgynous garbs of an Adam Ant or 1980s…and 1990s…hell, 2000s, you would be hard-pressed to readily identify one’s sexual preference via the natural visual aid we call appearance.
On the contrary, or to assume the role of devil’s advocate, The “coming out” of the first active same-gender-loving athlete in a major American sport has highlighted the matrix of misogynistic and patriarchal prevalence. The imperial romanticism of male genderizing has stitched a skewed stereotype in our minds of what masculinity is and looks like. As Collins makes his public projection, much of the buzz around is all is that fact that his body politic dismantles the stereotypical male queer. Imagine this 7-foot, 255 pound gargantuan marching in the next gay pride parade. This affirms our psychological and theological fears because our xenophobia and homophobia is grounded in a mythical sense of normativity. The reason that Collins’ remarks have gotten so much attention is because our culture cannot help but admit our fixation and fascination with male sex and sexuality (especially when posited in the lions of the black body). Much of this is grounded in our understanding of God and the Divine (more will be expressed in this regard later).
Furthermore, since most of us suffer from a psychological and sexual deviance and lopsidedness rooted in conquest and not complementarity or sincere adoration, we are sexually scratching and clawing to maintain our social and societal privileges. I believe these privileges (male and heterosexual) are the baseline for the suicide laps Chris Broussard attempted to run in his responsive commentary. The problem with his reflection, however, is that it has been affirmed by a group of people that he arguably indicted along with his condemnation of Collins’ sexual orientation. Broussard grounds his ideology in his theology while committing a common brand of biblical idolatry. To use the bible as a source of discrimination is farcical and all too normative.
In the midst of the tragic irony, several of
Broussard’s supporters have lorded and affirmed his critical commentary while
missing what Broussard would arguable call “the plank in their own eye.” Broussard’s approach to biblical sexual
ethics indicted many people who condemned homosexuality along with him but cast
aside his equal opportunity offense of premarital sex (which by definition of
several “supporters” Facebook profiles, pics and posts they are willing
participants in). To be clear, Broussard
has a human right to interpret his theology as he understands it. We all have a
biased and subjective construction of spirituality. But Broussard is misguided in thinking there
is a clear definition of Christianity in a bible that has a testament canonized
that preceded the birth of the “Christ.”
The early Hebrews were not Christian and Hebrew testament (which is part
of the bible might I add) is not reflective of Americanized, Westernized and
Europeanized views of the faith (even if they are spewed out of the mouths of
black commentators).
But I applaud that Broussard was attempting to be an
equal opportunity offender. Sadly,
however, people don’t take any offense to him indicting people who are sexually
active (heterosexually) and unmarried.
This could be because people feel his analysis of heterosexuality is
insufficient do to the cultural norms of promiscuity and sexual
liberation. But those same people feel
his pseudo-bible based belief relative to same gender relations is spot
on. Go figure.The truth is, the biblical context of sexuality ("adultery", "fornication" and "homosexuality") has been skewed and sadly misinterpreted for centuries. For instance, we equate adultery and fornication as "sex outside of marriage" but that is NOT the "Biblical" concept. The "Biblical" concept is that sex to a married Hebrew woman is adultery. However, men could have as many wives as they wanted, and sleep with as many non-married women, Hebrew and otherwise, as they wanted. Fornication was, conceptually, "sex for hire" or sex with a prostitute and was frowned upon Biblically because it usurped financial power from males and empowered females. The bible gives us no real "sex education" (i.e. Adam and Eve have sex and conceive Cain - was that the first time they had sex? Who told them how to "do it"? Why isn't it mentioned? Because the bible isn't concerned with sex and sexuality like we are... In other words, the bible projects sex as a means of procreation and human control through conquest. Paul said that “it is better to marry than to burn.” In essence, this suggests that if you are having problems with “lust” or promiscuity, the best thing to do would be to get married. How would you like that for premarital counseling today? Again, the bible is a BAD PLACE TO GET OUR SEXUAL EDUCATION! So let’s not try to use theology as a justification for negative critics because Jason Collins and any other same gender loving person is courageous enough to “go tell it on the mountain.”
No comments:
Post a Comment