The student alleged that Sheldon said maternal stress caused male homosexuality, and that “there aren’t any real lesbians — that women just get tired of relationships with men.” Further, the student said that Sheldon told the class, “there are hardly any gay men in the Middle East because the women are treated very nicely.” The student also said that Sheldon added this advice: If men wanted a strong son, they should treat their wives nicely; if they wanted a “sensitive” son, they should abuse their wives.

The article quotes Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan on the free speech question.

“If Sheldon said, ‘Here is what scientists are thinking,’ that’s probably protected. But if she said ‘There aren’t any real lesbians or gay men in the Middle East,’ that isn’t protected.

As provocative as Sheldon’s alleged comments are, what’s interesting here is the line between offering opinions and storytelling versus discussing something that’s in a textbook.

We often tease out analogous events or issues when leading a discussion on a particular text. Making up a scenario or retelling a real episode or “story” often helps bring the point or question to life. Then there’s offering an opinion on something. I try not to do that, and if I do, I try to give a disclaimer that carefully distinguishes my view from, say, William James’ view. Then there’s constructing arguments from the text or the position the author is discussing (i.e., someone else’s argument) or is making himself. I try to analyze those arguments and draw them out. Both sides. Now we’re at a meta-meta discussion of the issue.

What I’m pondering is whether I’ve been guilty of the same behavior. I know, it’s highly unlikely, but I always like to “examine myself” when I’m tempted to engage in finger-pointing. I really don’t think I do what Sheldon is alleged to have done. I think it’s a reminder, though, to stay far away from this line lest one inadvertently cross it.

For some the central question is the biblical one, of course. But for others, the key question is the absence of equality. This is going to be an interesting discussion–at least I hope there is a discussion–within the African American church when, not if, when the Prop. 8 case arrives at SCOTUS-ville. The issue for the Church is one’s understanding of “biblical truth” and how it informs one’s vision of social justice. If that’s the paradigm, then there’s going to be some serious mental gymnastics one does on this issue. And as the pastor mentions, thinking that one has a lock on interpreting scripture can lead to an extreme case of hubris. There’s part of the rub, at least. One is sure that the Gospels, for instance, demand a certain action or attitude. A case of hubris or not?

Thompson is challenging one of Cott’s ideas that modern marriage laws are shaped now by civil law and social developments; the defense attorney is pushing hard on the anti-gay marriage thesis that heterosexual marriage is tied to history and religion restricting unions to men and women. He repeatedly suggested in his questions that marriage laws are tied to Christianity. At one point, asking Cott about monogamy being the result of the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, the professor got a little impatient. “I know very little about Jesus Christ and his apostles,” Cott shot back at Thompson.

But with younger evangelicals and broader society showing greater acceptance of homosexuality, many evangelical churches can expect, at the least, a deeper exploration of the issue.”Highlands Church represents a breakout position, where you have a gay-affirming stance that moves beyond the traditional kind of liberal-conservative divide,” said Mark Achtemeier, an associate professor at University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). “I’m finding lots of moderate conservatives just think there’s something wrong with a default position of excluding gays from the life of the church.”

I brought up the topic of social justice and gay marriage in my PHIL 101  Intro to Philosophy class. Would King, for instance, think the different treatment of same-sex couples would be similar to a segregationist discrimination? I think on the civil front things are much fuzzier than on the religious front. And by that I mean only that the “battle lines”, if I can put it that way, are very clearly drawn, in many adherents’ views, and on both sides of the issue, on scriptural grounds.

I did hear her speak once.  When I was at the Claremont Graduate School she gave a lecture. I have to admit that I didn’t understand what she was railing about. I remember that she just seemed “angry”. She used lots of post-modern-y words that were well beyond my Thomistic-Aristotelian mindset and vocabulary.

The place was packed, though. At least 500 or 600 hundred people. Maybe more. Some people were quite upset with what she was saying; others cheered her on. She seemed angry, yes, but also unfazed and completely at ease with herself. When? This must have been around 1993 or 1994.

Blogger Julian Real has a very thoughtful remembrance of Daly on her site, A Radical Profeminist. And another from the glbtq Encyclopedia. The NY Times obit is here which begins:

Radical feminist Mary Daly, the iconoclastic theologian who proclaimed, ”I hate the Bible,” and retired from Boston College rather than allow men to take her classes, has died. She was 81.

Here’s a photo of Daly on the Boston University website’s “Gallery of religious thinkers and figures“. Quite an astounding assembly!

With a historic endorsement from the Mormon church, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously passed a pair of ordinances making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment.

Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way they are drafted to carve out exceptions that protect the religious freedoms of all churches, according to Under the exceptions, for example, a church owned school that sets rules based on its religious principles would not be forced to change them if the ordinance becomes law.