Monday's edition of The Spectrum ran a letter from IVCF representing the club's opinion on its flagrant violation of SA rules, subsequent suspension, and outright refusal to amend its constitution despite being given months to do so. The letter's ending paragraph says, among other things, "We look forward to your thoughtful response," and "We desire continued dialogue." Whelp IVCF, you asked for it. In the interest of continuing dialogue with and about the only openly prejudicial SA-affiliated organization, I present the following.
First off, I found the rhetoric of the letter rather curious. There are a number of appeals to campus diversity and "opposing viewpoints" and why these are good things. Direct quote: "For many years university campuses in the U.S. have made space for opposing viewpoints and lively discourse on a variety of ideas." Yes, I agree, despite the fact that sentence sounds like the introduction to a high school issue essay. Nice use of rhetoric and vague sweeping statements, IVCF.
However, the fact that IVCF is using the notion of campus diversity to defend its own refusal to allow for diversity within its own club is hypocritical, sanctimonious, and weapons-grade stupid. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Secondly, there's not one mention in the IVCF's overlong letter to the fact the club actually broke SA rules. That there's still some gray area in this matter is ridiculous. The issue of whether or not "leaders" within a club are also "members" of said club is something a 6-year-old could ascertain. The issue of whether a club can bar certain members from holding certain positions based on things like sexual orientation is textbook discrimination, plain and simple. The fact that other SA-affiliated clubs – even other religious clubs like MSA – have never attempted to implement similar "doctrinal" (read: discriminatory) policies should tell you 1) how clear cut the SA rules are about these things, and 2) how stupid IVCF is for trying it.
Also conspicuously absent from the IVCF letter are the words "gay," "homosexual," and "homosexuality." IVCF is still framing this as a "doctrinal" issue, not a gay rights or discrimination issue (and it's pretty easy to see why). Well, IVCF, because you insist so vehemently on the doctrinal purity of your organization's leadership, I would like to call for a full investigation of the IVCF's e-board. I strongly suspect that there are members within it who have, at some point, eaten shellfish (forbidden Deuteronomy 14:9-10), eaten pork (Leviticus 11:7-8), worn clothing of two different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), shaved or cut their hair (Leviticus 19:27), or gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28).
There are also, from what I understand, women on IVCF's e-board. In the name of doctrinal purity, I'm calling for them to either resign or for the members of IVCF to force them to do so, as 1 Timothy 2:12 (which is in the New Testament, for those of you who pull that "Old Testament doesn't count" BS, even though for IVCF the Old Testament clearly does count, at least when homosexuals are involved) clearly states: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Because everything I've just called for obviously won't happen any time soon, and what IVCF did clearly was based on Jackson's homosexuality more than any sort of doctrinal fidelity, I'd like to end with a few words about being gay.
Being gay isn't a choice. If it was, it would mean either 1) you have, within your conscious control, the ability to start being attracted to and sexually aroused by members of the same sex, or 2) you're always aroused by and attracted to members of the same sex, and you just choose not to act on those impulses.
I posed that same argument in a column at the end of last semester, and followed it by offering the homophobes in the audience a night of gay sex with yours truly. I still haven't received any takers. Not one Evangelical Christian was willing to bite the awkward boner bullet to forever prove his own rectitude, which is curious given how convinced of their own rectitude IVCF, its members, and its supporters seem to be and how insistent they are that those who aren't convinced of said rectitude accept it. (Of course, this is due to the fact that no one, not even Evangelical Christians, have conscious control over their sexual yearnings, which sort of throws a massive wrench into the whole "it's a choice" argument.)
Homosexuality is also perfectly natural, despite (often religious) insistence to the contrary. Hundreds of species – everything from monkeys to elephants to dolphins to giraffes to dragonflies to penguins to ducks – have been observed engaging in same-gender non-procreative sex.
Homophobia, however, has only been observed in one species.
You tell me which one is unnatural.
Email: eabenoit@buffalo.edu
