Desecration of icons

Dec 11, 2006 at 9:57 AM
Gay rights is a big issue right now - and has been to anyone not hiding under a rock for the last 20-odd years. It has become an untouchable issue, an issue where if you side for the iconic or old-fashioned, you're instantly labeled a homophobe or, at best, merely bourgeious.

I have seen two icons of hetero get twisted into a gay shape this week. Two completely and utterly iconic representations. One is iconic of the fruiting of life, the creation of a baby in the womb. The Holy Mother Mary.
The other is of the man's man who goes forth and multiplies, or at least seeds the requisite number of women, the uber-hetero Bond, James Bond - 007.

Mary and Joseph / Gary and Joseph

1. There is now a Gay nativity scene making national headlines. Joseph and Gary stand over the Baby Jesus in the Manger.

And there is no baby Jesus. Not only is it historically inaccurate - not matching the times in which the Bible took place - but it is Biblically inaccurate.

The Bible does not say this. Much as you wouldn't make Mary and Joseph be space aliens or camels, they aren't a gay couple. They are Mary and Joseph. Mary's had enough fights just to stay in the Bible (take a look at 4th century and 7th century history) without having to fight for her sexual orientation and even gender now.

What is the purpose of this nativity scene? Obviously, it is a powerful message aimed at the religious right that Gays feel they also deserve the right to marry and adopt children - or even to claim Christian values and religious rights. I applaude the message when pulled from its context. I believe in equal rights for ALL.

But again, what is the purpose of this NATIVITY scene? It is an obvious political and social message. And a powerful one -- but it is not an appropriate one. Who ever it is who came up with the idea of altering Biblical stories for political gain was being extremely disrespectful of the free worship that is an inalieable right of Christians and all Americans. Any scene from the Bible is held to be sacred in Christian religions. It is a violation of the basic respect one ought to pay to the religious beliefs of others to desecrate that with any off-message point.

007 - CASINO ROYALE

2. I am told that there is a gay love scene in the new Bond movie. Between two women or two men who are in the movie with Bond? No. Apparently, the new Bond actually has a love scene with a man himself. I haven't seen the movie yet but

Bond is ICONIC as the testosterone-driven, uber-male, manly man. Turn him into a gay-rights statement and you're not writing about Bond, James Bond. You're writing about someone else that you've created in order to please a new public or make a socio-political statement. You're saying "It's the new millenium, people. Grow up and face it." But that's not James Bond; that is a social statement. If Bond drove around in a hybrid car smoking pot it couldn't be less Bond-y. James Bond is uber-straight.


I must protest against these desecrations of icons. It is not as though these is only so much room in the world, and space must be claimed away by gays from the supposed opposition in order to have room to get people's attention.

We don't all have to be gay. Desecration of other people's icons only makes the one doing the smashing look bad.

Go ahead and get gay issues in the news. I don't want to avoid the issue. I don't have an aversion to living in the same world with homosexuals, or any one of them asking for equal protection under the law. Go for it. I would say I even have an "Ask, Tell" policy. Be honest about who you are. Make it known.

Just don't be rude about it to heterosexuals. Don't steal our icons. James Bond will be ruined for me now. He's so NOT gay that now I won't trust any of the plot elements. I won't see him as the same person anymore. I may not even go see the movie.

Don't be rude about it to the ultra-religious. Don't steal their icons. The purity of what Joseph and Mary did has been muddled up in the eyes of Christians everywhere. You just don't bash the icons of the religious amongst us. I am not Christian, but I can still see how utterly gauche that is.

It is intensely hypocritical to say "You MUST accept me" and then not accept (or at least leave alone) that which others hold dear, and their way of life. It is a massive violation of the Golden Rule.

0 comments