i'm fascinated by the ways people identify themselves.

kinda like the a-rod entries, this one doesn't seem to fit the pattern of content or style that i seem to have established for what i write here, but i figured if i spent the time and thought on it, i might as well post it here.

so anyways, identity; i think the whole thing started in a sunday school class when i was in sixth grade, the big discussion question that day was this:

does what you do define who you are, or does who you are define what you do?

the easy answer, of course, is the conditioned response. think about when you introduce someone or when someone introduces you, generally it's name followed by occupation. beyond the first glance, however, it's a tricky and loaded question, and whichever answer you choose is the one that is true, likely because it's one of those questions that gets right to the core of epistemology, it exegetes a presupposition. what i mean is that that question forces a person to contemplate what it is that is truly foundational about their essence.

so anyways, what sparked this whole train of thought here was an article that i read a week or so ago about gay marriage, more specifically gay marriage from the viewpoint of homosexual clergy. to be really honest, i'm fantastically ambivalent about the whole thing, i mean my opinion is what it is and all i'll say here is that i don't support a constitutional amdenment that would define marriage, but how the whole thing is fleshed out is what i'm particularly ambivalent about, at least in the political sense. back to the point, what fascinated me in reading this article is the disparity in the significance of sexual orientation in defining identity between heterosexual people and homosexual people.

orientation, however, is only where the whole thing starts, because in the whole debate, what people are seeking is the right to have behavior, not simply orientation, legitimized and sanctioned by the state. the cultural shift that's paved the way for this is due, in large part, to a couple of particular developments. first, there's the fact that autonomy has been anointed by our culture as chief among the virtues, bascially that means that the validity of actions based on individual personal convictions are, in the vast majority, not to be taken to task. in our culture, infringing on someone's right to make their own decision borders on the unconscionable. there's that, as well as the inflated status that sex has been ascribed in our perceived hierarchy of needs. the train of thought here goes that since sex is an entirely natural act, it should be part of every human being's experience with little to no regard given to context, that it's an urge that needs to be heeded as a prerequisite for healthy survival, kinda like the urges for food or water. basically, the idea that anyone can live without or that anyone should be expected to be able to live without sex is unthinkable.

so based on that, i don't find it curious that secular culture is working with a playbook that puts such a high value on sex, or more specifically, sexual behavior, as a component of identity. i did however, find it curious that Christian theologians would look at the Bible and at theology in a manner that was so skewed to a single aspect of identity. make no mistake, i as much as or more than anyone, realize that when people do theology or interpret scripture they do so with potentially numerous and glaring biases that permeate their efforts, regardless of any attempt to remain "objective," but i was amazed that these "queer" theologians profiled in the article made sex so central to their work.

now i've been influenced by our culture sufficiently enough that i won't begrudge nearly anybody his or her choice as far as how they define themselves or what they want out of life. however, i'm savvy enough to understand that the secular culture's premium on autonomy as well as its understanding of sex has permeated the church and i'm feisty enough to consider that unacceptable.

flannery o'connor puts a finer point on it than i ever could saying:

the writer who emphasizes spiritual values is very likely to take the darkest view of all what he sees in this country today. for him, the fact that we are the most powerful and the wealthiest nation in the world doesn't mean a thing in any positive sense. the sharper the light of faith, the more glaring are apt to be the distortions of the life the writer sees around him. my own feeling is that writers who see by the light of their own christian faith will have, in these times, the sharpest eyes for the grotesque, the perverse, the unacceptable. the novelist with christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural.

o'connor's quote is spot on as far as it goes, what's most unfortunate about it, however, is that it currently doesn't go far enough.

feeling: recovered
thinking of: glutamine
music: "faking life" five iron frenzy