Home » Blogs »

December 10, 2010 Print

Oprah and the L Word – Suspicion about Friendship

by Jeff Johnston

Oprah Winfrey was interviewed by Barbara Walters, who asked about Oprah’s relationship with her best friend, Gayle King. Oprah shared her deep love and respect for her friend. Then Walters asked her about the rumors surrounding their relationship – that she and Gayle are lesbians.

The fact that people even ask this question illustrates something very important. Our culture has moved rapidly toward the promotion of homosexual identity and behavior. Along the way, more and more doubt and suspicion are cast on deep same-sex friendships. Almost any two men or two women who have a deep relationship will be asked the question Oprah was asked, “Are you gay?” Either that, or the thought may lurk in people’s minds.

In an article entitled “A Requiem for Friendship – Why Boys Will Not Be Boys & Other Consequences of the Sexual Revolution,”*  Anthony Esolen writes eloquently about the acceptance of homosexuality and, its impact on male relationships today, and especially its effect on boys:

The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men—that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers.

Given our current culture, a boy must be very secure in his identity to engage in a deep friendship with another boy.

In the same way that modern relationships are questioned, close same-sex friendships from the past are now questioned and co-opted by the gay community and revisionist historians. After all, if this is how we think and live, those in the past must have thought and lived the same way. A couple hundred years ago it would have been inconceivable for a theologian to question the biblical accounts of David’s friendship with Jonathon or of Ruth’s relationship with Naomi. Today you can find sites all over the internet that take it for granted that they were all “gay.”

The sexual revolution trampled and distorted marriage and sexuality. Similarly, the constant onslaught of homosexual television, books, movies, pride and parades has colored our thinking today, casting the shadow of a rainbow flag over close same-sex relationships. 

What gives me hope is that many in the church are awakening to the need to teach about healthy sexuality and about the need for healthy friendships between men and between women. In addition, I’ve seen more and more little things, like a family that takes a troubled teenager into their home or men turning to other men for support and friendship. We should not despise or underestimate small beginnings, but encourage this one-by-one transformation of the culture.

___________________________________________
*See also his 5th argument against public acceptance of same-sex marriage, here: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/ten_arguments_f.html



Print



  • Tim

    In fact it wasn’t the gays of this society that so strongly pushed children to attach sexual definitions to their lives but in fact the christian right that tried to redefine and relabel relationships. In human history males that were attracted to males were not solely labeled as gay or even homosexual, a wide berth was ascribed to sexual relationships both in and out of marriage because most marriages were arranged by families not the individuals. This led to cultural understandings about infidelity with both genders, that sometimes you had to look outside of the marriage for sexual or even personal fulfillment.
    In the US it was only after the Korean war that the close friendships that many of service members had during WW2 and the following wars had made some members of the social right uneasy when pictures of frolicking naked military members came to light and stories of sexual experimentation during their military came out. Most service members served with and met gays and lesbians in the military or around the world. Reviewing both movies and literature from 1920 to 1950 you might be surprised with the openness and frank depictions of sex from our grandparents days. In fact it was the inflexibility of the christian right that tried to re emphasis what being a real man or woman was that both kicked off the sexual revolution and locked two generations into a Hollywood, Leave it to Beaver drug induced dream world about what roles the husband and wife should play in the modern home.
    So don’t blame gays and lesbians for the confusion over history, it is only the religious right that dictated that anyone who kisses a man or holds their hand is gay, it was the religious right that dictated that gays should be held outside of the social norm and that everything they did or practiced should be scrutinized or denounced.

    • Jeff Johnston

      Umm, no, Tim.
      It wasn’t the Christian or religious right that pushed homosexual behavior outside the “social norm.” The “religious right” didn’t really exist as a strong socio-political force until the late 70′s. Up until that point many American evangelicals or fundamentalists were not very politically involved and often kept apart from much social and political involvement. I would suggest that the mainline denominations were more influential in American culture for many years.
      Our culture has been directly influenced and shaped by Judeo-Christian teaching, which has always held that God’s design for marriage was that it be a committed, monogamous relationship between a husband and wife. While not always adhered to in practice, it has only been recently that this standard has been challenged by the sexual revolution, by the ease of obtaining a divorce and by the gay pride movement.
      While I do believe that many of those who served in our military in WWII and Korea developed deep same-sex friendships, I don’t think many of those relationships moved into the sexual realm. I imagine our soldiers were kept very busy fighting, for one thing, and would’ve had that as their focus. Again, I think this is gay- and lesbian-identified men and women reading their own sexuality into the past.
      Thanks for your comment.

  • Jen Runyon

    Ruth 1:16 carries a heavy commitment between two women. I can understand the need and desire to disassociate this from a lesbian relationship but I feel that you do a disservice to this disconnection when this scripture is repeatedly used in wedding ceremonies blessed by the church. If there is to be a disconnect of these women and that specific commitment, why is it incorporated into wedding vows? …till death do us part seems identicle or less weighty than “May the Lord deal with me severly if EVEN death separates us” (emphasis my own).

    It can’t be disputed that these two women violated the current norms for their society. Traditionally it’s not really noted everywhere that people were married (many times it is assumed by the presence of children). Ruth carried a son that (due to cultural legalities) was known as Naomi’s son. Boaz was the kinsman redeemer that accepted responsibility for the women. There are many happenings that were not normal for their relationship.

    Ultimately, it’s the church that has raised this relationship to it’s saphic standing by using the commitment between these women to exemplify the commitment that there should be for wedded couples.

    You say it’s apples and oranges but you’re using an orange as the model for an apple.

    • Jeff Johnston

      Hi Jen, and thank you for your comment. The commitment that Ruth makes to her mother-in-law, Naomi, that is striking, wholehearted and beautiful. That’s why it is used in marriage ceremonies, not because anyone ever thought that Ruth and Naomi were married or sexually involved, but because it is an eloquent statement.
      There is no indication in the biblical text or in thousands of years of Judeo-Christian commentary and exegesis that the two engaged in a sexual relationship. As I pointed out in my article, this is simply biblical revisionists reading their own identity and sexuality into a story. Any such relationship would have been outside God’s boundary of male-female marriage, and in this case, would also have been incestuous, and quite egregious.

  • Martin

    I spent 20+ years in the Navy (1959-1987) and knew of (or knew) only a handful of gays. None of the ones I knew or heard about were in any kind of gay relationship with another sailor in the same unit. Thy were inclined to look for same sex “companionship” while on a liberty. This was in the “don’t ask don’t ask” years, long before “don’t ask don’t tell”.
    This is not to say that same-sex sexual encounters did not happen- I am sure they did, but not in a long term relationship atmosphere.
    During my Navy career, I know of only one instance where a sailor was discharged for being gay, and that was of his own choice.
    All that being said, I would seriously doubt if there were many gay relationships in the Armed Forces during WWII. That was a different day, a different time. Even gays in civilian life were exceptionally low-key.

  • Nellie

    I am a Christian, and God showed me that I was to love gay people and bring them to Him through my kindness and love! It is working!
    God is in CONTROL AND HE WILL BRING THEM TOO CHURCH AND THEY WILL REPENT! JUST LIKE ANY SINNER! God showed me that it is a sin just like any other sin! Why do Christians thank they can sin on one thing and not show kindness to gay people?
    A sin is a sin! Anything against our body is a sin! When you give your life too God, He ownes your body, soul and spirit!
    One gay man told me that I was the first Christian that ever treated him with love. That is sad!
    I don’t think gay people should marry; marriage is for one woman and one man.
    The lifestyle in this country is “LIVE TOGETHER”. THIS IS NOT GOD’S PLAN, EITHER!
    GOD IS IN CONTROL AND HE WILL BRING US TO HIM IN HIS TIME. GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.