So I read this blog post, about a gay fella that married a straight woman and is joyously, blissfully, ecstatically enjoying his marriage, and my first thought is: no one enjoys their marriage that much. Even straight couples will universally testify that marriage is, like any partnership, about compromise. I've found that the harder one tries to convince you of how great their circumstances are, the less likely it is that they are representing the true state of affairs.
But be that as it may, let's suppose for charity's sake that he really is that happy.
Now we are met with an altogether different question. If he is gay(and claims to not be bi-sexual), how could he form and enjoy a sexual connection with someone of the opposite gender? This would be like me marrying another man, despite my lifelong, undeniable physical attraction to women and lifelong, undeniable physical non-attraction to men.** This consideration actually unpacks into two separate topics.
The first is the religious dynamic of the situation. The abrahamic faiths, so named for their reliance on the sacred scriptures known as the old testament, are and have been clear about the "ideal type" of marriage and of the limited scope of sin-free sexual relations. If the book is to be believed, God dictated that men should marry women, should lie with women, under this or that circumstance and (according to some) only in certain positions and for certain reasons. This individual, Josh Weed, is adhering to these commands as he understands them in a Mormon context.
Right. A few quibbles...
Suppose, for a moment, that *gasp* the bible is as unreliable on God's intentions as any work of man is unreliable as a function of fallibility. If we accept a creator of the universe, and consider the possibility that the bible is just an ordinary book (as it most assuredly must be), we can actually discern some potential attitudes of this creator. God creates most men and women with an inherent physical attraction to the opposite gender, and some men and women with an inherent physical attraction to the same gender. Can we not safely infer from this fact that he intended for the latter to live by their nature? Even if we make the narcissistic assumption that the being who fashioned a billion billion billion galaxies, space and time itself, is earnestly concerned with our sex lives, is it that unreasonable to suppose that he, perhaps, made some men and women different for a reason?
What if, in God's eyes, homosexuals engaging in heterosexual "acts" is the sin equivalent to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual "acts"?
The second topic is another thought experiment. Suppose the Abrahamic faith tradition stipulated an altogether different sin-free union; suppose homosexual unions were the ideal type that God apparently demands. From that, a culture arises in which heterosexual unions are derided and vilified, heterosexual marriages are outlawed. Imagine being born into this culture as a heterosexual male. Would you be willing to marry another man in accordance with your religion, or would you be inexorably drawn to women?
This is a salient question, because as I suspected, the blog post under consideration is not without it's own judge monster. When I read through it initially, I had a gut feeling that somewhere I would find this monster lurking. He is religious, he can't help it, and lo and behold, I was right:
"Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.
I want you to know that God loves you, and that even though you are attracted to people of the same gender, you are a completely legitimate individual, worthy of God’s love, your family’s love, and the love of your friends."(emphasis mine)
Did you catch it? The urge to engage in homosexual unions is on par with the urge to murder innocent people, steal, purjer, lie, etc.. It's temptation, people, resist the urge to sin! Drawing on our thought experiment from above, this is the equivalent of God demanding same sex unions. Let's edit the above quote as follows:
"Being straight does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.
I want you to know that God loves you, and that even though you are attracted to people of the opposite gender, you are a completely legitimate individual, worthy of God’s love, your family’s love, and the love of your friends."(emphasis mine)
Now I submit to you, dear reader, that this edited version of Weed's words is as ludicrous as the original manifestation. God does not exist, but even if he did, it's beyond the capacity of a rational mind to believe he cares one whit about the circumstances in which you share your body with another person. Further, it is none of our business what Josh Weed, or any other adult, does with another consenting adult.
That brings me to my final point. The whole idea that this is some new take on "the issue" of homosexuality is itself fraudulent. Homosexuality is a sin, according to Weed. Homosexual unions should be avoided like any other sin, according to Weed. What, precisely, is new about this position?
___________________
** - There is, I think in all animals, a biological imperative to reproduction. This imperative may go some distance in explaining Josh's choices, but I think most people would find that their sexual proclivities outweigh any consideration along those lines. I don't know about you, but if I had to have sex with another man in order to reproduce, I would probably just go childless.
No comments:
Post a Comment