Saturday, April 20, 2019
Section #3: FOR vs. AGAINST Gay Marriage
The following points appear to be the sort of reasonings for gay marriage that individuals such as Peter and Chasten hold toward marriage versus the contrary views of "the Mike Pences of the world" (Peter's phrase):
#1 While it isn't wise to abandon or jettison one of the central moral codes of the last 4,000 years, when new information,
new insights, new intuitions, new experiences call into question one of the tenets,
it is very important that we listen, think, dialog and if warranted,
CHANGE our minds.
According to statistics, about 5% to 11% of Americans aren't exclusively heterosexual. The numbers vary according to how one deals with the issues. For instance, about 8 million, 3.5% "identify as LGBT." But about 11% "acknowledge at least some same-sexual attraction."
When all of the numbers are crunched, at least 19 million to 25.6 million aren't only opposite sexual in orientation.
Those millions of same sexual human beings are equal to other humans, have the same inherent worth, have the same human rights, are just as precious as those humans who judge them as morally wrong.
WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE because of the dominant ancient moral code?
Of course, Christians, Muslims, and Jews answer that the reason is the same as why robbers, molesters, polygamists, etc. ought to be excluded from various rights: same sexual relations, like the other moral violations, is contrary to what is true and same sexuality is harmful, degenerate, and an abomination similar to other 'gross' actions.
NOW NOTICE HERE: THIS IS WHERE THE CONTROVERSY GETS COMPLICATED!
Most conservative Christian-Jewish-Muslim leaders are equating identity with action.
ERROR? They generally reject the view held by many modern secular thinkers that same sexual individuals are born, (or born-nurtured), gay/transgender, etc.
IN CONTRAST, these religious leaders believe that all alternative sexual identities are CHOSEN. Many think that this is an immoral choice by each individual human and that all of them are actually born heterosexual. They think that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a falsehood like "evolution," "socialism," etc.
Other conservative leaders think that while homosexuality isn't self-chosen by some humans, homosexuality itself is part of the FALL, part of ORIGINAL SIN that infects all humans and must be resisted.
They emphasize that all humans are "totally depraved," that all of us are born "in essence, evil" but that this particular depravity, homosexuality, only shows in some of us humans, while other humans commit incest, molestation, robbery, lying, and so forth.
IN CONTRAST, same sexual leaders such as Peter Buttigieg, emphasize that they didn't choose their nature, nor is their nature bad, but on the contrary, “That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
The traditional moral rule against same sexuality doesn't apply to him as self-chosen. On the contrary, Peter says that for a long time his identity deeply grieved and troubled him: “It’s hard to face the truth that there were times in my life when, if you had shown me exactly what it was inside me that made me gay, I would have cut it out with a knife.”
"If you had offered me a pill to make me straight, I would’ve swallowed it before you had time to give me a sip of water."
The KEY point of Peter is that sexual orientation is from God, but that how we express our orientation is a question of right and wrong, good and bad that we humans choose.
For instance, in regards to President Trump's immoral actions, Peter said, "“I can’t believe that somebody that was caught writing hush money checks to adult film actresses is somebody they should be lifting up as the kind of person they want to be leading this nation.” (Meet the Press)
AGAIN, REASON #1, ACCORDING TO LEADERS LIKE PETER AND CHASTEN, TONY CAMPOLO, ETC. IS THAT ALL HUMANS NEED TO USE THEIR SEXUAL NATURE AND IDENTITY (WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT) IN THE LIFE-ENHANCING, MORAL WAY OF MARRIAGE.
What is wrong isn't sexual orientation, but immoral choices of promiscuity, infidelity, and so forth.
DENYING GAY HUMANS THE RIGHT TO MARRY is WRONG FOR THAT NOT ONLY DENIES THEIR ESSENTIAL WORTH AND VALUE, BUT LEAVES THEM LIVING THEIR SEXUALITY OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL COMMITMENT.
This seems to be a very strong point for the goodness of gay marriage.
How very different might famous Civil Rights leader Bayard Rustin's life have been if he had been able to marry in the 1940's, have that public social commitment help him to overcome his tendency--temptations--to engage in gay promiscuous one-night stands.
His non-married sexual choices then hurt him, his close friends, harmed the image of Civil Rights, and kept Bayar hidden in the background of the Movement because of the immoral violation of engaging in sex in a car in Pasadena with a stranger, caught by California police.
It is tragic that a large number of gay men still make promiscuous choices because they have been taught by Western society and culture that their identity is morally wrong.
Gay marriage--its emphasis that gay humans are equal in worth and rights to heterosexuals--is surely an important reason why gay marriage is true.
Past generations of human leaders (the human authors of the MORAL CODE), didn't know about orientation so they misunderstood thinking that same sexuality in itself was immoral. They confused essence with particular immoral actions.
What do you think?
#1 One of the most important statements—which has proven tragically to be true-- made by religious people 20 years ago was that recognizing gay marriage wouldn’t create new ideals of moral realism but would become a slippery slope to the demand for more immoral behavior.
At the time, back then, I thought that the Christian spokesmen who were claiming that this would happen were fear-mongering and using scare tactics to hurt sincere humans who were gay.
HOWEVER, strangely, this odd contradiction has begun to happen. Some same sexual leaders instead of continuing to support monogamy, now that gay marriage has become legal in the United States, are, instead, supporting promiscuity,
‘polyamory’ a form of group marriage, where 3 or 4 or more individuals engage in temporary sexual relations.
After reading a bunch of articles and defenses of ‘polyamory,’ it does seem that the religious leaders’ warnings of the past have come true.
Heck, even some fairly orthodox Christian leaders have come out in support of 'polyamory' as good!
But ‘polyamory’ isn’t even the sometimes mild immoral practice of polygamy or concubinage but appears to be a western nation version of acceptable short-term (as short as 3 days or 3 months!) sexual relations like in 12er Shia Islam.
As a former hippie who lived in Haight-Asbury in the spring of 1966 before receiving my draft notice, I remember all of the glowing talk about “Make Love, Not War,”
but generally what this amounted to was lust for a night or a week or a month.
‘Polyamory” seems to just be a regress to those empty-user phrases made by young people who wanted sex without care,
sex without commitment,
sex without intimacy.
When I lived there near Haight street, that was still a somewhat idealistic time. However very soon the Haight lust and 'highs' descended into hate, violence, drug pushing and abuse, and other forms of unethical behavior.
So much for ‘love.’
Let us hope that more same sexual individuals will choose monogamous commitment in marriage like Pete and Chasten.
To be continued--
In the Light of the Good and the True,