"Lean in toward the LIGHT by Carrie Newcomer

https://youtu.be/QmJezOlfvF0?si=2-bCz69zNY_Zr4UF

Live in the Light--do good actions, reject wrong ways

Here's some of the good ways
versus
wrong ways:


Good Actions and Ways:

kind, care, generous, humble, fidelity, monogamy, meticulous honesty, just,
equality, forgive, share, peace-seeking-creating, compassion, permanent-commitment, authentic,
moderation, help, bless, altruism-love, chaste, fertility, nurture, moral realism


VERSUS
Wrong Actions and Ways:

pride, abuse, promiscuous, group-national egotism, kill-slaughter-war, malice, obscene, greed, idolize what is finite, immorality, lgbtq*dq-actions, kink, fornication, porn, prostitution (sex work) adultery, lust, envy, jealousy, covet, drunkenness, stripper, slander, steal, hate, prejudice, insolent, polyamory, swindle, cheat, boastful, divorce-right, abortion-on-demand, wrath, revenge, hypocrisy, ruthless, sexual assault




In the LIGHT of the Good, the True, the Just..

Daniel Wilcox

What is the Meaning of Human Sexuality?

The Meaning of Human Sexuality
Surely, I must be joking? Thinking I can take on the herculean (adam-evesques) task of explaining the meaning of human sexuality? That would be like climbing Niagara Falls or trying to explain the theological significance of Viagra;-).

The meaning of human sexuality is so deep and so transcendent and so complicated and so controversial, it would first be better to tangle with the behemoth or leviathan mentioned in the Book of Job. But since none of us can get away from the topic (and I seldom have ever wanted to except when revoltingly sick).

First a good example of “love” from Sherman Alexie:
Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create… “Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums...
Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie

Since sex only has three letters, how did it become a four-letter word (the selfish, often angry "plow" word versus the kind, romantic "love" word)?











Bad examples:
“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously.
Painter Diego Rivera
“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
Painter Diego Rivera
“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
Aldous Huxley
"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
Anonymous
“To me heaven would be…two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
Ernest Hemingway
"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year…I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible…It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
Rock Musician Rod Stewart

How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans (and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively divine?

From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?

From one-sided self-centeredness to intimate communion of two lives?

Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans* think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.

This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals.

Humans can use their brain consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.

This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals in the first installment of this series.

Here is another striking example:
Alan Watts, a former Episcopal minister, became a prolific writer and famous transmitter of Buddhism to the American cultural scene. (When I was a teenager, and still a Baptist, I watched his show every day on PBS at 6 pm, marveling at his spiritual points and esoteric philosophical explanations.)

So far, so good, it seemed.

But then I read his shocking, repulsive autobiography, In My Own Way.

Alongside such spiritual gems as “The cross is at the heart of the universe,” which Watts quotes from a mystic,
he then describes his view of human being and sexuality.
“…Deep down inside, almost everyone has a vague sense of eternity. Few dare admit this because it would amount to believing that you are God..."

"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married."

"For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."

"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
Alan Watts

HUH?

Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.

The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when a highly educated, philosophical, spiritually oriented individual such as Alan Watts glorifies promiscuous sex,
we surely know that human sexuality
is, indeed, very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
When he writes, "I most happily and congenially committed adultery...," it is clear that somewhere he took a disastrous ethical detour.

We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.

Speaking of Buddhism, actually the latter, contrary to Watt's view, for most of its history had a very different view of sexuality.

The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.

Other forms of Buddhism go to the opposite extreme from Watts' adultery and promiscuity. These Buddhist leaders
have a very negative view of all human sexuality and even state that women must become men before they can be enlightened!

“...a large part of Theravada texts is devoted to the depiction of women as disgusting creatures too repulsive to touch.” --Rev. Patti Nakai

Touching--now that reminds me of my own spiritual tradition, the part I hated as a fundamentalist teenager, words from good ol' Paul:
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament

Maybe that would have been good advice for Hugh Hefner and most of the secular individuals I knew at university who argued for 'free sex.'

But Paul's extremely negative remarks were difficult for me, especially when first going out on dates with friendly Nebraska country girls:-)
Remember the famous Beach Boys song from that era, "California Girls"?

Paul's advice was exasperating.

Don’t get me wrong. I am talking about hand-holding and kissing,
traditional “necking,”
not anything below the neck.

But get it, my even having to explain our particular religion’s very conservative sexual understanding shows how wide human sexual understanding and behavior is.

Why, hey;-), when I was very naive in junior high, our Christian books so warned against kissing
that I really thought girls got pregnant from smooching!!

Shows I lived in a small village and attended a very strict Baptist denomination where movies, dancing, rock music were banned,
that I didn't grow up on my grandfather’s farm where many animals did 'it' all the time.

Contrast this religiously-sheltered ignorant upbringing with the ninth grader I encountered when I moved Lincoln,
the capital city of Nebraska.

The knowing teen smirked and demanded to know if I knew all about “69.”

I knew it was 1962, and did know the “6” and the “9” weren't referring to years, but to something sexual and forbidden.

Just what I didn’t know, and tried to not think about. But sure did:-)

Enough on autobiographies from Watts to Wilcox...

From New Age Buddhism to fundamental Baptist Christianity...

Then there's orthodox Judaism with its Jewish men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave:-(.

I’m sure you get the general point, without my bringing in many details from Secularism, Hinduism, Islam and Paganism.

Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.

The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous daily choice by two equals.

Sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.

Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"

"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"

"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."

"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
-- Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.

That’s true love.

True love (in the commitment sense) is unlike any other human relationship.

In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

*Except, of course, for the theologically and materialistically fatalistic

Take a Social-Political Survey

Here's another one of those social-political surveys. I, again, come down as a Left-leaning Libertarian. After answering questions as varied as free market (which I am for; I am against protectionism and against tariffs and against nationalism)
and abortion-on-demand (am against; sometimes conception has tragic elements; then the decision ought to be between the mother and her doctor; politicians of the left and right ought to stay out of the heart-rending decision).

Take the test:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/


In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

Section #3: FOR vs. AGAINST Gay Marriage

FOR

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.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

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?

#2

--
AGAINST

#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,
sex workers,
drag queens,
pornography,
and
‘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.’

#2
--


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,

Daniel Wilcox

Section #2: Peter & Chasten Buttigieg vs. Vice President Mike & Karen Pence, The Question of Gay Marriage

In the first section of this long article I explained why life-long monogamous marriage is the human ideal, what every individual ought to seek.*

The HUGE question of the last 40 years or so is whether or not those human couples who aren’t heterosexual have the right to monogamous marriage.

Of course, legally, this was decided in the U.S. by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.

The question we are dealing with here is whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court was morally true or not.

Leaders such as Vice President Mike Pence and his spouse, Karen Pence have stated that same sexual relations are morally wrong, so they oppose gay marriage as sin.

The new candidate for President in 2020, former South Bend Mayor Peter Buttigieg and his spouse, Chasten Buttigieg, in contrast, think that same sexuality is normal, not wrong, and that every human has a right to marry.

Intriguingly, both couples allege that they are devout Christians. Mike and Karen are Evangelicals; she teaches at a Baptist elementary school that prohibits same sexuality and gay marriage.

Peter and Chasten are Episcopalians.

BUT that isn’t the key difference between Peter and Chasten, because President George H. Bush opposed gay marriage when he was president, and he, too, is Episcopalian. (Intriguingly, though, at the time, Barbara Bush, supported gay individuals, thought that sexuality was a private matter, and that the Republican Party ought to not ban gay marriage.)

Also, while Mike and Karen oppose same sexuality and gay marriage, allegedly because they are “born-again” Evangelicals, there are even a minority of Evangelical Christian leaders who support gay marriage.(Strangely, Mike and Karen couldn't have been good "born-again Evangelicals back in my early youth, late-50's early 60's, because in Evangelical Christianity at the time, dancing was considered immoral. Dancing was an action that no good Christian would ever do. My own father, a Baptist minister and teacher helped lead the effort to ban the prom at Adams High School because no one ought to dance. YET notice Mike and Karen are dancing, and she is wearing an off-the-shoulder gown!)

Keep in mind that being a member of a Christian denomination doesn’t necessarily mean anything when it comes to morals and ethics.

Heck, former Vice President Dick Cheney was a Methodist, but his political views and many of his actions were immoral and unjust, completely contrary to the social ethics of Wesleyan beliefs. And President Richard Nixon belonged to a pacifist denomination! So much for the True Scotsman.

So, we are going to have to go deeper than the terms secular vs sacred,
or non-Christian vs. Christian,
or Episcopal vs. Evangelical, etc.
The Episcopal Church to which Peter and Chasten belong didn't even recognize gay marriage until about 2012! In that year, the Episcopal Diocese of New York began to hold same sex weddings.

However, the General Convention of 1976 did state, "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church."
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/lgbtq-church

Let’s first briefly look at the history of Christianity in regards to same sexuality.

Traditionally, for many hundreds of years, orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam opposed same sexuality and would have totally opposed gay marriage if it had come up.

#1 The Bible (viewed as inspired by Jews, Muslims, and Christians)

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18, 20
Romans 1:26-27
I Corinthians 6:9-11
Matthew 8
Luke 7
2 Peter 2:4-10
Jude 1:7

#2 Traditional Theology and Ethics of Christianity,Judaism, and Islam

Islam:
In the Quran, same sexual relations are prohibited and are to be punished.

In the Hadith, same sexuality is to be punished with the death penalty.

In Islam, gays are often charged with "debauchery" and are punished with flogging or execution. On the other hand, in the past in some forms of Islam, same sexuality was hinted at positively in poetry and wasn't severely punished; sometimes was ignored.

Judaism:

Besides verses in the Jewish Bible such as Leviticus, traditionally rabbinic leaders expanded the prohibition to include lesbian relations and any same sexual behavior.

Even, today, Orthodox Jewish rabbis condemn same sexual relations and oppose gay marriage.
(Though keep in mind the fact, there may be exceptions such as gay Orthodox Rabbi Steven Greenberg, just like there are exceptions in conservative and Evangelical Christianity including famous leader Tony Campolo.)

Christianity:

From the Church Fathers until recent times, creedal Christianity has opposed same sexuality. Roman Catholic leader John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, claimed that same sexual relations are worse than murder.

Over the centuries, some Christian governments ordered the death penalty for gays, sometimes burning them or using torture, castration, and banishment. Pope Nicholas V in 1451 had the Inquisition arrest same sexual men. They, like in the past, were burned to death.

Martin Luther stated that same sexuality comes from the devil.

The Eastern Orthodox Church condemns same sexual relations as sin and opposes gay marriage.

Etc.

WHEN DID THE CHANGE TOWARD SAME SEXUALITY HAPPEN FOR SOME CHRISTIAN LEADERS?

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1989 Denmark became the first nation to legally establish a form of non-religious marriage for same sexual couples. However, many leaders of the Lutheran Church of Denmark still opposed gay marriage in 2004.

The earliest acceptance of gay relationships by a few creedal Christian leaders seems to have occurred in the early 1970's.

So the weight of Christian history and tradition appears to be on Mike and Karen Pence's side--that same sexuality is sin, morally wrong.

HOWEVER:
Arguing from Christian history and tradition is VERY DANGEROUS! For in 16th century Europe, Mike and Karen could have been burned at the stake or tortured and drowned during that time by the Christian leaders including Roman Catholics, Calvinists and others. Beliefs of Evangelical Christians were considered heretical and evil.

Far more 'Evangelical' Christians were executed for being evil than same sexual individuals!

Even one of the heroes of Evangelicals today, Martin Luther, strongly condemned, not only homosexuals but the 'evangelicals' of his time. And Lutheran and Reformed leaders banished them and supported their executions in some cases.

NEXT:

#1 WHAT ARE THE REASONS TO SUPPORT A CHANGE FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF SAME SEXUALITY BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, AND JUDAISM?

In other words, why ought we to agree with Peter and Chasten (and other such leaders) about gay marriage being good?

#2 WHAT ARE THE REASONS TO SUPPORT OPPOSITION TO SAME SEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE, THE VIEW OF CREEDAL CHRISTIANS SUCH AS MIKE AND KAREN PENCE?


To be continued

In the Light of the Good, the True, the Just, the Caring,

Daniel Wilcox

Section #1: News Controversy: The Meaning of Sexuality & Marriage

This week controversy erupted, again, between Democrats and Republicans on questions of the meaning of sexuality and marriage. Let's short-step back from the political fracas and reflect on sexuality-marriage itself.

The meaning of human sexuality is deep, transcendent, complicated and controversial. Then there is the related question of marriage or not. It appears that no one can get away from the intense subject.

A few quotes to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic of sexuality and marriage:

In some early Buddhism, such as the Theradvada writings, it was not possible for a woman to become a bodhisativa; a human is born a woman because of bad karma!

And most Buddhists chose celibacy.

Then there is the infamous verse by Paul in the New Testament:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
1 Corinthians 7:1

And Orthodox Judaism' men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave. And how women are unclean and have to take ritual baths.

On the other hand, some religious texts seem to glory in sexuality:
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine:"
-Song of Songs, Chapter 1:2, Jewish Bible

"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God...male and female...
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
...and, look, it was very good."
Genesis 1:27-31

"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year...I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible...It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
VS.
His rock anthem to romantic commitment:
"You're in my heart, you're in my soul
You'll be my breath should I grow old
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul

My love for you is immeasurable
My respect for you immense
You're ageless, timeless, lace and fineness
You're beauty and elegance

You're a rhapsody, a comedy
You're a symphony and a play
You're every love song ever written...
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul"
--Rock Musician Rod Stewart
--

“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously."
--Famous Muralist and Painter Diego Rivera

“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
--Diego Rivera

“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, Jewish prophet

“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
-Aldous Huxley

"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
-Anonymous

“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
-Mignon McLaughlin

"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right...
I love thee with the passion...I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life..."
-Elizabeth Barrett Browning

“To me heaven would be...two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
-Ernest Hemingway

“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
-Philip James Bailey

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament

"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old."
-John Ciardi

"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."

"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
-Philosopher Alan Watts

"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
-Henry Ward Beecher

Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved...Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
Monogamous love and marriage
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
VS.
Alexie's Infidelity
"In all, 10 women spoke to NPR about Alexie, who is a married man...but a clear pattern emerged: The women reported behavior ranging from inappropriate comments...unwanted sexual advances and consensual sexual relations that ended abruptly. The women said Alexie had traded on his literary celebrity to lure them into uncomfortable sexual situations.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/589909379/it-just-felt-very-wrong-sherman-alexies-accusers-go-on-the-record

WHY DO SO MANY HUMANS, ESPECIALLY LEADERS, (EVEN THOSE WHO AFFIRM MARRIAGE AND "LOVE") LEAD IMMORAL, HARMFUL LIVES?

Since sex only has 3 letters, how did it become a 4-letter word (to "plow" or "care" or "love")?

How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans
(and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything
from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively intimate?

From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?

From one-sided selfishness to intimate communion of two lives?

Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.

This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals or self-focused wants.

Humans can use their brains' consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.

This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals as already shared.

Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.

The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when brilliant well-educated humans glorify promiscuous sex, it is troubling and tragic.

So often in the news now, human sexuality
is very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth,
the Good,
and the Beautiful.

We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.

The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.

Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.

The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous life-long daily choice by two equals.

Let's say it again, sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.

Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"

"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"

"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."

"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
--

Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.

That’s true love.

True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in some sacred writing where God is often spoken of as every individual human’s lover.

Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?

YET now--in the midst of all of the sexual harassment, "Me, Too" bad news, there is the controversy of moral leader Peter Buttigieg versus moral leader Mile Pence, both even of the same religion, Christianity, who, while agreeing that sexual relations ought to be part of a monogamous, loving commitment for life,
YET they completely disagree about the nature of marriage!

Is marriage to only happen between a man and a woman (as held by traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism claims)
OR
is marriage also right for a same sexual couple?

What do you think?

Please share your perspective.

To Be Continued:

In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox

Romantic Love: Friendship that has Caught Fire

Fidelity: Becoming loyal, reliable, consistent.

Love: Choosing commitment, is action.

Friendship: committing to another individual who has interests and goals in common, with affection and esteem.

Romancing love is “friendship that has caught fire,” filled with romance, passion and mental, emotional, and sexual intimacy.

Consider the fiery words of Sherman Alexie from one of his famous short stories. Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Native American couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create...

“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.

“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”

“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”

“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”

Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day.

Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit...

Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that...that was what was missing in most marriages: politeness, courtesy…thank-you notes to his wife for the smallest favors, did the dishes…vacuumed...

...year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

Then he lifted the ball over his head...and pushed it toward the rim...it caught fire.
From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie, Grove Press, pages 176-178, 188
--

Yes, LOVE is friendship that has caught fire.
Love grows like a glowing vineyard in the sunrise,
takes root and develops one day at a time. Love
in maturity is like fine wine, improves with age.

Love is quiet understanding and mature acceptance
of imperfection. Love gives strength and creatively
opens in new ways
to your beloved.


You are warmed by your beloved’s presence,
even when your lover is away. Miles do not separate.
You want your beloved nearer. But near or far, you
know your lover is yours, and you are your beloved's.

Love means patience and trust. Love springs up;
you and your beloved feel more whole. Love fill
the empty spaces in your hearts, leads you both
to look up, and to give out to others.

Love is
creative, compassionate, gentle, and kind,
coming from deep in the heart, essential.

Love is choosing again and again, daily to love
your beloved even in the hard times.

Love is wider
than the widest, deeper than the deepest,
closer than the closest--
a fire of chosen passion.

Anon and adapted

Promiscuity and Fidelity

Given that so many millions of Americans (both heterosexual and same sexual individuals and the Supreme Court), worked diligently for and came together in a vast movement to finally bring the good legalization of marriage for gay individuals, it is puzzling, disturbing, disheartening, and contradictory that now
so many Americans are rejecting monogamy and fidelity,
rejecting marriage,
and, instead promoting,
defending,
and living in promiscuity.

Edna St. Vincent Millay, (a wondrous poet who could write about ideals powerfully
but who's private life was tragic, superficial and uncommitted like Earnest Hemingway, Diego Rivera,
and many other famous humans. The great Mexican muralist Rivera stated that sex is like pissing.)


True, billions of humans for many thousands of years have engaged in promiscuous behavior of various sorts, BUT in recent times, many humans have seen fidelity and monogamy as the ideal, what all people ought to seek.

Polygamy, one-night-stands, serial divorce, mistresses, pornography, prostitution, recreational sex, etc. have been rejected as immoral, unequal, unjust, and destructive.

Committed monogamy for many people replaced those unequal, unjust ways of history.

That is until the last 40-50 years.

Now many are celebrating promiscuity as a way of life, having multiple partners, talking about sex workers' "rights," even justifying one form of polygamy.

The Modern Un-Covenant

Bad rituals
Lost affection
Of disengaged couples
Uncoupling on
Rail lines that never join
The banal and travail
Not personal union
Instead venal
Scabbed and only
Repeating ing ing
Copping a plea
And blame
The feeling of deeply
Gone
Not populating
Only copulating
Waste
Both pissed
Urinal leavings
Not ultimate giving and receiving
Not the spurt and burst of life
Precious in the growing
But
Unwanted
Leaving
Not passion
Of the inner room
But passive ‘lost’
Coveted
Over and over
Skinned rituals on
Destructive routes
Repeating ing ing
Through the ‘mine’ field
Worn to the ‘marrow’
Rigor mortis
Climaxes


First pub. in The Cerebral Catalyst,
then repub. in Dead Snakes


This is a tragic reversal back to the unethical historic past when most humans rejected fidelity, and only a few humans actually lived in equal romantic monogamous relationships.

Which brings to mind the famous poem on romantic sexual love by Edna St. Vincent Millay:

Recuerdo

by Edna St. Vincent Millay

We were very tired, we were very merry—
We had gone back and forth all night on the ferry.
It was bare and bright, and smelled like a stable—
But we looked into a fire, we leaned across a table,
We lay on a hill-top underneath the moon;
And the whistles kept blowing, and the dawn came soon.

We were very tired, we were very merry—
We had gone back and forth all night on the ferry;
And you ate an apple, and I ate a pear,
From a dozen of each we had bought somewhere;
And the sky went wan, and the wind came cold,
And the sun rose dripping, a bucketful of gold.

We were very tired, we were very merry,
We had gone back and forth all night on the ferry.
We hailed, “Good morrow, mother!” to a shawl-covered head,
And bought a morning paper, which neither of us read;
And she wept, “God bless you!” for the apples and pears,
And we gave her all our money but our subway fares.

--

My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—
It gives a lovely light!


Edna St. Vincent Millay, "Recuerdo" from Collected Poems. Copyright 1931, 8 1958 by Edna St. Vincent Millay and Norma Millay Ellis. Reprinted with the permission of Elizabeth Barnett, Literary Executor. All rights reserved.
Source: A Few Figs From Thistles (1922)

Tragically, Millay seldom lived those idealistic lines, but instead, (like so many American writers and artists of the early 20th century), engaged in rampant promiscuity.

To Millay (too late), and to all of the individuals and thinkers I've dialogged with, here's my own poetic response to the contradiction between some of Millay's romantic lines versus her rampant sexual infidelity:

On Losing Recuerdo

Remembrance
dissipated by rampant

Back and forth
Back and forth
Who said the sad truth
Our allusions are truer than true
Illusions, yes?

Back and forth, ritual rote lust

Millay so trothed to us
In Recuerdo love’s truth
Only to show and live in her life
Lust’s crusty lie, lying with every
Tom, harry, and dick
And not so merry’s too.

She burned her lifeline at both ends
A taper betwixt noxious flames
She lay, lay, lay New York,
Lay down on a steeple-top
Under neath her generation’s
Gin-jazzy, faithless moon.

How slow-slug tiring her girlish
Fetish for a boy poet Dillon
Not Thomas nor Bob,
But oh so tight drunk
And so loose
Wide her marriage
Eugenic barrenness aborted;

All so fair-less—her life’s subway,
Money given for less,
No lesson in her dissipation

And that sky dripped, slime
A thicket-full of yellow
And an apple vomit ate
In this garden gone to rot

Who gives a fig for these
Her thistle, Pulitzering
Gemmed Lines
Caught in the snout of a swine'd life


CHOOSE the romantic love of Recuerdo, not its opposite, Losing.

For in the midst of many seeking to marry, to find one other person to commit to in romantic love and caring and fidelity,
there are so many millions of others who brag about,
promote, and live in
infidelity.


CHOOSE FIDELITY INSTEAD.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Heartfelt Romantic Wedding Song - "Better Today" by Coffey Anderson

Parsing Popular Song Lyrics

So many catchy tunes, music, as always in history, a central experience for the vast majority of humans...

This week have you avoided humming a song, or its instrumentation and lyrics playing in the background of your mind as you worked or relaxed or tended to the family and other concerns,
long after the actual musical experience had passed?

Doubtful.

And, then there are multi-millions of us humans who wallow in music in a wondrously deep way, captivated to the wiles of countless songs.

Who live in music like fish in water;-)

Which brings me to step aside from the recent political, philosophical, and religious articles...let's take a close look at a few current song lyrics, the only form of poetry most people ever engage in, and memorize with gusto, and carry like pulsating gems in their inner pocket.

Here's one that's a keeper even though the lyrics themselves aren't original, or creative--just your basic true love song.
However, unlike many modern songs the focus isn't on the male singer's selfish wants, or the physical characteristics of his sweetheart,
but on how her love is helping him to be a better person!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBZWsIq0w24

BETTER TODAY
BY Coffey Anderson

[Verse:]
To see your face, to hear your voice
And oh, to touch you is a dream come true
So I'm standing here, with my hand held out
Knowing that your love will never fade, I stand amazed without a doubt

My Commentary:
1. Beauty of the consonance of "face" and "voice" and "hear" and "your" are powerful even though the verse is almost greeting-card simple.
2. Pledge of fidelity in the last line even if unrealistic given that almost half of all marriages in end in divorce.

[Chorus:]
And I wanna hear your voice, in the morning when I rise
I think I know I'm just a normal man, only made of sand except when you're by my side
Will you love me, teach me, don't leave me I pray
And when I, and I'm thinking of the times
Your hands in mine, together we will stay
You made me better today
Better than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
You made me better today, today, today

1. "Sand" plays sound-wise with "made" and "man," (consonance, again, and near rhyme), but what does it mean?
Rather intriguing. Maybe a take off from man of clay or earth?

So maybe Anderson is alluding to a spiritual/ethical element, about how his finance brings out the best in him?

[Verse 2:]
My heart has wings
Oh you take me away
And every prayer I've ever prayed was answered today
So I'm standing here, with my hand held out
Knowing that my love will never leave
My hearts on my sleeve and now I believe

1. "Heart has wings" is rather a common and traditional metaphor, but seems to work.
2. The repeated emphasis of his "hand" and her "hands" seems to emphasize the equality and commitment and permanence of their relationship.
3. Nice repeat/change of "heart." And the focus of "on my sleeve"--his honesty, transparency, and openness.
4. The repetition of religious terms including "prayer" and "I believe" gets a bit tiring,
though such language is often associated with romantic love in music tradition. What comes to mind is "I'm a Believer," by the Monkees, or "You Still Believe in Me" by the Beach Boys.

[Chorus:]
And I wanna hear your voice in the morning when I rise
I think I know I'm just a normal man, only made of sand except when you're by my side
Will you love me, teach me, don't leave me I pray
And when I, and I'm thinking of the times
Your hands in mine, together we will stay
You made me better today
Better than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
You made me better today

[Verse 3:]
I stand proclaimed, true love is here to stay
I stand proclaimed, forever starts today
Today...
You made me better today
Than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
Cuz you made me better today, than I was before
And now my heart can rest
And I will search no more
You made me better today
Today...
Made me better today.

--Written by Coffey Anderson, Mike Mani, Jordan Omley
--


In the Light of beautiful music,

Daniel Wilcox

Thompson Square: Are You Gonna Kiss Me Or Not Lyrics

Beauty of Romantic Innocence

a few of my very favorite romantic poems of innocence:

from the poet, Gary Soto--

Oranges

The first time I walked
With a girl, I was twelve,
Cold, and weighted down
With two oranges in my jacket.
December. Frost cracking
Beneath my steps, my breath
Before me, then gone,
As I walked toward
Her house, the one whose
Porch light burned yellow
Night and day, in any weather.

A dog barked at me, until
She came out pulling
At her gloves, face bright
With rouge. I smiled,
Touched her shoulder, and led
Her down the street, across
A used car lot and a line
Of newly planted trees,
Until we were breathing
Before a drugstore. We

Entered, the tiny bell
Bringing a saleslady
Down a narrow aisle of goods.
I turned to the candies
Tiered like bleachers,
And asked what she wanted -
Light in her eyes, a smile
Starting at the corners
Of her mouth. I fingered
A nickle in my pocket,
And when she lifted a chocolate
That cost a dime,
I didn’t say anything.

I took the nickle from
My pocket, then an orange,
And set them quietly on
The counter. When I looked up,
The lady’s eyes met mine,
And held them, knowing
Very well what it was all
About.

Outside,
A few cars hissing past,
Fog hanging like old
Coats between the trees.
I took my girl’s hand
In mine for two blocks,
Then released it to let
Her unwrap the chocolate.
I peeled my orange
That was so bright against
The gray of December
That, from some distance,
Someone might have thought
I was making a fire in my hands.


--Gary Soto,
retired professor at U.C. Berkeley;
Grew up poor in Fresno.

--

from songwriters David Lee Murphy and Jim Collins--


Are You Gonna Kiss Me or Not?

We were sittin' up there on your momma's roof
Talkin' 'bout everything under the moon
With the smell of honeysuckle and your perfume
All I could think about was my next move

Oh, but you were so shy, so was I
Maybe that's why it was so hard to believe
When you smiled and said to me
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

Are we gonna do this or what?
I think you know I like you a lot
But you're 'bout to miss your shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

It was the best dang kiss that I ever had
Except for that long one after that
And I knew if I wanted this thing to last
Sooner or later I'd have to ask for your hand

So I took a chance
Bought a wedding band and I got down on one knee
And you smiled and said to me
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

Are we gonna do this or what?
I think you know I love you a lot
I think we've got a real good shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

So, we planned it all out for the middle of June
From the wedding cake to the honeymoon
And your momma cried
When you walked down the aisle

When the preacher man said, "Say I do"
I did and you did too, then I lifted that veil
And saw your pretty smile and I said
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

Are we gonna do this or what?
Look at all the love that we got
It ain't never gonna stop
Are you gonna kiss me or not?

Yeah baby, I love you a lot
I really think we've got a shot
Are you gonna kiss me or not?


Songwriters: David Lee Murphy / Jim Collins
Are You Gonna Kiss Me or Not lyrics © Spirit Music Group, Carol Vincent & Assoc LLC

--

And romantic innocence when faced with problems and trials:

from the songwriters Jon Nite and Ross Copperman--

Glass

Trying to live and love,
With a heart that can't be broken,
Is like trying to see the light with eyes that can't be opened.
Yeah, we both carry baggage,
We picked up on our way, so if you love me do it gently,
And I will do the same.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
'Cause we are glass.

I'll let you look inside me, through the stains and through the cracks,
And in the darkness of this moment,
You see the good and bad.
But try not to judge me, 'cause we've walked down different paths,
But it brought us here together, so I won't take that back.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.

We might be oil and water, this could be a big mistake,
We might burn like gasoline and fire,
It's a chance we'll have to take.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
And we are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
We are glass.


Songwriters: Jon Nite / Ross Copperman
Glass lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Jon Nite grew up in Amarilo, Texas, married his sweetheart,
and they had an infant while still in high school; then they
moved to Nashville.



In this time of twisted views, lurid obscenities, and sexual assault,
let us turn away from such ethical darkness!


Turn to the Light of Romantic Innocence and Beauty,


Daniel Wilcox

Great Romantic Love Songs for Friday Night

Glass

Trying to live and love,
With a heart that can't be broken,
Is like trying to see the light with eyes that can't be opened.
Yeah, we both carry baggage,
We picked up on our way, so if you love me do it gently,
And I will do the same.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
Cause we are glass.

I'll let you look inside me, through the stains and through the cracks,
And in the darkness of this moment,
You see the good and bad.
But try not to judge me, 'cause we've walked down different paths,
But it brought us here together, so I won't take that back.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
We are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.

We might be oil and water, this could be a big mistake,
We might burn like gasoline and fire,
It's a chance we'll have to take.

We may shine, we may shatter,
We may be picking up the pieces here on after,
We are fragile, we are human,
And we are shaped by the light we let through us,
We break fast, cause we are glass.
We are glass.

Written by Jon Nite, Ross Copperman
Copyright © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Such a beautiful, insightful song with great lyrics,
beautiful vocals, and fine instrumentation.

A great song for Friday night sharing.

In the Light of Romantic Love,

Daniel Wilcox

Love Your Spouse Challenge

Love Your Spouse Challenge is a Facebook meme, where a lover posts a romantic photo of him/herself and his/her spouse.

They do this for 7 days. And, they, also, nominate 2 other individuals to consider taking the challenge, every day for the next 7 days.

Friends, family members, neighbors, acquaintances continue the meme by posting their own romantic pictures and nominating others, too.

This sure beats the current endless slug of politics and religion!

Evidently the first Challenge originated in the Philippines.



"...the Tagalog word kilig refers to the feeling of excitement due to various romantic situations..."


"...such as making first eye contact with one's crush..."

"There is no exact equivalent English term for kilig."

"Kilig is usually felt in the first phase of romance,
particularly during courtship or honeymoon..."
Skilty Labastilla
Ateneo de Manila University
Sociology and Anthropology Department
http://www.lifestylecent.com/


Oxford English Dictionary, March 2016
kilig: shudder, thrill
adjective--exhilarated by an exciting or romantic experience

Our'Angles' photo with romantic halos at the Golden Gate Bridge:

In the Romantic Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Romancing Fidelity

Loving is action. Love is choosing. Love is friendship caught fire.

But with exceptionally high divorce rates, high numbers of humans sexually active without commitment, many writers actively negating the ethic of monogamy,
the media emphasis on promiscuity,
polyamory, pornography, prostitution,
etc., it would seem
that romance and fidelity,
commitment and monogamy are in serious trouble.

“…about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.”
American Psychological Association

“A 2011 study at the University of Iowa found that a woman's loss of virginity before age 18 was correlated with a greater number of occurrences of divorce within the first 10 years of marriage.”

“A 2012 study cited by Pew Research center found that an estimated 78% of women with bachelor's degrees, and 65% of men with bachelor's degrees who marred between 2006-2010 can expect their marriages to last at least two decades. Women with a high school degree or less, on the other hand, face a meager 40% probability of their marriages surviving the same period.”
Wikipedia

That’s the very negative news of the recent past.

In this New Year of 2016, let's move toward Romancing Fidelity. Aim for the true goal.

Fidelity: Becoming loyal, reliable, consistent.

Love: Choosing commitment.

Romancing love is “friendship that has caught fire.”

Consider the fiery words of Sherman Alexie from one of his famous short stories. Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create...

“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.

“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”

“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”

“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”

Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day.

Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit...

Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that...that was what was missing in most marriages: politeness, courtesy…thank-you notes to his wife for the smallest favors, did the dishes…vacuumed...

...year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

Then he lifted the ball over his head...and pushed it toward the rim...it caught fire.
From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie, Grove Press, pages 176-178, 188
--

Yes, LOVE is friendship that has caught fire.
Love grows like a glowing vineyard in the sunrise,
takes root and develops one day at a time. Love
in maturity is like fine wine, improves with age.

Love is quiet understanding and mature acceptance
of imperfection. Love gives strength and creatively
opens in new ways
to your beloved.


You are warmed by your beloved’s presence,
even when your lover is away. Miles do not separate.
You want your beloved nearer. But near or far, you
know your lover is yours, and you are your beloved's.

Love means patience and trust. Love springs up;
you and your beloved feel more whole. Love fill
the empty spaces in your hearts, leads you both
to look up, and to give out to others.

Love is
creative, compassionate, gentle, and kind,
coming from deep in the heart, essential.

Love is choosing again and again, daily to love
your beloved even in the hard times.

Love is wider
than the widest, deeper than the deepest,
closer than the closest--
a fire of chosen passion.

Anon and adapted


Howard Zinn, who was married for 64 years to Roslyn Shechter, until her death in 2008, has a short pithy comment about individual choice despite the negative world around:

TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives…

And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.
― Howard Zinn

In the Love,

Daniel Wilcox

The Seldom Sought Ideal of Loving Monogamy and Fidelity

Very widespread in the news of the last year were many pro-monogamous efforts and protests for marriage.

Diametrically against such monogamous marriage, at the same time, are all the new movements continuing the emphasis since the 1960's of sexual freedom, multiple sexual partners, even recreational sex, and specifically rejecting monogamy and fidelity.

First, the efforts of same sexual people to receive marriage licenses in all states of the United States, and in countries overseas has been highlighted almost every day. The most dramatic event of the past few months as far as same-sexual monogamy goes was in Ireland, a traditionally religiously conservative country and nation which voted 3 to 1 for same-sexual marriage on May 22nd.

But only a month later, the Supreme Court of the U.S., by a vote of 5 to 4, made same-sexual marriage the law of the land in America as well.

In contrast to all of this support of the ideal of monogamous marriage, it has been something of an ironic contradiction that many conservative Christian leaders (as well as Islamic scholars) have stringently opposed the movement toward the covenant of marriage among gays. Doesn’t it seem odd that these religious leaders would prefer same-sexual people to live in promiscuity or cohabitation rather than in a covenantal relationship?

However, these Christian leaders aren’t primarily thinking about the value of monogamy in this particular case, or of the ideals or emotional needs of same-sexual people, but rather only of the 4 or 5 verses in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament which condemn same-sexual activity as evil, where same sexuality is called an “abomination.” Strong words indeed.

These Christian leaders also have an illusory and fallacious understanding of traditional monogamous marriage as it has existed in past history. Seldom if ever has legal marriage in the past been at all like marriage as idealized by Christian leaders now.

First, most of the leaders portrayed in the Hebrew Bible--covering the historical period beginning in about 2000 BCA--weren’t monogamous by any stretch of biblical interpretation. On the contrary, Jewish leaders were almost all polygamous. Who adhered to an ideal of marriage as promulgated later by Jesus?

Not Abraham or Jacob…or Moses…Certainly NOT David! or Solomon or Gideon or Samson, etc.

King Solomon and a few of his 700 wives and 300 concubines.

There are a few exceptions. An ideal case for life-long monogamous marriage could be made for Ruth and Boaz, and for Isaiah and his wife the prophetess.

"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. …Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife.” Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study by George Joyce

The New Testament is more ambiguous. Passages do state that leaders need to be the husband of one wife, but scholars disagree as to whether that meant that the lay members of Christians churches could be polygamous or not.
Generally, marriage tended to be looked upon as a sometime negative necessity to deal with sexual desire. According to the Apostle Paul, the ideal (and most useful way of life since the end of the world was soon) was celibacy. Paul even stated, that “it is better not to touch a woman” but because of immorality, leaders should allow marriage.

And he further clarified, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9

In Christian history from Paul to the present, Christianity varied in its attitude toward marriage.
Martin Luther permitted the German leader Phillip I of Hesse to be married to two women (bigamy), but tried to keep the polygamous marriage a secret.

Elsewhere Luther said, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459.)



Some other Christian leaders at the time also permitted polygamy such as Phillip Melanchthon or they even promoted and participated including the Lutheran leader Carlstadt and the Anabaptist leader Bhernhard Rothmann.

The most infamous case was King Henry the VIII who practiced serial polgamy, 6 wives in a row, 2 of whom he beheaded. Oddly, even a Puritan leader supported polygamy, the poet John Milton. And, of course, there are the infamous examples from history such as the Mormon leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Generally though, monogamy and celibacy were the two accepted views of Christian history, though scholars disagree about whether monogamy itself comes mostly from the Bible or from Roman law and custom since Catholic matrimonial law came from Roman law as well. The Romans were officially monogamous, though in actual practice men could have concubines and affairs.

The actual facts of history don’t support the sacred ritual of Christian marriage as modern American Christians claim. There never was in wide practice such an institution that Christians now say gays are destroying. Many, probably most, marriages in history weren’t at all like the conception of ‘traditional marriage’ as conceived by conservative Christians in modern America.

First, most marriages in the past were arranged--even forced--marriages not freely-chosen loving, life-long relationships. Read a few articles by women leaders of the 19th century to get a more accurate perspective. For example, wives in the 19th century couldn’t vote, couldn’t own property, often were ordered to obey their husbands, etc. Marriage was all very patriarchal.

Furthermore, many marriages among the upper levels of society were mainly for political, cultural, and social purposes, and had very little to do with marriage as understood in modern America or in Genesis as explained by Jesus.

But all of this has an even stranger twist in that many of the millions of Christians who stridently oppose same- sexual marriage actually practice or allow divorce!

Divorce is more often condemned in Scripture and Christian history than homosexual relations. It destroys relationships, harms children, and is so tragic. (This, of course, is in no way a condemnation of those who, despite their best efforts, experienced a tragic divorce. My only point here is that Christians who accept divorce yet condemn same-sexual individuals who want to marry as evil are being hypocritical.)

This seems to show an amazing amount of irony and seeming hypocrisy. For instance, the Barna Research Group reports two of the groups with the highest divorce rate are conservative Christians and Baptists! At least 29 to 34% of such Christians have chosen divorce, some more than once.

The story is considerably different in the case of Islam which has always permitted—even condoned--multiple wives. Muhammad himself after the death of his first wife married his adopted son's newly divorced wife, married a 6-year-old girl (according to historians, Muhammmad consummated the marriage when she was 9), married others for political alliances, was given a concubine by an Ethiopian Christian leader, etc.

And in Shia Islam, there is temporary marriage, temporary wives. It is called the Nkiah al-mutah, a brief legal marriage of at least 3 days, 3 months, or one year (basically short-term legal prostitution).

Into this current mix of a mess related to marriage, comes something even more bizarre—the recent promotion of polyamory by some Christian leaders, even those who hold strongly to creedal Christianity!!

In polyamory, sexual relations occur with multiple persons among a group of friends or acquaintances, but according to the promoters, these multiple sexual relations are, allegedly, based in Christ's love. Like God is a multiple Trinity, so then Christ-followers can or ought to model this by having multiple sexual partners!

This outlook differs from traditional polygamy (and in a few societies, polyandry) in that no marriage license is involved and generally the relationships aren’t necessarily long term and sexual partners are with each other in a group.

The Christian promoters and others call polyamory, "ethical non-monogamous."

Very immoral. Polyamory seems to be another case of convoluted, self-deceived theological rationalizations.

Okay, enough of that.


The huge question is why on the one hand—very positive--are many same-sexual individuals seeking the sacred outlook of monogamous marriage?

while in contrast

many others are disparaging monogamy and fidelity,
and choosing, instead, multiple sexual relationships
of various forms?

Even sensitive and reflective leaders such as the thoughtful humanist and atheist Neil Carter support “recreational sex.” The famous psychologist, Dr. Eric Berne, originator of Transactional Analysis, also wrote positively of recreational sex. As did the Alan Watts, the British born philosopher and Zen Buddhism
scholar: “I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner…and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached…
My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain particular women with whom I have
most happily and congenially committed adultery…”
Alan Watts

This, of course, is about as far as one can get from the ideal of life-long fidelity in a loving monogamous marriage.

Once again: With the exception of some same-sexual individuals who have campaigned for years for the right to marry,
why is the sacred view of monogamous marriage fragmenting away with millions of others?


Let's close with a positive example of loving monogamy
from literature:

When thinking of loving monogamy, consider Roman and Grace, a Spokane Indian couple.
He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant
they will soon create…

“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.

“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”

“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”

“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”

Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day.

Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit.

Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums, the ones who ate their food too fast or had never read a novel. Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that.

Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear."

From “Saint Junior”

by Sherman Alexie

--

To be continued--

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox