The question I'm wrestling with is this: "What is actually, categorically wrong with two adults of the same gender (and/or sex) engaging in a physical expression of their love for one another within the boundaries of a committed relationship?"
My answer: Absolutely nothing. And I honestly have never heard a compelling reason to change my answer. Here's why (Part 3):
First, let's review:
When arguing about (homo)sexuality...
1. ...the Bible isn't helpful. Not as a direct and unfiltered source. (See Part 1)
2. ...and "nature" isn't either. Plenty of things are "natural" but also wrong. Plenty of things are "unnatural" but also beneficial. (See Part 2)
We can't simply go from "what the Bible says" or "what nature says" to "how we ought to live." To get from what "is" to what "ought" to be, we have to offer some kind of "bridge principles" to get us there.
This means that there are many common arguments in this conversation that simply don't hold water. These include (but are not limited to):
"The Bible says it's wrong, so it must be wrong." (Wrong: the Bible says lots of things are wrong that most folks have no problem with.)
"The Bible doesn't actually say it's wrong, so it must be right." (Wrong: the Bible doesn't say anything about whether it was a good idea to split the atom and lead creation to the brink of annihilation. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.)
"It's not natural, so it must be wrong." (Wrong: it's perfectly natural, if by that you mean it is found in nature...and may even be beneficial to the species.)
"It's perfectly natural, so it must be right." Otherwise known as "S/he was born that way, so it's okay." (Wrong: As a Lutheran, I have to say here that I believe people are "born" with all kinds of messed up predilections, motivations, and drives. Pedophilia in particular is one of the most intransigent "natural" characteristics in a portion of the population... and I think we can all agree that it's perfectly wrong.)
"It's not a choice." (Wrong: it [i.e., having sex] absolutely is a choice. We are human beings, not robots. Unless, of course, we're talking about rape - which is a completely different conversation.)
"Only sex that makes babies is morally right." (Wrong: Do you have any idea how much sex is happening in the world right this minute that cannot possibly produce children? That's a whole lot of sex that apparently cannot be considered as morally legitimate. Not to mention, this makes for an exceedingly boring sex life - the kind we all wish for our parents but never for ourselves.)
"Kids need mommies and daddies; therefore gay families are inadequate." (Wrong: I agree that having multiple adult role models of a variety of genders, races, personalities, etc., is a good and healthy thing for children. The science tends to support that as well. And, an increasing number of kids are (or are not) benefiting from that diversity of adult attention and modeling regardless of the legal make-up of their household. I'd rather not have as many kids being raised by single parents (usually moms) as we have. I'm also aware that divorce can often be the best choice among lots of unattractive choices. I'm a man, but if my son is going to learn how to fix things or throw a football, he's going to need his straight uncle or his sister's gay godfather or his grandma to help - I'm out of my depth there. Thankfully I'm embedded in a diverse and loving community of family and friends who can offer my kids a variety of models of how to be human men and women. But unless we're ready to go back to the days when two-parent, heterosexual families were the only legitimate and legal household structures, then we're going to need a little flexibility and fairness when adjudicating which parents are better for which kids. Besides, I know a lot of straight parents who really suck at raising kids.)
"It's an aberration of nature - just like pedophilia or bestiality or (insert your favorite gross sex practice here)." (Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! There is no legitimate reason to bring this up at all. Rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia - these are completely different categories of behavior that require separate ethical consideration.)
Side note: I think you'll find that when push comes to shove, most of the above arguments are a thin veneer over what's really happening, which I like to call the "Ugh!" or "Yay!" factor. Look at Phil Robertson. After dragging the Bible and sin into it (very inadequately, I must say), the real "substance" of his argument was about which parts fit where - and his revulsion at the idea of anal sex, compared to his apparent abundant love for the vagina (his words, not mine). Fair enough - he's really not into anal sex - really. I'm not into Brussels sprouts, but I do happen to love sushi; my wife feels the exact opposite. Tastes vary (and, btw, they also happen to have real biological roots). I'm not about to suggest that we should structure our food ethic around my particular tastes - no matter how much my gag reflex instantly kicks in when a Brussels sprout touches my tongue.
And while we're talking about stuff that's gross - it's important to note that there is a fundamental, categorical difference between eating Brussels sprouts and eating, say, shit - although both thoughts make me wretch. One is (apparently) food. One is waste. Think of that the next time you want to compare adult, committed, same-gender sexuality with having sex with children or goats. Crude, yes - and strangely considered appropriate conversation among some (maybe) adults.
"Who are we to judge?" (Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! We must judge. Because we live in a world where sexuality easily becomes a tool for controlling other people's bodies and lives, the community must make reasonable, sound, judgments about what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior. Sometimes these norms will agree with "the Bible" or "nature" (e.g., parenting is a good thing that should be supported by the community). Sometimes they won't (e.g., multiple spouses and sexual partners create social and economic vulnerabilities that ought to be avoided in civil society, no to mention it makes life really complicated.)
The question is not whether we judge - it's how. What principles help us organize the available data (traditions, scriptures, laws, natural phenomena, experiences, etc.) into a reasonable ethic for human sexuality in our community?
3. ...let's imagine we're starting from scratch. How would you describe an ideal human, mature, sexual relationship?
We probably won't agree on all of these - and some will undoubtedly want to add some that I might balk at. That's the joy of living in community. But here's my humble offering of a place to start:
Choice and freedom - partners choose one another; sexual expression is mutually-agreed-upon without pressure; partners can choose to end a relationship with some reasonable and fair repercussions; because one must be free to make choices, reaching the age of moral agency is vital for a relationship to be "freely chosen" and not coerced.
Commitment and responsibility - relationships take work and energy and dedication; sexual expression should wait until partners have reached a mature decision to care for one another in the morning and jointly bear the joys and consequences for their behavior; structures should be in place that encourage partners to work on problems before quickly dissolving the relationship; legal protections and structures should be available and encouraged - and I have yet to hear any good reason for gender to be a determining factor in the availability of legal protection.
Mutuality and justice - power is divided equally; labor is distributed fairly; choices are talked about openly; consequences are borne together; there is give and take, but full moral agency requires mutuality.
Community and diversity - children are a part of the picture - even if they do not legally depend upon the couple in question; communities raise generations together; parenting should be legally and structurally supported and encouraged and shared - within and outside the home; a diversity of adults should be involved in modeling and caring for children; mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends, etc., should be a part of children's lives, within responsible and safe boundaries.
And, of course, love and passion - Relationships should be fun; sexuality should be treasured and celebrated; and as people grow and change, relationships should seek to find new ways to celebrate love and passion in their lives together; beauty and attraction are not the exclusive property of teenagers, and society does well to encourage a love of bodies and people across the whole diversity of human life and love.
That's just a start - feel free to add or subtract. It seems to me a much more robust way of celebrating the gift of love and relationship than reducing people to "which parts fit where." And while it takes some good sifting and translation, most (if not all) of these values can be found in both scripture and nature - along with lots of other, much less beautiful or helpful stuff.
The question, then, is this: Can two adults of the same gender willfully enter into a relationship that can be judged and understood within the boundaries of these principles? Can two adult women choose one another, raise children together, share power and life and love, and embed themselves in a just and loving community? Can two adult men have a mutual, loving, beautiful, complicated life together - which may or may not involve directly raising children of their own, but which takes responsibility for the welfare and joy of the world in which they live and the generations yet to come?
My answer: Absolutely. Not hypothetically, but actually. These relationships happen all around me all the time. Some are better than others. The same is true of my friends who are coupled with people of different genders.
So, absent any compelling reason to say "no" to these dear friends and fellow citizens (not to mention children of God) and their relationships, then what is actually, categorically wrong with their lives?
Absolutely nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment