I must confess that I was somewhat surprised by the passage of Proposition 8, amending the Constitution of the State of California to prohibit same sex marriages. I was even more surprised to note that the majority of support for passage of the proposition came from Latinos and Blacks, given their history of being marginalized within the context of the broader society.
I, also, find it all rather incredulous that any rational and enlightened person could buy into the belief that homosexuality is a choice. That is yet to be proven and, until it is, I regard it more as a societal prejudice that has absolutely no foundation in fact.
The person is yet to be born who would deliberately choose a life of ostracism, persecution, alienation and violence from their families, churches and society. I have known too many with the same sad tale. They realize they have a different sexual orientation at a formative age and struggle with what they suspect they are vs. what they feel they should be. They may go to churches where they are subjected to a tirade from the pulpit or the altar condemning their kind as an “abomination of God. “ When they do come out, there is often faint sympathy and little or no attempt at understanding and acceptance. A goodly number are literally thrown out of their homes and disowned by their families. They must either live the life of a hypocrite or seek acceptance within a community of their own that is rife with prejudices specific to their subculture. For some, the only way out is suicide.
It is yet to be proven that homosexuality is genetic, but it has not been conclusively proven that genetics does not play a part in it. Frankly, I am inclined to believe it has its roots in a combination of factors that causes them to be attracted to another person of the same sex. The scientific community needs to continue devoting the effort and resources necessary in order to resolve this question. Current scientific evidence suggests it may be a combination of genetics, environmental influences and family history.
When I was in college, I recall research conducted following WW II which focused on men in the armed forces who were isolated from the company of women for a sustained period of time. They found a greater incidence of homosexual behavior among men while they were isolated from women than was the case when they were not. Much the same findings were also found among male prison populations. However, when they returned to a normal environment, the majority of them reverted to heterosexual behavior, but a minority continued to prefer the company of men. The conclusions pointed not only to the strength of the male sex drive within the population but, also, to the identification of a minority who had a latent sexual orientation toward members of the same sex. As to the causal factors, as of today, that is yet to be conclusively determined.
Of course, we cannot leave out the religious institutions that believe they, and only they hold our salvation in their hands. Their personal and institutional hypocrisy knows no limits. They all rail on, in one form or another, about the evils of homosexuality, the remedies for which range from ecclesiastical condemnation to divinely ordained death. I am always amused by such invective when I hear of clergymen of professed piety sneaking out under the cover of darkness, or to the anonymity of a distant city, in order to procure the sexual favors of one of the same sex.
Then there is the issue of the rule of celibacy adopted and institutionalized by the Catholic Church, causing centuries of cover-up, denial and hypocrisy at what has gone on in parishes, orders and monastic orders. It will take a long time for the church to recover and, in my opinion that will only come about when celibacy is made optional. I just don’t believe it is possible to ignore and suppress one of man’s strongest and most basic biological needs without breeding hypocrisy on a grand scale. If the protestant faiths can support a married clergy, then I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same.
As for criminally and sexually predatory behavior, statistics show the incidence to be much less in a homosexual population than in the population at large. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that children adopted by gay couples have any greater proclivity to homosexuality as they mature than do those raised in heterosexual homes. The evidence thereby negates the prejudicial conclusion that such adoptions are likely to lead to some sort of a conversion from a heterosexual makeup to a homosexual lifestyle. Gay couples, generally, have shown themselves to be exemplary adoptive parents, who are actively involved in their children’s school and social activities.
Personally, I am put off by the overt and exaggerated expressions of being gay. I see no positive reasons for gay parades, and the antics and forms of dress likely to be found amid their protests. On the other hand, I can understand why they engage in such activities as one way of saying “f--- you” in response to the almost total ostracism and alienation the gay community at large must feel. At the end of the day, I think they would be better served by being accepted and assimilated into mainstream society. That, of course, presupposes an open minded society that still has a long way to go before reaching that objective.
As for sexual activity, it is pretty much a given that most people engage in such activity, be they straight or gay. When the clothes come off and people jump into the sack, it is at that point I believe we separate ourselves from the spiritual side of our nature to the physical, try as some may to think otherwise. Other than as it relates to the creation of life, I rather doubt that God has any interest in that activity, as well. I know of no Divine proscription as to style and conduct for sexual activity. I rather imagine, whether those involved are heterosexual or homosexual, the inclination to engage in variety is just as pronounced for one group as it is for the other.
I cannot imagine why any religion would want to concern itself with this aspect of our human nature, must less engage in elaborate prohibitions as to what is acceptable or unacceptable; what is normal vs. what is abnormal. However, as always, we have left those issues to the elders of the faith who have, historically, done a laudable job of subjective judgment and condemnation. The laity has also done a very good job of rising up in righteous indignation about such matters. Frankly, I don’t think God gives one hoot as to what two consenting adults do in privacy. What I do think He cares about is the moral dimension of it all which, as we all know, is based more on conjecture than on fact.
I believe what determines the morality of it all is whether it occurs within the context of a promiscuous relationship or within the context of a committed relationship. Lust vs. love. The same applies to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals. That doesn’t mean some of us may not be weaker than others, but it doesn’t change the standard.
That marriage applies to the “union of a man and a woman,” is pretty clear in its definition and seems to be a generally accepted. Perhaps that is because only from the union of a man and a woman comes the power to create human life. I can think of no other rational explanation. If that is indeed the case, I will yield to that definition, and it seems rather futile to belabor the issue and prolong a long overdue reconciliation. Nothing will be solved by the conflict. It will only continue to separate the two sides of the issue without any meeting of the minds. In reality, is the prize really worth the price of the Cracker Jacks? What is of importance, from my perspective, is whether a union of two human beings occurs within the context of a loving and committed relationship. That can be accomplished by means other than labeling it as “marriage.” Why can we not accept that the traditional definition of “marriage” applies to the union of a man and a woman? On the other hand, the term “civil union” does sound overly legal and sterile in its connotation. Instead, why not consider “a pledge of commitment” between members of the same sex that can be legally performed in a ceremony, either by a religious cleric or a civil servant, just as a marriage ceremony may be for a man and a woman? If churches want to formally bless those unions, as I think they should, all the better.
To deny anyone who is striving to live a moral life from the life of a church, regardless of their religious persuasion, is self-defeating for the church and fosters an estrangement of millions of good and decent people from the fabric of our community simply because they happen to be gay. To continue to gore each other’s ox over the definition of “marriage” will only continue to separate us from each other. Nothing is to be gained from that posturing.
I believe the time has come for churches and religious clerics to heed their own counsel to “Judge not lest ye also be judged.” If anyone seeks to become a part of your community and comes to you with a sincere heart, then I think the only decent avenue for them to take is to set aside their own prejudices and welcome them into the fold. In the final analysis, it is a matter of the individual’s own conscience for which they, and only they, will be held to account before their Creator, not that of the church. That will be the Day of Judgment for each of them and, indeed, for us all.
Let’s face it, as long as we persist in having our own way we will never get to where we should be. At the end of the day, whether in the eyes of God or whatever higher power one may look to for spiritual guidance, we are one people. The time has come for us to divest ourselves of the petty prejudices that divide us from one another. We might just as well accept and make the most of who and what we are, for the sake of everyone. Why would the God of Love want to condemn any human being for the simple need to love and be loved?
At the end of the day, that which we must all share is our common journey on the road to Damascus.
Cowboy Bob
January 15, 2009
I, also, find it all rather incredulous that any rational and enlightened person could buy into the belief that homosexuality is a choice. That is yet to be proven and, until it is, I regard it more as a societal prejudice that has absolutely no foundation in fact.
The person is yet to be born who would deliberately choose a life of ostracism, persecution, alienation and violence from their families, churches and society. I have known too many with the same sad tale. They realize they have a different sexual orientation at a formative age and struggle with what they suspect they are vs. what they feel they should be. They may go to churches where they are subjected to a tirade from the pulpit or the altar condemning their kind as an “abomination of God. “ When they do come out, there is often faint sympathy and little or no attempt at understanding and acceptance. A goodly number are literally thrown out of their homes and disowned by their families. They must either live the life of a hypocrite or seek acceptance within a community of their own that is rife with prejudices specific to their subculture. For some, the only way out is suicide.
It is yet to be proven that homosexuality is genetic, but it has not been conclusively proven that genetics does not play a part in it. Frankly, I am inclined to believe it has its roots in a combination of factors that causes them to be attracted to another person of the same sex. The scientific community needs to continue devoting the effort and resources necessary in order to resolve this question. Current scientific evidence suggests it may be a combination of genetics, environmental influences and family history.
When I was in college, I recall research conducted following WW II which focused on men in the armed forces who were isolated from the company of women for a sustained period of time. They found a greater incidence of homosexual behavior among men while they were isolated from women than was the case when they were not. Much the same findings were also found among male prison populations. However, when they returned to a normal environment, the majority of them reverted to heterosexual behavior, but a minority continued to prefer the company of men. The conclusions pointed not only to the strength of the male sex drive within the population but, also, to the identification of a minority who had a latent sexual orientation toward members of the same sex. As to the causal factors, as of today, that is yet to be conclusively determined.
Of course, we cannot leave out the religious institutions that believe they, and only they hold our salvation in their hands. Their personal and institutional hypocrisy knows no limits. They all rail on, in one form or another, about the evils of homosexuality, the remedies for which range from ecclesiastical condemnation to divinely ordained death. I am always amused by such invective when I hear of clergymen of professed piety sneaking out under the cover of darkness, or to the anonymity of a distant city, in order to procure the sexual favors of one of the same sex.
Then there is the issue of the rule of celibacy adopted and institutionalized by the Catholic Church, causing centuries of cover-up, denial and hypocrisy at what has gone on in parishes, orders and monastic orders. It will take a long time for the church to recover and, in my opinion that will only come about when celibacy is made optional. I just don’t believe it is possible to ignore and suppress one of man’s strongest and most basic biological needs without breeding hypocrisy on a grand scale. If the protestant faiths can support a married clergy, then I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same.
As for criminally and sexually predatory behavior, statistics show the incidence to be much less in a homosexual population than in the population at large. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that children adopted by gay couples have any greater proclivity to homosexuality as they mature than do those raised in heterosexual homes. The evidence thereby negates the prejudicial conclusion that such adoptions are likely to lead to some sort of a conversion from a heterosexual makeup to a homosexual lifestyle. Gay couples, generally, have shown themselves to be exemplary adoptive parents, who are actively involved in their children’s school and social activities.
Personally, I am put off by the overt and exaggerated expressions of being gay. I see no positive reasons for gay parades, and the antics and forms of dress likely to be found amid their protests. On the other hand, I can understand why they engage in such activities as one way of saying “f--- you” in response to the almost total ostracism and alienation the gay community at large must feel. At the end of the day, I think they would be better served by being accepted and assimilated into mainstream society. That, of course, presupposes an open minded society that still has a long way to go before reaching that objective.
As for sexual activity, it is pretty much a given that most people engage in such activity, be they straight or gay. When the clothes come off and people jump into the sack, it is at that point I believe we separate ourselves from the spiritual side of our nature to the physical, try as some may to think otherwise. Other than as it relates to the creation of life, I rather doubt that God has any interest in that activity, as well. I know of no Divine proscription as to style and conduct for sexual activity. I rather imagine, whether those involved are heterosexual or homosexual, the inclination to engage in variety is just as pronounced for one group as it is for the other.
I cannot imagine why any religion would want to concern itself with this aspect of our human nature, must less engage in elaborate prohibitions as to what is acceptable or unacceptable; what is normal vs. what is abnormal. However, as always, we have left those issues to the elders of the faith who have, historically, done a laudable job of subjective judgment and condemnation. The laity has also done a very good job of rising up in righteous indignation about such matters. Frankly, I don’t think God gives one hoot as to what two consenting adults do in privacy. What I do think He cares about is the moral dimension of it all which, as we all know, is based more on conjecture than on fact.
I believe what determines the morality of it all is whether it occurs within the context of a promiscuous relationship or within the context of a committed relationship. Lust vs. love. The same applies to heterosexuals as it does to homosexuals. That doesn’t mean some of us may not be weaker than others, but it doesn’t change the standard.
That marriage applies to the “union of a man and a woman,” is pretty clear in its definition and seems to be a generally accepted. Perhaps that is because only from the union of a man and a woman comes the power to create human life. I can think of no other rational explanation. If that is indeed the case, I will yield to that definition, and it seems rather futile to belabor the issue and prolong a long overdue reconciliation. Nothing will be solved by the conflict. It will only continue to separate the two sides of the issue without any meeting of the minds. In reality, is the prize really worth the price of the Cracker Jacks? What is of importance, from my perspective, is whether a union of two human beings occurs within the context of a loving and committed relationship. That can be accomplished by means other than labeling it as “marriage.” Why can we not accept that the traditional definition of “marriage” applies to the union of a man and a woman? On the other hand, the term “civil union” does sound overly legal and sterile in its connotation. Instead, why not consider “a pledge of commitment” between members of the same sex that can be legally performed in a ceremony, either by a religious cleric or a civil servant, just as a marriage ceremony may be for a man and a woman? If churches want to formally bless those unions, as I think they should, all the better.
To deny anyone who is striving to live a moral life from the life of a church, regardless of their religious persuasion, is self-defeating for the church and fosters an estrangement of millions of good and decent people from the fabric of our community simply because they happen to be gay. To continue to gore each other’s ox over the definition of “marriage” will only continue to separate us from each other. Nothing is to be gained from that posturing.
I believe the time has come for churches and religious clerics to heed their own counsel to “Judge not lest ye also be judged.” If anyone seeks to become a part of your community and comes to you with a sincere heart, then I think the only decent avenue for them to take is to set aside their own prejudices and welcome them into the fold. In the final analysis, it is a matter of the individual’s own conscience for which they, and only they, will be held to account before their Creator, not that of the church. That will be the Day of Judgment for each of them and, indeed, for us all.
Let’s face it, as long as we persist in having our own way we will never get to where we should be. At the end of the day, whether in the eyes of God or whatever higher power one may look to for spiritual guidance, we are one people. The time has come for us to divest ourselves of the petty prejudices that divide us from one another. We might just as well accept and make the most of who and what we are, for the sake of everyone. Why would the God of Love want to condemn any human being for the simple need to love and be loved?
At the end of the day, that which we must all share is our common journey on the road to Damascus.
Cowboy Bob
January 15, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment