Log In | Register
If you assume the position that gay sex is wrong, because it cannot lead to reproduction, non-reproductive sex between heterosexuals must also be considered a perversion of the purpose of sexuality.
In the debate about Proposition 8 and the various states legislating gay marriage there is one discussion, which has not really been explored in depth, so to speak. It is the question of whether or not non-reproductive sex in straight marriages should be considered gay.
In the old days "gay" would mean "happy" or "easy-going", and there's probably some cultural significance to the fact that the term today is used to describe homosexuals, particularly male homosexuals, and widely accepted in the... well, gay communities.
The reason it makes sense is that when homosexuality began to become mainstreamed in Western culture - after being ostracized since the Christening of Rome - the homosexuals were happy. They celebrated coming out of the closet, often wearing flamboyant clothing and partying late, kind of like all young people do today.
So, they were "gay", and at least that's a more flattering term than the one it replaced, "queer", which means something strange or twisted.
That was just some background.
Hard on homosexuals
A little more background to explain why the Christian churches are radically opposed to homosexual practices, particularly same sex marriage: The Bible undeniably contains some harsh language about homosexuality.
It's called the infamous six clobber passages.
Even if modern translations and interpretations somewhat differ from the fundamentalist interpretations - in condoning consensual homosexuality and narrowing the condemnation to pedophilia, rape and male prostitution in the temple (never have gay sex for money in a temple!) - these passages are likely to haunt churches and the political discourse for a long time to come.
The most famous one, Leviticus 18:22, in the King James Version is translated:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Abomination means it is an eyesore; it's ugly or repulsive. It's not much more than saying: "Don't do it, because I don't like it". Of course, Christians can claim it is in the Bible because God does not like it, which automatically raises the fundamentally aesthetic verdict to a verdict of aesthetic fundamentalism.
In defense of gay sex
As a man with a fundamentally woman-oriented sex drive I find it odd to defend gay sex against accusations of immorality.
It is, however, a matter of public concern for homosexuals to reach the critical benchmark of public acceptance through legislation, because it consolidates tolerance of alternative sexual identities and secures the gay communities against discrimination and persecution.
So, let me try to explain why it does not make sense to condemn gay sex. I can understand that it is aesthetically displeasing to those who are not into it. As a man I find that imagery of two women being intimate is arousing, while intimacy between two men looks annoyingly weird and unaesthetic.
I admit that, but it doesn't mean I am against it. I also do not like to look at people in latex outfits. It just looks stupid to me. I do like some role playing and domination games and soft bondage; it's just the lame outfits that bother me.
But the fundamental argument against gay sex coming from Christians is that it is wrong, even if it is not in your face... pardon the pun.
It is, as they used to say, "against nature" or unnatural. But why, in our modern, high technological society, should something being unnatural automatically be considered immoral? Very few would, after all, be able to sustain their lives in a "natural environment" without artificial means.
Should only straight people be gay?
I am reminded of an anecdote about James Joyce who allegedly convinced his wife to have sex "against nature", which was what led me to think that there must be scores of straight couples out there having "gay sex".
What I mean is: Lots of straight couples, even married ones, have oral sex and anal sex, which is basically the same type of sex one must assume gay people have. Obviously, the only type of sex gays and lesbians cannot have, is penis to vagina sex.
Also, many straight couples have recreational sex or sex for fun, which even if it is penis to vagina sex, is somewhat similar to gay sex, because it does not lead to reproduction.
It is also gay in the ancient sense of the word, before it was sexualized, as it makes people happy.
If you assume the position, so to speak, that gay sex is wrong, because it cannot lead to reproduction, non-reproductive sex between heterosexuals must also be considered a perversion of the purpose of sexuality.
Coming out of the straight closet
So, my questions at this point are:
• How many of you who are married or have been married have practiced oral sex or anal sex in wedlock?
• Do any of you straight people, married or not, feel that oral sex and anal sex is wrong or demeaning for a straight couple?
• Are there any Christian who can explain in simple terms of common ethics why gay sex is to be considered morally wrong?
• Is it just a question of aesthetic repulsion or blind obedience to the Bible / specific translations and interpretations of the Bible?
• The Bible even states that a man must not sleep with a woman during her period. Has anybody violated this command?
How sexy are Christian marriages?
I am sure some will have a quibble with the headline, arguing it is per definition not "gay" if it is "straight."
In this case I would like to ask if recreational sex between spouses isn't even more gay, when the homosexuals are excluded from doing it, since it does send the signal that all the fun is for heterosexuals...?
In a way it turns the picture upside down, making life rather dull for homosexuals if they accepted the verdict, which of course I would not expect them to, while heterosexuals become the "gay community" in the sense that they can have anal sex, oral sex, sex with toys and domination games all they like, without being condemned.
The Bible does not say anything about what husbands and wives can do to each other, as long as it is consensual.
With the widespread practice of all types of sex even in wedlock, which is probably a phenomenon that penetrates deep into the religious communities (again, pardon the pun), it seems profoundly unfair that homosexuality is considered a perversion.
Why is it so important for society and for God to prevent people from having sex with the same gender?
Ominous silence on child abuse
I also always wondered why there is a ban against incest in the Bible, which is perfectly rational, but nothing about pedophilia or even the slightest hint at the responsibility of grownups to prevent sexual abuse of children?
It's hardly a new concept, and we know it was practiced in the day and age of the New Testament authors.
These days we hear a multitude of reports about institutionalized child rape in churches, particularly the Catholic Church... could it be a consequence of the Bible's ominous silence on child abuse?
I do not really expect anyone to be able to answer the last question, but I sure look forward to responses to the other ones.
