Wednesday, March 02, 2005

"Homos" - some thoughts

(WARNING - If the title didn't getcha, you may find some parts of this posting otherwise offensive - though if you've bothered reading this blog for even a little while, you should probably be used to that by now)

In my conversation with others, I've often railed against the political definition of "homosexual", and attempts to dogmatize any one theory as to why some people "turn out gay". Basically this is because I believe that such notions, beside not corresponding to reality (read: not true), are invitations to self defeat for those who have some (or many) difficulties in this area (read: so-called "gays").

But there is another side to all of this - I sincerely believe that rigid, artificial categories like "gay" and "straight" pose all sorts of problems for so called "normal folks", the "straight" people who even if you believe the inflated/ridiculous statistics of homosexualist-activists, still make up 90% of the population.

For starters, I believe it creates an air of self righteousness, which not only causes one to be rather naive and uncompassionate toward this particular type of sinner ("gays"), but also blinds one to the real problems which are endemic to much of what the modern west regards as "normal". Even if the typical committed Christian is not as vulgar as some Busch-beer-swilling-moron still groaning over the inherent evils of "race mixin'" in his view of "homos", I'm convinced that if he takes the political categories of "gay" and "straight" too seriously, he may in fact end up being complacent with certain evils, so long as they're the "familiar kind."

Examples? Well, it's funny that those who tend to have the most to say in open criticism of "fags", are very often the ones who have the least to say about the practice of contraception in their own ranks, or the tacit acceptance of "sexual practices" which are really just a variant of sodomy. If buggering your fellow man is disordered, how is essentially indulging in the same sorts of indecencies with your wife any different? The last time I checked, there was only one female oriface which could possibly fruitfully receive the male half of the fertility equation. Yet there are a lot of Christian types (like from this website) who seem to think "so long as it's straight n' married, it's pretty much ok".

The truth of course (as Orthodox or Roman Catholic dogmatics would make sufficiently clear), is that there is a unity between sexual activity and procreation - and that it is abusive to expect to enjoy the former without being open to the latter. While to a certain degree both of the previously mentioned ecclessiastical bodies allow a certain econimia ("slack" - something less than the perfection/exactitude of the law) in some hard cases (though to be honest, in popular Roman Catholicism this isn't quite true anymore), this principle stands and is the rule by which things are measured - whether they are things done or desired by a so called "straight" or "gay" person.

Given the deluge of temptation which our society is swimming in, I also think that if we did away with artificial distinctions, many struggling "straight" Christians might have a little more sympathy (and even, gasp "tolerance") for their "gay neighbour". By this I mean, it is very tough for anyone (I think particularly for male "anyones") to be chaste in a manner appropriate to their state in life. No longer do you need to go to some seedy store in the bad part of town to get a filthy mag/movie wrapped in a brown paper bag; you, it's all just a "click away" online, or on your pay-per-view TV. Though this is perhaps more a Canadian thing (which is where I live and write from), prostitution is so common as to be a non-event - in fact it exists in all sorts of sanitized, almost respectable ways here, a price and a fix for any level of income it would seem. This is beside the more banal temptations posed by co-workers, hanging around "pagan women", etc. And even if you act on none of this, it often cannot but scar one's imagination...

The point is, this brokeness/sickness in it's basic respects is no more "gay" or "straight" than it is "blonde" or "brunette", or whatever type of fetishistic bouqet of qualities your fallen mortal psyche has latched onto. It is common to all of us, and for those who are honest (as I try to be), it can be hell. But, it is in large part a "common hell", and for that reason, perhaps grounds for some compassion. Compassion - love for the sinner, but not approval or winking at the sin...whether it be the iniquities of someone attracted to those of the same gender, or the sins of someone "into the ladies"*.

* - the female readers will have to forgive the exceedingly "male oriented" and androcentric nature of this article...but like most humans, I can only speak best about what I know or what is closest to me


Anonymous Anastasios said...

One problem I see with the rigid differentiation is that any man who has an attraction to both men and women is taken by many homosexuals to be a gay man who simply hasn't been able to come all the way out of the closet; bisexualism is often discriminated against in the "gay community." Also, humans are not usually 100% gay or straight; stick two men in a prison cell together and sometimes things happen. Those same men, once on the outside will revert back to being straight. Some gay men marry women to have children; yet that raises the question, if that man can actually make the effort to marry and procreate with a woman, enough so that she is not suspicious, then is he really GAY? etc etc. Sexuality is simply less rigidly defined than most would admit.

(Note: I firmly believe in Christian standards of morality. I am just stating some observations I have had from years of being exposed to secular culture).

11:08 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home