An Epiphany



In the 17th century, John Calvin put forward a brand of Protestant Christianity that, to be fair, was well-intentioned. In an effort to ensure that everyone was going to go to heaven, he told people to look out for each other and keep them from sinning. The result, in reality, turned into neighbors spying on neighbors, and, ultimately, the fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

Sad but true, John Calvin is alive and well in today's religious conservatives. This is hardly a shock or news to anyone who has observed the evolution of what started out as the "moral majority" under Jerry Falwell in the late 1970's.

Probably moreso than anywhere else in society, it is a fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time, that is leading the push to deny rights (that haven't yet formally been granted) to the gay and lesbian community. And I had a realization, an epiphany if you would, earlier this week, that, any rational, honest, and caring straight person should be annoyed -- if not offended -- by the anti-gay movement.

Most of the arguments of the anti-gay movement are couched in rhetoric of the bible and the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Factor those arguments out and you are left with two arguments, neither one of which carries much weight.

The first argument is that homosexuality is not natural. Just because I have never felt any kind of sexual feelings towards another man does not make it unnatural to those who do or have felt them. I would even challenge those who say that to try the following experiment: take off all of your clothes and allow yourself to be deprived of all sight and sound, thus leaving you with the use of three senses. In this experiment, there will be minimal use of the senses of smell and taste, and you would be expected to rely on your sense of touch. Deprived of the senses of sight and sound, we will then parade ten people -- a random number of men and women but at least two of each -- to touch or otherwise please you using non-gender specific body parts and otherwise masking their genders. If you can accurately tell me the genders of 8 of the ten people I send to you, then (and only then) will I accept an argument that it is not natural.

The other argument against the gay lifestyle is that they are disgusted by the lifestyle. That's fine. Be disgusted. Don't participate in it. Live your life in a circle that never crosses with theirs. One of the most sickening things I've ever seen in my travels was a dead deer tied to the back of someone's truck, presumably the spoils of a reasonably successful hunting trip. Just because I felt uncomfortable about it, that's no reason to ban hunting. I draw no distinction between the two because people can and do things that may offend others. If no one is getting hurt, that's no reason to disallow them from doing it.

Take away those arguments, and all that's left is the notion that gay and lesbian people have sex -- egads! -- for the pleasure of it. Thank you, John Calvin. (As if to say that that's all gays and lesbians do: go home, rip off each other's clothes, and spend every waking hour finding new, unique, and creative ways of pleasing themselves and their chosen partners.)

As a straight man, I categorically reject the notion that every time I have ever engaged in sexual relations with a woman -- including my wife -- it was for the purposes of procreation. More often than not, it was for recreation. Irrespective of the outcome, nobody would have sex if it wasn't fun. Yes, of course it's true that the only kind of sexual intercourse that could result in a child being conceived is of the heterosexual and vaginal kind.

But if you have ever engaged in any kind of sexual act simply because you enjoyed it (and/or pleased your partner in the process), then you should be offended by the concept that gays shouldn't be allowed to be together.

Posted: Sat - April 23, 2005 at 10:33 AM        

©