Although I reject the normalization of homosexuality, I am opposed to any expression of hate towards homosexual persons or the limiting of human rights in relation to homosexual persons. The complexity of this subject in relation to individual persons is far more complicated and not explored in this essay, such work belongs to case studies and statistical research efforts.
I do not address the birth defects that contribute to confusion of sexual identity. Briefly, these incidents reflect a need for compassion and understanding that can defy accepted norms. Some suggest celibacy within the confines of a religious order. Recent history has displayed, through failure, that a religious order is not sufficient to contain the desire for touch and sexual life in human beings. We are going to need a lot of grace for this complex reality.
The End of LIfe
To say that homosexuality is a created, or a natural state, is a metaphysical claim. Such a claim voids psychological and sociological effects on the human psyche. Further, this particular claim denies the power of the will in relation to the natural biology of gender. Rather than wrestle with the responsibility of choice, or the existential ripples in humanity that contribute to gender confusion, the homosexual community opted for a spiritual explanation in order to normalize their behavior.
The misplaced 'inner gender' idea relies upon the idea of 'spirit', that their spirit defines their identity and their 'spirit' has been placed in the wrong body. So, either God is a cruel buffoon or intends for some to suffer the difference of an ill begotten state. Others justify their homosexuality under the richness of love, as though in the name of love anything can be normalized. Love does not require sexual activity. Further, the myth of the misplaced 'spirit' makes sexuality a spiritual reality rather than belonging to the creaturely aspect of humanity. This thinking inexorably leads to the worship of sexuality and devolves religion in a return to the sex cults of the past.
It is a well-known fact that religion appeals to the human psyche and so religion is not subject to reason. However, religion wrestles with reason whereas the homosexual community’s response avoids the dialectics of understanding; based on a metaphysical claim and an appeal to love in order to legitimize their sexual desire.
It is politically incorrect to speak reasonably about homosexual behavior in a society that has lost the ability to think critically about reality. Homosexuality is now a metaphysical myth; it is an unwritten, unexamined, growing myth without historical precedent. The current birth of this new 'consciousness', this sociological emerging of a myth without a past, subjects humanity to Jung's warning of the eruption of psychotic epidemics. A psychotic epidemic is to redefine humanity apart from what humanity knows itself to be.
The resignation of same gendered persons choosing to publicly live together as a familial unit and attempting to live ethically in society posits a situation that was once hidden. Meaning homosexual couples did not flaunt their status as homosexuals but lived together quietly. The burden of secrecy and accompanying societal guilt became obstacles for these persons whose lives often demonstrated love and ethical concern for others regardless of their sexual life. Shame is an unpleasant if not damning aspect of human relationships and has driven many with homosexual desires to resort to suicide. We all seek acceptance and sexuality is fraught with variations of shameful or unacceptable behavior. The guilt for failed sexual behavior is so pervasive in humanity that we all know and experience some shame; this alone should alert us to a need for grace.
The current normalization of homosexuality is more than a political trend; it is the recreating of humanity on a myth that has no history. The myth of homosexuality as a created state of existence is associated with the myth of progress. Not technological progress, but the myth that humanity is evolving into more than our ancestors that lived in millennium's past. To embrace homosexuality as evidence of human enlightenment is at the heart of this new myth without a history.
Sociological and psychological factors affect identity formation. This being said, the normalization of homosexuality makes it an option, a choice for developing human beings. Although the metaphysical claim is that being homosexual is not a choice, the sociological effect of normalization creates a choice for persons that would otherwise not choose to live as a homosexual person.
The metaphysical claim seeks to undermine critical reflection on the phenomenon of homosexuality. Critical reflection becomes an impossible task once normalization is introduced into law and the social fabric. The normalization of homosexuality posits for developing persons a choice that is become (through the developing myth) an object for imitation. The population of homosexual persons will increase due to the effects of normalization coupled with new-found religious approval. So sexuality becomes an identity-forming power rather than a gift for male and female couples. Under the metaphysical myth of homosexuality, the human desire for sex becomes an uncontrollable desire that breaches the natural order of gendered beings.
Human beings are mimetic; we learn through imitation. Although we are mimetic and imitate others, the biological determination that makes us gendered creatures directs our choice of which (parent) or gender we will model in relation to femaleness or maleness. Other biological factors contribute to our need and ability to imitate a specific gender’s style of speech, movements, and desires. Gender identity is learned naturally and it is also selectively taught due to the recognition of gender. Along with gender identity is the sexual aspect of gender behavior that is the product of both natural biology and social development.
We are sexual beings. Like all aspects of being human we need civil law to govern our behavior in all matters that affect all of us. Simply said we cannot legislate morality, but we can regulate behavior. The production of a healthy society is built on human rights and personal liberty to choose. However, our choices function within boundaries defined by natural limits e.g. a man cannot choose to bear a child through the natural processes of pregnancy. The promotion of homosexuality as a metaphysical mystery rather than a choice based upon confused desire (unregulated desire) is a reflection of a society that has failed to regulate sexual behavior in healthy ways. Regulating all forms of sexual display is essential for a healthy society. This being said, heterosexual pornography is likely more detrimental to society than the normalization of homosexuality.
The removal of the power of choice in the metaphysical myth annuls the spontaneity of humanity as creators of reality. Yet, the myth is a reality building tool, an unwritten etiology; it is the fabrication of a new reality. Normalizing homosexuality alters humanity by rejecting the limits we face as gendered, reproducing beings.
Social structure forms human behavior and attempts to define or redefine morality. The disjunction in gender relations, our failure to live in mutually respectful ways as gendered persons, the complexity of sexuality, all contributes to an unhealthy social structure. Solving the abuse of sexuality in our society will require both regulation and redefining cultural values. As a people, we are shallow aesthetes who value appearances over character. We are a violent people whose desire for order requires severe punishment for those that are victims of a failing society built upon runaway desires.
We are now structuring society on an unwritten myth of sexual orientation that is more mythically religious in nature than it is reasoned according to the biological life of gendered beings. The metaphysical myth of homosexuality requires a god who confuses the created order with a ‘hybrid’ person. The homosexual myth requires a god who is capricious and defies the ordering of a good creation with natural law.
The tension of a highly structured society that threatens personal liberty will produce injustice and result in collapse. The social structure of the U.S. is a complex of fractured realities attempting to endure at the expense of our humanity. Sexuality is one of the most potently packed realities of human experience. It requires the use of wisdom, of self-control, it is not a spiritual aspect of our ‘being’; rather it requires governing from the spiritual aspect of our being, from the religious.
We are sexual beings because we are gendered beings. The spiritual aspect of ‘sexuality’ is not in relation to God. This is the theological error of the metaphysical myth of homosexuality. Rather the ‘spiritual’ aspect of sexuality is in relation to the violation of the natural structures of creation; it is a negative relation. The spiritual aspect of homosexuality is the negation of the good, that is, to mar the creation and reduce sexuality to instinct rather than insight, to cast off restraint and respond only to desire. It is to be in conflict with the work of the Spirit of God the creator.
Wisdom is to cooperate with the underlying structures of reality that define humanity through the power of choice that recognizes the work of God in creation. The homosexual claim of ‘no choice’ insists on sexual expression as uncontrollable desire rather than gift; a gift to be enjoyed, and to serve the continuance of humanity within the confines of possibility for creating new life through sexuality limited by gender and promise. For older couples, due to menopause in the female, and although they are unable to reproduce, sexuality remains a life giving part of their relationship.
Yet, it is also true that the spiritual aspect of human sexuality is in relation to the good structures of creation put in place by God, however not in direct relation to God’s Spirit, but in relation to the wisdom or voice of God discerned in the created order. God is not a sexual being, sexuality is foreign to God's being and experience, sexuality belongs to the creature. Jesus' celibacy indicates that engaging in sex does not contribute to the fulfilling of the image of God. Jesus will conclude that sexuality does not survive the resurrection, although gender distinctiveness will. To abuse sexual life (in any form or expression) is to participate in un-creation to oppose the wisdom of God. Sexuality belongs to the sphere of the sacred between a male and a female.
Love doesn’t come without a promise.
The spirituality of marriage is in the promise, the relationship, not the sexual act. God is not involved, does not participate, and does not violate the sphere of the sacred between a male and a female. Human sexuality is love and worship of the other, not love and worship of God. This is portrayed in the Song of Solomon, a book that celebrates male and female sexuality. The absence of God in the Song of Solomon is confirming of human sexuality as sacred apart from God. The inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the canon affirms that sexuality is sacred within the context of marriage as male and female. The error of Israel’s neighbors was to attribute sexuality to their god(s), to worship their god(s) through the spiritualizing of sexuality.
Sex is not a sin. However, uncontrolled sexual desire that eradicates the natural limits of gender is sin. Unrestrained sexuality that functions without a promise and / or without concern for progeny is a sin. This does not annul the joy of sexual life for those persons who have passed beyond child bearing years or experience infertility, if the promise of marriage is present. The potency of sexuality for life is matched by its potency for self-destruction. We are living in a moment when the need to understand sexual restraint as wisdom, as a spiritual discipline of profound importance can serve to reveal the image of God in the Lord’s people.
In conclusion, I do not think that homosexual relationships should be normalized through the institution of marriage. Rather, their relationship should be acknowledged in civil law to protect their rights as persons, but the word ‘marriage’ should not be used.
Love and truth walk together.