Did God make me good?
Submitted by F.O.D. on October 10 1999 at 23:07:56
In reply to How can BL orientation be good? Submitted by Mark on October 10 1999 at 21:06:46
|
Hi Mark! You mentioned the idea that God has created our sexuality (and that's why it's good). For my part, I dissent against this notion. I don't think God created me homophilic any more than he created the mole on my wrist. I mean, it may be true in a greater pre-destinational sense, but at a practical daily level he doesn't dictate things that way. Rather it seems to me that God maintains the basic laws and principles (both physical and social), and it's in consequence to the working out of the natural laws that some of us end up having moles or being boylovers. It's in that context that I start asking what good I can make out of my attraction towards boys and young men. I ask if it is really true that "accepting one's sexuality as good and expressible is essential to this process" ? In other words, will I die if I do not have sex? I think not. But many people seem to believe this, and want us to believe it too. But will I die if I do not have love? Definitely yes. I suspect that part of our dilemma is the sexualisation of love. If you go out with a guy, everyone will think you're having sex with him. There's no longer any relationship for relationship's sake, there is only relationship for sex' sake. I see an example of the good expression of love in the apostle Paul. He maintained the great worth of singleness, and yet at the same time never undertook anything alone, but kept a number of companions with him - Timothy, Silas, others. And when he was separated for a time from his friends, he anxiously waited for their arrival. With regards to boylove, I think this means it is wrong for us to be necessarily separated from boys, because in that case we will be unable to develop the healthy relationships that both we and the boys need and want. Rather, I believe it is in developing companionship that we can find a place for expressing love towards boys. I'm developing a way of thinking about sexuality that upholds the value of homosexual affection without debunking the hetereosexual marriage bed. I think of it as seeing the final value of the whole in preference to the value of the constituent parts. That is, insofar as you take the two people in isolation, a homosexual relationship can certainly be one of love between the two. But in the context of society as a whole, the same-sex relationship misses the intimate gender interaction, and is made poorer. This statement assumes that there some hidden part of masculinity that only femininity can unlock, and vice versa, so that a male-female union holds something "more" than a male and female taken separately. But is it true that there is something "special" about a male-female union, some special insight, say, to the relationship between Christ and the church, that can't be learnt in a male-male union? Pro-gay speakers would have us believe not. One thing that would have to be asked is whether there are any differences in nature between a child brought up by heterosexual or homosexual parents. Does society need the input of both masculinity and femininity into its sexual relationships? That is, what is the meaning of gender? Can we sort through the lies on both sides of the argument? Did I get distracted from the original question? To summarise, I'm suggesting we find strength in learning to find nonsexual expressions of our sexuality by seeing our relationships in the context of society as a whole, rather than as isolated on their own. That is, I reject the notion of "individual rights" as being the supreme and highest value. Some things are more important than my individual self. F.O.D. |