Gay and Moral

Ran across this post by TerranceDC at Pam's House Blend, which I think impacts directly on the conversation I had started with GayPatriotWest on morality and gay men:

It comes down to a basic question: Can you be gay and be a good person? Can you be good person and be gay? Can you be gay and good? Good and gay? From religious conservatives, there seem to be two answers: Maybe. And no.

It's a long post, but very much worth reading. The post is concerned mainly with the reaction of conservative Christian spokesmen and the ex-gay movement to the idea that homosexuality has a biological component (which admission earned Albert Mohler some brickbats from the right) and with how the idea of same-sex marriage changes the playing field in relations between men and women, which is, of course, a severe threat to the established world order as defined by the likes of James Dobson. There is, however, a lot in it that's relevant here.

GPW wrote me this e-mail in response to my post on his post:

I wouldn't say that I have a "moral absolutist" position on sexuality, instead have learned, in large part from experience, that intimate contact is far more meaningful if there is a spiritual connection to our partner. I do believe human beings (particularly men) do need to, for lack of better word, "experiment" with their sexuality, but should be open to what they feel, not only during the act itself, but afterwards.

I used to believe that a hookup could lead to a relationship. But, more often than not, most men seem eager to break that bond as soon as he has climaxed.

While I wouldn't say I was mistaken to use Matt Sanchez as a starting point, I may well have been mistaken to use him as an example of change. If, as I first imagined, he did porn, then realized how empty it was, and changed his life -- as many men have, his would truly be a compelling story. And that's how I first saw it. I saw some stuff on the web that appeared to contradict his own story. I don't know the full truth of his life (about which there seems some dispute). So, in order not to get my ideas bogged down in his story, I don't want to use him as an example.

The issue is developing an attitude towards sexuality that allows us to see it as involving more than its carnal component.

I don't think we're in disagreement on any particular point, but as usual I'm wanting to dig a little deeper. Yes, I think intimate contact is more meaningful if there is a relationship (call it "spiritual connection," call it "the contract"), but it's the nature of that relationship that seems to be where we run into difficulties.

I agree with GPW that the issue is finding the emotional and spiritual surround that sexuality inhabits, but I think I have a different take on it. There's a marvelous interchange in Fiona Patton's The Granite Shield that I think is pertinent here:

Llewen looked him straight in the eye. "I usually have sex, me."

Taken aback by the straightforward answer, Etienne colored slightly. "Oh. Ah, with, uh, anyone in particular?" He asked, trying to sound nonchalant.

Llewen shrugged. "With whoever's handy."

"You mean, you've done it with people you don't love?"

Llewen laughed at his friend's shocked expression. "I never said I didn't love them, did I?" he replied. "I have a special friend, sure, but we haven't come to any formal understanding yet. When she's not there, I have other special friends, mind."

"I don't understand."

"That's because you've been locked up here your whole life, haven't you? It's just games, Etienne, to pass the time like or to scratch a mutual itch."

"So . . . when you do find someone you love . . ."

"It'll stop being a game, won't it? Or at least it'll still be fun, but it'll mean more. . . ."

Fiction, yes, but a passage that does what fiction is supposed to do, which is illuminate larger truths. (And it is, in a very quiet way, one of the funniest seduction scenes I've ever read.)

A couple of points I want to make before we get any farther into this. A discussion like this one, if it is to have any point, means that we must examine very carefully our basic concept of morality as it stands now, else we don't really know what we're arguing. One of the values of the post from TerranceDC is that it confronts directly the basis of the conservative Christian condemnation of gays; one of the values of the quote from Fiona Patton is that it provides an example of an alternate view of sexuality and its purpose. We have to be careful to recognize how deeply the Christian view -- which is, after all is said and done, the most pervasive view in this society, whether we profess Christianity or not -- has influenced our perceptions of things like "spirit," "purpose," "good" and "evil."

One of the traps here, as a side note, is the idea that things like sex have a purpose. I know that's the idea that the whole edifice of Christian morality is built on, but I find the arguments hollow, coming as I do from a non-Christian, scientifically literate viewpoint. To say that sex has a particular purpose is tantamount to saying that the human foot evolved so we could walk upright, and I can't quite buy that one. I see it as a confusion of carts and horses.

Back to the main thread: I think, in the light of what I've just said, I have to backtrack a little and disagree with GPW. I think the issue is developing an attitude toward sex that enables us to see it for what it is in any given instance. Then we decide if we want to participate.

GPW brings up the matter of change in his allusion to Matt Sanchez. I'm not sure what the point is there. Sanchez, like any good conservative, has apparently fallen back into the "there's-no-such-thing-as-a-homosexual" camp in claiming that not only is he not gay, but his clients weren't, either, but as far as I'm concerned that's just so much bullshit. It's part of the basic Christianist mindset that same-sex love is a choice (witness the howls from the right at Mohler's admission of biological causes) and an integral and necessary part of the attempt to belittle the emotional life of gays. TerranceDC notes this comment by Andrew Sullivan:

You can see the benefits of this point as a strategy. Reducing love, friendship, passion and companionship -- the critical elements of most gay relationships -- to a simple physical act is extremely reductive. We'd never talk about heterosexual marriage primarily in terms of vaginal intercourse, or merely sexual needs. It slights the depth and variety of the heterosexual relationship.

Which, of course, is one of the main purposes. See the quote from Harold Myerson in the post above about the God of the Double Standard -- you don't see any one of the Dobson Gang making that point about heterosexual relationships. I seem to see some seeds of this sort of assumption in GPW's remarks contrasting the moral value of "spiritual connection" and "hooking up." I disagree that we must always be attempting to forge those deeper bonds anytime we have sex, which I think is the point he's making. Yes, it's much nicer that way, a deeper and richer experience, but I'm not sure it's necessarily more meaningful, just, as Llewen points out, the meaning is different -- sometimes it's just scratching an itch.

This leads me back once again to the contract and our expectations. The meaning of sex, like that of any other experience, is composed of varying proportions of what it is and what we expected it to be -- what we wanted from it. We've all seen this in things as simple as being disappointed in a movie that had a lot of positive buzz. Offhand, for a young man, I can't think of anything that has more positive buzz than sex (except perhaps money). And I think many, perhaps most of us grow up with the inevitable linkage of sex and love -- one will lead to the other, as GPW alludes in his comment above. If we expect it to and it doesn't, of course we're going to be disappointed. From my own experience, sex can lead to a night's pleasure, it can lead to the illusion of love, or it can, indeed, lead to love. Depends on the particulars, including our expectations and our reading of our partner's expectations.

This is turning into a hideously long post, but I think I've laid some groundwork here. By the way, this is not an exclusive dialogue -- anyone's allowed to jump in. That's what the Comments are for. (But do spare me the mourning over failed assassination attempts. Those will get deleted.)

Related Posts:

Morality: An Ongoing Commentary
Sex and the Single Boi