I have this friend who prefaces any comment she makes at the beginning of a discussion of morals or ethics with, "I know you don't believe the same things I do, but...."
This is grossly offensive to me.
I'm not offended by the fact that she's acknowledging a difference of beliefs. I'm offended because 1) she's never really asked me what I believe and 2) I actually do believe many of the same things she does. And I've told her so. It would seem she doesn't actually believe me. Every time we have a conversation about ethics, I end up feeling as though she does not actually listen to me, and that because she neither listens to me nor acknowledges that we share some of the same beliefs, she judges me.
It's funny, because she's expressed the sense of being judged by me because I occasionally make offhand remarks about sex. The reality is, I am not judging her. My occasional offhand remark is not made in an effort to offend or make her uncomfortable. It's the kind of thought that runs through my head on a regular basis and I share it because I feel so at ease with her, that I have not felt the need to censor myself.
There are those out there who believe I have no filter and will make such remarks in front of anyone.
Not the case. The man at work I refer to as Satan? Nope. The woman at work I refer to as Demon Bitch? Nope.
And it's not just people I dislike or even despise.
My former pastor? I would never make a sexual joke in front of her.
My current mentor? Oh, my glory! I had a sit-down with him recently and was seeking his guidance on an issue. I wanted to make sure he had enough background to understand the dynamics of the situation, but I was mortified to be sharing some of that reality with this man, who I would prefer think of me as an asexual cyborg. In attempting to make the background clear without crossing a boundary, I used words like "romantic" and "physical contact," and I was so stressed out about sharing this history with him that I sat there in tears as I blushed all the way up to my eyeballs.
Either of my current pastors? I'd rather die than discuss "romantic interludes" and "physical contact" with these two men, even in the context of seeking pastoral care and direction in processing.
And there is no way on God's green earth or anywhere else in the known or unknown universe that I would work blue in front of any of the aforementioned men.
The problem, as I see it, in my conversations with this woman is that we're talking about two very different topics.
Take for example the issue of premarital sexual contact.
This is a woman who believes it is a sin. Because I have had "romantic" entanglements that did include "physical contact," she insists that I must believe that premarital sex is okay. This is despite the fact that I have explicitly expressed to her my belief that any sex experiences (for me anyway) are best engaged in only within the confines of covenantal marriage. That I have previously acted in a manner inconsistent with my stated belief is proof to her that we do not believe the same things.
Oh, really? You have never, at any point, in your entire life, acted in any manner or fashion that is inconsistent with your stated beliefs? You have never grown impatient, said an unkind word or committed an unkind deed? You've never been guilty of envy? You've never committed an act of self-promotion? You always seek to honor all others? You've never once put your desires above the needs or desires of others? You've never lost your temper or held a grudge?
Oh, that we could all be so perfect. Oh, that none of the rest of us should ever need a bit of grace.
What upsets me most about this is that her insistence that we do not believe the same thing invalidates the grief and sorrow I feel at my own brokenness and the mistakes I have made. It hurts me every time she insists that we do not believe the same things because it's a claim that is rooted in the belief that her ability to act in accordance with her stated beliefs concerning premarital sex makes her better than me because I failed where she did not.
The judgment and condemnation I have felt every time this topic has come up has left me feeling unsafe and unable to trust her when it comes to discussing my struggles, because anytime I start a conversation about how hard it can be to not have sex, I'm going to be met with a response that starts with, "I know we don't believe the same thing..." despite the fact that I'm confessing that I'm struggling with a desire that is in opposition with my stated beliefs. To most people, this would signal that we do believe the same thing. Her insistence that we do not believe the same thing inevitably translates to, "I'm better than you because I don't struggle with this." To say, "I believe this and you do not" is to establish a situation in which one person's views are valid, the other's are not. It is a situation in which one person holds the power and one does not. It is a situation in which one person is IN and one person is OTHER.
Another point of contention between us is the issue of homosexuality.
I'm far more liberal than she is when it comes to issues of marriage equality. Why? Because I believe that equal protection under the law is constitutional, and to deny non-heteronormative couples basic legal rights is unconstitutional.
There are those who would argue that "marriage" is a religious institution, and as such, has been defined by God as "One man, one woman," and that the government has no business changing the definition of marriage. To which I say, "The first time the word translated as 'marriage' in the Christian Old Testament is used, it is in reference to a man who has married two women."
Furthermore, as the question of whether or not God invented or even defined marriage is a sacred issue (i.e. of or relating to religion) and the question of whether or not non-heteronormative couples should be permitted the same legal status as heteronormative couples as it relates to relationship status and the privileges, social, legal, and otherwise that come with that legal status (married) is a secular issue (i.e. not overtly or specifically religious); and as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it is clearly unconstitutional for congress to enact laws concerning secular issues based on sacred definitions of shared terms.
To those who believe that permitting non-heteronormative couples to wed somehow violates their first amendment rights in regards to the Free Exercise Clause, I ask, "How so? No one is preventing you from holding your religious views concerning homosexuality. No one is forcing you to engage is homosexual behavior. No one is forcing you to perform or validate in a sacred context any homosexual relationship." In other words, granting non-heteronormative couples the legal right to marry has no effect whatsoever on the religious rite of marriage.
This is my political belief.
When it comes to the issue of religious beliefs, I'll start with comments this woman has made to me. Paraphrased, she has indicated that it is her belief that, "Homosexuality is a sin. It is other and less than what God intended when He created human beings, and is at odds with the Christian faith.
Well. There you have it.
If you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible (which I do not, and I would assume this woman does not either as she wears clothing made of multiple fabrics, and her husband shaves his side locks), then, well, an argument might be made based in the fact that the story of creation as found in Genesis 1 indicates that God created Adam and Eve, and from them populated the entire earth.
Interestingly enough it was only after God had brought every creature upon the earth before Adam, and no suitable mate was found, that God created the woman. A rabbi I once knew posited that this was an indication that Adam engaged in sexual congress with every animal and was not capable of reproducing with any of them, thus the necessity to create a female human. And yet none of my "Christian" friends who love to pull out the "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" remark are willing to support bestiality as a suitable lifestyle.
Furthermore, this might indicate that God was not entirely sure what She had in mind when it came to the sexual pleasure and reproductive aspects of human beings. Which leads me to question where others get the idea that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt what God's intention was at the beginning of time based on a text written some 6,000 years ago by a group of people trying to define their faith, their origins, and distinguish themselves from their neighbors as a discreet ethnic group.
Secondly, if all humans on earth are descendants of Adam and Eve, then incest must not have been taboo. So, why is it these same people are horrified by the notion today?
None of this, however, is ever the point of a conversation on sexual ethics, as far as I'm concerned.
It's fascinating to think about, but it's not what I think about when discussing marriage equality.
When my friend defends the continued denial of basic civil rights to non-heteronormative couples based on her religious convictions, her starting point seems to be her understanding of what God "intended" when the book of Genesis was written 6,000 years ago. Her belief is that homosexuality is a result of brokenness in human nature (i.e. caused by original sin) and, as such, is in itself sin.
When I defend my support of marriage equality and granting the same civil right to non-heteronormative couples as those enjoyed by heteronormative couples, my starting point is today, the present, the here and now.
See, I don't care if the bible defines homosexual sex acts as sin. I don't really care if homosexuality is a matter of choice or of biology. (Though for the record, I believe homosexuality is a matter of biology). What I care about is the fact that people are homosexual and they are being denied basic human rights based on their (biologically determined) sexual preferences and nothing more.
To say that it's inappropriate to allow same-sex couples to marry, or have children, or adopt children because God did not intend for humans to engage in homosexual congress is akin to saying that this friend of mine should not be married because she has traits that are not what God intended for human kind.
Specifically, my friend has a stutter.
One could easily make the claim that God did not intend for people to stutter. Otherwise, would so many of us speak without impediment? Her stutter must be a result of living in a broken world. Her stutter must stem from original sin and is in itself sin.
Furthermore, since God intended humans to be able to express love and affection to one another in a clear manner, and since one of the consonant sounds she struggles with most is the "l" sounds, it's unacceptable for this woman to be married. She cannot say, "I love you," in a clear fashion. Furthermore, it would be absolutely horrifying for her to have children. After all, children need both a father and a mother who can express love in an unbroken manner. You know, as God intended it.
So, when I have conversations about sexual ethics and morals, I do not start from the notion of what I believe God intended as defined in a book written by a group of people 6,000 years ago who failed horribly time and again at living out the standards their book dictated to be God's standards, where most "Christians" I know claim to start from.
I do not start "In the beginning," because I figure, I wasn't around then, and neither were you, and the world is not a Utopian paradise, and to claim that we know what God intended when the world and all that is in it was created is the height of hubris.
I start here. I start now. I start in a place where we both are. Post-fall (if you take that theology seriously, and most days, I don't). I start in the reality of brokenness. Because, you know, we're all in the same boat there.
My starting point is one of acknowledging that homosexuals exist. Period. End of story.
My starting point is one of acknowledging that people have had sex before marriage. Period. End of story.
So, do I care whether or not the bible defines homosexuality as sin? No.
Do I care whether or not the bible defines premarital sex as sin? No.
Do I care whether or not God intended humans to only have sex with one other person of the opposite sex and only after they've participated in a sacred rite called a "wedding"? No.
Do I care whether God ever intended any humans to be homosexual? No.
And do you know why? Because at this point in history, what God did or did not intend is a moot point when dealing with the realities that homosexuals do exist and people do have sex--even unmarried ones.
What I care about is that the a group of people, who claim to base their ethics and beliefs on a book that repeats two commandments more often than any others (Love God, Love Others), consistently seeks to and succeeds in invalidating the personal experience and understanding of the self of those whose sexual attraction is to individuals of the same sex. I care that this same group of people consistently shames and invalidates individuals who have had premarital sex. And there is nothing in this world as unloving as the choice to invalidate another human being. Every act of physical, psychological, emotional and sexual violence ever committed has been based in the belief that it is acceptable to invalidate others because the one committing the act of violence sees the one upon whom such acts are committed as being less than human.
Every act of injustice has been an act of invalidating another human being; and those who have committed acts of injustice have done so based on the belief that those against whom they have committed acts of injustice are less than human.
Every denial of any human right that has ever been perpetrated has been an act of invalidating other and has been perpetrated by an individual who has based their denial on the belief that the person they are denying basic rights to is somehow less than human.
And I want to live as a person who brings peace. I want to live as a person who brings justice. I want to live as a person who fights for the basic rights of others.
Above all, I want to live a life grounded in two basic tenets: Love for God and love for others.
So, it does not matter to me whether God intended an individual to be homosexual or not. It does not matter to me whether an individual's sexual preference is based in biology or sociology.
It does not matter to me whether you've had premarital sex or not.
What matters to me is that there are people who are homosexual, right here, right now.
What matters to me is that there are people out there who have had premarital sex, and who are hurting as a result of it.
This is my lived reality.
It does not matter to me, from an ethical perspective, how you got here. It matters to me that you're here now. My ethics are based on the fact that you exist, and I choose to love you here and now.
It seems to me that my friend and I do not differ in regards to ethics so much as we've never had a conversation about ethics in which we were discussing the same topic.
I think a lot of needless arguments everywhere happen because people are not arguing two sides of a topic, but because they're arguing two wholly different topics.
If I were to base my discussions of moral beliefs and ethics in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I would agree with this woman 100%. But I don't. I do not base my discourse in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 because I find it wholly and utterly unhelpful and inappropriate for dealing with the reality of loving people today.
What some people claim was God's intent is not what is. As such, I believe that in issues of sexuality, as in any issue, we must start with the raw material before us. We must acknowledge what is. And in all situations, we are called--as a people of faith--to love God and love people. I, for one, do not believe that holding to the belief that people's loving, consensual, affirming relationships are invalid accomplishes this mission. I do not believe that shaming or judging others for choices they made for which they already feel a sense of brokenness and mourning is loving.
I wish I knew how to have constructive conversations about this. I wish I knew how to accomplish more.
I wish I knew better how to love God and love people. Even when they hurt me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment