facebook rant #58
there was an article from npr today about a pastor who was attracted to men but had felt "called" to marry a woman. this brings up all sorts of responses from people, many of whom were focusing on the ridiculousness of religious dogmas, but it got me thinking again about the relationship between sex and love and marriage.
first, i should note that i don't really "agree" with marriage. i have all kinds of problems with that institution, namely because it is a legal institution that involves the government. but secondly because it is very difficult for me to imagine any human with anywhere near average desires to be content focusing on one person for the rest of his or her natural life. and i realize that there are folks who have very unconventional marriages--and that's my point. religious influences aside--people create their own reasons for entering into matrimony. do i think they should be born out of subscription to a divine plan? no. but it's each person's right, so long as they aren't harming another soul in any way, to do what they please with their lives.
marriage as a practical path makes sense to me. marrying someone because it's easier to traverse life's obstacles with a partner makes sense. where sexuality and love get involved--that's a different issue. i remember a philosophy professor once discussing how little sense it makes for two people who like fucking to decide to be married and raise a child. raising children has nothing to do with sexual compatibility save where babies come from, so technically it does make more sense for two people who share the goal of raising kids to be married than two people who are attracted to one another, fall in love, and don't want to touch/love/be with another person ever again. think of all the complications involved when one's ego is wrapped up in another person. now imagine adding the responsibility of shaping a well-rounded, psychologically and physically healthy small person to that. doesn't seem rational.
i also recognize that my opinion is worth a little less since i've never been in love. part of the reason i'm skeptical about love is because i have yet to experience the shade it takes to really consider locking my vagina to one person.
but my point is--if this dude had chosen to marry a lady because he felt the call to parent a child, it would be totally rational. if he had decided marriage to a partner-in-parenting was for him, and he still acknowledged and embraced his sexuality as well as the other parts of him that needed nourishment, then more power to him. but it sounds like he's consciously denying, repressing his own sexuality because an omniscient, omnipotent, divine being wants him to, and that is just absurd.
but that is the buzzword for this life--absurd--haven't i learned by now?
and then i put down the phone, and went about my life outside of the facebook newsfeed.
first, i should note that i don't really "agree" with marriage. i have all kinds of problems with that institution, namely because it is a legal institution that involves the government. but secondly because it is very difficult for me to imagine any human with anywhere near average desires to be content focusing on one person for the rest of his or her natural life. and i realize that there are folks who have very unconventional marriages--and that's my point. religious influences aside--people create their own reasons for entering into matrimony. do i think they should be born out of subscription to a divine plan? no. but it's each person's right, so long as they aren't harming another soul in any way, to do what they please with their lives.
marriage as a practical path makes sense to me. marrying someone because it's easier to traverse life's obstacles with a partner makes sense. where sexuality and love get involved--that's a different issue. i remember a philosophy professor once discussing how little sense it makes for two people who like fucking to decide to be married and raise a child. raising children has nothing to do with sexual compatibility save where babies come from, so technically it does make more sense for two people who share the goal of raising kids to be married than two people who are attracted to one another, fall in love, and don't want to touch/love/be with another person ever again. think of all the complications involved when one's ego is wrapped up in another person. now imagine adding the responsibility of shaping a well-rounded, psychologically and physically healthy small person to that. doesn't seem rational.
i also recognize that my opinion is worth a little less since i've never been in love. part of the reason i'm skeptical about love is because i have yet to experience the shade it takes to really consider locking my vagina to one person.
but my point is--if this dude had chosen to marry a lady because he felt the call to parent a child, it would be totally rational. if he had decided marriage to a partner-in-parenting was for him, and he still acknowledged and embraced his sexuality as well as the other parts of him that needed nourishment, then more power to him. but it sounds like he's consciously denying, repressing his own sexuality because an omniscient, omnipotent, divine being wants him to, and that is just absurd.
but that is the buzzword for this life--absurd--haven't i learned by now?
and then i put down the phone, and went about my life outside of the facebook newsfeed.
Comments
Post a Comment