Grace & Peace!
I have a speculation that much of the hostility to gay marriage has been passed down since the days when we lived in groups of twenty huddled around the camp fire and surviving on a day to day basis.
The group could not afford to have members who didn’t procreate. It would die out. It was simple. You have enough kids that some survive or we all die. That would be a somewhat strong message.
(For those who want proof, note it’s a speculation.)
I’m less convinced its about nature or procreation than it is about what masculinity and femininity mean to us, or what their cultural value happens to be with respect to each other. In other words, I think its about power.
In the early 20th century, it was not unremarkable in London, for instance, for upper or middle class men to have sexual encounters with working class men they would pick up in parks or various neighborhoods known for the availability of such encounters. The interesting thing about these “relationships” is that they were, again, entirely unremarkable and could even be boasted of in public. The reasons?
It had everything to do with playing out a particular masculine identity. From the working class perspective, the upper classes were effete and feminine. This was a way that they could perform their masculinity and demonstrate even a certain kind of moral superiority over the upper classes. They could even make a little money off the situation. Needless to say they generally assumed the active role in whatever sexual encounter they had.
What allowed this playing out was a relatively sexually segregated society resulting in all-male work and living situations in which sexual aggression, tension, and competitiveness required a social outlet. Whether or not one was homosexual or heterosexual had little to do with it–it had to do with performing masculinity.
As economic situations changed and as women entered the workforce more visibly, the ways in which masculinity was understood and performed changed and the sort of behavior described above began to decline (though it did not completely vanish), in particular, it began to decline as a practice in which a “real man” would engage.
As homosexual men began to define themselves as homosexuals, they were naturally seen as less than male and therefore broken in some way. In terms of power, the culture saw them as more aligned with women (submissive, passive) than with men (powerful, active). This is why such things as women’s liberation and feminism had a strong impact on the homosexual rights movement. The latter would not be possible without the former because of the equivalence in socio-cultural power between women and homosexuals.
The taboo being broken here is principally this one: confusion of differing hierarchical terms. Most ancient tragedies spring from just such a confusion (Oedipus–mother’s son cannot be mother’s husband; Seven Against Thebes–twin sons vying for the throne cannot be identical in power; Women of Trachis–the mistress cannot be on the same level as the wife). In the case of homosexuality masculine power cannot be equated to feminine submission.
How do we account for the persistence of this taboo in the era of equal rights? Atavism, in part, aided by a religious misunderstanding–how else to account for the taboo’s persitence in a predominantly Christian culture when in Christ there is no male or female? When Paul writes of homosexual behavior in Romans 1, I am convinced that he is not condemning homosexuals or every sort of homosexual behavior per se. What he’s doing is condemning being controlled by passions–he condemns a lack of self-control. But we continue to insist that he is condemning
what they are doing as well as the sin of which the behavior is a manifestation–lack of self control, the valuing of self over others, the valuing of pleasure over responsibility, the valuing of the creature over the creation. If Paul were to condemn the London park-goers of the early twentieth century, he would not condemn them for their homosexual behavior, but for their lack of self-control.
Which brings up how that behavior, whether it is right or wrong, is entirely a cultural construct. There is a particular tribe in which young men, as part of their rite of passage, are required to have oral sex with the elders of the tribe in order to become men. In reality, though, sex is not the point–the tribe believes that the capacity to have children, to engender children, must be received from the elders. The youth do not have seed to plant in a wife until they receive it from the elders. This particular practice is “homosexual behavior” in appearance only–what is at stake is the continuance of the tribe, its culture, and its members. Why? Because this is how masculinity has been defined by this people.
Again, I think the uproar against homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general has to do with power issues–in groups, out groups, male power and female powerlessness.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
