i've been quoting buechner's writings for sometime now as they have played a quiet role in shaping my understanding of faith, life and humanity at large. the current debate between moe and aware over their understanding of human sexuality is an interesting one. both seek to support the role of educators in society. both carry equal potential to educate society at large based on the kind of proper discourse they bring into debates. 
however, one party seems more pressured to cite presumed social norms as an evasive argument to the facts at hand about human sexuality while the other points to deeper layers of truth embedded in human consciousness, genetics and identity. there are sexual minorities in society just as there are minorities in terms of their race, enthnicity, disability, eye colour, skin colour, left or right handers...all that is given by our genes...some assume certain aspects can be changed, with some difficulty, as some may argue, like hair colour! are we looking at imposed changes or a informed choice based on a person's fundamental understanding of self and the pursuit of happiness? can this be tweaked at all? even if so, at what price?
in an existential take on the issue, buechner's distilled spirituality seeks to transcend the stodgy debates that are often reported without further thought mostly by official narratives represented by the local press. 
homosexual- One of the ways that we are attracted to each other is sexually. We want to touch and be touched. We want to give and receive pleasure with our bodies, be it holding hands, eating a good meal or a walk in the rain. We want to know each other in our full nakedness, which is to say in our full humaness, and in the moment of passion, become one with each other. Whether it is our own gender or the other that we are chiefly attracted seems a secondary matter. There is a female element in every male just as there is a male element in every female, and most people, if they are honest, will acknowledge having at one time or another been attracted to both.
To say that morally, spiritually, humanly, homosexuality is always bad seems as absurd as to say in the same terms that heterosexuality is always good, or the other way round. It is not the object of our sexuality that determines its value but the inner nature of our sexuality. If (a) it is as raw as the coupling of animals, at its worst, it demeans us and at its best still leaves our deepest hunger for intimacy unsatisfied. If (b) it involves some measure of kindness, understanding, affection as well as genuine intimacy, sacrifice or emotional integrity, it can potentially become an expression of human love in its fullness and can thus help to complete us as human persons. 
Whatever our sexual preference happens to be, both of these possibilities are always there. It's not whom you go to bed with or what you do when you get there that matters much. It's what besides sex you are asking to receive, and what besides sex you are offering to give...if sex is on your mind at all.
Here and there, the bible condemns homosexuality in the sense of (a) just as under the headings of adultery and fornication it also condemns heterosexuality in the sense of (a). On the subject of homosexuality in the sense of (b), it is as silent as it is on the subject of sexuality generally in the sense of (b). The great commandment is that we are to love one another - responsibly, faithfully, joyfully - and presumably the biblical view is implied in that.
Beyond that, "love is as strong as death," sings Solomon in his song. "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it" (Song of Solomon 8:6-7). Whoever you are and whomever you desire, the passion of those lines is something you are quick to recognise.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adapted from frank buechner: whistling in the dark
No comments:
Post a Comment