MORE SERIOUS THOUGHTSABOUT SEX AND STUFF

Sister RUTH GLEDHILL has bravely allowed a series of comments to be put up on her blog from a gentleman who is incredibly worked up over gay sex. His argument touches all the usual bases but it does seem to be the physical act itself that causes him to be most disgusted. This is the sort of language he uses:

"The desire to copulate with another man's posterior is a severe emotional and psychological disorder - which is brought about through various sad things, and which can be helped. Same with pedophilia, those drawn to sadomasochism, those drawn to necrophilia, those drawn to bestiality, etc."

It is obvious that the correspondent finds the whole idea of two men going at together disgusting and, as he says elsewhere, unnatural.

But, nothing that exists or happens in the Universe is unnatural because nature is what exists and happens in the Universe. As for his feelings of disgust, well, I'm completely with him in his pain. If I think about two men shagging each other I feel pretty revolted. In fact, I rarely watch films like "Brokeback Mountain" because of the "man on man" content, though, strangely, I do not have the same problem with a good, arthouse, lesbian romp. However, there are lots of things that turn my stomach. If I think about Indian food I feel queasy. The thing is, morality and disgust are not linked. If I was to imagine sex with a ninety year old, overweight, bearded woman who had not washed for three months, I would feel sick. But if I was to marry such a woman and consummate the marriage, although ninety nine point nine per cent of the population might think it very strange and quite revolting, it would not be immoral according to the Bible. Secular philosophers would have an easier job working out reasons why it should be classed as immoral than Christian philosophers. So the "gay sex is unnatural and disgusting to any right thinking human being" argument does not hold water.

Another, philosophically dubious, argument against same sex bonking, is the one that states that gay people choose, or learn, their gay lifestyle. Personally, I think the idea of a person choosing to restrict himself (or herself) to sexual acts contrary to his (or her) inclinations is very unlikely. It might happen, but it would be a very rare occurrence if it did. As for the nature/nurture debate, I think it is a complete waste of time. We are the sum of our parts, part inherited, part learnt, part chosen. In any case reasoning leads me to think it an irrelevant line of investigation to pursue.

You see, morality is not about who we are, it is not even about what we do. It is about consequences. Ruth's correspondent lumps all sorts of sexual practices together, but there is not moral equivalence between all sexual practices. A gay persons sexual practice is not the moral equivalent of a paedophile's sexual practices because the consequences for each are different. The paedophile's actions result in hurt, the gay person's actions do not result in hurt if they are carried out, like the sexual actions of straight people should be, within the love of god.

The problem is that much of the debate concerning same sex unions is focused on "difference." If we focused on commonality, I think the arguments would be more intelligent and honest, and the result more just and godly.