With the passing of California's Proposition 8, I have found myself reflecting on the homosexuality discussion. It seems to me that the whole debate is in orbit around anthropology, that is, how one understands human nature, for both sides of the debate appeal to nature. Supporters of gay marriage appeal to nature ("I was born this way"), citing desire as the determining factor. It is believed that a gay person's sexual desire for members of the same-sex legitimates homosexual practice or lifestyle. Opponents of gay marriage also appeal to nature, citing, not desire, but anatomical design as the determining factor. Humans, it is believed, are bound sexually by their design because two male parts (or female) simply do not go together sexually. The former speak of nature more subjectively and the latter speak of nature more objectively.
The homosexuality debate, then, should grapple with the trustworthiness of desires and the limits put on us by our own physical design.
Enter Grizzly Man. This Werner Herzog documentary has something to say about this discussion. The film follows Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell, and, with his own video documentation, his life among the Grizzlies in Alaska. Yes, Treadwell lived with Grizzlies, swam with Grizzlies, and talked to Grizzlies, experiences that provide stunning footage.
Herzog's interviews several Alaskans on Treadwell's decision to live with these bears which provide insight. For many interviewees, Treadwell was crazy. Sure, he may have had a desire to live with bears but actually following those desires was foolish, they said. They appealed to the limits binding individuals; humans do not and should not live with wildlife because it is just that, wild. On the other hand, other interviewees respected Treadwell as a man who had a desire to live with bears and went out to fulfill that desire. After all, Treadwell disregarded his detractors and pursued his dream.
Treadwell's longing to live with the bears did not correspond to Treadwell's nature. Unfortunately, Treadwell was bound and limited; he was a human, not a bear, and humans do not live with bears. In the end--and this is a spoiler for anyone that hasn't seen the film--Treadwell's decision finally caught up with him as he was killed by a Grizzly (along with his girlfriend). (If you do plan to watch the film, beware, for it contains lots of strong language. The film also contains coarse sexual references which, incidentally, shed some light on the homosexuality debate)
The film's tagline captures the point nicely: "In nature, there are boundaries." I am not suggesting that homosexuality is akin to seeking life among the bears. I am suggesting that Grizzly Man underscores an important point to consider in the homosexual debate: one's desires do not always correspond to their design. In other words, Treadwell's humanity (i.e. design) hampered his desire to live among the bears. Both design and desire did not correspond with one another and were not going to end in individual fulfillment. And this is the major offense to what I am suggesting: our personal--and corporate--fulfillment does not necessarily correspond to our desires. Understanding one's "nature" by turning to what one desires is wildly unpredictable. Our desires mislead, conflict, and evolve. And this is particularly true for sexual desires. The more reliable gauge for understanding one's sexuality is design, not desire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Well said Casey and I agree with the premise.
If I were allowed to act upon all of my desires I would have lost my virginity at the age of 8, be a polygamist, probably killed some people, etc.
I like what Dr. Ian Malcolm (aka Jeff Goldblum) said in Jurassic Park:
"Yeah, but you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should."
All of that said, how do we bring the argument out of the religious realm and into the political realm while maintaining the whole 'separation' clause?
I think the argument I presented did stay out of the religious realm. I cited no scripture. It did, I guess, imply a designer, but so much of our constitution implies a similar designer--not necessarily the Trinitarian God.
Do you agree?
Thanks for the comment!
And the Goldblum reference (I can hear him saying it now!).
And for the candor about where your desires would've taken you! I concur.
You're right. You did present the argument leaving religion out of it.
And yes, our constitution most definitely implies the existence of a Designer but more so I believe it implies a Moral Law (which would require a Designer). Some atheist friends of mine believe that the Moral Law is non existent and the only law that exists is the one created by humans.
Obviously I believe that to be false but when a portion of our society believes that to be true I wonder where they will draw the line when it comes to desires.
Could it not be possible that a person is born with the desire to murder? That is where the atheists argument falls apart in my opinion -- who desires to condone murder?
These are more statements than they are questions I guess.
While attending Wheaton, every year a group of alumni who were openly homosexual would hold a protest on the campus against the college because of its requirement for all of us to a sign a Statement of Faith that forbid homosexuality (per the Bible).
I was always shocked at the amount of sympathy and understanding this group of protestors received when they came. Each year it seemed more and more students became 'tolerant' of the indiscretion. This is demonstrated in the episcopal church and other denominations as of today.
The line between churches accepting all sinners and permitting some sins is starting to blur and that bothers me.
Granted, a church cannot change the Word of God but these are becoming the most popular churches because of their 'tolerance'. In my opinion Jesus was never tolerant but always loving (i.e. when he stormed the temple and turned over tables and the thief on the cross).
I guess the main question comes to how Christians should handle and thrive in a society where homosexuality is viewed as an 'ok' lifestyle?
Or we could just talk about predestination, Calvanism and/or Arminism. :)
-Shaun
thanks for the comments! Like you say, the conflicted, misleading nature of desires is something that can be demonstrated to Christians and atheists alike. Anyone that has been on a diet know that desires are not always telling you what is best for you (e.g., I want to lose weight, but I also want donuts).
Even the design side of it can be demonstrated sans religion. There are problems that occur when one partakes in gay sex (for more on this, and a great argument against homosexuality see: http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexToledoPresident.pdf)
It is interesting to see how churches are responding. The key for Christians is to remember that we remain sinners saved by grace.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment