REASON >> Rational comparison

 

 

A rational comparison between gay and incest

One of the most compelling arguments made by conservative Christians against the legitimization of gay love is its potentially dangerous logical implication. If two people of the same sex can be justified in a sexual relationship, what can we say about incest and sex between minor and adult. Presumable, they are in love also. This implication is also relevant for biblical interpretation: how can we accept homosexuality while rejecting incest, which are listed in the same passage under the same context (e.g. Lev. 18).

I would first like to point out that gay love was meant between two free, mature human being who are at similar level of consciousness and power. This rule out the logical implication of accepting adult having sex with minor (and inter-generations incest). Sexual relationship between adult and minors involve the abuse of power and the issue of maturity. There has been statistics showing minors who are exploited sexually have subtle, yet negative impact to their social behaviors in their adult life. Such relationship is not based on love, but the abuse of power (and desire) by the adult, and naiveté(or guilt) of the child.

Perhaps incest cases between siblings (or between parent and a grown up child) would parallel the gay issue the most. Both situations involve two consenting adults entering arelationship without any necessary negative social disruption.

Before explaining the problem further, please note that incest can happen in both a gay or heterosexual context. This implies the issue of homosexuality is morally more fundamental than incest. It means even if we can't solve the problem of incest, the gay issue calls for a more urgent decision because it can be foundational in the discussions of other sexual problems.

First of all, incest is not really about arbitrary blood links. Since in both a secular and biblical(Lev. 18:9) rationale, sex between step family members is equally unacceptable as genetically linked family members. This means the fault lies in violation of the concept of an established nuclear family. The wrongs of incest lie in the disruption of the established emotional kinship within the family. There are non-reversible connection between family members. The family creates a social unit that is unique because its structure provides a sense of security, stability and identity. Parents are romantically loving, while their emotion is primarily nurturing and protective toward their children. Children find recognition and security from their parents, while siblings are potentially non-threatening peer support. Of course, the reality of family is much more complicated. My point is that emotional links within an existing family is innate and central to our identity. Incest disturb this emotional structure. Gays, on the other hand, is between two free, unrelated individuals. Homosexuals are establishing something new rather then disrupting something that already exist.

One may object that "if we can break the emotional structure of parental (or social) expectation of marriage for justifying gay love, why can't we break this kinship restriction in the name of love also?"

The response is that there are other problems with incest that further indicate its illegitimacy. Unlike homosexual love, incest is a socially very selective act. If one is heterosexual, there are literally billions of people out there who can be his/her potential mate, why does one have to be sexually active within the family!? Incest is clearly an obesession rather then a socially loving expression. The action is deliberately inconsiderate and disrespectful toward the rest of the family and society.

Socially and practically speaking, it makes much better sense to find a soul mate in the billion-times-bigger social pool outside the family. No one is saying they cannot love, they simply have to avoid the particular "forbidden fruit" of the family members. They can have all the choice they want outside the family. "But we are in love!", some may complaint. Well tough! There are social decisions we have to make, the line has to be drawn somewhere. We are not cutting them off from love, just making reasonable guide lines. Love someone else instead, my friends, the chances are pretty good outside of the family.

This brings me to the important point: accepting gay love is far more consequentially important than accepting other unconventional sexual relationships. There has been a consistent existence of gay love throughout history in all culture. These gay people, as study has shown so far, cannot alter their orientation at will. For almost all homosexuals, gay love is their only romantic possibility. As the Bible stated in Gen.2:18, it is not good for a man (or women) to be alone. Romantic connection between heterosexual unions often imply spiritual partnership and personal growth. The same is sought by committed gay couples. Therefore, by prohibiting gay love, you are emotionally and spiritually castrating them. (Since most people do not have the gift of celibacy.) We are designed to have soulful, and consequently physical, connection with a loving partner. It is not acceptable to prohibit such celebrated emotional and spiritual experience for some people simply because they have a different match of chromosomes. Other odd relationships, such as incest, is not so spiritually implicated, rendering it mundane, worldly, and unnecessary.

Other examples like bestiality and prostitution also involve similar problems of desire exploitation and worldliness. Gay people should be allowed to love not because we are ideal, but because we deserve the best that we can have spiritually as a independent and free beings. One has no right to castrate people emotionally. Gay love is not the same as gay lust. Our love can be beautiful, respectful, and nurturing.

back