Gay Marriage and the Icarus Effect

4-20-09

Levelheaded Bob

I am old enough to remember when schoolbooks had defined homosexuality as being a form of deviant behavior. Somewhere in the scriptures of at least the Big Three world religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) it has been canonized that same sex relationships are an abomination to God. Arguably, Christianity and later the Islamic faith evolved out of Judaism due to disagreements concerning (to use a broad term) the ‘truth’ of the ‘One God’ and how men should worship and know him. All three of these religions acknowledge many of the same key players. There is even credible speculation that Judaism was formed from even earlier practices of worship and that it likely evolved from them. God proves to be a hard cookie to crack even in our fast paced computer age. The truth is probably such that as far as the One God, the Omnipotent God, the God that is larger than any flesh or inter-dimensional being, is or always will be beyond our comprehension. It is my personal belief that higher or more evolved beings have been inching us toward a broader understanding of God since the concept of God first arose. I do not believe that the concept of God was created by man, but rather a necessary gift in the evolution of man within the universe. A naysayer of God and/or organized worship may blame religion for bias, hatred, and war, falsely assuming that man would be incapable of such negative actions in the absence of religion. Religion, though imperfect, has been a catalyst for many great things as well. It has been the husk of the nut that has kept the notion of God alive in the minds of men. Unscrupulous men have used religion, politics, and the fears of others less illuminated to collie the masses to their own selfish will. At the center of every tragedy involving man, there is someone who will cry out, “No God would allow this to happen. God therefore must not exist.” Yet, before our eyes we witness daily His now mundane miracles. We expect more than mountains, deep oceans, and stars beyond our ability to count. It seems we’ve grown weary of the gift of life and free will. We have belittled the experience of the Earth’s treasures and abundance as it evolves in a life cycle all its own. Man continually shapes God to his own understanding, but only when he looks for his answers in God’s creation (nature) does he become remotely correct about any matter of thought. It is not so much right or wrong, good or evil, but what works most the time and what fails most the time. There may be absolutes in nature, yet we will not know them absolutely until we are able to conceive the mind of God. Until then, we observe and mimic the perfection of nature instant by instant instead of understanding it in its coordinated entirety. God is therefore ‘The Law’, and mankind theorizes this law by testing what works and gleaning its benefits.

When God created something from nothing, he likely started with something an inch or two one way or the other from no place in particular. Since that is hard to imagine, try to think of a homesteader in the Old West walking into the vast open plain and pondering a bit until he finally takes his shovel and turns over a little dirt. “We’ll build here!” He shouts. “There, a beginning.” It has to start somewhere folks or we would have never made it this far. It is my personal view that we elevated other beings (human, superhuman, and spiritual) to the position of the One Omnipotent God either by confusion or divine design. It’s no secret that even in our most holy documents, there are beings mightier and more brilliant than man. Thus we get characters that I believe existed, like the archangel Michael or Jesus, who surely reflected a bit more Godliness than most beings. Using the same example I believe we can understand God broadly through the Godly and be figuratively ‘delivered’ by a Son of God or even a God within. God can’t be defined by our limited verbiage. I’d hope He’d be larger than human, but at the same time be reflected within a being or teacher that we can understand and emulate. God just IS. “I AM that I AM”. “I am the beginning and I am the end.”

So, if there are creatures in nature that live to be sacrificed for the better of their species, than it is logical that somewhere in our universe there are others like us that might do the same. If there is unfair or unjust death in nature than it is likely that the same exists in the lives of men. As it is above so it is below. In nature not all creatures get to breed. We tag those as rogues, slaves, workers, and other things depending on the genus or type. If it is true in nature, than it can be so in the lives of men. Same sex attractions may not be plentiful, but seem to exist in nature. I have seen cows mount other cows and perform in the manner of mounting males. Dogs have not only ‘hunched’ other dogs of their same gender, but also people’s legs and other foreign objects. It is odd, and it is rare as far as a coupling ratio goes, but it occurs in nature. Experts give nature a break, however by explaining it away with time of season, hormonal alibis, and instinctual instructions engraved in their DNA, but regardless it happens in nature, thus it occurs in mankind. Where an animal has a limited destiny, mankind has free-will. Free-will is God’s gift that we might, in a small way experience what it is like to start at nothing or someplace and mold our larger purpose. Man creates his destiny and if that harms no one else’s journey, he should logically be allowed to fulfill it. There are consequences that we summarize as ‘life’, however. And what we have sown in our life is what we will reap from it. The One God’s judgment of one’s life is not a thumbs-up or down scenario. That is what we would expect of earth men or other beings that have interpreted God’s plan by their own ‘advanced’ study of God in nature from a galactic perspective. God’s judgment is simply, ‘outcome’. Nature has obstacles for a reason, and she is ordained by the vast wisdom of God to cast us into the river of life where we will sink, float or swim by the river’s end. So let’s look to see what we can assume, note that I did not say what we know, from nature about much of what troubles us.

Let me start with something I saw on a recent television network. A grizzly bear was stalking a lone elk somewhere in Alaska. The bear is stronger and ultimately more fierce than an elk, and though a bear can run up to 30 miles an hour, it can still not catch an elk on the run. Chance would have it that the elk was alone which was stated not to be normal. The elk’s huge rack and sharp hooves have injured and killed many a predator, but in all the parrying the elk drove the bear into water and continued into the water himself. This proved to be to the bear’s advantage, and made the struggle even harder for the disadvantaged elk. In the water the bear became more empowered and quickly and savagely killed the elk. Was nature unfair? Professional observers might say that the elk might have been ill, injured, or somehow rejected by its kind and wondered outside of its area of safety. It had a hard time fleeing the menacing bear and made a tactical error by entering the water. Perhaps the bear sensed a ‘weakness’ and the elk became a target of opportunity. Whatever the reason, the scales tipped in the bear’s favor. Mankind manufactures his surroundings from within nature like no other animal of land or sea. He is the bear, the elk, the shark, the sardine, the hawk, and the song bird. He is the insect, the plant, the wind, rain, snow and scorching sun. He adapts to nature or defies it but he can’t change its course because it is beyond his control. Nature has its structure and man accommodates himself within. This is the Law of the Creator and we embrace it and go with the flow or resist it and hammer away. Neither guarantees 100% human satisfaction of life. Both project a predictable likelihood of success or failure. Our civilizations, our laws, our customs, and everything about us at some point in our cycle are overcome by nature or destroyed by our own hand. Life is thus rumored to be unfair. Armed with all this, let’s look into some of our social struggles or woes as they pertain to homosexuality and perhaps other things.

Homosexuality and our attitudes about it present a challenge to civil rights interpretation. In our own big social experiment in America, we chose to separate our religious beliefs from the governing of our state. It seemed like the right thing to do for ‘real’ freedom. This, however has been difficult because of the role Judeo-Christian values have played in the early development of our society. Religion and governments/kingdoms have coexisted since the beginning of civilization. Gay activists have compared their plight to that of the Black Civil Rights movement, but is this an accurate analogy? There is no doubt that openly gay people have been subjected to bias and prejudice by the moral values or hurtful stereotypes of others, but they have not been denied basic human rights by our present state. As a movement that could only have formulated in an evolving free society, it has only been in recent times that a large organized voice has expressed the will (or had the courage) to challenge conventional marriage. This presents a problem for the state, because it now enters the venue of religion. The state did not foresee the ‘problem’ or conflict arising from a community that had been oppressed by religious beliefs and past social values. Ironically, the men of faith that molded our American foundation used the language of religion to create a more liberated government. They used phrases like, endowed by our Creator, and all men are ‘created’ equal. These ideas certainly weren’t Darwinian, and thank goodness for that. Freedom and equality might have been hindered by scientific models like natural selection or survival of the fittest. Faith was part of our founders’ world and our Judeo-Christian symbolism became helplessly intertwined in the language of our law and institutional customs. The total separation of church and state was and now is a near impossibility.

The mistake made by the state concerning homosexuality is that the 'homosexual wheel' didn’t get squeaky until it became a gay movement that had political interests and might of its own. Today, I feel that the state would like to provide an equivalent to marriage through the development and sanction of civil unions; but the state was also not prepared for something else. The state had not separated itself from the religious monopoly on marriage, but integrated it into its legal system. Why reinvent the wheel? Marriage has long been a religious rite, and Judeo-Christians as well as Islamic and other religions have recognized marriage as being a man to a woman (or man to women). It also reflected, through celebration, the concept that defined family and its continuous hope of renewal. It was not too different than celebrating or recognizing the implications of Spring. So, what do we now have before America today? We have a society of human beings that are all recognized as equal at least by the written law of the land. The state sees no color, no gender, and no religion as far as equality under the law. However, the state is struggling with sexual orientation because the state must also respect religious freedoms. Martin Luther broke ties with the Catholic Church and formulated an alternative Christian religion. Many gays who have identified with Christianity or religion have formed their own houses of worship as well. Many Christian Churches welcome all walks, though they may not agree with homosexuality or gay marriage. Heterosexuality throughout the world is the norm, at least for now. It makes sense. It fits in that higher percentile of workability in nature. Homosexuality has always been around so therefore must suit a purpose to God that is beyond our speculation. It is unfortunate that without the protection of a state or government providing equality under man's law, that harm might come to any human being; but the nature of man has also been to evolve kingdoms and governments as well. Time makes room for change if indeed nature calls for it.

I believe that the tendency to gravitate romantically toward someone of your own sex is due to a number of factors. Testimony from some homosexuals indicates that the same sex bond is innate. As a heterosexual, I find bisexuality much more confusing. The fact that these people can be aroused by a man or a woman puts a stick in the spokes of simple hard wiring at birth. Perhaps a person’s sexual orientation should be perceived as a preference that lends them more toward one sex or the other. Instead of being a black or white issue it is more one way than another like Mendel’s dominant and recessive genetic traits for peas or eye color. Dominant sexual orientation lends itself to be more of what occurs in nature. Many homosexuals have contended that many heterosexuals are merely latent homosexuals or bisexuals that have not expressed themselves or ‘come out’ yet. I believe that tendency could exist in a more complex Mendel model. At what point would any random male be attracted to another? I have seen computer generated photos from the neck up of a man slowly taking on more and more ‘defined’ feminine features until he becomes more and more like what I would recognize as a woman. He ultimately becomes a woman. Somewhere along the spectrum of visible masculine and feminine traits are those who could only be distinguished by their genitalia, or perhaps more primitively by an odor or pheromone. The triggers are endless and involve all the senses, just as in nature with like species. The male animal knows when it is time to engage in sex with a female. It becomes ‘aware’ when their own kind cross the threshold from child to adult. I have known male mammals to kill young of their own species, but have not known them to attempt to mate with them. So, if intercourse does occur with like, non-adult mammals in nature it is surely not the norm. Today, survival has become relatively easy for mankind in thriving free societies. However, animals are so preoccupied with sustenance, defense, and shelter that nature has to slap them each spring with inborn or highly sensitive triggers so that they don’t forget to breed and face possible extinction.

If studies show that man innately has comfort issues within an enclosed elevator, than at what point does he begin to react negatively to those around him? I was shocked when I heard an African male say that those tribes who were being attacked in Darfor where like primitive animals and that they were subhuman. A woman who was raped and nearly killed by these same militants claimed that they were targets due to their darker skin. Dark skinned people were killing darker skinned tribal people in the absence of law in a broken government that could no longer protect the few from the many, or the helpless from the strong. Skin color, sexual preference, and God only knows what other countless unseen traits are instantly processed in the mind of every human being at any instance. Aside from our social grooming, I find both racism and bias to be actually explained by a much broader word. That word is ‘different’. If I walk into an all black neighborhood, I am guaranteed to raise some eyebrows. If I walk into an upper class LA country club, I am likely to get the same reaction from a variety of skin colors and sexual orientations due to the registry of the instantaneous visual cues presented by my clothing style, speech or mannerisms. We couple and bunch ourselves by a multitude of attributes. Outside of nature, wealth trumps age, race, health, and physical power. We learn that from the civil part of man’s experience, but in nature what you may have or dominate depends on your brains and brawn. In the absence of order there is chaos. At the end of chaos comes a new order. Whoever has the might and cunning makes the rules for the day. Balance, like spring or fall, is a short season. I once said that freedom was a long rope, and if you could gather enough of it, you would eventually hang yourself with it. The life cycle of mankind’s tolerance of others is a type of Icarus Effect. How far will mankind test the limits of nature, society, each other, or even our freedoms? Where is the breaking point?

At this point in our American society, homosexuality must compromise with the state and religion. Fairness from the state should allow consenting adults legal civil union in order that those couples may pursue life, liberty and happiness. Homosexual couples should have legal rights to the same things that the state is willing to provide heterosexual married couples. Atheists or agnostics who want to be legally united outside of the church should also seek civil unions and many do. Christian homosexuals, who attend gay churches or are welcomed into a church that overlooks doctrine bias, should obtain their state-provided civil union and follow up with a church wedding if that institution is willing to give those sacraments. What shouldn’t happen is the interference of the state into the age old sacraments of what other American citizens hold dear to their beliefs. These beliefs and ideals are still part of the complicated glue and stitch-work that bind our societal garment. It is the state’s responsibility to weigh consequences of their actions if they want to ‘remain in the state’ they have acquired. If Icarus had been an angel his wings would have elevated him to heaven, but his wings were borrowed from the feathers of birds and bound together by wax. Icarus was neither an angel nor a bird. He was a man that was flying to freedom, became distracted by its glory, and dared to test the certainty of nature.