> but when they see couples in real situations > acting in the same way it only reinforces the idea that the behavior is ok. > Sorry for the rant, but I have five kids...
I'm wondeirng if by which you would say that a gay couple is "not ok". In this affirmation one bases oneself regularly on (socially controlled) moralistic or religious principles (I.e puritanical and repression of sexuality/affection/rejection of the physical nature of the human character.), Generally I get irate when someone walks up to me and says "you are immoral" or "you are not right" when they see me holding hands with the person whom I LOVE--- yes, love, not lust, in fact many of my straight friends have told me they wish they had the relationship with their SO's that I have with my partner.
North America is the touchophobic of the world... Here is where the greatest number of affection problems exist. An english doctor did a study of how many times couples established physical contact in public. He sat in a restaurant and waited, watching: 1)In South America, couples touched about a hundred times in an hour (caress, touching hands, etc) 2)In Italy, they touched about 30 times in an hour 3)In France, the count was of about 15 average 4)In the U.S. he waited, and waited....
Just where the hell did we get the idea that public affection--- a gentle touch, holding someone's hand, a stroke along the cheek--- is either inherently immoral or just plaing wrong??
for the 'moral aspect of it', sexuality is proven to be a much more complicated construct than what The Religious Right would have you believe.
Yes, sex SEEMS to be a predominant part of gay 'culture', some say. Seems being the key word here. Sex is a predominantt part of OUR culture, in just as many colors and shades of grey as you find in gay ´society´, but fingers are pointed towards those who enact upon casual sex among gay people because they are theological and moral 'deviants',whereas it is ok for a man to have certain services done unto him by the nice lady at the House of Negotiable Affection on the street corner-- he's not a deviant then, just an "adulterer" if he's married, or "horny" if he's single.
Because homosexuality challenges very predominant gender roles, it is considered deviant. The fact that our puritanical beliefs make us believe that sex is intrinsically dirty only makes the burden heavier.
How should we evaluate homosexual relationships? The same way we evaluate other relationships, they are no different. "But gay relationships are all about sex" I hear people say. Not true, there ARE lust-based relationships, but that happens in both Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, but because of the focus mainstream society takes on homosexuality, these relationships are the ones that take the plateau in the media, this focus has no other purpose than to make the relationships less valid or more 'sinful'. I could easily achieve the same effect by focusing on how many heterosexual couples marry just for sex, or the trophy wife/trophy husband syndromes, etc.
The essence of relationships is mutual love, and our society should not be so uptight to chastise a relationship for operating on that. The Bard knew it quite well, and I don't think anyne else is more suited to say it than him:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove. O no! it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wand'ring bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me prov'd, I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.
|