Theocracy Watch

The Appalling Morality of Supernaturalisms

II — Gay Marriage

What’s immoral about this?

If there’s anything natural, it’s sex. That’s nearly self-referential.

I’ve got no beef with arguments from the noosphere/anthropology that address norms for the basic molecules of human society, pairs. Just don’t call those norms laws of nature.

The laws of nature concerning sex are to be found all over the biosphere, but especially among our closest cousins, the bonobos and chimps. (None of whom, to be fair, have evolved social structures at scale close to those of h. sapiens. See discussion of culture/pragma below.)

The bonobos, probably closest in their nature to us, practice all forms of sex, not just cis-hetero-monogamous-lifelong-only-for-procreation. Science tells us that sex among both bonobos and humans serves all three purposes: reproduction, pleasure and (the one most often overlooked) bonding. Bonobos take that almost to the level of a fine art.

Or, rather, since art seems to be (mostly) a noosphere thing, “Darwin”¹ evolved sex along our branch of the tree of life into a complex behavior of social cohesion/bonding, not as a mere salmon-like means of the perpetuation of the species.

If you want to ground an “objective” morality about sex in nature’s law — as opposed to your own hypothetical supernature’s or (man-made) culture — start there. Don’t start with ancient goat-herd fables of the namesake of your people’s in-law incest.

Let me repeat: when you hear a supernaturalist theocrat waxing philosophical about “natural law”, tune your ear to translate that on the fly into “supernatural law”.

The absurd aspect of the morality concerning sexual relations (per the title of this essay) does not apply broadly to all supernaturalisms, let’s stress. Here in the USA, it’s largely Rome, Conservative Protestants from the Calvinist tradition, Mormons, Muslims and some Orthodox Jews. (I don’t know the Hindu and Buddhist doctrines, but they’re too small to matter here and don’t really figure in the body politic’s tug o’ war.)

More liberal Christianities seem to have progressed over time and, like the field of psychiatry, no longer concern themselves much with private consensual adult sexual behaviors any more than they police diets, hygiene and haberdashery.

By far the loudest voice is Rome’s, which is farcical and unintentionally ironic, given the practices and track records of their leadership/clergy down the centuries. How on earth do a bunch of “celibate”, heavily closeted gay, self-flesh-mortifying (= masochistic), sadly also too commonly pedophilic, chaste renouncers of earthly life and natural goods/pleasures think they’re in any position to opine on sex? It’s like a vegan trying to judge a barbecue contest. Or a sociologist theorizing about quantum physics.

Why are they so obsessed? And why in particular, given their own history of institutionalized pederasty (= seminarians) slipping into pedophilia (= altar boys), do they pick on the poor gays, who have been easy targets of bigotry and persecution since time immemorial, archetypes of Jesus’s “least of my brothers and sisters” (Matt. 25:40)?

Answer: power. More precisely their whole theocratic model of papocaesarism/hierocracy — pope boss of emperor. Auctoritas trumps potestas, the sun versus the moon, yada yada. In order for celibacy to matter as a sign of virtue and spiritual superiority which forms the basis for the auctoritas, sex must be stigmatized, modulo the one sanctified purpose approved by the celibate priest. How superstitious and primitive. How unnatural.

(At least Luther had a sensible, ahem, grasp of the subject … search ‘Luther “into your shirt”’ if you don’t get the pun.)

As I write this essay, Bergoglio has delivered his² somewhat predictable, modernizing South-American liberation-theology-esque Jesuitical earthquake-nothingburger, depending on one’s PoV, permitting blessings of openly gay persons, though stressing it can’t be anything that would be mistaken for condoning their behavior and relationships.

A classic Romish sophism.

Roiling the church, and setting off howls from the backwardists, it should go without saying. “No, you’re the Satanic heretic!” “No, YOU are!!”

Which brings us back to the noosphere, and all the variations in cultural norms/mores/values concerning sex. Pick any controversial specific: contraception (is that one really still controversial?? … in 2024??? … sigh); age of consent; sex during menses; pornography; masturbation; same sex; group; non-coital; interracial; concubinage; surrogacy; etc… Okay “natural law” objective-moralists: what’s the universal rule for each of these?

Har.

Here, I’ll propose one, paraphrasing Mrs. Jacqueline Jackson on the occasion of the exposure of her Reverend husband Jesse’s multi-year affair and out-of-wedlock daughter: stay out of people’s bedrooms, priest.

Now, as for the marriage aspect, to the extent that it’s a purely religious sanction for a relationship, “Who cares?” If the Persians want to have a fudge like sigheh, what does it matter to us Americans?

It’s only when the state gets into the business of passing laws governing the topic that it infringes on the liberty of us non-supernaturalists. Other than enforcing whatever compact/contract (and terms & conditions, especially termination and/or indemnification) exists between the parties, I don’t see any sound rationale for the state to concern itself (see “diets, hygiene” above).

Arguments from “tradition” inevitably come down to religious moralities rather than to pragma and reason.

If it’s about the interests of children, that suggests laws governing parenthood and guardianship, not marriage.

If it’s a matter of somehow conferring a societal stamp of approval on certain relationships but not others, to provide a secular “blessing” by legitimating some unions, in a liberal democracy, that’s for the voters’ differing axiologies to battle out.

There’s no hypothetical universal morality to appeal to.

Notes:

[1] “Darwin” in the same sense as the Darwin Awards, as a way of capturing everything we know about how biology mutates and selects, changing with and adapting to an ever shifting environment. If you prefer, as a synonym for evolution, if that’s not obvious.

[2] Ghost-written by Tucho Fernandez, his fellow Argie protégé, newly appointed head of the renamed Universal Inquisition. The controversy continues.