I suspect that some of you might feel cheated at this juncture. "He has given us this roundabout lecture about the connection between physiology and psychology and these absolute 'rules of relating' just to make the same argument as everyone else; homoerotic behavior is physically unfit and is therefore, somehow, morally wrong. For God's sake, we have all heard it!" The critic probably makes this complaint amid his insistence that homosexuality is "his/her love" and that I have no right to invalidate it. But remember that the rules of relating are immune to the complaint that they "limit my love". The rules of relating are for our own good. We do not consider ourselves to have committed some crime by forbidding children to sexualize their love for their parents because it is against his/her own good to do so.
And that brings me to a point which I would like to make abundantly clear. I am not trying to argue here that homosexuality is immoral, but merely that it is against one's own good. The contention of the critic, then, that it is "their love" has no bearing here. He is talking past me. Whether we like it or not, there are rules for how to love (what I have hitherto called "rules of relating"). It is my contention that sex is unnecessary - indeed, that it is detrimental - to the consummation of love between two men and two women. The critic, therefore, must argue specifically that homosexuality is psychologically feasible as an expression of love to be engaging my argument at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment