Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Is There a Right to Sexual Self Gratification? Adding Letters to LGBT

At Bishop Waldo's recent "Preparation for General Convention" I listened as people testified to the need for blessings of same sex relationships. I heard the voices of those who believed that only when this was accomplished would they feel gratified, fully accepted, and fulfilled.

Since we humans seem to jump from one desire to the next, and each desire is something we honestly believe will lead to us being self-fulfilled, I wondered with a silent shrug how the approval of same sex blessings would make someone's life complete.

What about those with other sexual orientations? What would help them to feel fully accepted? Don't they have a right to "full inclusion" if they attest that they are in a committed monogamous relationship?

I give you an extreme example.

There was a story from last year in the Detroit News via Gawker: An inmate in the Macomb County Jail accused of bank robbery filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court in Detroit against Gov. Rick Snyder and the state of Michigan, so that he and other prisoners may,
"possess erotic/pornographic materials along with personal televisions, video game consoles and radios."
You have to understand that this man suffers from
"chronic masturbation syndrome and severe sexual discomfort,"
and that
"Sexual deprivation has been used against plaintiff in a way as to both sexually frustrate the plaintiff, deprive the plaintiff of any sort of sexual gratification, and deny the plaintiff his right to sexual reproduction."
I am not sure how the lack of pornography denies one of the "right to sexual reproduction." I was also unaware of another form of human reproduction other than sexual reproduction. Cloning isn't legal... yet.

The lawsuit went nowhere because this guy ignored the basic lessons to be learned from church politics.

First of all, he needed to find a scientific or pseudo-scientific paper to support the idea that his particular syndrome was being mislabeled as a disorder when it was actually a normal and healthy behavior. Then he could have painted anyone who did not go along with the researcher's point of view as close-minded and onaniphobic. Once he had set himself and those like him up as members of an oppressed group, he could then use the fact that there is only one debatable verse in the Old Testament that might speak about his "issue" and garner the support of those liberal clergy who are out there looking for a cause. He could even recruit a certain former Surgeon General's support as well. Thus armed, he could set out to right the terrible wrongs done to him by the Church and society.
Pressure from the streets could lead to anti-discrimination laws being passed, and eventually this guy would be properly understood to have a "right" to sexual gratification. In order to atone for our corporate guilt, he would be given a private cell, access to those cable channels that you and I won't pay for when we go to a hotel, and a place in "Holy Men, Holy women"... oops I was not being politically correct, it is "Holy Women, Holy Men."

Someone might even propose to bless this sexual orientation.

And once he got out of jail, he would not have to go back to robbing banks. I bet he would be invited to appear in movies, speak to collections of bishops at Kanuga retreats, be in photo shoots, and he might get to stay at a certain unnamed mansion, all in order that he live into his authentic self.

Bishop Gene Robinson, whom you may recall once said it was time to move beyond speaking simply of "GLBT" (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations: "there are so many other letters in the alphabet," he said; "there are so many other sexualities to be explored." He did not elaborate as to what those other sexualities and other letters of the alphabet might be. Little did he suspect that the letter "O" might be his missing vowel.
We haven't fallen that far have we?

1 comment:

  1. I've pointed out to any number of people, rights are about doing something, not having society countenance the act itself. That's what this whole issue is about: Social and theological approval. Thus, does Dan Savage, who can do whatever he wishes, savage those who refuse to give him their imprimatur.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete