Contact DisComforting Ignorance

Have thoughts, comments, criticisms, requests, or proselytization? Email

No prayers. (Why not?)

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Kiss Off

Social conservatives never fail to elicit my awe with how much they pry into the lives of others and make much ado about it. Something that's been circling around the Internet this week that finally made its way to Ray's blog is Kirk's standing policy not to kiss anyone other than his wife.

Social "conservatives" (I don't think they deserve such a title) have made it a policy to meddle in the lives of others and publicly comment on them. This is what I've been seeing in various blogs regarding Kirk and his policy. They praise it as someone in Hollywood having solid values, being loyal to his marriage, etc.

To my surprise, I have not seen negative blogs criticizing it, and I think that speaks volumes of the character of those so often at the end of the wagging finger of pompous prudes like Ray Comfort and other social conservatives.

Whether it's in praise or condemnation, neither should be made. If two consenting adults have some sort of agreement or understanding with one another, no judgment should be passed on that. It's what's so wrong in America now. What does it matter if a committed couple have a policy of "no kissing anyone but me" or "you can kiss anyone as long as I know about it"? I see nothing special in Kirk's marital policy than in the marital policy of another actor allowing him to kiss his co-stars on-camera.

Or, what does it matter if a couple only have sex with one another or have sex with others, but still within their marriage? As long as both have consented and have that understanding, what does it matter? Who are we to judge or comment on the agreements of consenting adults?

And there are broader issues here. I have recently been going back-and-forth with a Christian blogger on various issues, and I mentioned homosexual rights. Part of his reply included:
I support gay rights as a fundamental liberty of mankind. [...] I personally find the behavior rather revolting and unnatural - inconsistent with the "form follows function" rule of biology [...]. Who are we to say though what consenting adults can and cannot do?
While I applaud him for being a Christian who supports gay rights (and he also states that God loves them), I question why he finds it "revolting." If he means that for him personally the thought of him being homosexual is revolting, that's understandable (probably the same way many homosexuals feel about them being heterosexual). But I doubt it's that.

Indeed, I hear this all too often. "I support them, but I find it disgusting and shouldn't be preferred." We should, as citizens, neighbors, and decent human beings not intrude upon others' lives and personal decisions in their relationships with our judgments.

For me, I find any relationship revolting -- but that's for me. Why should I visit upon others as judgments what revolts me personally? We should take the time that we would invest into judging others' relationships and instead, kiss off.


alcari said...

There are quite a lot of things I find utterly disgusting, but that I do think people should be allowed to do if they want to.

For an absurd example: I would rather smash my head into a wall then eat saurkraut. I don't keep this secret, I happily tell people that I find eating saurkraut uttely vile and disgusting, but that that's no reason they shouldn't do it.

Now, what is the difference between that, and homosexual relationships/marriage? I find the though of merely kissing another man truly disgusting, and it's no secret, but if they like it, who am I to interfere?

Why is it a problem that I find homosexual relationships sickening, but not that I find eating saurkraut sickening? Why are people bothered by my opinion on one matter, but find the other completely irrelevant?

And why do they care about my opinion anyway?

DisComforting Ignorance said...

Hey alcari,

I can't tell if you agree with the sentiment of my post or not.

My point isn't that people shouldn't personally find things disgusting; rather, the fact that someone else is doing it is disgusting. The distinction is quite fine. I don't think there's a problem with thinking, personally, homosexuality is disgusting*, but there's a problem with thinking the fact that someone is homosexual or doing homosexual things is disgusting.

If you don't care for that distinction, I wouldn't care to press it as it is a moral argument. What I would press, though, is voicing that thought.

While I appreciate your analogy with saurkraut, you aren't judging their worth for eating saurkraut -- as opposed to people judging others for being homosexual -- but further those people who consume saurkraut aren't being victimized in society and don't have a history of discrimination.

While I won't press my first argument for decency, I still contend it. I, personally, find all sexual relationships revolting. That's for me, though. I shouldn't visit that upon others in the form of criticism or judgment.

*Note: disgusting is completely different from immoral or unnatural. In any case, there is a problem with thinking homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.