Some people are engaged in discussing Gay marriage, whether it should happen or not. It’s a moot point. As with the American Civil War, you can waste years and hundreds of thousands of lives, but you cannot reverse the tide of history. Slavery has finished; women have the vote. Welcome to reality. The overwhelming momentum of historical forces is at work, and it will not disappear in a puff of smoke in the face of philosophical arguments.
Over the next ten years time anyone opposed to Gay marriage will increasingly be viewed like someone who opposes freedom for black people or suffrage for women.
If you go to the top of the hill and point your bicycle down toward the base again, what comes next? If you didn’t intend riding down, why go up? Once you are there, nature takes it course.
In the same way, because modern society has accepted sexual activity divorced from procreation, the logical conclusion follows:
Two people combine for mutual sex pleasure and to provide comfort and companionship for one another. There is no desire or plan to have children.
Now, please tell me:
Q: What difference does it make if those two persons are of the same sex, or of different sexes?
A: Not a sufficiently fundamental difference for making a viable case that allows mixed sex marriage and denies same-sex marriage. You threw away your own silver bullet, the biological basis argument.
That’s the logical conclusion. Gay marriage.
By accepting sex without procreation modern society has gone to the top of the hill. Now the downhill descent follows naturally. Look at the statistics. Fertility is dropping in Western nations. Single lifestyles are on the rise. It’s all about “me and my pleasure”. Family and society are irrelevant.
“The nuclear family now tends to be formed later, and is less dominated by the birth, care, and development of children. While it is still the family unit in which most children are reared, it is becoming less pre-eminent as the social unit which underpins family policies.” (Emphasis added. From a Statistics New Zealand report: “Looking past the 20th century - The big shifts now in train: Changes in society”)
While sectors of society might rail against Gay marriage, for the main they are not prepared to renounce contraception and a culture of guilt-free and responsibility-free sex. Their opposition to Gay marriage is based more on their own personal preference for a particular type of sense gratification and an attachment to tradition and the status quo, than some adherence to an absolute standard, however much they might make appeals to one. And people resent that. They recognise the hypocrisy and the oppression by one group of another that is only superficially different.
“We want what you have!” Sex without procreation. Recognition of a relationship based on that. Can’t deny it to others if you accept it yourself. That’s hypocritical - there is no moral high ground.
So it’s here. There is no debate, save a perfunctory war of words. If heterosexuals will not give up sense gratification, they cannot expect homosexuals to do so. The real debate was lost when contraception and sex without procreation was accepted.
“The increasing trend to cohabit prior to entering a registered marriage continued in 2002. Marriage data for 2002 indicated that 73% of couples cohabited prior to marriage. Comparative data from the 1991 Family Survey showed that twenty years ago only 30% of couples had lived together prior to marriage.” (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics)
What we are seeing now is the inevitable erosion of the religious principles. The heterosexuals can no longer defend religious principles because they have none. There is no difference between the heterosexuals and the homosexuals without religious principles, they are simply two groups of sense gratifiers who differ only in the details.
The only useful discussion now is how to deal with the situation going forward from here. As Lee Iacocca, former CEO of Chrysler Motors famously said: “Even the best manager is sometimes like a small boy with a big dog, waiting to see where the dog wants to go so he can take him there.”
We have to face the reality and respond accordingly (see this post: Preaching in the Post-Gay Marriage World, for a beginning discussion of this). A dispassionate environmental scan reveals the topography of the preaching field over the next two decades. “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” is in. It’s only going to increase. Welcome to the new millenium. Work out how to deal with it.
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.” (Bhagavad-gita 14.22-25)
“If vegetarians will not give up eating, they cannot expect meat-eaters to do so.” Of course, that’s not a direct quote, but substituting equivalent concepts to see what it looks like.
My point, in case it is not obvious, is that there are three types of choices we can make with such things: complete abstinence, indulging in sanctioned sense gratification, or indulging in forbidden sense gratification. The meat eaters and homosexuals are indulging in forbidden sense gratification. Personally, I can tolerate these things to some degree, because ‘old habits die hard.’ However, my feeling is that they push the limit too far when they publicly encourage these illicit activities. There is no shame at all.
I agree with almost everything you wrote (can you show where in sastra it says that one MUST be celibate, I think the policy is that celibacy is recommended, but not an absolute pre-requisite). You are saying the same thing I said in my letter to dipika.org (David Greensberg), albeit in a more drawn out and detailed fashion.
As I have written elswhere our natural audience is the politically correct audience. Politically correct, for those of you who don’t know what that means is defined as the following in the American Heritage Dictionary of idioms:
Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background. For example, Editors of major papers have sent out numerous directives concerning politically correct language. This expression was born in the late 1900s, and excesses in trying to conform to its philosophy gave rise to humorous parodies.
The reality “on the ground” in the industrial or “First World” countries, is that society is divided over social issues. Especially in the U.S. Because of the empowerment of the once marginalized Christian “moral majority” in the political arena, America has become a place where the population is divided as they’ve never been before.
The seeming empowerment of people with agendas to create a Christian theocratic state in America, has polarized the average non fanatically religious people into virulently opposing anything and everyhing that smacks of a theocratic agenda. This has manifest in an extreme form of political correctness taking hold within the minds of the population who are averse to the perceived power grab of cunning theocrats.
They fear having their “rights” taken away from them by reactionary politicians under the guidance of power hungry fascists. They fear the use of reactionary religious dogma to gain public support for the perceived schemes of the fascist oligarchy.
In my surfing through cyber space I encounter this dread and anger everywhere, it is all pervasive, and it is getting more and more heated. The average non Christian or Jewish fundamentalist in America is more and more defining others in a sweeping judgemental fashion based solely on socio-political stances.
If you are anti-gay or anti-feminism, then you are automatically lumped in with the theocratic monster they abhore. You are automatically lumped in with and seen as supporters of a whole range of issues, whether you support them or not.
If you are anti-gay, then you are automatically thought of as being pro-war, pro-fascism, pro-police state, pro-corporate exploitation, anti-environment, anti-free speech, anti-freedom.
In response to the aggresive maneuvers of the reactionary political machinations of America’s leaders, those against them and their perceived fascist agenda, have adopted an extreme political correctness as a kind of pretense of taking the “moral high ground”.
Vaisnavas need to be aware of the boiling cauldron of emotions over political and religious ideologies going on in todays world. By publicly aligning with the anti-gay agenda, you make an enemy out of the people who are really the only ones who will be naturally interested in what you have to say anyways.
Your average right leaning person is usually a devout Christian, and to a lesser extent a devout Jew. They may applaud your anti-gay agenda, but they will not be interested in hearing from Bhakti Yoga adherents about Krishna. Quite the opposite, their leaders condemn “Hindusim” regularly as being the work of evil or “satan”.
The entire atmosphere in western academia as well has been poisoned by anti Hindu Indian academics, either Christian Muslime or Atheist. And also by the growing number of devout Christian and Jewish teachers. By their combined effort at propaganda, “Hindus” are now refered to as “Hindu nationalists”, and they are seen as oppressors by academics who know nothing of India except what they hear from anti-hindu propagandists with an agenda to push.
If you want to add to the already antagonistic feeling of academia towards anything “Hindu”, then voicing a politically IN-correct opinion on an issue that has become a political dividing line in society, will simply confirm their suspicions of “Hinduism” which have been based up to now on the propaganda of atheists, fanatical Christians and Jews, and Muslims.
The people who would be naturally inquisitive about yoga or meditation, or spiritual India, they are coming from a place of anger and frustration at the present time towards anybody who seems to align themselves with the cause of their anger and frustration i.e the so called Christian Jewish political military industrial nexus of interests.
So if you are a person who wants to spread the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam, then it would be unwise to alienate the very people who are more or less the only people who will be interested.
Of course, this does not necessarily apply everywhere. I don’t think India has a politically correct social milieu for the most part. But in the westernized upper class wealthy section of Indian society, they take their cue from western social mores more so then the rest. They are more likely then not to be politically correct in their viewpoints.
So the long and the short of it is: why stand up and be the unpopular guy at the party? Is it worth it? Why make a vocal call to arms over an issue that will only harm your overall raison d’ etre? If your mission is to spread the teachings of Sri Caitanya, then why poison the minds of your audience against you needlessly?
This is not about “Gays”, it’s not about “Feminism” it’s about being intelligent.
Those devotees who are always preaching about the impiety of womens rights and the impiety of homosexuality have to wake up and see the consequences of that preaching. They like to hold themselves up as the “authentic” upholders of the “real tradition” which the “liberals” are changing, perverting, and destroying.
The truth is much less romantic I’m afraid. They need to get down from their soapboxes and start being intelligent and stop being demagogic in their obsession with trying to be the “hall monitors” and “church ladys” in their quest for everyone’s submission.
POST SCRIPT:
I wrote: “I think the policy is that celibacy is recommended, but not an absolute pre-requisite for someone to advance spiritually.”
If someone is reading sastra daily, chanting mantras daily, doing guru seva daily, donating money and resources to brahmanas regularly, if that person is not celibate, then surely he or she is making spiritual advancement.
From Bhagavad Gita 2.40
In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.
PURPORT
Activity in Krsna consciousness, or acting for the benefit of Krsna without expectation of sense gratification, is the highest transcendental quality of work. Even a small beginning of such activity finds no impediment, nor can that small beginning be lost at any stage. Any work begun on the material plane has to be completed, otherwise the whole attempt becomes a failure. But any work begun in Krsna consciousness has a permanent effect, even though not finished. The performer of such work is therefore not at a loss even if his work in Krsna consciousness is incomplete. One percent done in Krsna consciousness bears permanent results, so that the next beginning is from the point of two percent.
As for saying that celibacy is a requirement to be an initiated member in ISKCON, well there are rules and then there is the reality.
Pandu, the correct logical analogy is like this: “If vegetarians cannot give up meat eating, then they cannot expect meat-eaters to do it.”
Or in other words: “If heterosexuals cannot give up sex life that is devoid of religious principles (or in other words motivated by sense gratification), they cannot expect homosexuals to do so”.
Don’t misidentify heterosexuality with religious principles. They are two different things.
The issue is not gay versus straight. It’s sense gratification versus service. Straight or gay sexual activity for sense gratification is all the same. Only sexual activity for procreation within a committed relationship qualifies as “dharmaviruddho bhutesu kamo ’smi”
We are not anti-gay, and we are definitely not pro-heterosexuality. We are anti-all sex life devoid of religious principles. Gay or straight. We are pro-devotional service.
You don’t seem to have the same problem with heterosexual sex life devoid of religious principles that you do with homosexual sex life. We reject meat-eating, and all types of sexuality that are not service. That means equally homosexuality and heterosexuality. We only accept a very specific sexual activity in a very controlled environment with a service attitude.
Anyway, the article is not about our ideology or our personal preferences, it’s about the reality of the preaching field over the next twenty years.
Heterosexuals are incapable of stemming the rising tide of homosexual marriage because they are guilty of the same deviation from religious principles. That’s the point.
We have to be strong in communicating the deviation of all sex life devoid of service connection, not just the kinds that we are personally not attracted to.
Shiva, thanks for your comments. They are more like another article though! Please feel free to post articles on your blog, and I can cross link to them. This makes the comments easier to read for the public.
One can get benefit from chanting the maha-mantra, studying scripture, etc. in any situation of life. Please see my recent post on Preaching in the Post-Gay Marriage World in this respect.
The benefit that one gets is a progressive realization of their non-identity with the material body and detachment from material sense gratification.
Celibacy, either in the form of no sexual activity, or sexual activity only in its natural spiritual form (procreation of devotees with all the attendent service implications), follows naturally from this realization.
Practice of celibacy (”no illicit sex”) can help to bring this realization about quicker when it is combined with the correct philosophical understanding and sincere spiritual practice.
The inability to follow this standard while one’s realization of their spiritual identity is still immature is to be expected. However, there is a vast difference between on the one hand being unable to follow completely all the time while maintaining a clear vision of the goal and determination to achieve it, and on the other hand inventing a philosophical understanding that you can somehow have your cake and eat it too.
If we are serious about making progress toward something, at some point we have to make clear cut decisions about our priorities and goals in life.
you guys are always talking about sex. i wonder if celibate people think about sex more than normal people.
Celibate people think more than “normal” people, full stop. =)
God created them male and female. God never told humans that sex was only for procreation. God says the marriage bed is undefiled. God created man first, then made woman by taking a rib from Adam. Woman was made to be a helper to Adam. Man was created in God’s image. The marriage between a man and a woman is a picture of Jesus and his Bride, The Church. Men having sex with men and women having sex with women, even when The State falsely calls it marriage, is absurd. Anuses are not sex organs, whether in heterosexual situations or homosexual situations. Sinful man never ceases finding ways to be perverted. Only those whom God chooses and saves from damnation (as all are born sinners and worthy of damnation) will avoid Hell.