Dialogues with The Elder
On Obligations and Morality -

Dialogue 4: Homosexuality

跟长者的对话 - 伦理、道德

对话四：同性恋

I:   Fine, fine, the extended family is good and important. But what if one's sexual orientation is homosexual? Can't one just get married to a member of the same sex and raise one's children then?

Elder:   No, because you would be depriving the child of one of his parents. If it's a male couple, you would be depriving the child of his mother. If it's a female couple, you would be depriving the child of his father. Just think: even when the father or mother is a criminal in jail, the long-lost child will still seek him or her out and recognize him or her as the parent; so where do we get the right to deprive a child for life of one of his parents?

I:   But haven't studies shown that children raised in homosexual families are just as well adjusted and healthy?

Elder:   I am not talking about the results; I am talking about the moral right of the child to being raised by both of his biological parents, to his rightful inheritence of being raised by both of his biological parents. I am talking about the moral wrong of depriving him of one of his parents.

By the way, I am not conceding that being so deprived and raised in homosexual families result in children that are brought up "just as well". No, as I have said earlier, there is a unique match of the combined culture and nurture from a unique set of biological parents to the unique set of combination of genes from those parents, and this uniquely matching culture and nurture should be transmitted to the biological offspring. Therefore I feel that if these children who had grown up in homosexual families hadn't been deprived of one of their parents, they might have grown up even better.

Beides, a lot of people with so called "homosexual sexual orientation" are just young people who experiment out of curiosity and who sometimes get led into a certain pattern of behavior by joining a certain group. Their sexual orientation may be completely malleable and they can actually have heterosexual sex. These people's homosexual sexual orientation is actually not extreme, not stubborn; it's only their misunderstanding of their own sexuality. There is absolutely no need for such people to give up their obligations to have and raise children with a member of the opposite sex.

I:   Alright, fine, but what to do if one truly has homosexual orientation? How can one get married to a member of the opposite sex then? How can one love a member of the opposite sex?

Elder:   Persons with homosexual sexual orientations, just like persons with heterosexual sexual orientations, should also fulfill the same obligations - having different sexual orientations doesn’t mean one has different obligations. Sex is just a part of a person's life and to some even a small part; it is wrong to make sex the over-riding determinant of one's life, and the over-riding determinant of one's obligations in life. Relationship-defined obligations are what should be the over-riding determinant in governing our lives, not feelings of sexual satisfaction or sexual desire.

It is only in the modern West that this overriding obsession with sex and sexual orientation to the exclusion of everything else has arisen. To be sure, part of this is a reaction against the historical criminalization of homosexuality by the Moses religious tradition that the West has inherited, a tradition where homosexuality is punishable by death, and where two cities were destroyed by God and their entire populations executed, men, women and children, in the Old Testament. In contrast, in cultures like traditional China where there hasn't been a Moses religious tradition, homosexuality is tolerated, except where, in individual cases, obsessiion with it interferes with sexual intercourse with the wives and hence with the begatting of children. Various Chinese novels from Imperial days mention homosexuality in a matter-of-fact, neutral manner, and on occasions where there is disapproval expressed it's only when the begatting of children is obstructed. Today in the West, however, it is not only considered right and permissible to live a life where major obligations like having and raising children are subordinate to one's sexual orientation, where sexual orientation is placed above all else in life, but also considered extremely wrong and shameful to do anything else. This is wrong. Having different sexual orientations doesn’t mean that one has different obligations or that one has to live entirely different lives.

I:   But if one has homosexual sexual orientation, how can one love a member of the opposite sex as a spouse?

Elder:   You mean you can't love someone with whom you build a life together? Why not? Why do you have to have a certain sexual preference to love someone of the opposite sex? Why is sex that over-ridingly important? Again, relationship-defined obligations are what should be supreme in governing our lives, not feelings of sexual satisfaction or sexual desire.

I:   Well then, are you advocating that persons with homosexual sexual orientation suppress and hide their sexual orientation, mislead some unsuspecting member of the opposite sex and get married? All for the sake of having and raising children?

Elder:   Of course not. One should be honest if one really has a strong homosexual orientation and disclose one's sexual orientation to one's would be spouse before marriage to enable a choice of taking you or leaving you; dishonesty and trickery always end in despicable failure and extreme unhappiness for all concerned sooner or later.

Again, it is only in cultures with the Moses' tradition of religious obsessions over sex that people with homosexual orientations have in the past lived in shame and fear and hid their sexual orientations from their spouses.

I:   But then if the other person knows you have a homosexual orientation, who's going to marry you?

Elder:   Ah, someone who doesn't mind. Let me say this again: sex isn't everything in life. A lot of people might like you for other qualities and want to build a life together with you. One possibility, of course, is to find another person of the opposite sex who also has a homosexual orientation and also wants to have and raise children without depriving them of one of their parents. Then it will be very fair for the both of you.

I:   Still, what then is one to do with one's sexual needs if one has strong homosexual sexual orientation? Is he condemned to a life of dissatisfaction?

Elder:   No, not at all. With today's technology, there are many ways that a cooperating couple can satisfy each other's sexual needs.

Also, as I said before, a lot of people with so-called homosexual sexual orientation are just curious young people who experiment out of curiosity, who sometimes get into a a certain group and is led into a certain behavioral routine, and are totally malleable, totally fine with heterosexual sex once they get used to it.

I:   But what if one truly has strong homosexual sexual orientation and is still not satisfied no matter how much the spouse of the opposite sex cooperates, could one go out and find partners to fulfil one's needs?

Elder:   No, as we've discussed in our previous dialogue, sex is a very intense, emotional, mutually interacting experience so it should be used to strengthen bonds between the husband and wife. If done with outsiders it weakens the emotional marital bond and leads to mutual resentment, and we need the emotional marital bond to be as strong as possible so as to have better cooperation and to be permanent. Therefore we need sex to be exclusive to the marriage and we still need chastity. We need to keep sex within the permanent bounds of marriage.

I:   Well, how about a person having both a male and a female spouse; then one can have homosexual sex with the spouse who is of the same sex to satisfy one's homosexual orientation, and still have and raise children with the spouse of the opposite sex?

Elder:   That would not be moral, because the spouse of the same sex would not have a marriage with someone of the opposite sex to have and raise children of his or her own.

I:   What is a person with strong homosexual orientation who needs sexual satisfaction from a same sex partner to do then?

Elder:   Well, perhaps one way to get around this, if this indeed is a big issue, is to have, instead of a couple in marriage, a quartet. Two men and two women marry, where the two men are homosexual partners for each other and the two women are also homosexual partners for each other. One of the men and one of the women, however, pair off to have and raise children, while the other one of the men and the other one of the women also pair off in a similar way. This satisfies the moral requirements of having children, raising children by both parents, and keeping sex within the exclusive and permanent bounds of marriage. This may be a moral innovation worth considering for those who have such issues.

I:   Hmmm, interesting... But isn't that going to be a bit complicated? I mean, it's hard enough to find one spouse, now you are talking about finding 3 other spouses...

Elder:   Well, it's a bit more complicated than finding one spouse, that's for sure. If, however, we free ourselves from the form of courtship that conforms with the West's ideology of the supremacy of love, then it wouldn't be so difficult.

Well, let me take this opportunity to critique the West's form of courtship. What follows also applies to those with a heterosexual orientation.

It is in Westernized cultures where we find the most complexity and difficulty with finding spouses. That's because according to the Western ideology of the supremacy of love, two persons are supposed to fall madly in love with each other first and only then do they get married. Moreover, according to Westernized popular culture, the two are supposed to find each other somehow, through their own efforts and not through introduction by some friend etc., and some mysterious "chemistry" is supposed to take place - in both persons! And all this is without any checking of personal or family background! This is all actually a Western myth that doesn't turn out or doesn't turn out well very often. People need go-betweens and arrangements by friends, and now many people meet through dating services, often online, where they each state the qualities they are looking for and what would be "deal-breakers", and reputable dating services do check out the claims. Indeed, in traditional cultures like India and inland or rural China, marriages are arranged by the parents, and go-betweens whether in the form of friends of the family or of professional match makers provide indispensible help in finding and checking out the prospects as well as their families. I think we will be gravitating back towards that kind of more rational and less risky, anxiety-provoking spouse-finding, as opposed to the Western myth drummed into our minds since childhood by Western literature and by Westernized popular culture.

What is important in finding a mate is that one must realize that the deciding thing in marriage isn't "compatibility", since compatibility is something people have to constantly throughout life maintain dialogue and compromises in order to achieve. The deciding factor is commitment; the people involved must commit for life, for better or for worse. As in any marriage, after finding a person with the right qualifications, commitment to build a life together is what is necessary.

Since the "quartet" is a new thing, why hew to the hackneyed Western myth? More rational searching and more means of searching for qualified life partners will make the process far easier.

I:   Ha ha, well then maybe that is indeed workable!

Elder:   Yes, might be workable. Someone might do it. For people who truly have those issues, this seems the moral way forward to me.

I:   Well, Elder, it's really stimulating to talk to you. No matter how I challenge your assertions, you always have a rational answer.

Elder:   Ah yes, it is very important to have such dialogues to ensure that we stay on moral paths.

(... End of Dialogue)