A statement I have bumped into a few times this week, three hot button issues that I allegedly oppose for religious reasons, abortion, homosexuality, and birth control. I say “allegedly oppose” because as far as I know I’ve never really made a religious argument against any of these things. I have written a rather secular argument against abortion here.
I wish to address these issues from the perspective of an alien lizard overlord…..or Batman. Batman is cool. Anyway, from a rather detached, non emotional perspective, simply as an observer of how civilization creates itself, there are some potentially negative consequences from embracing all three of these things.
Birth control, the invention of the pill for example, forever changed relationships between men and women and altered the course of civilization. Women gained some illusion of control over our biology. Suddenly we were able to plan and organize our lives without being left in a biologically vulnerable state, without having to experience the reproductive consequences of sexuality. Good for individual women perhaps, but in the greater scheme of things was this a good move for society as a whole? I remain skeptical because we are now living in a world where women’s sexuality is not valued, is perceived more as a simple commodity used to sell things of actual worth. In the sexual equation, women have lost ground. In simple economics, scarcity creates value and worth, what is plentiful decreases in value. This influences male behavior as well. Although there may be numerous honorable men in the world who still value women, why even aspire to have a higher self, if sex is going to be so plentiful? Why innovate, create, and build if those things are no longer required in order to compete for the best females?
Abortion I’ve already addressed extensively, but it’s the same thing, women’s value in the reproductive equation has actually declined. Abortion is something that may be convenient for individual women (and men) but are there negative long term consequences for society as a whole, in the fact that we not only no longer respect life, but no longer value women’s ability to produce it? What are the potential implications of perceiving human life as an inconvenience, as nothing more then a clump of cells? What are we saying about ourselves as a society when women are lead to believe that it may be better to kill their own potential offspring rather then attempt to bring life into this world?
Homosexuality is a difficult one because I truly don’t want to advocate hatred nor do I want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Psychologically speaking however, we are not our sexuality nor is it our identity. Perceiving ourselves as our sexuality has now led to additional issues, like now perceiving gender entirely as a social construct, something easily created with a few hormone injections and some surgery. Ironically, one of the countries that performs the second most sex change operations in the world is Iran, a country not exactly known for their liberal values. What does this mean? What are the implications of living in a culture where sexuality, indeed, even gender, are perceived as things we get to define ourselves? In Iran, you don’t really get to define those things for yourself, they simply “cure” your sexual non compliance with either surgery or execution. That’s something to keep in the back of your mind when asking the state to embrace, protect, and defend homosexuality.
Child sexual abuse is another difficult issue because if we start embracing people as if their sexuality were their entire identity, what message are we sending to child victims of rape? Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to give them aids. Think about that. “Forced sexual contact with minors.” I’m not the one who defined the rape of children as homosexuality, so called LGBT advocates did when they spoke out in opposition to this law.
So without a religious perspective at all, do these three things fall under the potential label of immorality from a secular definition? Yes, I think so. If we are discussing the long term implications for society as a whole and defining immorality as something harmful to us, than the alleged morality inherent in all of these things should at least be questioned. Does the good outweigh the bad? I don’t know. I do know however, that those who declare these three things to be absolutely, 100% inherently moral and just, are not basing their opinions purely on reason and logic, but rather political biases.
Rather than perceiving morality from an individual perspective, what is good for an individual at the time, we really need to take a step back and consider the larger picture, the implications over time and the ripples in the pond that each of these issues create. Biology and the implications there of, are incredibly important to who we are as a species. Deciding to redefine human reproduction, biology, sexuality, and gender, all at the same time in one small window of time, may not be so hot of an idea. Just saying.