We respect your opinion, provided that it was our opinion first.

We respect your opinion, provided that it was our opinion first.

May 8, 2008

A Humble Opinion

Luke Olson

It is a melancholy fact to walk through our sovereign nation that has so triumphantly raised the banner of acceptance and cultural homogeneity and continue to see, whether overt or subtle, the proliferation of prejudicial hatred. The spirit of our governmental and social democracy is tried every time society clings to vestigial taboos founded in antiquated forms of morality that further polarize interest groups that are too few in number to successfully parry the attacks of the overbearing majority. Mankind is forever evolving, adapting with time, and while we have undeniably reached an enlightened plateau, we would be fools to pleasantly look back on the abyss from which we have drawn ourselves, rather than vigilantly look forward with watchful eye to the mountain we have yet to climb. If we complacently resign ourselves to our present social tolerance we are doing an injustice not only to those who fought against such revulsion, but also to those who still intrepidly carry the banner.

What modernity has recognized so brilliantly is that morality is not predicated on social taboo. Oftentimes, the line between morality and taboo is so delicately smeared that it becomes an undifferentiated grey. This misunderstanding is surely the most perilous error in our world! Society preaches a curriculum of propriety and decorum, and its innoculation is intended to produce charming, refined and educated young men and women who can subtly and elegantly transition into society. And certainly, a man shaped by propriety and decorum will never produce anything tasteless, nor make a disagreeable neighbor, but this innoculation simultaneously destroys the distinctive beauty of his voice. Without his voice, without his poetry, his pen is seized by law and his mind is seized by common sense! We ask why it is so rare that the torrent of genius so rarely pours forth from our astonished souls. It is because on either bed resides the cool, respectable gentlemen in his summer cottage that would be washed away, so he has become skilled in averting future dangers by damming and digging channels. Each man is preordained by nature, not to conform itself to widely held societal decorum, but to cry out to man and to the world his own verse.

Great care, however, must be taken to guard against an upheaval of this propriety and a negligent plunge into the opposing polarity. Our societal revolution bears the volatile stigma of “tolerance,” but if this is the banner we pursue, then we are merely accomplishing the same end as the restrictive Victorian society that preceded us through different means. Tolerance is merely a euphemism for apathy, and if this apathy is pursued to its extremity, then while every man may cry his own verse unto the world, it is a verse lost amidst a cacophony of disordered voices all screaming at the same time. It is a verse with no meaning.

No, the aspiration to which we strive is paradoxical - it is concentration without elimination, both a new world and the old world made explicit. Each man is fashioned to transcend societal norms, to pierce the woven lattice constructed by the minds of deceived seniority. But simultaneously, these intolerable men must be delicately spun into an intertwined and unprejudiced society, a new society founded on the failure of the old! We must not exile the unbearable, or permit the permissible, but tolerate the intolerable!

The most eminent example of this modern success is the homosexual movement. Asking homosexuals, as the Church continues to do, to kindly cease pursuing their natural end is like telling Mozart to kindly remove the strings from his 7th symphony; it destroys the piece. Much like an orchestra, society should operate as a seamless whole composed of varying parts. A great symphony is composed neither of one instrument playing a melody, nor an entire orchestra playing whatever it so pleases. So too our society functions as many varying constituent parts intertwining harmoniously to create one symphonic piece. Credit should be given to the homosexual movement for continuing to battle against this deluge of societal weakness, and in helping to foster a culture of acceptance.

This exhortation, however, by no means, represents an attack on the Church or its rites. In fact, the Church has so delicately fostered and maintained a spirit of acceptance in spite of man’s caprice. Without an anchor, man would be cast to the perilous winds, blowing aimlessly amidst a deluge of passion. The Church has given man prudence, and zeal without prudence is like a boat adrift.

However, we would be remiss to believe that all social taboos have been eradicated. It seems to me that prejudicial hatred based on race, religion and sexual orientation still run rampant in our society, although the voices have grown quieter. There still exist certain fringe groups, although smaller in number and much greater in fear, that lack a voice in our society, and there is no greater injustice to a man than this, to paralyze his voice through fear and stricture. The grievances of homosexuals have been passed to more peripheral interest groups, namely what I refer to as pansexuality. The repression of our voice, no matter how small, remains a tainted mark of unequivocal shame on our society that supposedly claims unyielding acceptance within the bounds of law.

Prior to the homosexual movement, homosexuality was viewed as a disordered presentation of man’s love, that it was not only different, but unnatural. But with persistent assiduity it has been shown that homosexuality is simply an alternate manifestation of man’s love, that man’s love cannot be confined to preconceived societal standards. If man’s love cannot be bound to a heterosexual relationship, then I see no convincing reason that it should be imprisoned to a single species.

I understand that this proposal will be received principally with shock and appalling disgust, but that should only give further credence to the legitimacy of our grievance, as it is the same reaction that was held by society towards homosexuality, divorce and adultery. I understand many will consider these practices savage and unnatural, but are these not the same allegations once declared against homosexuals?

It may be argued that a sexual relationship with a member of another species is abusive, as the law states. But if this were so, would it not also be abusive to domesticate animals, forcing them into docility? Animals will often display a developed affection for particular people, and display their affection through body language. The law does not consider a heterosexual or homosexual relationship abusive if both parties express affection for each other, why should an inter-special relationship be any different?

It may also be argued that love cannot be shared between two beings of categorically different intellectual capacities, or more importantly, lack of communication. Is love not founded on enriching and symbiotic communication, some might claim? However, are we satisfied to conclude that all communication is vocal? Is language not the crown of a long development of a primordial gesticular language? Did human beings not point and grunt before they spoke? For it is surely preposterous to believe that upon man's evolution from the chimpanzee, we simultaneously learned to speak. These primordial human beings also reproduced to propogate the species, and therefore must have shared a loving relationship without words. Words cannot express the look of a woman across a crowded room, nor the gentle caress of a lover's hand. Neither kissing nor sex involve vocal communication, and they are the ultimate expressions of love. In fact, researchers at UCLA have claimed that only 7% of human communication is expressed through words, while the rest is communicated through tone of voice and body language. Why is it, then, so preposterous to propose an inter-special relationship that lacks vocal communication?

I hope that this proposal will not be liable to the least objection, and it is certainly not my intention to reverse the success of the homosexual efforts by equating our movement with theirs. I profess that I have a deep personal interest vested in this endeavor, because I have borne this insufferable stigma marked by social shame, as my anonymity displays. However, my motive is not confined to mere personal interest or the interest of my brethren, but for the public good of humanity. When we are united in each other we become more than ourselves, functioning beyond the capacity of our individual faculties, and the symphonic rhythm of our spirit mellifluously illuminates the pattern subtly emblazoned in nature. Without an unyielding tolerance of the intolerable, this rhythm is disrupted and humanity is left maimed.

No comments: