What determines if sex is good or bad?

Speaking to a meeting of Hasidic Jewish leaders on Sunday, New York GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino said, "I don't want [children] to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option" to heterosexuality.

Religious organizations and people frequently lead opposition to gay rights in the United States.

In the August ruling which overturned California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, a witness asserted, "Religion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress."

Why does religion play such a central role in debates about homosexuality?

The first question that should to be addressed is "What functions do sex and sexuality play in our lives?" For many people, these have central roles that influence nearly every other aspect of their lives. For many others, they are relatively minimal. The second question is the more problematic one, at least for religious minded people, "What determines if and when sex is a good or a bad activity?"

Any sensual experience that becomes an obsession and thus a major focus of our attention is seen by most religious traditions as limiting our ability to connect with the divine and therefore wrong. This can include an obsession with any sense experience such as touch, taste, smell, sight, etc. However, of all the experiences and pleasures that are sensually based, sex is, for the vast majority of humans, the most intense and thus the one most circumscribed by religious rules.

Because sex is integral to the perpetuation of our species, it is rarely outright banned, except for certain monastic style groups within a religion. Instead, most religions put parameters on when sex can occur and the various activities associated with it. The more restrictive rules limit legitimate sex to that which is one strictly for the purpose of conception, not for enjoyment. The more common restriction is to limit it to married individuals. Since homosexuality is a form of sexual activity done solely for pleasure, is not done with a spouse of the other sex, and cannot lead to impregnation, it is typically seen as aberrant. As we all know, however, the vast majority of sexual experiences in which humans participate are for the sole purpose of pleasure and are not for the purpose of impregnation. A multibillion dollar anti-pregnancy industry (condoms, birth control pills, abortions, etc.) attests to this.

The ultimate question, then, should be: "Is sex done strictly for pleasure wrong?" If it is, then nearly everyone who has had sex has been involved in sinful sexual activity. For a significant number, this is an regular occurrence. If, on the other hand, sex for pleasure is not in itself wrong, then we have to look at what makes it so and decide whether homosexual activity is any less valid then heterosexual activity.

There are those who hold the view that since heterosexual sex, even just for pleasure, is a natural activity, homosexual sex can never be natural and therefore can only be aberrant. I think one can make a case for this, if the discussion is limited to talking only about heterosexuals. Most people view heterosexual pleasure as a natural and important bonding activity and experience that helps keep parents and prospective parents together in a loving relationship that can then serve as a nurturing environment in which to raise children, and thus it is positive. This is why most religions tend to put limits on sexual partners to spouses, since it is in these relationships where children have traditionally been conceived and raised. Whatever sexual activities heterosexual spouses engage in ultimately support that relationship and thus the nurturing environment. For heterosexuals, then, homosexual activity would be viewed as aberrant and sinful since it serves no function outside of pure pleasure and is clearly not natural for them.

What then for those whose natural sexual inclinations are homosexual? I realize that many think this is not the case and that all homosexuality is consciously chosen. I would encourage anyone who thinks like this to take the time to get to know someone who is homosexual, and there is a good likelihood there will be a realization that such an orientation was not a choice. Realistically, how many people can or would want to consciously and deliberately alter their sexual orientation? I am not saying it cannot be or is not done, since I know individuals who have done so due to sexual abuse or other problems with the opposite sex, and even for political reasons, but such individuals account for a minuscule percentage of those who are homosexually oriented. For all others, sexual orientation is not at all a choice, does not make life easier, and is often a cause of extreme difficulties and even dangers in most societies.

If homosexual orientation is inherent for the vast majority of those who adhere to the lifestyle, and most people today acknowledge this, then how can it be inherently aberrant unless one believes that God "made a mistake" in creating them. Further, if one believes that non-married or non-committed heterosexuals couples should be free to engage in sexual activity for pleasure and self-fulfillment while purposely avoiding pregnancy, then what makes homosexuals engaging in similar sexual activity, i.e., with someone to whom they are naturally attracted, any different?

Within the Hindu tradition, two of the key criteria for determining whether or not an activity is right or wrong are: 1) Does the activity cause anyone harm? and 2) Can the activity bring one closer to realization of the divine? Add to this the belief that most Hindus hold in the concept "live and let live." The result is a general tolerance for a wide range of lifestyles and forms of loving and living. Of course, not all Hindus are unanimous on this point, nor is Hinduism anymore immune to narrow mindedness than any other religion. Nevertheless, most Hindus understand that focusing on one's own lifestyle and actions is far more important and necessary for spiritual growth than worrying about what others are doing, in or out of the bedroom, unless they are perpetuating intolerance, hatred, violence, etc. Whom individuals choose to love and what sexual activities they consensually undertake in the privacy of their own homes should generally be left up to those individuals. There are far more important issues and individuals with which religious minded people should be concerned, such as those who choose to hate and perpetuate violence. If we spent more time doing what we can to minimize these, we would have less time to worry about what is going on in someone else's bedroom.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  October 13, 2010; 4:52 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Old vices don't improve with age | Next: Sexual and gender diversity enriches us all

Posted by: BryonMorrigan | October 17, 2010 7:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | October 15, 2010 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | October 15, 2010 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Secular | October 14, 2010 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: BryonMorrigan | October 14, 2010 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lepidopteryx | October 13, 2010 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment