Is Alternative Sexuality A Religious Must?

By Hans Meijer

"Abstinence" in society is a rather rare sexual lifestyle. "Abstinence" among Roman Catholic clergy is the norm and in other forms of Christianity far from uncommon among the clergy. Yet, while all "non-mainstream" forms of sexuality are object of fierce debate (and sometimes even crusade), "abstinence" is not. In fact, it is often praised as a virtue.

This is a strange situation.

While procreation is considered important by Christianity, the actual act (and as such the sex) is reserved for the people. The Christian leadership (or lower, middle and upper management if you prefer more modern terms) is excluded from the act itself, the gift of life and such things as parenthood. All these are considered virtues, yet withheld from the management. Among these, a very rare form of alternative sexuality (not having any) is advocated.

Meaning: if you want to be part of "the management" you have to adhere to an alternative lifestyle. Apparently alternative lifestyles are important. Even better, adhering to a specific alternative lifestyle is an important part of what separates the cattle from the sheep.

Now suppose we turn the table (for arguments' sake) and the alternative lifestyle community would start to condemn and fight "abstinence" with the same vigor as others condemn and fight them. All in all the "alternative lifestyle community" is a huge segment of the worlds' population. If alternative sex would be a binding factor or an important political issue for voters it is not unlikely one third of any government would probably be gay, into BDSM, fetishism and polyamory. Suppose the debate was not about gay marriage, but about these horrible deliberately and wilfully unmarried people? Would that not be strange?

It does not matter if you advocate a religious or evolution-based theory. Both will put procreation in front of everything else. Life is valuable to both. Wether "life" is God-given or the result of a long evolutionary trail - as far as the importance of life is concerned - is actually only a secondary argument. Those into "abstinence" for religious reasons refuse to take part in this - apparently and without question important - process. They wave their option to procreate, so to speak. They have to, otherwise they quite often cannot be part of "the management". This leads to an interesting philosophical question: "Can it be a requirement for your management to not use the God-given ability?"

Fact of the matter is that the alternative lifestyle community will not turn the table. For a very simple reason: they respect other peoples' views and lifestyle choices. So, as far as they are concerned, "abstinence" will never be subject of debate. In fact, they are likely to even join forces with clergy and others, should "abstinence" ever become subject of debate. Simply because the alternative lifestyle community considers it an important personal (human) right to choose your "sexual format" (no I am not going into the "it is not a choice, I was born like this" debate).

The point I want to make is this: if a form of alternative sexuality is a pivotal factor to clergy (and at least among Roman Catholics it is), clergy by definition should adhere to the right to make your own sexual lifestyle choices. Or should they not?

Hans Meijer, a Dutch former journalist and government spokesmen, is the chairman for the Powerotics Foundation. This organisation is dedicated to provide quality information about alternative lifestyles.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Hans_Meijer
http://EzineArticles.com/?Is-Alternative-Sexuality-A-Religious-Must?&id=508951