Unsexed?

Here I was at the same place, having the same conversation and thinking to myself, “Is this actually worth it?”
Who was I trying to convince? And convince with what?
That I constitute no threat on society and that my “perverse proclivities” are contingent on the privacy of my own home?

I started thinking maybe I should cite the reasoning of the Supreme Court, that what individuals do in their privacy of their own homes with informed consent gives no one the right to infringe or compromise such freedom (with the definition of freedom being as problematic as ever). The choices people make when it comes to acting out their fantasies hinge upon how much these fantasies affect others.

But that’s one element of the argument. The reconciliation of religion and sexuality remains even more problematic.
For this I cannot cite alternative organizations (such as “gay mosques” or GLBT Islamic organizations) and their reasoning. They do not represent an authority nor are they trusted. In fact their entire existence is highly questionable. It is seen as a contradiction in terms.

How can religion be reconciled with sexuality?

Again this is only confined to the realm of thought. The realm of contemplation and phantasmagoric thoughts. The moment they are “enacted”, the moment they are “performed” they are conceived as a transgression against religion. They are seen as an abomination. Eternal damnation according to some.

The two are just irreconcilable.

For me to hold these thoughts, to hold on to these thoughts I have to be “unsexed”.
I have to be neutered.
Only in this “condition”, this state of beingness (is it really? Or is it compromised “beingness”?) that I become accepted.
Sanctified even.

For I gave up one of my raison d’etre. I gave up one way of knowing the truth. The truth about that very existence.
The very existence that has to remain “unsexed”.

Or else it becomes a threat on public/personal health, children, the institution of marriage not to mention that it will rouse the anger of a fearsome Semitic God. Who only accepts heterosexual marriage, whose ultimate aim is to bring more miserable people into the world.

Any other arrangement does not work.

Any other expression of humanity, of humanness can not be sexed.
And when I was having this conversation, trying to convince my interlocutor of the validity of my choices, I could get away with the liberal argument. Whatever choice I make should be respected if it does not infringe on other people’s freedom and as long as I respect theirs.

This could only get me so far.

Religion remains another matter.
No amount of hermeneutics or interpretation or re-interpretation could aspire to change the staunch belief that my sexuality is the reason why the world is coming to an end. And it does sound as silly as ever.
How is my sexuality the reason this world will come to end?

Is the apocalypse indirectly tied to the number of gay people on earth? If the number exceeds I don’t know how many then God will destroy the world?
Or is hell only composed of gay people?
Its hard to think or believe that this could be true. For statistically speaking the number of gay people in any society at any given time will never exceed more than 10% if not less.

Then why should “we” and “I” along believe that there is an angry deity up there (or everywhere) that’s sole existence and wrath pivots on my private thoughts and what I do in the privacy of my own room?
Why should heterosexuals be allowed to violate all the Semitic laws there is, and make everyone miserable while I remain “unsexed”?