A Gay Humanist Manifesto - Alan Keslian (inspiring books for teens .TXT) 📗

them will improve our own ability to make love, and make us better able to bring pleasure to others as well as to ourselves. Being promiscuous means that we engage with a greater number of people in a mutually beneficial way, and shows our willingness to cross boundaries and reach out to strangers. It can make us feel we belong to a huge informal club of like-minded people.

An individual's sexual desires can change over time. Promiscuity makes it easy to move on to new experiences.

Whilst promiscuity may not bring everyone all they want, the prospect of a larger number finding at least some satisfaction is greater in a promiscuous world. This reduces sexual frustration, which causes psychological and social problems.


Against Promiscuity

Any highly promiscuous man or women is rather like someone who answers the question “Do you have any close friends?” by saying “Oh yes, I have thousands!” Their love is fleeting and hedonistic; relationships do not deepen and mature over time. All that matters about a complex human being is whether their appearance arouses sexual desire, and their actions give sensual pleasure. This is a cold way to love, a refusal to see sexual partners as sensitive beings who have hopes and dreams, problems and disappointments.
Between strangers, the understanding of each other's physical likes and dislikes is limited. There is no repertoire of shared sexual pleasures that can be drawn on to enhance love-making.
Promiscuity can lead to a constant hunt for new sexual partners. This predatory activity comes to dominate some people's lives; thousands of new conquests are sought to satisfy what is seen as a purely physical need, when satisfaction can only be found through a broader appreciation, a physical, emotional, and intellectual meeting of mind and body.
Can anyone engaging in an alcohol or drug fuelled orgy truly say that informed consent has been freely given by all the parties? An attitude of “What the hell, anything goes” is likely to predominate, with little regard to the wishes and well-being of others.
Promiscuity brings greater health risks. “Safe sex” will reduce these, but will not eliminate them. There are, too, people on the prowl who are nasty and dangerous.
High levels of promiscuity among gay men, far from being a form of sexual freedom, may be a hangover from oppressive times when gay sex was punishable by imprisonment, and exposure ruined careers and caused social ostracism. Then, brief anonymous encounters were the best way to avoid blackmail or prosecution. Patterns of behaviour that developed during those awful times of persecution have been foisted by older generations onto new.


In favour of monogamy

Many people find that sex is best when it is part of a long-term loving relationship. To established couples, what they share with each other is special. The desire for an intense relationship with one individual is strong in many of us; without it our lives are not complete.
In well matched couples, the sense of belonging to one another, and of being able to trust and inspire one another, is reinforced by the act of making love. The relationship boosts the couple's confidence in themselves. Together they can achieve more in life than would been possible had they remained single.
The everyday burdens of life are more easily carried by two than by one.
A stable relationship provides a good basis for home life, especially for lesbians or gay men who want to raise children.

Against monogamy

The monogamous do not cease to fancy other attractive people they see and encounter, in photographs or in the flesh. They stray, at least in their thoughts. Perhaps the reasons they do not act on their desires are little to do with virtue, and much more to do with the fear of being found out, or perhaps breaking their complaisant routine is too much bother.
Living as a couple means each partner giving up many of the things they want in favour of what the other partner wants. Even if this sacrifice is fully reciprocated, they each have to spend a lot of time on things they would not have chosen for themselves. Dissatisfaction over the balance of give and take in relationships is common. Some couples stick together because they have nowhere else to go, but come to hate each other. One partner may become dominant, and the other a resentful lackey, or they engage in an endless battle of wills through constant point scoring or other mutually damaging behaviour. One party may inflict physical or mental cruelty on the other. The world is full of unhappy people limping along in committed relationships. Not only have they made their own lives miserable, but their gloom affects those around them.
We all age. We are all vulnerable to illness, emotional distress, problems over money, or rows with family and friends. One partner can become a burden on the other, who may come to feel the relationship has turned into a trap. Even with heterosexuals, divorce numbers rocketed when law reform eased the restrictions. In many long-term relationships, to borrow from the playwright Marivaux, “Duty becomes a monster that crushes you.”


There seem to be more arguments “against” than “for”, both for promiscuity and monogamy. Other possibilities, for instance serial monogamy, have not been mentioned. Coverage of all relationship possibilities would fill several large books, but there is no intention here to promote a “one size fits all” notion of how gay men or lesbians ought to live. As gay humanists we will want to think for ourselves and find our own way forward. The over-arching question is what is best for us as individuals, and for those close to us. Unencumbered by guesses about the nature of things in ancient texts that have long since been proved wrong, or by superstitious beliefs, we should stand a better chance than most.


We should use observation and reason to develop our understanding of the world around us, testing our ideas out when practicable. We should question beliefs based on superstition, supposed messages from a god or gods, or traditions, especially those which conflict with rational understanding.


The vast extent of scientific knowledge, and the mathematics frequently entailed, may seem daunting. A single individual does not have the mental capacity to fully understand the whole of known science. Yet a familiarity with the basics of the scientific method – an enquiring mind, intelligent observation, deduction and testing ideas out – will be of value to everyone.
Some people nevertheless find science too challenging, and seek refuge in a simpler world of straightforward absolute certainties. Religious people who regard a holy text or the word of a prophet to be literally and absolutely true claim there is no need to think further. Indeed they usually regard questioning their accepted dogma as sinful. Very few, though, turn away from the benefits that have come about through scientific thought. Much of the modern world, including all of our electrical devices, many home comforts, modern medicine, and the ability to travel quickly over long distances, is a result of scientific advances. They are very seldom spurned as contrary to religious beliefs, even though they were not mentioned in the religious texts. There is great inconsistency among the “absolute truths” put forward in different religions. Those who adhere rigidly to religious dogma shut the door on honest enquiry and understanding.
Innumerable myths and legends have been devised by different peoples at different times to explain how we and the world we live in came about. Many of these were genuine attempts to answer fundamental questions about ourselves and the universe, but may have been hijacked and embellished by forceful, domineering individuals to grab or wield power over communities, nations and empires. Scientific knowledge stands apart from myths, legends and tradition because it is subject to argument, to proof, disproof, and modification when new facts come to light.
This is not to say humanists must shun legends, myths, or tradition altogether. They can be appreciated as imaginative stories powerfully expressed in evocative language. We should think of them as part of human history and appreciate them for their cultural significance. What we should not do is give them the same factual status as careful observations of the world and theories that have been properly developed in the scientific manner.
Nor should we ascribe to scientific knowledge and our rational systems of thought the infallibility claimed for religious dogma. The peer review process in science is very effective in maintaining quality, but errors of data and misunderstandings do happen. Sometimes charlatans deceive us with false claims, in order to make money or further their careers. When fraud occurs, the legal processes to obtain redress are so lengthy that the trickster often makes a fortune and the real discoverer goes bust before the case is determined. Sharp operators often buy their way out of trouble with out of court settlements.
Scientists should be open and honest about how they have made their discovery, obtained their data, and developed their theory. They should not behave like nodding donkeys. Enquiring minds are essential to scientific advance, and they generate conflicting arguments. We should be suspicious of anything presented as fact solely on the grounds that scientists all over the world believe it to be so.


We should develop a moral compass to guide our actions; a compass that will help us judge what will be of benefit to ourselves and those around us, and steer us through the difficulties of life.


For all our modern scientific understanding of our world, the horrors of war, of starvation, of disease, and of threats to the environment persist. Life is short and brutish for billions of people because of industrial pollution, massively powerful weapons, populations burgeoning where food is scarce, epidemic diseases, and a host of other reasons. Slaves, untouchables and deprived poor underclasses remain common features of human societies. Tyrants torture and kill, racial and religious minorities are driven from their homes, and even in “advanced” countries that boast of freedom, millions of convicts languish in prison. Our modern, rational understanding of the world has eliminated some horrors, for example smallpox, but at times human misery seems to increase as quickly as the world population.
The challenge facing modern humanists is to turn scientific knowledge and modern technology towards the common good and that of our planet, and to prevent them being used to cause harm. Perhaps a final evolutionary test lies before homo sapiens. Can we use our knowledge to secure a better future for our species, in harmony with our ever changing environment, or will greed and aggression lead us back to more primitive, self-destructive ways? Grit and courage will be needed even to stay where we are, let alone meet the challenge of further progress.
Man's positive capabilities, fairness, respect for the rights of others, altruism, forgiveness, charity, integrity, and cooperation with others for the common good, struggle against self-interest, greed, vengeance, dishonesty, oppression, callousness and the lust for power. To citizens in stable societies going about their everyday lives, this struggle may seem remote until some extraordinary event disturbs established routines. Yet everyday actions too are part of the struggle between good and bad. Most of us know people whose only concern is to get whatever they can in life, and we know others who are exceptionally kind and considerate. The humanist view of what being a good person means is much broader than acting only out of self-interest. We want to play a part in protecting what is of value in the world, and to make things better for everyone.


Living among the heterosexual majority, we are constantly reminded of our own different natures; like other minorities, we may face questions about how we fit in.


In tolerant countries we may be tempted to think