A Marriage in Mapplethorpe

There are certain things we must take for granted. If the world decides it wants to resurrect another conflict between God and science, there will be a lot of wasted time and energy that could be spent providing a better quality of life for all. Wasting time debating whether women or men should bear children or whether gays should be allowed to marry using the Socratic Method would take time away from the pursuits outlined in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What happened? Did the plutocracy of the Old South suddenly empower itself through petroleum? Did the needs of the common man just suddenly lose their constitutional validity? It seems like the principles of our nation are being challenged on a daily basis. Does gay marriage align with the "pursuit of happiness?" The reason why gay marriage should not be allowed, is because the definition of "gay" is determined by sexuality. Sexuality is a private issue. When someone suggests a personal issue somehow should define an institution, then it really is not an institution, is it? Institutions are universal. Universal principles are ones that have sustained the test of time. Academia is an institution. Marriage is an institution. I don't think America would suddenly begin doubting the validity of our colleges and universities. Why would we suddenly begin to doubt the validity of God, marriage, and the various religions? How could man become so empowered he begins to think he is the master of the universe? Would it be in the intellectual realm of man to create all the sciences, the arts, and the universe? It isn't reasonable to lobby for gay marriage. Like the ancient Greeks showed, there are many choices in life and many iniquities. There were many vices in Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed those cities with fire and brimstone. Man may take advantage of these, but he shouldn't demand a religious and civil institution as validity for the act. I am not saying homosexuality is a depraved sin, but the institution of marriage throughout history holds credibility. Just because a recent proliferation of a minority becomes vocal in their desires does not mean we as a nation have to rethink an institution. If gays feel that strongly about the right to betrothal, then they, like our founding fathers should try to found or find another country for promoting their convictions. That is what our forefathers did. I am comfortable with the current charter of the United States coupled with a more stringent attempt to reinforce these principles. If groups are so discontent with the tried and true principles of our Constitution, then they should feel free to seek equality somewhere else. That is something I think about every day. "Capitalism is a socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, mostly through the employment of labor. In such a system, money mediates the distribution and exchange of goods, services, and labor in largely free markets." (thanks Wikipedia!) I have never felt an instinctual support of Capitalism, because I never was required to take a business course during 9 years of college. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we had various requirements in the General College. Both the Humanities and the Sciences were a part of our first two year curriculum. No where were there requirements for business courses. I didn't learn how to conceive, build, and market a product. I didn't learn how to book keep or account. I didn't learn anything about the law of the United States. How in the name of God, could I make a living in a capitalist society? Beats me. I received an education degree, because both my parents were teachers. I never wanted to be a teacher, because I didn't have the desire for control, nor the power and energy it took to discipline a classroom of students. Instead I opted to pursue college teaching, which I did successfully. It was only after I encountered the enigma that was Robert Mapplethorpe, that I stumbled and was diverted from teaching. It seemed my ignorance of the social validity of such an artist helped me lose my Graduate Teaching Associateship. It seems, "Mapplethorpe captured the perfect time in the American politics that enabled gay culture and activists to have a public voice against discrimination backed by the art community. Art is...the first and ideal weapon of those groups who seek to establish new cosmologies that will legitimize that group's particular values." I had no interest in contemplating Mapplethorp's views, because I felt a platform based upon individual sexuality is not relevant to our society. If sexuality and sexual orientation are the only driving forces in one's life, then they should feel free to exercise those practices in private. No where in the social institutions of man has it ever suggested this tendency deserves socio-political or religious consideration. It may have been with that experience I adopted a harder line against homosexuality. If a homosexual artist was claiming art was the forum in which he could defend his sexuality, I would agree. That is the nature of art. If I, as a teacher and artist, was being expected to agree with his platform, it was with that I had difficulty. I observed homosexuality first hand on many Carnival and Princess cruise ships with similar philosophies. I experienced "Don't ask, don't tell" first hand. I was required to share a room with an openly gay man who used the confined quarters of a crew cabin to assert his homosexuality. I sexually was harassed and ended up against my will (and against the wall!) having to file a complaint against a coworker. After two months of studying him I learned he lived for homosexual sex. Much like Mapplethorpe's philosophy homosexuality defined him, and nearly every tenant of his life revolved around sex with another man. Constitutionally it was unfair to require me to room with him, because his pursuit of happiness infringed upon my own. The simple solution was to separate us, and that is what Carnival did. Likewise I observed lesbians living together in relative peace. I observed "flaming" or aggressive gay men parading their naked bodies through the corridors of crew quarters expecting acceptance. Gay men can be extremely tenacious. Once in Columbia, South Carolina I had a gay older man chase me for two years, until I verbally had to tell him to leave me alone. Many gay men will try to plant the seed of doubt in you regarding your own heterosexually by constant badgering. These experiences have shaped my opinions. Sexuality is private, and if that self portrait of Mapplethorpe holding a bull whip in his anus is supposed to entice society into condoning gay marriage, an annihilation of marriage seems more appropriate.