Modern Sexual Morality: Time To Finish With Christo-Liberalism?

Modern Sexual Morality: Time To Finish With Christo-Liberalism?

One issue that gay civil partnerships and gay marriage (see my blog of yesterday) cast an interesting light on is that of sexual morality. On the TV news yesterday morning, they brought up the fact that civil partnerships that break up cannot be formally dissolved on the grounds of adultery as straight marriages can. Instead, the only justification that is accepted in law for ‘gay divorce’ (. . .) is unreasonable behaviour on the part of one or both partners; and infidelity is by definition not equated with that.

Well, of course, on the literal definition of the term, you can’t have adultery if the relationship that is offended against isn’t a marriage. And so, the signalling of this loophole is being allied to calls for full equality with straight marriage, i.e. for gay marriage.

But the point I’m interested in is this. Adultery is a rather strong moral term, associated with Christian repudiation of sexual acts that violate the sacred marriage vows. So if gay marriage brings with it a distinction between infidelity in marriage (adultery) and ‘mere’ infidelity (e.g. infidelity by one gay person to another gay person with whom they are in some sort of committed relationship other than a civil partnership / marriage), has the concept of gay marriage led to the introduction of a hierarchy of ethical values into our understanding of sexual morality and the morality of gay sex?

In other words, is sex within gay marriage somehow morally better even than sex in a committed but non-formalised relationship, which in turn is better than promiscuous gay sex? This hierarchy would mirror that of traditional Christian morality, which views (straight) marriage as the proper context for sex; while most Christians in modern societies would then go on to say that a committed relationship is the next-best thing; and promiscuity is the least moral option.

I suppose it was only inevitable that the advent of gay marriage (which is what civil partnerships are in all but name) would lead to moral differentiations being made between different sorts of gay sex and relationship, because it sets up a standard for the type of gay relationship that society officially sanctions and regards as the ideal. Anything that falls short of this ideal is therefore by implication less deserving of social approval and support, and less morally good. On one level, this is a symptom of the maturing of the gay community and of its integration within the social mainstream: as society officially recognises gay relationships as a ‘normal’ aspect of life – which it therefore develops formal social structures to accommodate – so gay relationships take on more of the moral standards of normal society. But some gay people will doubtless mourn the passing of more anarchic manifestations of gay sexuality, which have often deliberately gone to the opposite extreme from the straight norm of monogamy within marriage in order the more to affirm the right and freedom to openly express a distinctive gay identity.

But can gay partnerships or marital unions really be described as an intrinsic moral good in the same way that straight marriages have traditionally been? What I mean is, it’s one thing to say that gay sex within formally recognised, long-term relationships is better than loveless one-night stands; but is sex within gay marriage in itself a good thing? I think society does and will continue to make a distinction between gay and straight marriage in this regard, such that the use of the word ‘adultery’ to describe infidelity in the context of a gay marriage may always seem a touch misapplied. This distinction is not arbitrary but is of course connected with the role of straight marriage and sex in bringing children into the world (seen as being something intrinsically good) and in creating secure, stable family and community environments in which those children can be brought up to be responsible, constructive contributors to society. Gay marriages are unlikely to ever be viewed as essential foundation stones of family life and social cohesion in quite the same way. Nor is the social cost of gay marriage break-up anything like as great as the potential cost of straight divorces, in terms of the long-term cycle of damage it can engender in the families torn apart (see my blog of 15 December). Hence, straight adultery really is a misdemeanour worthy of the name, owing to the immense harm it can cause; whereas adultery in a gay marriage is less likely to have many ramifications beyond the couple concerned and their immediate circle of family and friends. Until such time, at least, as gay nuclear families (families with same-sex parents) themselves become part of the norm.

But it does strike me as interesting that you can have the development of a new social phenomenon – gay civil partnerships – that adopts the Christian-derived moral conventions and language of straight society; whereas the traditional orthodox Christian moral judgement would be that any kind of gay sex was immoral or sinful, irrespective of whether it was in the context of a stable relationship or not. This is another case of the blend of, or compromise between, radical secular liberalism and traditional Christianity that is the true face of Western liberalism, and which I’ve decided here to call ‘Christo-liberalism’. (My more fanciful, verbally eloquent term for it would be ‘evangeliberalism’.) Gay civil partnerships themselves are a further instance of this Christo-liberalism (as discussed in my blog of 16 December).

But one does not need to limit oneself to gay civil partnerships to find examples of this Christo-liberal sexual ethics. I think it’s statistically true that the majority of couples in the UK today who eventually marry initially live together out of wedlock, and not just on a ‘try before you buy’ basis but because that is the type of relationship and lifestyle they choose. The eventual decision to marry is then made for a whole variety of reasons, only one of which is children and family, as an increasing and substantial proportion of parents who stay together either never marry or marry only years after having their first children. On a narrow, legalistic interpretation of orthodox Christian moral teaching, both sex between partners of this sort, and infidelity by one such partner towards another could be termed extra-marital sex, even adultery, if one or both of the co-habitees are separated or divorced from previous spouses, given that some churches (e.g. the Catholic Church) do not recognise divorce.

And yet, the conventional ethical rules that govern such partnerships clearly derive from traditional Christian morality, even if the relationship as a whole could be seen as being in violation of those standards. And those rules involve an emphasis on the duties of both partners towards each other and their dependants, and condemnation of infidelity on intrinsic moral grounds (i.e. because it is ‘morally wrong’) as much as for the damage it causes to other people and society at large. The Christo-liberal dimension here consists of the limits that are placed on the degree of sexual freedom that is tolerated and considered to be morally acceptable. And those are – as with gay civil partnerships – those of Christian marriage in all but name; it’s just that the ‘franchise’ of marriage has been extended in a liberal manner to encompass extra-marital partnerships, and gay partnerships. The moral condemnation of sexuality that transgresses the limits that marriage places upon it remains intact.

However, one problem with this is that these conventional rules and their Christian derivation remain unspoken and merely implicit. This means that many individuals enter into partnerships, either without realising that they are effectively consenting to an unwritten social contract governing their sexual behaviour, or else use the fact that they didn’t explicitly sign up to such a deal as a get-out clause to justify subsequent infidelities and separations. This affects actual marriages (civil or religious) as much as it affects what I’ve described as unofficial marriages (non-formal or civil partnerships), in that individuals get married often without any faith in, or assent to, the obligations and life-long fidelity they are nominally committing themselves to (with the get-out clause in their minds, ‘well, if it doesn’t work, I can always divorce and re-marry’). But despite what those individuals believe or think, society does still maintain Christian-type expectations of marriage; and the individuals will be made to feel the condemnation of their betrayed spouse, of the family and of society as a whole if they do flout the standards that are expected.

Does this mean that those standards should be modified or abandoned altogether, on the basis that they are too contradictory, and encourage hypocrisy and duplicity of the sort just described? I don’t think they should or can be abandoned altogether. But there should be a more explicit acknowledgement of the somewhat questionable basis for these conventional rules, in Christian terms, and more realism about the ability of people to live up to those standards when the way they (and society as a whole) live their lives, and how they base their decisions, are largely not informed by Christian faith and commitment.

It comes down, on the one hand, to a requirement for greater honesty on the part of individuals entering into relationships about what their expectations are of each other and of the relationship, including standards of sexual behaviour and fidelity. This is not, nor has it ever been, an easy thing to achieve. But this goal could be advanced by foregrounding the Christo-liberal basis for some of the mismatch between partners’ expectations. For instance, one partner – not always but often the woman – might invest Christian-derived expectations into the partnership that effectively turn it, in her/his eyes, into a marriage in all but name; whilst the other partner – again, not always but often the man – might see this arrangement as a ‘marriage of convenience’ that allows him/her to have a sexual relationship with the (wo)man without his/her having to commit him-/herself to a permanent situation, such as might be involved in a formal marriage.

I’m not condoning the behaviour of the latter partner; but the ambiguity of the situation in Christian terms creates the conditions on which such behaviour can be justified, however fallaciously. For this sort of relationship is not strictly in conformity with Christian standards; in a historical perspective, it would be possible to see it as downright sinful (‘living in sin’, as it used to be frequently referred to only thirty years or more ago). Therefore, to that extent, the expectation of the former partner that the relationship should live up to Christian moral standards and the pattern of a marriage is unreasonable and involves wanting to have it both ways: to have the potential freedom and independence of not being married, while demanding of one’s partner the loyalty and commitment of a spouse.

On the other hand, at a collective level, what is required is some effort to formulate a new ethics of sex and relationships that is more explicit about what it takes from traditional Christianity and where it diverges from it. This parallels what I recommended in my blog of 16 December: that there should be more separation between the concepts and practice of religious marriage (strictly heterosexual), civil marriage (straight and gay), and another type of formally recognised partnership (straight and gay). This would begin to remove the Christo-liberal ambiguities from sexual relationships: either one makes a Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, etc.) commitment to one’s spouse and family in marriage; or your marriage and partnership is a civil arrangement for which it is then up for society to set out the standards it expects. Those standards might well continue to be basically Christo-liberal. But at least then there would be no get-out clause, no wriggling out of one’s responsibilities or wanting to have it both ways, because it would become much clearer what the acceptable norms of behaviour were, not just for married partners, but for anyone in a committed sexual relationship.

It is realistic to achieve this renewed, clearer definition and assertion of modern sexual morality within relationships. This would be similar to the way in which, in recent years, Western society has become far more aggressive and definite in formulating and imposing standards relating to other sexual areas with a clear moral dimension, such as child abuse and, more recently, rape. The example of rape, in particular, is one where there have been efforts to reconcile the different expectations and experience of women and men; something which clearly needs to be done for relationships, too.

But in order to achieve this increase in clarity and consistency – and thereby help the many millions of adults and young people that labour under the current lack of unambiguous guidelines and certainties – there is going to have to be a degree of honesty and courage in clearly differentiating the behaviours and relationships that society considers to be normal and acceptable (e.g. gay and unmarried straight committed relationships) from Christian standards. Not to undermine the latter; because setting out the way in which Christian teachings actually set the bar higher than conventional mores, and indeed set a distinctive standard for society to follow (rather than, as now, accommodating and adapting to society’s standards), could well be the spur for a renewal of interest in basing one’s life on Christian principles.