Homsexuality and Cosmology: Nature and Choice Are Irrelevant (ritual, moral)

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Is there objective evidence for this energy breach in the cosmos dependant upon the physical act of homosexual sex?

Objective evidence, Ha! Cosmology is a metaphysical construct.

Assuming that objective evidence can only evaluate physical things, metaphysics cannot be considered objectively. However, this cosmology was created and exists in a worldview that considers metaphysical data or assumptions as evidence.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

So,we are back to the argument that homosexuals have no place here, because they won't reproduce ?

By no means!

It's because in the cosmology, male and female were seperated, and need eachother to be whole again. Children are part of the picture, but not the main focus.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

A silly nitpicky point (I admit), but a valid one; sexuality is not separated into "male" and "Female" polarisations - there are greys and variations of degrees from pole to pole....

This has already been considered, see post # 3.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Objective evidence, Ha! Cosmology is a metaphysical construct.

Assuming that objective evidence can only evaluate physical things, metaphysics cannot be considered objectively. However, this cosmology was created and exists in a worldview that considers metaphysical data or assumptions as evidence.

Aha! Metaphysics are in the realm of the subjective, and is therefore a psychological construct that deals with the importance of feelings, emotions, and the psyche. Based on the physical act alone, sex has no influence, except where it concerns an individual's reaction to it.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

For Christianity and Gnosticism, it is a sign of salvation and the purpose of God... for Paul, it is the symbol of faithfulness and unity of Christ and the Church.

Hmmm, i probably wouldn't have mentioned Gnosticism in relation to this Nate.

Male and female were used as symbols of unity, bridal chamber ritual for example, but that is as far as it goes. They also used male as a symbol for spiritual and female as a symbol for physical/demiurgic, but in reality these concepts had no effect on the practical implications of the faith - women were treated as equal in Gnostic society.

Also, a few sects actually encouraged homosexual sex as it did not lead to procreation, they didn't see homosexuality as wrong at all, cosmologically or otherwise.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Aha! Metaphysics are in the realm of the subjective, and is therefore a psychological construct that deals with the importance of feelings, emotions, and the psyche. Based on the physical act alone, sex has no influence, except where it concerns an individual's reaction to it.

Are you saying that you think metaphysics is a psychological product of one's feelings, emotions, and psyche?

I don't see how anything in this quote applies to our discussion. Perhaps you can upack it a little.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Hmmm, i probably wouldn't have mentioned Gnosticism in relation to this Nate.

Male and female were used as symbols of unity, bridal chamber ritual for example, but that is as far as it goes. They also used male as a symbol for spiritual and female as a symbol for physical/demiurgic, but in reality these concepts had no effect on the practical implications of the faith - women were treated as equal in Gnostic society.

Also, a few sects actually encouraged homosexual sex as it did not lead to procreation, they didn't see homosexuality as wrong at all, cosmologically or otherwise.

Or superior.

I'm talking about Gnosticism as represented by the Nag Hammadi texts which are almost certainly relying on Plato's Timaeus. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48979 . I am keeping in mind the human Eve as a poor copy of the divine Eve, which was raped and given to Adam to populate the earth. Their sexual union completes them exactly as it does in Pauline and Platonic thought. The creation stories seem to me to be very much against homosexual union and I may know of a case where it is expressly forbidden.

I don't know of any Gnostic sects that celebrated homosexuality. There may have been a few groups that did, but saying that the Gnostics as a group didn't see homosexuality as wrong at all "cosmologicall or otherwise" seems like a fairly artificial way to make Gnosticism acceptable to a modern group that affirms and celebrates homosexuality.