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

[angellous_evangellous]

I have created three threads that have been largely ignored or misunderstood, so I will make an attempt here to clear things up a bit - at least to garner general understanding of the "biblical" approach to homosexuality.

There are two arguments for the "morality" or "ethical correctness" of homosexual behavior that do not affect the biblical view at all. That is, folks say that homosexuality is OK for two reasons:

1) It is natural. It is being proven that homosexuality is and always has been perfectly natural, being found in humanity and the animal world. Folks point out that the Bible says that homosexuality is "against nature," but we know with modern science that it is quite natural indeed.

2) Some people point out that being "natural" doesn't matter. We do things all the time that are "artificial." The reason why homosexuality is OK is because it is two (or more) consenting adults engaging in an activity that causes no harm. The argument that it does no harm can be supported with psychology and biology - the human body is just as suited to homosexual sex as it is for heterosexual sex.

Neither one of these arguments affect the biblical or Greek philosophical view at all, because it is not based on modern nature (#1) or a standard of harm (#2) but on a cosmological view of the unity of male and female.

That is, the pairing of male and female keeps the universe going properly. It brings the new seasons and keeps everything working properly. 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.

[from this point of view....] On a very grand scale, human beings are seperated into male and female, and every male and female needs one another. We actually have a metaphysical need to have sex. Homsexual sex does not fulfill this need, whether or not it is biologically normal or an ethical plausibility.

notes:

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.
I've changed my mind about Gnosticism
Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I have created three threads that have been largely ignored or misunderstood, so I will make an attempt here to clear things up a bit - at least to garner general understanding of the "biblical" approach to homosexuality.

There are two arguments for the "morality" or "ethical correctness" of homosexual behavior that do not affect the biblical view at all. That is, folks say that homosexuality is OK for two reasons:

1) It is natural. It is being proven that homosexuality is and always has been perfectly natural, being found in humanity and the animal world. Folks point out that the Bible says that homosexuality is "against nature," but we know with modern science that it is quite natural indeed.

2) Some people point out that being "natural" doesn't matter. We do things all the time that are "artificial." The reason why homosexuality is OK is because it is two (or more) consenting adults engaging in an activity that causes no harm. The argument that it does no harm can be supported with psychology and biology - the human body is just as suited to homosexual sex as it is for heterosexual sex.

Neither one of these arguments affect the biblical or Greek philosophical view at all, because it is not based on modern nature (#1) or a standard of harm (#2) but on a cosmological view of the unity of male and female.

That is, the pairing of male and female keeps the universe going properly. It brings the new seasons and keeps everything working properly. 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.

[from this point of view....] On a very grand scale, human beings are seperated into male and female, and every male and female needs one another.

Male and female from the genetic, hormonal, gonadal, or gender identity point of view? All these things vary within the human biological and psychological spectrum. There are some that postulate that there are, in actuality, more than two genders because of this.

For instance, would you consider a male in a relationship with someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - who is genetically male but has the primary and secondary sex charecteristics of a female - to be in a homosexual relationship? Or, how about an intersexual person? Or a female who is psychologically of the male gender?

The physical spectrum is wide. Indeed, as wide as the Cosmos.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Male and female from the genetic, hormonal, gonadal, or gender identity point of view? All these things vary within the human biological and psychological spectrum. There are some that postulate that there are, in actuality, more than two genders because of this.

For instance, would you consider a male in a relationship with someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - who is genetically male but has the primary and secondary sex charecteristics of a female - to be in a homosexual relationship? Or, how about an intersexual person? Or a female who is psychologically of the male gender?

The physical spectrum is wide. Indeed, as wide as the Cosmos.

That's a very good point, and I have thought of it as well.

I'm dealing with an ancient cosmology ... I know that the ancients recognized a wide spectrum of sexual characteristics... I don't think that the wide varieties are considered in the unity of male and female. They are, however, part of the causality system.

That is, an incompletely developed person - sexually or otherwise - is demonstrable proof of disorder in the cosmos that is set right by a whole host of correct actions, like heterosexual sex.

We should also consider that sexual variance was probably much less pronounced, at least in polite culture. Babies were carefully inspected and killed if they had any detectable deformity.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That's a very good point, and I have thought of it as well.

I'm dealing with an ancient cosmology ... I know that the ancients recognized a wide spectrum of sexual characteristics... I don't think that the wide varieties are considered in the unity of male and female. They are, however, part of the causality system.

That is, an incompletely developed person - sexually or otherwise - is demonstrable proof of disorder in the cosmos that is set right by a whole host of correct actions, like heterosexual sex.

We should also consider that sexual variance was probably much less pronounced, at least in polite culture. Babies were carefully inspected and killed if they had any detectable deformity.

That is also a good point.

But if we consider sexuality as a way of establishing unity, couldn't it be argued that on a psychological scale this could still be achieved in a homosexual relationship? For instance, a male that indentifies with the female gender could achieve balance with a male of the same psychology. Sort of like a male with a female gender being in a relationship with a female of the male gender.

Also, if we wish to use the cosmological argument against homosexuality, this also means we cannot allow the "incompletely developed" to be in relationships with the "completely developed." Or even perhaps with other "incompletely developed" individuals.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

That is also a good point.

But if we consider sexuality as a way of establishing unity, couldn't it be argued that on a psychological scale this could still be achieved in a homosexual relationship? For instance, a male that indentifies with the female gender could achieve balance with a male of the same psychology. Sort of like a male with a female gender being in a relationship with a female of the male gender.

Also, if we wish to use the cosmological argument against homosexuality, this also means we cannot allow the "incompletely developed" to be in relationships with the "completely developed." Or even perhaps with other "incompletely developed" individuals.

Not if homosexual sex harms the cosmology. It would be better to just be friend without benefits.

[MysticSang'ha]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I have created three threads that have been largely ignored or misunderstood, so I will make an attempt here to clear things up a bit - at least to garner general understanding of the "biblical" approach to homosexuality.

There are two arguments for the "morality" or "ethical correctness" of homosexual behavior that do not affect the biblical view at all. That is, folks say that homosexuality is OK for two reasons:

1) It is natural. It is being proven that homosexuality is and always has been perfectly natural, being found in humanity and the animal world. Folks point out that the Bible says that homosexuality is "against nature," but we know with modern science that it is quite natural indeed.

2) Some people point out that being "natural" doesn't matter. We do things all the time that are "artificial." The reason why homosexuality is OK is because it is two (or more) consenting adults engaging in an activity that causes no harm. The argument that it does no harm can be supported with psychology and biology - the human body is just as suited to homosexual sex as it is for heterosexual sex.

Neither one of these arguments affect the biblical or Greek philosophical view at all, because it is not based on modern nature (#1) or a standard of harm (#2) but on a cosmological view of the unity of male and female.

That is, the pairing of male and female keeps the universe going properly. It brings the new seasons and keeps everything working properly. 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.

[from this point of view....] On a very grand scale, human beings are seperated into male and female, and every male and female needs one another. We actually have a metaphysical need to have sex. Homsexual sex does not fulfill this need, whether or not it is biologically normal or an ethical plausibility.

notes:

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.
I've changed my mind about Gnosticism
Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

I truly appreciate all the work you're putting into your latest threads, Nate.



Tibetan Tantric practices, fwiw, closely mirror this cosmology with male/female union with our meditations of the Yab-Yum thangkas (sacred ritual paintings) and statues. They visually depict the male and female in a sexual union of Avalokiteshvara (male) and Tara (female consort) as the perfect union of male compassion with female wisdom. Meditations involving this kind of visualization hardly seeks to indulge in sexual fantasy, but neither does it seek to prescribe a superior position to heterosexuality. If I were to put it in painfully simple terms (and remember I'm still very much the novice in my practices), the Yab-Yum visualizations recognizes how powerful sexual energy is and how it can successfully be applied to spiritual growth and maturity.



This, for me, does not apply directly to how we should define our sexuality as humans. Since we take the view that sexual desire - in however it manifests - is in elementary terms karma in action, sexual orientation is quite irrelevent when it comes to defining morality.



As GC has stated, though, this issue is soooo complex. *nods head*



Peace,
Mystic

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Not if homosexual sex harms the cosmology. It would be better to just be friend without benefits.

Ah, so it is just the act of inserting the penis into the vagina that establishes unity then?

What of oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples? If that is fine, then how does that differ from oral or anal sex between homosexual couples? Does that fall into the other catagories of gender?

And shouldn't that mean we should be having strict heterosexual sex much more often, regardless of wedlock?

Orgies for all!