Homosexuality and Religion

[iBrian]

Principle 1: As with any state system, increase of population should result in increased productivity and resources, not to mention a larger pool for military recruiting. Therefore homosexuality is bad for the state that needs to be concerned with increasing its population for these reason.

Princinple 2: Conversely, established lineages - nobility, inherited positions - generally seek to continue these mostly male lines. Homosexual behavious can threaten the continuation of these lines, which can only be frowned upon - the male descendents are required to continue to seed the family name and honour.


2 general sociological perspectives on why homosexuality has been particularly frowned upon historically.

Also note that in democratic ancient Greece, with the second principle removed, same-gender loving become widespread. Although being penetrated was still seen as offensively feminine, gay-male love was pretty much instituationalised.

It's interesting that homosexuality is more seemingly acceptable under democracies.

 

[bananabrain]

Has anyone said anything about how in Judaism the male 'seed' is considered sacred, and how that might account for the condemnation of male homosexuality

it's not just homosexuality. the "wasting" of seed through just about anything (including male use of barrier methods) isn't allowed, because it prevents the bloke fulfilling his obligation to reproduce. interestingly, this allows for women to go on the pill because it isn't their obligation. as far as i am aware women are allowed by more lenient authorities to use barrier methods as well, though men aren't. this issue is complicated by any possible danger associated with the method; but basically, judaism doesn't really approve of anything apart from hetero sex within marriage, although within this there is quite a lot of *ahem* wiggle room, via an authority which says "anything which increases intimacy within the couple is permitted", which is generally interpreted as permitting a certain amount of latitude as to positions, practices that the couple may adopt. so there's no simple answer.

in terms of actual homosexuality, i am aware that steve greenberg, who is the gay orthodox rabbi of the film "trembling before G!D" (a nodding acquaintance of mine who i have studied with upon occasion, thoroughly nice and knowledgeable chap) has apparently constructed a halachic position by which it can be argued that only anal sex between men is actually prohibited. not that this solves the problem but it does at least allow gay orthodox men to be in stable, loving, jewish relationships within the framework of halacha. this is not an area i'm terribly familiar with, though. what i do know is that the improper use of seed is associated with some very bad stuff kabbalistically speaking, as indeed is anything non-married-hetero.

whereas lesbianism is never mentioned--though women who are without children etc are frowned upon in a similar matter

er, not strictly true. of course, women without children do tend to be looked down on a bit, but this is social, not halacha and, besides, isn't actually supposed to happen. also, in terms of lesbianism, there is a prohibition based upon a rather saucy anecdote about harems in the Talmud. it's just not seen as as big of an issue.

the main thing to consider practically about homosexuality is that it is as bad (in terms of the prescribed punishment) as desecrating the Sabbath - and we don't really persecute people for that, or check up on them, or refuse them community honours as a result, so there are no grounds for discriminating extra against homosexuals if we're not going to take action against Sabbath violators.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

so.. to sum up...

there are no legal reasons, at least in the UK and USA, for denying the same civil benefits to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

the protestations come from religious views.

depending on how one views those things, this should be postive news for the American homosexuals as they cannot be denied the same civil rights as anyone else based on their sexual perference.

despite how American may have been founded... it's argued the founders were Deists, not Christians, per se... how it is today is officially secular. seperation of church and state, don't ya know.

 

[Mus Zibii]

it's not just homosexuality. the "wasting" of seed through just about anything (including male use of barrier methods) isn't allowed, because it prevents the bloke fulfilling his obligation to reproduce.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I was trying to refer to.

...and, besides, isn't actually supposed to happen.

Well, same difference. LOL

also, in terms of lesbianism, there is a prohibition based upon a rather saucy anecdote about harems in the Talmud. it's just not seen as as big of an issue.

Ooo, I didn't know that.

 

[bananabrain]

there are no legal reasons, at least in the UK and USA, for denying the same civil benefits to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

the protestations come from religious views

but what i was saying that someone's transgressions are not a basis for denying rights and responsibilities in judaism either, especially if you're going to stigmatise gays whilst doing nothing about Shabbat-violators, which is a lot worse.

so it basically amounts to "it's between you and G!D" - and, speaking for myself, i have difficulty believing that G!D made people gay if there isn't some purpose that serves, especially when i know so many jews who are both religious and gay.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Vajradhara]

b'Shalom BB,


well... you are exactly right in that respect. from what i can tell, the Christian view of this is based in a reading of Leviticus. there are problems with trying to selectively adhere to laws, in my view.

heck.. for all those that want to discriminate against homosexuality based on the text of Leviticus, i'm curious if they view gluttony in the same manner.... or eating shellfish or a variety of other prohibitions that seem to be overlooked when its convienient.

this, of course, is one of the reasons why i consider it to be important to actually study the religion instead of juding a religion by it's adherents. so often, the adherents aren't really living the life that their religion proclaims for them.

i'm very guilty of this as well... i'm a terrible Buddhist i mean just look at the attachment i have to this site

 

[bananabrain]

there are problems with trying to selectively adhere to laws, in my view.

heck.. for all those that want to discriminate against homosexuality based on the text of Leviticus, i'm curious if they view gluttony in the same manner.... or eating shellfish or a variety of other prohibitions that seem to be overlooked when its convienient.

that is my problem with christian approaches to the OT in a nutshell, the literalists more so than the others.

i'm a terrible Buddhist i mean just look at the attachment i have to this site

hur hur hur, very good.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Marsh]

church and state

despite how American may have been founded... it's argued the founders were Deists, not Christians, per se... how it is today is officially secular. seperation of church and state, don't ya know.

Officially secular? You've obviously never heard the phrase "In God we trust." Even in its origins there was a separation of church and state in America; nothing has changed along those lines. And yes, they were Christians; no amount of historical reconstruction will change that, I'm afraid.

You may wish to pick up a copy of their constitution sometime. It's a nice bathroom read.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Re: church and state

That might make a good thread for the politics section, because that's a interesting subject that's come up currently in America. The faith of the founding fathers, etc.

I won't bring it back up here, but I just gotta say I truly believe from what I've read (including the constitution) that they were deists. Ever compare the language of the constitution to that of Thomas Paine?

But yeah, no more on that here.

 

[Vajradhara]

Re: church and state

Officially secular? You've obviously never heard the phrase "In God we trust." Even in its origins there was a separation of church and state in America; nothing has changed along those lines. And yes, they were Christians; no amount of historical reconstruction will change that, I'm afraid.

You may wish to pick up a copy of their constitution sometime. It's a nice bathroom read.

Salaam Marsh,

you know.. that phrase was added in the 1950's, right? to help determine who was a communist.. remember the Joe Macarthy "Red Scare" witch hunts? further more, that's the pledge, not the constitution.

i've got a copy of the consitution and the bill of rights.. great stuff really... the seperation of Church and State is addressed by Thomas Jefferson in several of his presentations... i'm sure that i can dig up some of the relevant information if you'd like.

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

curious

Ahanda'll,

As a newbi in the site/forum i would like to salute all human beings who dedicate theirselves in the most complicated matters of all.
I will later write about my theories of 'the theory of eveything', but first i woul like to start with my opinion about homosexuality :

as a guy that has seen nearly all the continents and figured out that there hasnt a place without any gay people living in. Even in small villages there's one 'curious' mankind.

so to sum up (that was a quick summing : ), believing that god creates us: how come it would create creatures that he would disregard at the first sight?

 

[Mus Zibii]

Re: curious

so to sum up (that was a quick summing : ), believing that god creates us: how come it would create creatures that he would disregard at the first sight?

Doesn't make sense does it? Apparently, God created everything, but hates most of his own handywork. To that I say, don't be so down on yourself, Yahweh. LOL You did good, boss.

 

[iBrian]

Re: curious

Lol!

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Re: curious

Doesn't make sense does it? Apparently, God created everything, but hates most of his own handywork. To that I say, don't be so down on yourself, Yahweh. LOL You did good, boss.

me god, mygod, my m8 god, wouldnt do that. he wouldnt care what his vassals sexual choices are. he would just, maybe, wants us to pullulate. and thats one thing, i guess, a gay could at least do. might have less pleasure though

somebodies absolutly lying here, when it comes to religion in terms of free-will, religion is trying to censure what god didnt. thats unfair and unacceptable.




what is the harm? i always ask myself

 

[Vajradhara]

salaam all,


in the interest of full disclosure...

Buddhism has a prohibition against homosexuals as well.. however, it's very specific. practicing homosexuals are not to be ordained as monks. of course, a heterosexual person that is engaged in a physical relationship is also not allowed to be ordained... so this isn't a prohibition against homosexuals, per se, rather, a restriction on whom can be an ordained monk or nun.

there are no restrictions upon the laiety in this regards. the prohibition for the laiety, with regards to sex, is to not engage in sexual misconduct, which is a wide variety of things... i.e. child abuse, rape, sexual assault et al.

relationships between consenting adults, regardless of orientation, are fine. there are, of course, some schools of Buddhism that do not hold this view. in my experience, this seems to be a product of their culture rather than a teaching of Buddhism from which they make this determination.

interestingly enough.. back in the day, homosexuals were considered to be a third gender in Indian popular culture and were not viewed as "abominations" or whatever other euphamism is perferred.

 

[Quahom1]

Hmmm,

I can dip my wick, as long as I place it in the right candle holder...

Well? Doesn't that make sense? I mean think! The Romans did not call it Penis (shaft/sword), and Vagina (Sheath/receiver), for giggles.

If you want to look at the "natural" world, let us consider the flower. It consists of a pestal and stamin. If the Pestal sprouts pollen at another pestal, what have you? Two dead flowers. (or maybe I reversed them)

You know what? Let's knock off the Homo/hetro BS. People have been loving each other for ever. Just be QUIET about how...you love each other.

That is what I think (and personally abhore), people hate...the loud mouthed "I'm screwing so and so and want the world to know it".

Why are we so concerned about how we are having SEX? Why are we concerned about telling the whole world how we are having SEX? WTF over!?

Leave kids alone (let them be children...they only get to be - once), other than that, and harm no one, do as you will. But please don't tell the whole freakin' world about it.

Now August members of this place, before you go look at my other comments, then come back here and call me a hypocrit...remember, I cling to my Christian faith with my life, but I have nothing to do with Christian RELIGION, or any other religion, except maybe giving to the poor.

On this I am in agreement with the Wiccans..."Harm no one, and do what you will".

Oooh boy, that goes alot deeper than the number of words used to express it.

v/r

Q

 

[kiwimac]

It is interesting to note that Gathic Zoroastrianism has nothing to say about homosexuality. OTOH the more adulterated later versions of Zoroastrianism do. I wonder then does this imply that the Wise Lord is more concerned with the stateof the worshippers heart than most (if not the great majority) of the followers of religions?

Kiwimac

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

It is interesting to note that Gathic Zoroastrianism has nothing to say about homosexuality. OTOH the more adulterated later versions of Zoroastrianism do. I wonder then does this imply that the Wise Lord is more concerned with the stateof the worshippers heart than most (if not the great majority) of the followers of religions?

Kiwimac

the same issue is going on, if any of you had been there, (particularly to thailand) in s.e.asia. there's no gay rights or similar in that country since they dont see that as an issue that has to be bothered. 'I have one daughter and one lady boy' an old man said when i asked how many children he has. strange for our western minds huh?
I dont know, might that be the same reason that Zoroastrianism doesnt say anything about homosexuality? well i have just informed that there's a belief called like that actually...




..... humans you cant live with them you cant live w/o them ... says i

 

[Erynn]

I'd just like to put in a word from another view.

There are religions/spiritual paths that not only do not reject, but actively embrace gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered. Many indigenous paths believe that people like us have mixed natures, and therefore stand as a bridge between men and women. In many societies, a significant number of religious/spiritual functionaries like shamans and healers were non-heterosexual. There was no condemnation, but a gratefulness for the gifts brought by those who were different.

In most modern NeoPagan religions, people of any gender can be handfast (joined in union/married). In fact, non-monogamous handfastings are also sometimes performed. What is important is not gender or number, but the love and devotion those being handfast have to one another. In many early non-monotheistic religions (and indeed in some monotheistic religions, such as early Christianity), marriage was a civil issue, and not a religious rite at all. It became "religious" within Christianity when the church gained more power, and became a way to consolidate power and wealth and to control the population politically.

Homosexuality and polyamory are not against my religion in any way.

As a bisexual, I don't see how one's plumbing has any relation to one's love and passion. As a woman who has never wanted children, and has none, I see no reason to connect sanctioned sexuality to reproduction -- particularly considering the extreme overpopulation that only continues building.

My personal belief is that it is wrong to have more than one child at this point in time, simply because of the widespread disease and starvation that is caused by overpopulation, and the devastation our sheer numbers cause to the sacred earth we live upon. The more of us living on this planet, particularly with the incredible waste of resources in the west, the more like locusts we become, consuming and destroying everything in our path.

There seems something "immoral" -- or perhaps just genocidally stupid -- in pushing our population to the point of destruction of ourselves and the planet we live on. I say genocide, which I know is a very strong term, because destroying the earth and every species including our own really does boil down to just that.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


in the time of the Buddha, homosexuals were afforded their own gender designation... essentially, they were a third sex. no real big deal at all in that view.

things change... sometimes, they change for the detriment of all involved and sometimes it's beneficial, but change they will.