Thursday, October 20, 2005

My View on Homosexuality

This post may come as a shock to most people. I usually avoid political subjects. Politics usually get people into arguments, and I'm the kind of person who truly dislikes arguments. I like harmony. Anyway, there may be some of you who disagree with my post, and I just want you to know that it's OK. Disagreements are different from arguments. Two people can sit and in a friendly manner debate upon a subject. Just as long as no verbal weapons are introduced, it's kosher.

I'll simply say this: Homosexuality seems as legit to me as heterosexuality. I have a philosophical reason for my opinion on this. Love is larger than flesh. We are all One and therefore are the same as each other. Man or woman, it does not matter. There are no genders in the world of the spiritual. There are no bodies to connect. The spirit is what connects.

So yes, I do support same-sex marriages. For those of you that agree with me, thanks. For those of you that do not, please don't judge me any differently.

Feel free to post your comments on this. If you do not feel like sharing your identity, you are allowed to remain anonymous while commenting on my blog.

13 comments:

utenzi said...

You find homesexuality in animals so I have to figure it's natural. Objecting to it seems a little odd to me, like objecting to a person's hair color.

Sophia said...

No kidding! I mean, you know if it finally gets down to homosexual penguins, that there's a message there saying, "Hey, this is a natural thing here, buddy! Don't question it!"

Gretchen Coleman said...

Here is my view on prejudice in general. "judge ye not that ye be judged".

I think there is a purpose for everything. I believe that we choose our gender, the situation, race, everything before we come into life. When we are in heaven between lives, we are in school. We are getting instruction on how to improve past our conditions. When we have sufficient training and are ready, then we pick where, when, how and as what (M/F, race, etc.) into the situation that will best give us the opportunity for improvement.

For example, if you were a white plantation owner in the 1800s and abused your slaves, you may have come back in the 1940s as a black person, so you could first feel the abuse and then be an adult during the 1960s to help affect a change for black rights.

utenzi said...

Gretchen's theory should sound familiar to Stacey. It's similar to Hegel's theory of Thesis--> Antithesis--> Synthesis

Bob said...

It seems to me that you are confusing sexuality with spirituality. (Confusion is an interesting word: it suggests to fuse with.) Sexuality (either homo or hetero) has nothing to do with spirituality! Sex is about hormones. In the 'spiritual world' there is no need for attraction as there is no separation.

With regard to the particular issue of homosexuality this is a very thorny subject! A psychotherapist told me that gay people tend to be emotionally immature and promiscuous. I don't know if this is true but I have seen people I know well become promiscuous and it appeared to me that this did them as much psychological harm, if not more, than if they had developed a serious drug or alcohol problem.

I do agree with you about same sex marriages:if two gay or lesbian people form a meaningful long term relationship then the best of luck to them.

Sophia said...

Gretchen,

That's a nice theory. I'm afraid to think of what I could have been in a previous life. I certainly hope I wasn't cruel to anything or anyone.

Someone - who I thought has a great ability to read people or to see inside them and possibly even read their past lives - once told me he saw something in me that shook him. After he said that, things were never the same. Ever since I've believed that somewhere in my past I've done something horrible. He never did tell me what it was he saw, so I'm still left wondering.

Sophia said...

Utenzi,

I'm afraid to say I haven't been doing my homework. I assume you're referring to the book you've probably finished by now that I'm still not halfway through with yet. :(

I have good excuses, though. Well, maybe. I didn't read as much as I thought I would on the airplanes, and I'm still doing too much web surfing.

Sophia said...

Hi Rob,

I think sex can be a very spiritual thing, if used correctly. I'll use an example that I got from Change's blog. It comes from Plato's Symposium. In it, Aristophanes describes the first man as having four hands, four legs, one head and two faces. When they rebelled against the gods, Zeus punished them by slicing them in half. Ever since, man has been wandering around looking for their other half.

Hormones could be a way of driving us through that search to connecting with our other half, hence becoming one again.

Of course, some people are prone to having empty sex, but that could be because they're aren't as aware as they could be about true Love.

Bob said...

If you are saying that there is a spectrum of sexual behaviour ranging from empty sex to meaningful sex then I agree with you. However even meaningful relationships are never entirely unconditional. I believe the word 'spiritual' implies something which is beyond the duality of attraction and dis-attraction.

Gretchen Coleman said...

Stacey, I don't think you should be afraid of what you may have been in past lives. Those lives, and learning about them now, give you great opportunities for improvement. Perhaps the person you are talking about did not feel you were up to hearing about your past life. Or maybe they didn't know how to interpret what they saw. You sound more ready now.

Having had several past life experiences I have a little insight into how it works. Your soul will go to a life that is purposeful for you at that moment. Whatever issue or difficulty that is at your forefront, whether you know it or not, will be the life you go to. Maybe the life will show you where that condition began.

When you are ready to pursue that we can hook you up. Having someone guide you there and interpret is the key.

Zen Wizard said...

Politically, this is one of those areas to me where that old hippy bumper-sticker, "Think globally; act locally" comes to mind.

What I mean is this--if twelve people got together and decided that they would get a statute passed in, say, Rhode Island legalizing gay marriage--or even adding an amendment to the state constitution legalizing it; it might take them two decades, but with the right determination and recruitment of others they just might pull it off.

As far as gay marriage--or domestic partnerships, or civil unions, or whatever--I also think the political thrust should be on a statewide level.

You can make the profound case, for instance, that in the 23 states that currently allow gays to ADOPT CHILDREN, there should be some arrangement for domestic partner dissolution (or tax breaks, or estate planning, or whatever).

So, in a weird way, in those states you are pitching "family values," which is a real popular platform for Americans.

Vino said...

Hi Stacey,
I am going to be very frank here and please don't be offended or get confused by picturing it.

As human beings we have been evolving for ages. When we were uncivilised we had sex with who ever we wanted. Even humans might have had sex with his mother or sister or people of the same sex. Because we were not "civilized". We coined the term 'civilized' to grow, for the better.

We defined mother's love. We defined parent - child love. We invented marriage. Which is universal in too many cultures for ages.

Gradually came the concept of religion. We pointed fingers at religion for a unanimous acceptance. We collected all that we fear and things that we cannot be described by our thinking limitations as GOD and His activities. We created the forbidden tree concept to make human race unanimously abide by the code. But thats another story.

The data pertaining to be stated here is that, we restricted ourselves to live by the rules. The rules we defined ourselves. As and how we evolve in the thought process from time to time reflects on the changes in the rules and restrictions.

The point is where you stand and how many stand by you from time to time, by your statement. It doesn't matter how many stand by you. Its more like "first see if you are allowed to talk or not".

If I talk about having sex with mother, sister, baby or a child is wrong at this point of time. But I don't want to see that sort of thought revolution to happen to human race any day.

We defined the moral rules.
Try to evolve with time and changes in that moral. Don't ever stand ahead of time. Its like talking in support of child abuse. today!!

Anyway.. today we have the right to speak freely. We choose its ok to have sex with same sex. And there are people to support and feel its ok. There might be a day when we say its ok to have sex with animals.

But personally I think animals, children are fresh with their thought process. We should be responsible adults to animals and children and put aside our urges of hormones. To my judgement homosexuality is ok if its a grown ups decision. Its fine with me.

But they way we are designed and evolved. I want it to be morally with love and perfectly hormonally sexual. I mean I prefer sex with the women I love.

I think I have said my bit. Phew...
-Vino.

Castor said...

There are some people around me who claim to be bisexuals. I don't know if they are practicing it.
I don't really think about it. It doesn't seem to bother me.
If a male collegue says he's in love with me or wants to sleep with me, which sometimes is suggested, I just say that he's not my type.
I see men as brothers, not as sex-objects. And I don't want to be seen as a sex-object by men either. With women it's a different matter.
Mutual admiration is also something I have outgrown. I always remind myself: I'm just one Big Shit! Pardon me.