A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
RE: Anonymous (regarding Hinduism)
The comparison was in regards to the the development of Hinduism, not the beliefs.
Regarding homosexuality in Hinduism, it isn’t a clear cut subject; firstly the anti-homosexuality laws only came into force under British rule, secondly, I’m sure if you delve into Hinduism, you can interprete the scriptures in what ever way you wish, and add that onto the western sexophobia that was imported into India via Victorian rule, you can see how things can go pear shaped.
You are welcome,
Sexualy they were more conservative than the Christian community!
Thanks for that background on Hinduism and homosexuality.
Also, it should be noted that
Most Gnostics practiced “celibacy” and asceticism, on the grounds that the pleasures of the flesh were evil; a few however practiced libertinism (possibly also Hieros Gamos), arguing since the body was evil they should defile it, or that since the body was evil it did not matter what was done with it.
I have to disagree with you,
I am Hindu, and gay.
In India most people have seen homosexualiy as a taboo subject.
This was long before Christianity,
being that Hinduism predates Islam
So to say the view’s on homosexualy became negative because of christian’s is absurd,
and show’s a lack of knowlege about my culture
While it is true that you can find homosexual theme’s in Hindusim,especialy art
they are by far considered rare!
Also it should be noted that the most accepting of gay’s in Indian
tend to be Christian communities,
Infact many Hindu clergy attack christian america, as being imposing homosexuality on Indian culture. You can find this argument
in many non christain area’s.
As a gay Indian only in Christian countrie’s have I been free to live as a gay male.
Thats a fact!
Here is some information I put together
Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse. This is because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality at all.
Currently, the debate on homosexuality within Hinduism is controversial, especially amongst Hindus in countries where homosexuality is viewed by many others as acceptable. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that in Hinduism many of the divinities are androgynous and some change gender to participate in homoerotic behavior.
To this day in modern India there are Hijras, transgendered men who have sex with men. They religiously identify as a separate third sex, with many undergoing ritual castration.
In Hindu thought a man who penetrates a Hijra is not defined as gay. And in the Indian Kama Sutra sex acts involving homosexuality are regarded in some castes permissible while not in other castes.
Homosexuality has an ancient history in India. Ancient texts like Rig Veda (which dates back around 1500 BC), sculptures and vestiges decipt sexual acts between women as relevations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility.
There are great differences amongst Hindus as to whether homosexuality is acceptable behaviour, and in order to understand the debate over homosexuality in Hinduism, one must first identify Hinduism’s teachings on love, sex, and marriage:
In Hinduism, love is regarded as an eternal force. It is seen as devotion between two people, whether romantic or platonic. Hindus believe love and devotion are important in attaining Moksha or Liberation from the cycle of rebirths.
Erotic Desire or Kama in Hinduism was deemed as one of the most legitimate pleasures on earth (thus accounting for the vast numbers of erotic treatises, poetry and sensuous sculptures of ancient India). This however did not mean that lascivious behaviour was promoted. Premarital sex in Hinduism is frowned upon and extramarital sex is prohibited. Sex was promoted within the context of a loving couple – usually heterosexual. On the other hand extremely ascetic schools of thought would have viewed sex as a distraction from the pursuit of Moksha.
Marriage in Hinduism is said to fulfil three functions: Prajaa, Dharma, and Rati. In marriage, Prajaa is progeny for perpetuation of one’s family, Dharma is fulfilment of responsibilities, and Rati is companionship as friends and mutual pleasure as lovers. These three functions are given in the Dharma Shastras, books that are not considered to be religiously binding within Hinduism.
Most of the debate on homosexuality within Hinduism is centred on these three teachings, and how proponents and opponents of homosexuality interpret these teachings.
Opponents of homosexuality argue that:
Romantic love is only natural between a man and a woman, and it is impossible for two men or two women to experience the same form of love.
Since romantic love is only possible between a man and a woman, sex between two men or two women can only be the product of lust, and lust is wrong; therefore homosexual activities are wrong.
One of the three functions of marriage is Prajaa, the progeny for perpetuation of one’s family.
A homosexual couple cannot procreate, and thus cannot be married.
Premarital and extramarital sex are wrong, and because homosexuals cannot marry, they should not engage in sexual relationships.
Proponents of homosexuality argue:
Nowhere in the Hindu sacred texts is romantic love excluded to all but a man and woman, so there are no religious grounds to make a statement to the contrary.
Since homosexuals can experience romantic love, homosexual sexual relationships are not all the product of lust.
The three functions of marriage are given in the Dharma Shastras, books that are not binding to Hindus, and thus Prajaa is not a determining factor in Hindu marriages.
Even if the three functions of marriage were binding in terms of marriages, Prajaa may be interpreted in a number of ways that do not involve procreation at all. Thus homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Sexual expression within a loving relationship is encouraged by Hinduism because it is not an expression of lust, but an expression of love and devotion to each others’ happiness. Therefore, homosexuals in loving relationships (i.e. marriage) should be allowed to express their love sexually.
The Srimad Bhagavatam Debate
Within the Srimad Bhagavatam there are a few lines (Canto 3, Ch.20 Text 23, 24 & 26) that describes Brahma’s creation of a group of demons that became obsessed with sex and demanded sex from him, but then he became frightened and ran away from them.
Opponents of homosexuality believe this proves that homosexual behaviour is lustful and evil. Proponents of homosexuality argue that the demons were the children of Brahma, and that this story teaches that incest is lustful and evil (compare to the story of Shatarupa).
To the anonymous poster: Thanks for the quotes and passages.
sorry, I was referring to the puralism that exists in Hinduism and how Christianity COULD have evolved into a dynamic religion had it been left alone by the powers that be.
Btw, what is up with the broken quoting system?
Here is another couple:
The Gnostics preferred queers and that is about as blunt as I can get, while non-reproductive heterosexuals were accepted in many groups the emphasis was on â€œgender varianceâ€. In ancient Israel there was a whole priestclass, the Qadesh who were gender variant and had a sacred role, their task being edited from history by the incoming Pharisaic warlords. In most pre-Judeo-Christian cultures the homosexual was a priest, shaman and wonderworker, it is only the in the literalist and fundamentalist faiths that homosexuals have been degraded. Homosexuals are old souls, they have come into the body to evolve, teach and learn. In the Gnostic tradition, the priesthood is nearly always homosexual, the reason for this is both sexually and spiritually relevant. The essence of homosexuality is, in some sense, narcissistic, it is seeing a reflection of yourself in another’s form. While we may argue that each sex have dual identities, this may be true but these dual identifies (Anima/Animus) are locked into a one sex body and hence homosexuality is the ultimate form of self realisation (or self delusion). Homosexuals transform the reproductive program of the DNA/RNA into something new, paternal and maternal instincts programmed at a cellular level are re-rooted away from reproduction into new realms. At least that is what should happen. The powers that be saw the rise of the Gay movement and have worked hard to twist, destroy and mould homosexuals into â€œheterosexuals who just fuck differentlyâ€ – nothing could be further from the truth.
And if you look through the google engine, you’ll find that there was a concerted effort by the powers that be, to stamp out this puralism that seem to have existed in Christianity – like how Hinduism evolved.
Early Teachings on Homosexuality
Some argue that neither the Bible nor apostolic tradition condemns the practice of homosexuality. Passages such as Leviticus 18:22â€“30, Romans 1:26â€“27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Jude 7 serve as ample proof that Scripture indeed condemns homosexuality. Below is ample proof from tradition. The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
“[According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Eleusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sightâ€”pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records” (ibid.).
“It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as theseâ€”so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods” (ibid.).
“In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like” (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).
“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked uponâ€”oh shame!â€”and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret placesâ€”if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sightâ€”you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to doâ€”men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).
“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust. . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis. . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage. . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boyâ€™s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods. . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, â€˜Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotionsâ€™” (Against the Pagans 5:6â€“7 [A.D. 305]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: â€˜Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon itâ€™ [Lev. 18:24â€“25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Basil the Great
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
“[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named” (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26â€“27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
“And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment” (ibid.).
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).
The Early Christians is a term used to refer to the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth, before the emergence of established Christian orthodoxy.
The term essentially refers to the Jewish Christians of the early period of Christianity, before it was constituted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, by emperor Constantine I, in 312 A.D.
The term has an underlying connotation of many of the Early Christians being Jewish. The term was used by the later Graeco-Roman Christians to refers to the early followers of the Christ, at a time when what was later called as Christianity was largely a Jewish sect. The Early Christians, however, mostly referred to themselves as Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). The early Christian-Jewish heritage lingers in the Nasrani tradition in South India.
Among those writers commonly referred to as Early Christian are:
Clement of Rome
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp of Smyrna
Clement of Alexandria
Dionysius of Alexandria
The term is less often, but with equal validity, applied to the authors of the books of the New Testament.
Many elements of “Gnosticism” are pre-Christian, and it is generally accepted that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but grew up alongside it, out of some of the same sources.
Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories of the nature of Jesus or the Christ which were out of step with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith.
For example, Gnostics generally taught docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but rather his apparent physical body was an illusion, and hence his crucifixion was not bodily.
No offense Kaiwai but I am not going to consult you as an expert in Christianity 🙂
Nice to see you haven’t a clue about early Christianity history – that before Constantine united the empire behind what we now know as Christianity, there were many different branches, each with their own take on what should be included in the bible, which parts of Judaism were still relevant after the new convenent etc. etc. – sometimes know as Gnostic-Christian or Gnosticism.
But hey, lets not allow 1200 years of same sex marriage, married priests and condoning of homosexuality get in the way of a damn good rant about the mythical evils of it – nothing like a good rant as an opiate to the uneducated masses.
CK – I was scratching my head over that one as well. Clueless.
Just a follow up, ref from exgaywatch:
“Ironically, they may have misheard what God was saying with this storm. Had they listened closer they might have realized that the part of the city with the least damage was the French Quarter and that so far most of the deaths have been in Mississippi (not a state famous for it gay excesses).”
Interesting, maybe us gays are gods chosen people; interesting that no natural disasters seem to hit the prime gay spots in the US; they aways seem to hit the bible thumping belt of the United States.
(just a side issue; if you look into early Christian history, homosexuals played quite an important role in early Christian ideas – something that most fundies would love to wish never existed – but then again, their congrigations aren’t exactly book worms when it comes to reading about early Church origins).
I am watching the coverage of the New Orleans catastrophe on Fox. I am struggling to understand how someone could take the position this group has taken.
You’re surprised? for a good 2000 years, it seems that it is a cornerstone of Christianity; find out something you dislike, and unite everyone around it for a unified hatred festival.
It is pathetic and juvinile, and the sad part? we have grown adults sucked into that sort of cult like atmosphere, willing to hand over their brains and put their whole existance based around a book written by a few disgruntled goat hurders 2000 years ago, along with the constinuous misinterpretations done on by people to further their political vision.
This is some pretty gut wrenching stuff, even for someone who is sympathetic towards Christians who have made a decision to live in accordance with their values.
In essence, the website is saying that the people who died deserved it. Utterly reprehensible, and I don’t think Jesus Himself would agree, do you?
Digusting, but not unbelievable. There will be more talk like this I am sure.
Its because SOME conservative Christian leaders think like this that people get nervous when religion is brought into the “gay debate”.
The bigger problem is that the other conservative Christian leaders do not speak out against such radicalism.
Comments are closed.