Go ahead and take a shot. You’ve demonstrated as much knowlewdge on those subjects as most of the posts in this thread.
I’ve been very impressed by much Eastern Thought. Unfortunately, for the most part I have been impressed (in a seriously negative way) by many of the people who hold up Eastern Thought as “superior” by the utter dearth of Western Thought with which they demonstrate actual familiarity.
Among the mystical traditions, the two groups have used different languages to come to quite compatible understandings of humanity. (There has long been an ongoing dialogue among contemplatives of both communities–a dialogue that is supportive rather than competitive.) When one steps outside the mystical tradition, one tends to find a lot of people pushing agendas of one sort or another. Eastern economy, warfare, industrialization, and families do not demonstrate any serious separateness from Western counterparts. Most of the differences are just highlighted versions of extremely local cultures that did very well or very poorly for brief periods of time when they came in contact with other cultures or societies.
I’ve worried about a lot of things destroying society. Nuclear war, terrorism, economic collapse, famine, plague, and pestilence, and finally the most likely avenue for the destruction of our society, that’s right I’m talking about zombie attacks.
I must admit that I’ve never had a fear that homosexual unions would lead to a collapse of our society. Unless maybe homosexuals have something to do with the dead rising from their graves. Even if homosexuals were 100% accepted in our society there are far to few of them to ruin everything. At best only 1 in 10 people are homosexual, and honestly I think it’s less, so what’s going to happen?
As far as what Eastern Philosophy has to say about homosexuality I wonder why I should give it any validity? I might find it interesting but a lot of eastern philsophy involves some pretty fuzzy thinking in my opinion.
Oh yeah, let’s hear it for the intangible, the incomprehensible, the incommunicable and the unprovable. It’s gotten to the point where people will believe absolutely anything, except of course anything that can actually be proven to be true.
And it’s not at all surprising that homophobia should be the offspring of that kind of “superior” thinking (or lack thereof).
If people hadn’t believed that electricity existed, it’s existence never would have been “proven.” When you speak of things having “gotten to the point,” we’re talking about concepts that have existed for up to 5000 years. And to equate what you deem “homophobia” with sensitivity, perceptivity, and curiosity seems, um, phobic.
They got around to testing and documenting it scientifically, which is fortunate for the rest of us I think. That’s different from asking people to accept the intangible and untestable. Wow, the concept is 5000 years old.
Hey, bizzwire, don’t be so hard on yourself. Misunderstandings occur; that’s part of life. The fact is, I find tossing an idea out on TSD, hearing others’ responses, and then responding myself, thoroughly enjoyable. That includes any and all misunderstandings. When you sarcastically referred to me as “esteemed” in your post, I appreciated it. Seriously!
Who said anything about marriage disappearing? What many people are in a panic about is that approving gay marrige may lead to being gay not being seen as an abomination before God. Others are uncomfortable about the next generation of issues. Do they get to adopt? Do I have to learn a whole new set of terms.
Dan, this is Steve and his wife Roger. {Dam, how do I remember which one is the wife} I kid, but for many it’s just an uncomfortable issue they’d rather avoid. My guess is that lots of folks who oppose gay marrige couldn’t really articulate why.
To me its a matter of human rights. The same folks who oppose gay marrige now opposed interracial marrige a generation ago. It’ll ruin society. It’s fear and bigotry disguised as morality.
The law has little to do with spirtual beliefs {we hope} If you believe being gay is a sin, have at it. Allowing gay marrige doesn’t force you to change your belief. It grants human rights to human beings. God will judge if your beliefs are correct. Just keep in mind that Christians supported slavery, and denying the vote to blacks and women. They believed they had good reasons for that too.
In all honesty we do have to draw a line somewhere. I’m not sure I’d want to legalize man /animal marrige. I see gay marrige as the new civil rights issue of our generation.
It depends what you mean by “destroy”. There is no doubt that increased civil rights will change society as we know it. In terms of the 1950s style mother/father/two kids, stay-at-home wife, virgin-daughter type of family set up, that’s been on the decline for decades. Young women live by themselves today, there are far more single people, far more cohabitees. Far more old people live alone, people take less better care of their parents. There are more divorced couples.
In the 1960s and 70s, mixed flat sharing was still such a novelty that there were UK sitcoms about it: “Man about the house” etc. In the 1980s, cohabiting was still shocking enough that there were sitcoms about it: “The Two of Us”. Now we have same sex couples. Later, perhaps we’ll have more three-way unions.
I read once that (in the UK) households comprising a one-time-married mother and father with two children of opposite gender under ten only represented something like five per cent of all households. And yet this family structure is (or was) depicted in 90%+ of all TV ads for domestic products.
New types of families, couples, lifestyles are destroying/changing society as we know it. But life evolves, society evolves. Giving women the vote and rights changed society beyond recognition, and for the better. I also think it’s for the better that two gay men can live together, and marry, and not have to enter “lavender” marriages with women for the sake of social respectability, as happened in my parents’ generation.
Are you seriously denying that this quotation is an example of homophobia? It sure doesn’t seem to be an example of sensitivity, perceptivity, or curiosity.
And the longevity of a particular idea has nothing to do with its validity.
Originally Posted by drmark2000
“It is the view of Eastern Masters that when male homosexuality dominates a society, it signals the end of real civilization.“
I don’t have to deny anything. I agree with the cited quote. My take on the “Eastern Masters“ thinking and writings is that they were no more phobic of homosexuality than of anything else. What I think they are trying to convey is messages based on extensive meditation on many topics. The result of this thinking is, “You can behave as you choose, but this is what you can expect to be the ultimate result.”
They also advise against the eating of animal flesh (of which, I think, semen and sperm might be considered included). They don’t say, “Don’t do it. You’re a bad person if you do. We harbor a ‘phobia‘ about people like you.” But if you do consume flesh, you will degrade your body over the short and long-term, in terms of subtle energies (as yet unmeasurable with existing instrumentation), and in the end result in various diseases, both emotional and physical, as now extensively confirmed in the West.
There is no “condemnation,” as such, of homosexuality in what I have read of Eastern teachings. If such exists, then it is a lesser form of teaching, no better than Baptist Bible thumpers railing against one thing or another. Sensitivity and perceptivity are the result of dedicated thought on a topic.
Nothing? Under any circumstances? How do you know? Some long-standing beliefs are and always have been bullshit. Some aren’t, and never will be.
When you get to the heart of the matter, this is not different from what Western religions such as Christianity say. i.e. God says “You can behave as you choose (you have free will), but this is what you can expect (hell) to be the ultimate result”
My biggest problem with this idea that my sexuality will somehow be the complete ruin of all society, is that there just aren’t enough of us who are gay or lesbian anyway. So first, you have to get the 10% (or less, depending on what statistics you consider) of us in the world who are gay to get together into serious relationships, where marriage would be the hoped-for goal. And then, even if there was success in getting all of us to pair up, that would still be 10% or less of the population.
Meanwhile, in order for there to be some sort of success in married gay couples overtaking the number of straight married couples, that would mean less than 10% of the rest of society could be married at any given time. Which seems extremely unlikely. As unlikely as the maximum amount of gays getting involved in serious relationships, and, wanting to be married on top of that.
The other problems I see regarding straight people, is that you don’t have to automatically get married if you’re in a serious relationship. And, you don’t have to be married to have a child. Further, I would worry more about the huge divorce rate as a determining factor in the “ruin” of society, if the definition of society is dictated by the number of marriages.
Seriously I think this entire debate is based around hysterical homophobic fears turned into religious extremist dogma coming from a tiny number of individuals. I doubt the ruin of past civilizations or disappearances of various tribes and peoples had even a modicum of anything to do with marriages and/or sexual proclivities.
Well, except, of course, that there is no such confirmation, extensive or otherwise, in “the West.” Rather, it has been noted at the end of the 20th century that specific diets that rely excessively on high-fat animal products, either (or both) to the exclusion of of other products or in quantities far greater than earlier societies were capable of acquiring, in conjunction with a sedentary lifestyle and a level of stress that was unknown in previous generations, has led to serious health problems. Any claim that simply consuming animal flesh (or animal products) without the qualifications that I have added is simply false and has no basis in reality. (19th century U.S. farmers East of the Mississippi probably ate more high-fat meat than many modern inhabitants of North America, but the prevalence of outdoor manual labor and the absence of modern stress resulted in far fewer cases of arteriosclerosis and similar heart diseases. Eskimoes and Inuit lived on a diet that was well over 50% meat-based for hundreds of years with no ill effects until modern society began introducing refined sugar and other forms of high carbohydrate elements to their diet (and adding stress to their societies).
“Meat = bad” or “meat = unhealthy” is simply a philosophical construct that is not supported by nutritional studies or other biological inquires. There is no reason to oppose that philosophical construct because humans can, indeed, live without eating flesh, but there is no actual evidence that simply consuming meat is unhealthy, per se.
I am also amused by the inherent sexism (and odd a-historical claims) made by Douglas and Slinger, in that their thesis ignores completely female homosexuality (either for good or bad) and posits a result that they claim has “has been demonstrated throughout history” when, in fact, there is no such historical demonstration of any such event.
Now, it may be true that a number of Eastern groups have come to a condemnation of (male) homosexuality for various reasons, but those reasons are not rooted in historical analysis of failing societies.
Well, in my opinion, we shouldn’t let the undead marry, because then they’ll have kids and then we’ll never be able to stop the zombies from overruning the world.
The concepts seem fictional to you because you have never experienced them. It is of great temptation to declare something nonexistent simply because one has not experienced it.
Nope. Heaven and hell are considered part of the “afterlife” in most Western religious systems. In Eastern thought, heaven and hell are what we create here on Earth.