Homosexuality and yin-yang

[Tyrax]

I consider myself a perennial philosopher, and believe in all religions according to my own interpretations of different religious philosophies with an, admittedly, bias towards Eastern religion, in particular buddhism and daoism.

For the majority of my life, I have never considered homosexuality a sin, and when I became religious a few years ago, I never considered homosexuality a sin to any bigger degree than heterosexual non-reproductory sex. However, my mind is dwelling a lot on yin-yang theory at the moment, and I sense a lack of balance in a same-sex partnership, and I feel a lot of guilt on resting on this notion that homosexuals are sinners (I should probably add, that I suffer from slight OCD obsessions, so this is causing me a lot of distress). Help me make sense of this issue.

 

[Sunstone]

I would suggest your issues with human sexuality sound more Christian than Taoist or Confucian.

 

[Tyrax]

I would suggest your issues with human sexuality sound more Christian than Taoist or Confucian.

Then you're not listening to what I'm saying. I don't believe in scripture as such, and the notion that "a man must not lie with another man as he lies with a woman" is not a thought that appeals to me.

 

[Sunstone]

Then you're not listening to what I'm saying. I don't believe in scripture as such, and the notion that "a man must not lie with another man as he lies with a woman" is not a thought that appeals to me.

Oh really? Where does your notion of sin come from? And where does your notion that non-reproductive sex is sinful come from? From Daoism? From Confucianism? From any other Eastern sources? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Tyrax]

Oh really? Where does your notion of sin come from? And where does your notion that non-reproductive sex is sinful come from? From Daoism? From Confucianism? From any other Eastern sources? I seriously doubt it.

I use sin and physical pleasures interchangably due to my belief that all religions are different sides of the same truth, in the same way as I use God, Brahman and Cosmos interchangably, but that's irrelevant right now.

My notion that non-reproductive sex is "sinful" (i.e. a physical pleasure that blocks your attainment of enlightenment and ultimately leads to more suffering than pleasure) stems from my Buddhist beliefs.

 

[Laika]

I consider myself a perennial philosopher, and believe in all religions according to my own interpretations of different religious philosophies with an, admittedly, bias towards Eastern religion, in particular buddhism and daoism.

For the majority of my life, I have never considered homosexuality a sin, and when I became religious a few years ago, I never considered homosexuality a sin to any bigger degree than heterosexual non-reproductory sex. However, my mind is dwelling a lot on yin-yang theory at the moment, and I sense a lack of balance in a same-sex partnership, and I feel a lot of guilt on resting on this notion that homosexuals are sinners (I should probably add, that I suffer from slight OCD obsessions, so this is causing me a lot of distress). Help me make sense of this issue.

I'm bisexual, so I'm obliged to say that hetrosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive as I think you may be suggesting with the "yin-yang" theory. Sexual attraction and behaviour runs on a scale. A fair number of striaght/hetrosexual people will experience same-sex attraction or engage in same-sex relationships during their lifetime.
Sexual orientation is therefore not defined by actual behavior, but is a social construct reflecting the need to "fit" people into marriage. Sexual orientation typically refers to who a person is going to be in a relationship with, rather than with whom they sleep with.
The "sinfulness" of homosexuality and bisexuality arises from the illusion that sex is determined by procreation, i.e. heterosexuality is normal or natural. This comes from an extremely crude and 'biological' interpretation of sexuality which conceals moral assumptions that sexual attraction is taboo. The moral taboo on sexuality therefore reduce it to a physical act as opposed to a psychological instinct driven by pleasure.
The assumption that sex is purely physical fits in with the emphasis on procreation as natural or moral, because sexual desire does not fit into the legal-moral construct of marriage. It undermines the legitimacy of sexual desire by implying that the only "true" love can be found in marriage. hence people feel guilty about committing "adultery" even though this is a perfectly natural desire and healthy expression of the sexual instinct. Hence our society considers the free expression of sexual desire immoral because it conflicts with marriage. this can be rationalized as "sin" when the source of morality is attributed to a supernatural as opposed to man-made cause.

 

[Tyrax]

I'm bisexual, so I'm obliged to say that hetrosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive as I think you may be suggesting with the "yin-yang" theory. Sexual attraction and behaviour runs on a scale. A fair number of striaght/hetrosexual people will experience same-sex attraction or engage in same-sex relationships during their lifetime.
Sexual orientation is therefore not defined by actual behavior, but is a social construct reflecting the need to "fit" people into marriage. Sexual orientation typically refers to who a person is going to be in a relationship with, rather than with whom they sleep with.
The "sinfulness" of homosexuality and bisexuality arises from the illusion that sex is determined by procreation, i.e. heterosexuality is normal or natural. This comes from an extremely crude and 'biological' interpretation of sexuality which conceals moral assumptions that sexual attraction is taboo. The moral taboo on sexuality therefore reduce it to a physical act as opposed to a psychological instinct driven by pleasure.
The assumption that sex is purely physical fits in with the emphasis on procreation as natural or moral, because sexual desire does not fit into the legal-moral construct of marriage. It undermines the legitimacy of sexual desire by implying that the only "true" love can be found in marriage. hence people feel guilty about committing "adultery" even though this is a perfectly natural desire and healthy expression of the sexual instinct. Hence our society considers the free expression of sexual desire immoral because it conflicts with marriage. this can be rationalized as "sin" when the source of morality is attributed to a supernatural as opposed to man-made cause.

I agree with you 100% on what you're writing, but our standpoints have one significant clash; you do not believe that promiscuous sex is harmful to the mind, and I do, so unfortunately your (very good and intelligent) reply does not help me a lot.

 

[Laika]

I agree with you 100% on what you're writing, but our standpoints have one significant clash; you do not believe that promiscuous sex is harmful to the mind, and I do, so unfortunately your (very good and intelligent) reply does not help me a lot.

Admittedly there is a fine line between promiscuity and free love. People often assume that "free love" means getting as much sex as possible without having the responsibility to your partner. Honestly, this is more symptomatic of the sexual poverty of reducing sex to a purely physical and casual interaction. So in a way I agree with you that when sex becomes a compulsion in that people pursue sexual relations but never actually achieve satisfaction, this represents a mind that has been harmed by sexual prohibitions. Free love should mean the free expression of our psychological capacity to love as well as the physical and this does imply a more ethical outlook to respect a partner, but not out of a sense of obligation implied by marriage.

I'm a virgin so my rhetoric on free love is really about coming to terms with the fact society has conditioned me to think sexual feeling is abnormal as it helps the depression/anxiety and admittedly guilt of coming out and admitting I'm "different" from what is considered the norm. I look forward to putting it into practice through.

 

[Thana]

I consider myself a perennial philosopher, and believe in all religions according to my own interpretations of different religious philosophies with an, admittedly, bias towards Eastern religion, in particular buddhism and daoism.

For the majority of my life, I have never considered homosexuality a sin, and when I became religious a few years ago, I never considered homosexuality a sin to any bigger degree than heterosexual non-reproductory sex. However, my mind is dwelling a lot on yin-yang theory at the moment, and I sense a lack of balance in a same-sex partnership, and I feel a lot of guilt on resting on this notion that homosexuals are sinners (I should probably add, that I suffer from slight OCD obsessions, so this is causing me a lot of distress). Help me make sense of this issue.

Why would you feel guilty? As you've clarified, Your idea of sin is something that is detrimental to attaining enlightenment. I don't see a problem with that. But then I suppose I'm biased since I think the same thing.

 

[Tyrax]

I feel guilty because I do not want to believe homosexuality is a sin to a higher degree than other non-reproductive sex. I mean, people do not choose whom they are attracted to, and therefore it seems unfair to judge their innate mindset as more sinful than others'.

 

[allfoak]

I would like to explore this idea of sin for a moment.

The standard definition is : to miss the mark.
I would presume the mark is perfection.
To lower the standard in order to cover the sin would hardly make sense.

I would propose that balance must exist for perfection to exist.
If something is unbalanced it is hardly perfect.
Something or someone that is balanced is often described as perfect.

So while it may seem that i am saying we are living in sin, since hardly a one of us could say we live perfectly balanced lives, this sin is not any more or less moral than your own emotions make it.

If one is feeling unbalanced or experiencing negative emotions as a result of something they are doing, then it is likely not in line with living what they would consider the perfect life and change is needed.
After all, happiness should be the result of living a balanced life.

This seems like a reasonable way to look at it since every man should judge themselves rather than others.

Hope this helps.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why is non-reproductive sex sinful in the first place?

Honestly, I don't really think yin-yang is universally applicable. It's a great symbol for balance and harmony between opposites, but male and female aren't really "opposites". A homosexual couple can be in balance if the two of them are in harmony as people, just like a heterosexual couple.

Though if OCD is partially causal for this sort of judgment, I'm not sure how to help with that specifically, and I don't want to offer any help without really understanding the condition.

You might also want to look into the concept of sex-repulsion.

 

[Tyrax]

I would like to explore this idea of sin for a moment.

The standard definition is : to miss the mark.
I would presume the mark is perfection.
To lower the standard in order to cover the sin would hardly make sense.

I would propose that balance must exist for perfection to exist.
If something is unbalanced it is hardly perfect.
Something or someone that is balanced is often described as perfect.

So while it may seem that i am saying we are living in sin, since hardly a one of us could say we live perfectly balanced lives, this sin is not any more or less moral than your own emotions make it.

If one is feeling unbalanced or experiencing negative emotions as a result of something they are doing, then it is likely not in line with living what they would consider the perfect life and change is needed.
After all, happiness should be the result of living a balanced life.

This seems like a reasonable way to look at it since every man should judge themselves rather than others.

Hope this helps.

This makes sense to me. Do you believe it could be reasonable to argue, that biological sex could somehow be considered the polar opposite, not to the partner's sex, but to the partner's sexual orientation? I mean this in the way that a sexual desire towards males, for example, is paired with the male anatomy and not the sex the person holding the sexual orientation is born with? In a such way, that balance can only be upheld through engaging in sexual behaviour/romantic relations with a man, and not a woman?

 

[Iti oj]

Ying yang is about inner energy not dangly bits

 

[allfoak]

Homosexuality is nothing new, it is as old as mankind.
Each person must determine their own path in life.

 

[Jainarayan]

I sense a lack of balance in a same-sex partnership

Actually there is balance. I wrote this a while ago in response to someone who thought he knew what he was talking about:

Yin and yang have nothing to do with man/woman as the natural way of things. It has to do with complement and supplement; two men together or two women together can have characteristics that complement and supplement each other.

He was claiming that the proper order of the universe through the Tao and yin and yang is male-female.

 

[gsa]

My notion that non-reproductive sex is "sinful" (i.e. a physical pleasure that blocks your attainment of enlightenment and ultimately leads to more suffering than pleasure) stems from my Buddhist beliefs.

What form of Buddhism allows for reproductive sex as an exception? Perhaps Tibetan does (and whether that is Buddhism is an interesting question all its own), but in Theravada there's certainly no exception if you want to achieve enlightenment. Monastics can't even masturbate.

 

[thau]

I consider myself a perennial philosopher, and believe in all religions according to my own interpretations of different religious philosophies with an, admittedly, bias towards Eastern religion, in particular buddhism and daoism.

For the majority of my life, I have never considered homosexuality a sin, and when I became religious a few years ago, I never considered homosexuality a sin to any bigger degree than heterosexual non-reproductory sex. However, my mind is dwelling a lot on yin-yang theory at the moment, and I sense a lack of balance in a same-sex partnership, and I feel a lot of guilt on resting on this notion that homosexuals are sinners (I should probably add, that I suffer from slight OCD obsessions, so this is causing me a lot of distress). Help me make sense of this issue.

My take on matters of the flesh and the will are to first seek and know God and then seek the truth. As opposed to first believing some truth and then seeking a god to support that belief.

Only when one knows God will one understand sin and forgiveness.

 

[sojourner]

Ying yang is about inner energy not dangly bits

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing where the poster is finding "imbalance" in a homosexual relationship. Is it simply the presence of twigs and berries? If so, I think the poster needs to rethink the whole Ying-Yang concept in a more holistic way, perhaps though some Jungian thinking.