Religious Understandings of Homosexuality

[Link]

Excluded middle (the fallacy of the OP) (neither this or that but a different option).

Our nature can be changed due to the magical nature of our souls and our minds are programmable and can re-programmed. Deviance and tests therein starts from childhood and reformation is harder then prevention.

The dark spells of Iblis - can cause humans to enter states where they are intoxicated by whatever the demon companion wants them to enter in, and if not resisted our nature can change extremely.

In these times, magic and unseen world is mocked, but without weapons of light, Iblis can do to humans what he wishes. He can invert their nature and make them opposite in many regards then their original nature.

Faith in what ought to be is a huge foundation to a human. This is why holy books didn't leave this question but condemned homosexuality so that humans who are enticed to go off their nature in this regard, if they believe in God and the his light and the guidance of the lanterns of the sky of this world, they will be able to prevent it and those who went astray can return through help of the holy spirit.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

There is a rich but mostly undiscovered history of sexuality and gender identity throughout history.

Part of the issue when contextualizing or even studying history is that we don't have the benefit of the prospect of ancient people outside of writings. The last few centuries as well as the current phase of western history has been avidly rigid on the subject. Though the concept of "self actualization" in and of itself in western culture is relatively new. Most of the language and opinions that we find are based in the acts rather than the "feelings" involved. Also much of the history that spoke candidly about such things were destroyed by the radical views of following empires.

Outside of the western world we find a plethora of still intact history about non-heteronormative activity. The third gendered people of india, the two spirit people of native tribes just to name a few. Defining the motivations behind the acts of non-heteronormative peoples were also less important than what they actually did. Even if we go back as far as the 20-40's there were swingers and folk getting into all kinds of kinky things that simply weren't as defined but if looked at through the scope of modern terminology would be enlightening when contrasted against the false backdrop of the whitewashed history we have learned.

 

[Meow Mix]

At the moment I think sexuality is similar to taste of food. All people have sexuality, how they use it depends on how they grow. I don’t think children are sexual at the beginning. It is something that grows at the same time they grow. Normally it grows to heterosexual way, because there is usually example of it and I think also because it is the reasonable way. But in some cases, there may happen things in life that distort the development and person grows to have sexual taste that is not good.

That is why, I think sexuality is fluid, especially when person is young. But similarly as in all aspects of life, when person gets older, the habits become more permanent.

I don’t know how young I was, and I certainly wasn’t sexual, but I remember wondering why women didn’t just live together. I played with my toys that way. I turned out to be gay. I think for some folks it’s just there from way early on.

 

[Meow Mix]

@Rival

For what it’s worth I got curious and looked into some stuff regarding Sappho; and modern scholars are saying things like she “would have had no idea what people mean when they call her nowadays a homosexual” (Glenn Most), etc.; though scholars still generally accept that her poetry celebrated eros between women.

 

[Rival]

@Rival

For what it’s worth I got curious and looked into some stuff regarding Sappho; and modern scholars are saying things like she “would have had no idea what people mean when they call her nowadays a homosexual” (Glenn Most), etc.; though scholars still generally accept that her poetry celebrated eros between women.

This is it. All I'm saying is that just because a person fancies those of the same sex, in history that wouldn't have been understood as anything different from being attracted to the opposite sex in the way we think of sexuality today. So two women having sex would not be thought of as mentally/sexually different to a woman who has sex with men, just that they were engaging in a deviant/strange act. I'm really not sure why so many people are having trouble grasping this.

 

[Brian2]

I don’t know how young I was, and I certainly wasn’t sexual, but I remember wondering why women didn’t just live together. I played with my toys that way. I turned out to be gay. I think for some folks it’s just there from way early on.

I think you are right but also think that most boys might have a distain of girls to an extent and visa versa at a young asexual age.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you are right but also think that most boys might have a distain of girls to an extent and visa versa at a young asexual age.

I did of course have a “boys are gross” phase; but because I loved my dad and had other adult men that I knew, that didn’t apply to men. The women in my pretend families still had men as friends, for instance.

 

[Rival]

I think you are right but also think that most boys might have a distain of girls to an extent and visa versa at a young asexual age.

Not my experience. Many young girls are obsessed with boys from age 5 or 6, pretty much. I had it and my mom encouraged it. I fancy women as well and I definitely liked girls at that age, too. Girls are kind of known for this. Go on any mom forum and see all the threads about how their primary school daughters are already boy mad. It's everywhere.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not my experience. Many young girls are obsessed with boys from age 5 or 6, pretty much. I had it and my mom encouraged it. I fancy women as well and I definitely liked girls at that age, too. Girls are kind of known for this. Go on any mom forum and see all the threads about how their primary school daughters are already boy mad. It's everywhere.

When we make sweeping generalizations, it is supposed to be based on stastitical truths. There are always exceptions to every rule. Go look through the chain link fence of a school playground during the recess for the primary grades. What you will see, in general, is girls playing with girls and boys playing with boys. Of course some games are shared, like you will find both genders in line for the tether ball. But look for the small groupings. They do tend to be single gender.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you are right but also think that most boys might have a distain of girls to an extent and visa versa at a young asexual age.

Boys don't mind being friends with girls as long they don't act like girly girls and can hang.

 

[Brian2]

Boys don't mind being friends with girls as long they don't act like girly girls and can hang.

I knew a boy when I was young who acted like a girly girl.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can't remember if I was friends with any boys when I was young. I'm 99% sure when I got banged up in my accident it tore up my ability to remember my youth. That or I just have a really crappy memory.

The memories I do have are vivid though.

 

[Fool]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

i think sexuality is a spectrum. Kinsey looks at it that way too. I also have to agree with Klein that sexuality is far more than just sexual intercourse

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I knew a boy when I was young who acted like a girly girl.

Okay. I'm sure he wasn't very popular with the other boys.

 

[Shakeel]

Imagine that you live prior to the word 'homosexual' and the concept of innate sexuality whether it be hetero or homosexuality doesn't exist. There's no such idea that a person is exclusively one or the other

So this question has nothing to do with Muslims, Christians or Jews from that time?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

I have waited for others to post and have read through them first. I will share the opinion which I have formed and will be brief if possible:

Humans experience crushes. These begin with imprinting moments when we are observing someone or some thing and feel a rush of sexual feelings combined with adrenaline. This is a binding and transforming moment. If we are aware we may be able to distract ourselves and prevent a crush, but often the feeling sneaks up upon us. The result of the crush moment is that much of our thought is redirected towards the object of the crush. It is a strong and doting fixation distracting from our usual train of thought.

Thats why attraction is indeed fluid in humans. My opinion. Often we are guided in how we have crushes. Belief is a strong guide. For example if we believe that loving a first cousin is strange and inappropriate then we may avoid a strong crush merely because the expectation interferes, but it may not interfere. People get all kinds of taboo crushes. Taboo is only one factor. Ultimately the crush happens. A person fixates upon another, and then they have to dsal with it. There is not a simple on/off switch one a crush has been imprinted.

The most common problem a crush causes is that its difficult to get someone out of your mind. From there its possible that the crush will worsen (or improve as some would describe it).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is it. All I'm saying is that just because a person fancies those of the same sex, in history that wouldn't have been understood as anything different from being attracted to the opposite sex in the way we think of sexuality today. So two women having sex would not be thought of as mentally/sexually different to a woman who has sex with men, just that they were engaging in a deviant/strange act. I'm really not sure why so many people are having trouble grasping this.

Do you not think the identity of homosexuality and bisexuality, as well as transgender grew out of being targeted for punishment due to preforming said acts? Coming together as a group and community to defend each other from a hostile culture?

And the thread has talked about how peoppe back then wouldn't understand the label, but wouldn't you think people today being told that getting rid of the LGBT monikers akin to going back in the closet? Or at the very least something that's only likely to come after the hostile environment ceases?

 

[Brian2]

I can't remember if I was friends with any boys when I was young. I'm 99% sure when I got banged up in my accident it tore up my ability to remember my youth. That or I just have a really crappy memory.

The memories I do have are vivid though.

I find it difficult to remember most things but when I have to (as in writing a eulogy) or when I get reminded, more things come back to me.
It's amazing at times what we remember,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seemingly irrelevant things but they stick. I guess they must have had some sort of impact.

 

[Brian2]

Okay. I'm sure he wasn't very popular with the other boys.

I mainly knew him around where I lived and don't remember him at school but he did not join in the other boyish play in the neighbourhood. I sometimes wonder what happened with him, as I do with other people I once knew.
When I say "girly girl" I remember thinking that at the time (and we were probably not yet into puberty) and he used to gleefully jump up and down and giggle when excited. Maybe more boys are like that than I realise.