So it is okay to be gay but not have gay sex?

Topic ^^

Would like to see some sort of logic behind this. Not sure how it goes with XP's but this line of thought is especially popular with Catholics.

 

I think it's like, it's okay to want to have bacon, but to actually eat the bacon is a sin.

 

yep. that's pretty much the deal. though personally, i think that had more to do with trying to maintain a certain population and protection of women (through marriage, etc) by forbidding something. also, in the pagan religions, from which they were trying to differ when coming up with all these laws, allowed homosexuality and various other sexual acts in dedication to their gods. *shrugs*

if it makes you feel any better, bastards and their children are supposedly not acceptable to god in his service (like priests and such). again, i think that has more to do with trying to stamp out the problem of unwed mothers without resources to raise their children and men knowing that the children they're raising are their own.


i mean, tere's a lot of things that make sense from a purely soceital survivability sense, when taken into consideration with where they were living and how they were living. and personally, i think eve being blamed for the "fall" has mroe to do with the men getting pissed at women most likely figuring out agriculture and forcing men to do more work than just hunting. men are still pissed about it.

 

Gay, Homosexual ... Labels ...
Straight, Heterosexual ... Labels ...

Christian ... Muslim ... Jew ... Jain ... Sufi ... ... all labels ...

Some Labels identify an individual who engages in the actions of what the label represents. Some labels identify objects. Some labels identify the result of contact with objects, i.e., feelings, emotions.

If memory serves, the Bible was referring to the actual act of physical contact man with man, woman with woman. This act or action itself does not constitute a perversion of morality.

Morality becomes perverted when one intends to engage in these actions with those who are incapable of awareness of the actions being performed, i.e., children, mentally-/physically-incapacitated individuals (those who are incapable of maintaining care for themselves without adult supervision), other mens wives, other womens husbands, or generally speaking the espoused mate of an individual (christian: covetousness). However, this does not constitute the whole of morality itself. There are other factors which define morality besides that of sexuality. This is just one factor.



According to the buddhist teachings the ONE thing ALL beings want is happiness, to be happy. All actions are motivated toward this desire for happiness. The three motivating factors are greed ... ill-will ... and, delusion.

• Whenever one steals it is to fulfill this need to be happy ...
• When one kills ... it is to fulfill this need to be happy ... I know this sounds wierd but it is true. Killing results from hatred, hatred from anger, anger from impatience, impatience from being disappointed from not getting what one wants. And what one wants is to be happy. To eliminate that which makes them unhappy, even those who disagree with their perceptions, ideas, views.
• When one lies ... it is to fulfill a need to be happy ...
• When one engages in any type of sensual behavior, appropriate or inappropriate ... it is to fulfill a need to be happy, even if this happiness lasts for a few moments.

All this is nothing but action performed or engaged in to bring about happiness to the one acting. Heterosexual, Homosexual, straight, gay, it doesn't matter the label one chooses to identify oneself by, what matters is the action and the motivation behind the action. More importantly, the motivation, the intention.

More often people only care about what they want, and getting it at any cost without awareness of the consequences. The mind becomes single-pointedly focused on the desire for happiness and the action required to obtain this happiness. Even if the happiness is only a few moments, a few seconds, or a few minutes.

-> IMO <-
Gay involves the engagement in the actions associated with being gay, or the label gay. Actions are of three types: Mental, Verbal, and Physical. Proverbs 23:7 says for as he thinketh in his heart, so is he. Which would fit along buddhist teaching (dhammapada) of: Mind is the forerunner of all {evil, good} states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with a {wicked, pure} mind, {suffering, affection} follows one.

The whole idea is that if you think it, you're eventually going to give in to those ideas or thoughts and do it. The thought becomes like fire consuming the mind out of passion and desire, until one acts ... once the flames have been extinguished, the action ceases.

One cannot truely be Gay without identifying with the label used to describe what it is to be {gay, homosexual}. Either you are or you are not. Sex is another label used to identify either the action of engaging in contact with another to satisfy a specific need for a specific kind of sensual fulfillment, or to identify a duality in beings (i.e., male or female).

Gay does not satisfy the identification of duality. Rather it satisfies the identification of the ACTIONS one engages in. Again ... ACTIONS are of three types: Mental, Verbal and Physical. They all are Mind produced, a product of mind. Without Mind, they would not have a basis or ground or foundation for existing. Much less identification.

If one does not engage in the identification of being Gay mentally, that is, does not engage in the actions mentally, one is not {gay, homosexual}. If one does not engage in the identification of being Gay verbally, that is, does not engage in the actions verbally, one is not {gay, homosexual}. And, if one does not engage in the identification of being Gay physically, that is, does not engage in the actions physically, one is not {gay, homosexual}. And the same can also be said for heterosexual. If you engage in the identification verbally, you are also engaging in it mentally. And likewise, if you engage in the identification physically, you are also engaging in it mentally.

One can WANT to identify themselves as being such and such without actually having engaging in the action being described by the label. All one is doing here is identifying with the POTENTIAL to be what the label identifies with.

But, one also accepts the responsibility for such voicing ones potentiality, as saying one is hetero-/homo-/bisexual even if one does not engage in the action necessary to fulfill the identification as such will lead OTHERS to believe that one is actually identifying with the action itself, and not the potential for the action. In other words, saying one is Gay leads others to believe that one IS engaging in the [physical] sexual activity identified as being Gay, not the potential for engagement. One either is or is not.

This is not to be believed by anyone. I am not teaching anyone. Nor are any of this the actual words as stated or recorded as the words of the Buddha or from the Bible except where stated as being a quote (i.e., as stated above as coming from Proverbs or Dhammapada). I stated earlier that it was IMO (In My Opinion). It was only stated to engage in an open, albeit, logical debate.

HTML:

 

The way I see it, is that being in love with another human being, is sharing the love that God created us with. Love should never be stopped and should be free, a moulded to fit two people's lifestyles. Having sex, however, is putting out a certain physical energy, and while Im not saying that it should be only given to or received by a male/female relationship, I am saying that it should be regulated and done with love, not with obsessions. Sexuality is a component of the lower mind, the part of the mind that has obsessions. If one is on a path to come to terms with God and redirect their consciousness to be fully aware of life and love, then one should consider how much energy they are putting out and how often the lower mind is identified with. Sexual obsession is certainly damaging to the path of love because it is only concerned with satisfying the impulses of the body sensations, and these sensations are the busy signal you get when you try to call God during prayer or meditation.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, or having gay sex, unless you want there to be something wrong with it. But if you are honestly hungry to know God and experience that divine love, just take into consideration how obsessed with sexuality you are. That's what I think, anyway.
Much love and God bless!

 

Hello

Once one stops identifying with those thoughts ( of sexual fulfilment) and so stop labeling as 'gay' or 'straight' would those thoughts eventually stop arising and the desire for sexual fulfilment subside?

Would this be in conflict with the 'nature' of the human body? Perhaps this is just an excuse i'm making up? What's your opinion on this?

 

Sorry ... I put the numbers in your original quote ...

1) No. Because the motivating factors would still be there. Sexual fulfillment is nothing but sensual fulfillment. Sensual refers to the senses; eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind. Sensual pleasure refers to anything that pleases the senses. In the teachings of Buddhism, our understanding of Sexual behavior is literally translated as Sensual behavior, and in reference to the precepts is termed "inappropriate sensual behavior."

As the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are constantly coming into contact with forms, sounds, aromas, tastes, feelings (tactile) and thoughts, they are constantly experiencing sensual contact. This contact is motivated by pleasure, pain, and neither-pleasure-nor-pain (a neutral factor which has its basis in delusion, ignorance, confusion).

In order to completely stop identifying with any thoughts, one would have to stop identifying with feelings produced from contact with the eye, feelings produced from contact with the ear, with the nose, tongue, body and one would have to stop identifying with feelings produced from contact with the mind (thoughts). One would have to stop identifying with the perceptions produced from contact with the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. One would have to stop identifying with the mental fabrications produced from contact with the eye ... mind. One would have to stop identifying with the consciousness of the eye ... mind.

IMHO it is not possible to stop identifying with thoughts of anything until one eliminates the motivating factors for the underlying tendencies for self identification ... greed, ill-will, and delusion.

The fortunate side-effect of this, however, would be Nibbana (Nirvana). Where all conceiving becomes irrelevant, views are no longer valid, ideas are no longer valid.

Long story short -- stop putting all this energy in identifying with anything. Just be who you are. Just Be!

2) Perhaps this is just an excuse you are making up!

Conflict with the nature of the body? What is the nature of the body? I don't know (in your context).

It's nature is to identify with physical contact, tactile contact. The nature of the eye, is to see. The nature of the ear is to hear. The nature of the nose is to smell. The nature of the tongue is to taste. The nature of the mind is to think. Seeing is eye contact with forms. Hearing is ear contact with sounds. Smelling is nose contact with aromas. Tasting is tongue contact with flavors. Feelings (tactile) is body contact with tangibles. And thinking is mind contact with thoughts (imagery+audible).

Would you be asking about the nature of Self?

No need to put too much into who or what you are. At present you exist in the same realm of existence as all the other beings who are also present in this realm. Just be who you are without the judgements from your self and others.

The moment you begin labeling who or what you are dependent on others opinions on who or what you should be is the moment you begin not being who you are and what they want you to be (whoever "they" are).

Just be yourself. Just be.

Just be ... here ... now! (derivitave of Thich Nhat Hahn)

Edit: Opps ... sorry ... that above may just have been a teaching ... didn't mean for it to be. Again, sorry!

HTML:

 

Sorry for answering this twice. But, I just remembered something. And this is in regards to the Theravada teachings on tendencies toward dispositions of sexual craving.

This is not a direct translation, but recalled from memory. When a monk would go out to meditate in the forest or a grove and return to the Buddha to relate their experiences to him, some would tell of how they were unable to remove memories of sensual contact. His response to this would be to tell them to meditate in a charnal ground (at that time it was an open, above ground cemetary) on the dead bodies.

This entaled picking a corpse that had just been intered to the charnal ground and meditating on it till the corpse had completely deteriorated. It didn't mean to just sit there the entire time without moving, eating, drinking or sleeping, or performing the necessary bodily functions to stay alive.

This kind of meditation was meant to bring to ones awareness of what exactly it is the body is made of and to create realization that this is what you go to bed with all covered by skin.

When a person is ordained either as Novice or the higher ordination (Monk, Bhikkhu) one is given five items relating to the body to meditate on, Hair of the head, hair of the body, teeth, nails and skin. This is contemplation of the body.

These types of meditation, charnal ground or body contemplation, is meant to disillusion one and bring about ones own freedom from various obsessions with clinging to the body, either sexual obsession or a narcissistic disorder.

So it is possible to become free from the desire for this particular sensual fulfillment.

But there are also dangers to this kind of release, and it would be that one might develop tendencies for aversion (a factor with basis in ill-will) -- the opposite of the tendency of lust or pleasure. So in this aspect one is left in the same boat only instead of having the desire for, they have a hatred for. However, saying there is a danger in this type of meditation practice does not mean it is always a result ... only that it can be.

HTML:

 

Is it okay to be gay without having sex? - YES

Why wouldn't it? Because some organized religion says you can't? (If I'm reading this right)..

Question is about childish.. thats like saying, is it okay to be straight, but not have straight sex? WTF!

 

you can't have straight sex outside of marriage, but we do anyway. i never got the point of not kicking the tires a bit. you never really get to know a person until they're not spending all their time trying to get into your pant.

 

I'm not convinced the official line matters to those who aren't already pretty anti-gay, so I doubt it matters. If God doesn't like gayness, he's hardly going to be tricked by the fact that you don't have any sex. So I'm pretty sure this is all just "out of sight, out of mind", which has bugger all to do with the Bible.

 

The Bible never says anything about having a romantic attraction towards the same sex. In fact, many people in the Bible seem to have, what seems, romantic friendship ( see wikipedia ). IMO the Bible doesn't say that having romantic feelings in a platonic sense. The only thing described as sin is fornication and the sexual act of doing it with the same sex. Everything else seems to be fine though.

 

See, as I understand it, it's lust that's considered the sin, but then you have definitions of lust that vary: some consider any non-procreational sex to be lust, others simply see sex which is not "an expression of love" as lust. The second definition seems to be fairly popular amongst those who want to have their cock and eat it, and very few Christians are so willing to give up regular sex that they'll opt for the former. But every now and again you meet someone who'll insist that it's ridiculous to suggest that homosexuals can love each other. Those are the real assholes, for they put words in God's mouth.

 

there is nothing wrong with gay sex. Love one another and be happy. Don't let anyone try to control you or make you feel guilty or wrong. Sex and love are beautiful and natural and good in all forms.