A Spiritual Perspective on Homosexuality (Blog)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

many people are unhappy with being gay (and NOT because of society)

I'd like to see you back up that parenthetical. It is not an easy case to make.

Originally Posted by dor

Personally I don't condemn people who have those lifestyles but i think when they are embraced by societies at large those societies decline.

FYI, this is still technically a condemnation; you're merely asking society to condemn them on your behalf.

[The David]

Condemnation is a word that has lost its definition due to the fact that no one want's to think they're condemning someone. I don't know if I would say he's condemning them, but it would be nice if he had backed up at least one of his points. Those are some awfully broad generalizations.

I do understand how some homosexuals could be unhappy with their orientation. They can't have children with their partner (unless they marry the opposite gender, as some do, and probably will regret). However, the entire post seemed a bit too...what's the word? "Religiously-charged," I guess.

Be sure to keep the conversation productive.

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by dor

For example in the Epsicopal church - which is being destroyed by the issue - many gay people who became religious and stopped being gay wanted their voices heard - and those voices were ignored by the heads of the church which are pushing for gay marriages and annointing gay bishops (this has enraged for example, African clergy, who live much closer to AIDs and poverty than liberal wealthy US congregations)

Since I had to look up what was meant by the African Episcopal Dilemma, the most useful article I came across is from the New York Times At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian (registration may be required.)

The closest chunk of information from the article I could find as it related to Dor's post was this:

"Even among Anglican conservatives, Archbishop Akinola is not universally beloved. In November 2005, he published a letter purporting to be from the leaders, known as primates, of provinces in the global south. It called Europe a “spiritual desert” and criticized the Church of England. Three of the bishops who supposedly signed it later denied adding their names. Some bishops in southern Africa have also challenged his fixation with homosexuality, when AIDS and poverty are a crisis for the continent."

There is a huge dissonance between the AIDS crisis as a result of lack of sexual health awareness / education and enraged African clergymen who are against homosexuality and splitting away from the US Episcopal church.

[dor]

Originally Posted by The David

Condemnation is a word that has lost its definition due to the fact that no one want's to think they're condemning someone. I don't know if I would say he's condemning them, but it would be nice if he had backed up at least one of his points. Those are some awfully broad generalizations.

I do understand how some homosexuals could be unhappy with their orientation. They can't have children with their partner (unless they marry the opposite gender, as some do, and probably will regret). However, the entire post seemed a bit too...what's the word? "Religiously-charged," I guess.

Be sure to keep the conversation productive.

the david - I am not sure what you mean - there are a lot of arguements against homosexuality, but some of the most succesful 'conversions' come from religius experience/conversion so its pretty hard to separate the two ...
Here is a wiki on the Dr. Spitzer

He was controversial in 1973 for arguing that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder, although the mainstream psychiatric community was eventually swayed to this point of view.

In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[1]
Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

regarding backing up....it's a bit much to go into here but decadence and libertinsim do not go hand in hand with classical liberalism - in fact usually the opposite is true - decadent societies are usually ones that are falling apart (late Moorish Spain, Late Rome, Entruscans, Weimer Germany, Moghul India to use a few examples) and they are usually conqureed by a more 'upright' people (Stoic republican rome, Christian Spain under Isabella, Protestant Britian/Northern Europe vs. Precounter reformation southern europe).
(some people theorize nations/peoples fall when the family unit- the building block of society - falls apart (late rome for example tried to require all patricians have three children) often homosexuality is a hallmark of that break down. - granted so is 'free love' childless marriages, ect.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

There is a huge dissonance between the AIDS crisis as a result of lack of sexual health awareness / education and enraged African clergymen who are against homosexuality and splitting away from the US Episcopal church.

You're not going to get anything remotely fair from the New York times (it is the Episcopal church that is out of communion with the rest of the Anglican world.), so at least see that they have to say for themselves:
Home - American Anglican Council Live Website

I don't to turn this into a discussion about the anglican church - but only that pro gay groups have a lot of influence in certain areas- media- universities- and they STIFLE DISCUSSION of alternatives - and a lot of it looks frankly like recruitment...that is my main point.

In africa, my point is that promiscuous behavior leads directly to poverty and death - here we have a cushion of wealth against it but the effects might just take longer to manifest....but they are trying to organize extremely chaotic societies - and promoting 'libertineism' or 'just do what you feel like' is literally a death knell for them. Lack of sexual awareness is putting lightly - there are rumors for example you can cure aids by having sex with a virgin - so men rape babies - I am not making this up.

[The David]

pro gay groups have a lot of influence in certain areas- media- universities- and they STIFLE DISCUSSION of alternatives - and a lot of it looks frankly like recruitment...that is my main point.

I do agree that the strongest activists tend to discourage discussion.

In africa, my point is that promiscuous behavior leads directly to poverty and death - here we have a cushion of wealth against it but the effects might just take longer to manifest....but they are trying to organize extremely chaotic societies - and promoting 'libertineism' or 'just do what you feel like' is literally a death knell for them. Lack of sexual awareness is putting lightly - there are rumors for example you can cure aids by having sex with a virgin - so men rape babies - I am not making this up.

I could've sworn that said 'sex with a vegan' (which would not only cure AIDS, but cancer, heart disease, obesity, ADHD, and every other disease )

I think you're talking about something entirely different than the rest of us. The discussion is about the moral/spiritual implications of homosexuality, not of certain fringe cultures which may or may not involve homosexuality.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

I don't to turn this into a discussion about the anglican church - but only that pro gay groups have a lot of influence in certain areas- media- universities- and they STIFLE DISCUSSION of alternatives - and a lot of it looks frankly like recruitment...that is my main point.

I think viewing the attempt to support the right to act sexually in accord with your nature as "recruitment" is a very bad thing to do. In my experience most people are heterosexual (duh!), some are homosexual and an even smaller minority is bisexual or has some other kind of sexuality. For almost all people their sexuality is not going to change their entire lives, so attempting to "recruit" anyone into any kind of sexuality does not make sense.

I also quite regularly visit a forum that is about the discussion of homosexuality and/or religion. I have to note that quite a lot of the examples that were once considered as "cured" from homosexuality turned out not to be as cured as they thought/hoped. If someone decides not to live by his/her sexual orientation, (s)he gets my blessing, but much too often this is more related to conservativeness on the part of their respective church then that it really is a decision of the person him/herself.

I myself am a christian and gay, in case you want to know.

[The David]

Most of the 'sexual recruiters' are actually heterosexual.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by dor

Personally I don't condemn people who have those lifestyles but i think when they are embraced by societies at large those societies decline. However, my main point is that pro-gay lobby groups try to make people who feel bad about being gay feel good- and don't offer them the option or try to suppress the option that changing their lifestyle might help them and be better for them, by even stifling discussion or exploration of the matter.

Wow, that's a very strong statement to make. You've basically just said two things: that gay people are bad for society, and that they can become straight if they choose to. I don't understand how homosexuality could possibly cause a decline in society so I'm not going to even comment on that. However, what I can say with a great deal of certainty is that you can't change your sexual orientation.

I'm male, and consider myself to be at least somewhat bisexual. Generally I would prefer women over men, and there's no way I could become more homosexual or heterosexual than I already am. Once the orientation is set, it's hardwired in the brain and can't be changed. People who say they've "converted" are simply lying to themselves and everyone around them. We have seen the sad consequences of this in the Catholic Church scandal.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Baltar

Wow, that's a very strong statement to make. You've basically just said two things: that gay people are bad for society, and that they can become straight if they choose to. I don't understand how homosexuality could possibly cause a decline in society so I'm not going to even comment on that. However, what I can say with a great deal of certainty is that you can't change your sexual orientation.

I'm male, and consider myself to be at least somewhat bisexual. Generally I would prefer women over men, and there's no way I could become more homosexual or heterosexual than I already am. Once the orientation is set, it's hardwired in the brain and can't be changed. People who say they've "converted" are simply lying to themselves and everyone around them. We have seen the sad consequences of this in the Catholic Church scandal.

that is not what spitzer thought (see a couple of posts up) or these psychologists....

In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[1]
Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
NARTH Home Page

And I doubt many people on this self improvement forum who believe in I-m and visualization think that you couldn't change if you wanted to. I could be wrong, so i will just say that's may take on it.

regarding gay people being bad for society, I clarified it a couple of posts up:

regarding backing up....it's a bit much to go into here but decadence and libertinsim do not go hand in hand with classical liberalism - in fact usually the opposite is true - decadent societies are usually ones that are falling apart (late Moorish Spain, Late Rome, Entruscans, Weimer Germany, Moghul India to use a few examples) and they are usually conqureed by a more 'upright' people (Stoic republican rome, Christian Spain under Isabella, Protestant Britian/Northern Europe vs. Precounter reformation southern europe).
(some people theorize nations/peoples fall when the family unit- the building block of society - falls apart (late rome for example tried to require all patricians have three children) often homosexuality is a hallmark of that break down. - granted so is 'free love' childless couples, ect

symptom, not cause, in other words...

[openeyes]

Since sexual orientation is more of a spectrum than simply being completely hetero or gay, one could be 80% gay, but still choose to have a family and only be with women physically. It just depends on how "highly motivated" the person is. One's lifestyle isn't all about sex.

I am attracted to men and enjoy their company, but lately haven't pursued physical relationships with them because I value my health (condoms don't seem to have much of a place in the gay culture I experienced), and can still enjoy being with women to a degree, though I rarely have the same instant attraction for them that I do for men.

Last night I actually dated a young woman that had never done anything with a man, just other women. It was nice to share at least one positive experience with her, so she can be more secure in knowing there are some men out there who are worth being with.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

(some people theorize nations/peoples fall when the family unit- the building block of society - falls apart (late rome for example tried to require all patricians have three children) often homosexuality is a hallmark of that break down. - granted so is 'free love' childless couples, ect

symptom, not cause, in other words...

I think it may very well be the other way around. Acceptance of homosexuality needs a certain cultural advancement because humans are by nature xenophobic and that often includes homophobia. Societies also need a certain cultural advancement to break down, otherwise there is not very much that can break down. In my opinion in the world of today (which includes the presence of nuclear weapons and a rather large environmental problem) we simply cannot afford anymore that kind of xenophobia. In a world where homosexuals are discriminated against, they surely are not the only minority that is being discriminated against. Therefore, advancing the acceptance of homosexuality is an important task that gay people have and it fits very well into the bigger scheme of saving the world. Nowadays we either live together in one world or we will have no world at all.

Regarding the "family unit": families are great if they work. However, a rather large minority of the families are simply nothing less then very bad for the children they raise. Steve would probably talk about "children with parents that have a lower level of awareness" (or something like that) in that case. This is a most terrible thing.

@openeyes:
I personally do not believe very much in the "sexual continuum". But this may well be related to my own sexual situation. I simply feel zero sexual attraction towards women. If there is such a continuum, I think that most people are located somewhere near to either endpoint and a much smaller minority lives somewhere in between.

[The David]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

@openeyes:
I personally do not believe very much in the "sexual continuum". But this may well be related to my own sexual situation. I simply feel zero sexual attraction towards women. If there is such a continuum, I think that most people are located somewhere near to either endpoint and a much smaller minority lives somewhere in between.

Well, I think bisexuality is more prominent in women. Men seem to be more one-side-or-the-other. But really, you can only judge by what people tell you.

I'm still waiting for Dor to back up the supposed connection between homosexuality and declining societies.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by The David

Well, I think bisexuality is more prominent in women. Men seem to be more one-side-or-the-other.

That's what I tend to find as well.

[dor]

Originally Posted by The David

Well, I think bisexuality is more prominent in women. Men seem to be more one-side-or-the-other. But really, you can only judge by what people tell you.

I'm still waiting for Dor to back up the supposed connection between homosexuality and declining societies.

I posted this twice already, but here we go:

regarding backing up....it's a bit much to go into here but decadence and libertinsim do not go hand in hand with classical liberalism - in fact usually the opposite is true - decadent societies are usually ones that are falling apart (late Moorish Spain, Late Rome, Entruscans, Weimer Germany, Moghul India to use a few examples) and they are usually conqureed by a more 'upright' people (Stoic republican rome, Christian Spain under Isabella, Protestant Britian/Northern Europe vs. Precounter reformation southern europe).
(some people theorize nations/peoples fall when the family unit- the building block of society - falls apart (late rome for example tried to require all patricians have three children) often homosexuality is a hallmark of that break down. - granted so is 'free love' childless couples, ect

symptom, not cause, in other words...

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by dor

In africa, my point is that promiscuous behavior leads directly to poverty and death - here we have a cushion of wealth against it but the effects might just take longer to manifest....but they are trying to organize extremely chaotic societies - and promoting 'libertineism' or 'just do what you feel like' is literally a death knell for them. Lack of sexual awareness is putting lightly - there are rumors for example you can cure aids by having sex with a virgin - so men rape babies - I am not making this up.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Are you equating homosexuality to promiscuity? To be homosexual does not mean that you love sex and want it all the time. It simply means you are attracted to the same sex.

The issue you speak of in Africa seems to me to be a problem of lack of EDUCATION, and ONE of the effects of the lack of EDUCATION in Africa are unsafe promiscuity and the raping of children.

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by dor

(some people theorize nations/peoples fall when the family unit- the building block of society - falls apart (late rome for example tried to require all patricians have three children) often homosexuality is a hallmark of that break down. - granted so is 'free love' childless couples, ect

symptom, not cause, in other words...

Like you said, this is a THEORY. But, may i also add that being homosexual does not equate to lack of a family unit. Just because a homosexual couple cannot make their own children does not mean they cannot have a family. If a homosexual couple adopts, or has a donor...is their unit not considered a family?

If you answer yes to this question, then I will ask you this....are heterosexual couples that can't conceive not considered family units? Are heterosexual couples that adopt not considered family units?

To accuse homosexuals of being the cause of social decline because they don't conceive in the way you would like is unfair. I agree that strong family units are a staple in a strong society. But, I don't think the lack of "families" in America is because of homosexuals. I think there is a deeper problem that we all have to figure out...and blaming it on other people is not going to solve that.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

To accuse homosexuals of being the cause of social decline because they don't conceive in the way you would like is unfair. I agree that strong family units are a staple in a strong society. But, I don't think the lack of "families" in America is because of homosexuals. I think there is a deeper problem that we all have to figure out...and blaming it on other people is not going to solve that.

vanilla, i specifically said: symptom, not cause, in other words.

however, i will say that gay activist groups - are somewhat to blame...on the other hand, I've met more than a few gays who are putt off by their behavior .

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Are you equating homosexuality to promiscuity? To be homosexual does not mean that you love sex and want it all the time.

vanilla it was in reference to the anglican commonion and rift between the leadership of the episcopal church and the rest of the anglican church...but as i said...I don't to turn this into a discussion about the anglican church -

[dor]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

I think it may very well be the other way around. Acceptance of homosexuality needs a certain cultural advancement because humans are by nature xenophobic and that often includes homophobia. Societies also need a certain cultural advancement to break down, otherwise there is not very much that can break down. In my opinion in the world of today (which includes the presence of nuclear weapons and a rather large environmental problem) we simply cannot afford anymore that kind of xenophobia. In a world where homosexuals are discriminated against, they surely are not the only minority that is being discriminated against. Therefore, advancing the acceptance of homosexuality is an important task that gay people have and it fits very well into the bigger scheme of saving the world. Nowadays we either live together in one world or we will have no world at all..

Chris, there are moral, religious, philisophical and spiritual arguments against homosexuality simply equating any sort of opposition to the practice as xenophobia is unfair. You may not agree with them, but they aren't just 'hate driven' ....in order to 'advance acceptance' some of groups have been resorting to some pretty intolerant tactics themselves ....and yes, so does the 'other side' .

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by dor

vanilla, i specifically said: symptom, not cause, in other words.

however, i will say that gay activist groups - are somewhat to blame...on the other hand, I've met more than a few gays who are putt off by their behavior .
[/I]-

Okay, I disagree with your opinion that homosexuality is a SYMPTOM of the decline of a society. Saying it's a SYMPTOM is implying that something is WRONG with homosexuality. It's not homosexuality that is a symptom of the decline...it's the INTOLERANCE of anything different and the INTOLERANCE of change that is a SYMPTOM of decline. It's the refusal to accept people as they are and the refusal to LOVE. It's forgetting where we came from...forgetting who we are...forgetting how we are to be...LOVE.

I do agree that persons on both sides of the argument have resorted to non-loving ways of getting their respective points across. And it is THIS that is a symptom...not the act of homosexuality itself.

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by dor

vanilla it was in reference to the anglican commonion and rift between the leadership of the episcopal church and the rest of the anglican church...but as i said...I don't to turn this into a discussion about the anglican church -

In your previous post You said:

In africa, my point is that promiscuous behavior leads directly to poverty and death - here we have a cushion of wealth against it but the effects might just take longer to manifest....but they are trying to organize extremely chaotic societies - and promoting 'libertineism' or 'just do what you feel like' is literally a death knell for them. Lack of sexual awareness is putting lightly - there are rumors for example you can cure aids by having sex with a virgin - so men rape babies - I am not making this up.

This statement does not have anything to do with the rift between the episcopal church and the anglican church. This statement is your OPINION. And I was simply responding to your OPINION. This forum is about the spiritual perspective of homosexuality and you are commenting about the correlation between homosexuality and the decline of society. And in this statement, you're commenting on promiscuity and it's leading to poverty and death.

My question to you was, why are you correlating homosexuality to promiscuity and the decline of society? Again, my OPINION is that unsafe sex and promiscuity is due to a lack of EDUCATION and is NOT the direct effect of homosexuality.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

In your previous post You said:
This statement does not have anything to do with the rift between the episcopal church and the anglican church. .

Vanilla,
I was explaining the rift between the Anglican African Bishops and Episcopal church USA -why they might have two different views of promiscous behavior and homosexuality....as i said it's off topic, for this thread....

"My question to you was, why are you correlating homosexuality to promiscuity and the decline of society? Again, my OPINION is that unsafe sex and promiscuity is due to a lack of EDUCATION and is NOT the direct effect of homosexuality."
a. i said it was a hallmark of decline.
b. on average, are homosexuals more promiscuous than heterosexuals?

[mtrimpe]

Originally Posted by Baltar

Wow, that's a very strong statement to make.

Just to play advocate of the devil, as I am in a homosexual relationship right now, I must agree that research shows that in societies that do not condemn homosexuality only 4% chooses to engage only in homosexual acts, while the vast majority engages in homosexual in their 'youth' and eventually develops a heterosexual relationship.

It might even not be too big a leap to assume that somewhere up to 6% of gay men is actually stuck in that immature stage of their development and could thus benefit from 'a change of orientation'.

I'm personally somewhere on the 50-50 split and I have no idea on which side I will end up, if any, but I have found that the strong split between the two worlds is doesn't help my development. I think that's the true problem with 'changing your orientation'; that there is an assumption that you have to choose either side (which is caused by the belief that you should have a single partner ).

It's like making a probability to collapse to either true or false and then expect it to remain the same for life, which is stupid.

And to dor on promiscuity: Are heterosexuals more sexually inhibited than homosexuals? Do they suppress their sexuality more? If men could have sex without needing to be dominant and women could have sex without being sluts, would we become more promiscuous? How much promiscuity was in the era of 'free love'? Is it not likely that this level of promiscuity is how the world was supposed to function? I see it as the hallmark of an uplift in society

[Vanessa]

It saddens me to see how this thread has shaped up to be.

Laced with several known off topic thoughts and opinions. I keep coming back to the idea that sexuality is fluid --on an individual level and on a cultural level. That's why there's always someone who can find an opinion on either side of the meaning/rightness/wrongness of homosexuality.

In this thread we've covered opinions covering the gambit of the history and evolution of homosexuality. We've seen (or read in this case) some religious perspectives that can be inclusive and exclusive to what the law and love of God means to homosexuality.

I didn't know God/the universe/ the spiritual greatness had limitations.

If there was ever anything I believed in so completely its that there is more love and acceptance in the world than all us individuals are capable of --and to me that includes love and acceptance of homosexuality. That's the kind of abundance I believe in.

How far will we go as individuals and collective thoughts to support negative and close-minded actions to those part of our one human race?

I come to these forums and read what Steve and Erin write because they give me a sense of abundance in different areas that I can't get enough of. I hoped that same abundance and love would extend out to this forum's perspective of homosexuality.

Perhaps this thread can change directions.

[Vanilla]

Originally Posted by dor

Vanilla,
I was explaining the rift between the Anglican African Bishops and Episcopal church USA -why they might have two different views of promiscous behavior and homosexuality....as i said it's off topic, for this thread....

"My question to you was, why are you correlating homosexuality to promiscuity and the decline of society? Again, my OPINION is that unsafe sex and promiscuity is due to a lack of EDUCATION and is NOT the direct effect of homosexuality."
a. i said it was a hallmark of decline.
b. on average, are homosexuals more promiscuous than heterosexuals?

a. You said "Personally I don't condemn people who have those lifestyles but i think when they are embraced by societies at large those societies decline."

b. You're still not answering my original question. But, I don't even want the answer anymore. I agree with Vanessa...this has gone way off topic. And I will not contribute any furthur after this post. I have said what I want to say and I respect what you choose to believe.

[The David]

I think unpopular opinions should be welcome here. Otherwise, we would never learn anything.

Dor, I know you didn't explicitly say that homosexuality causes societies to crumble. However, by continually reinforcing the correlation between the two without taking into account the many different factors involved, you're implying it. Remember, every society involves heterosexuality as well.

And if it doesn't, then of course it would decline.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

Chris, there are moral, religious, philisophical and spiritual arguments against homosexuality simply equating any sort of opposition to the practice as xenophobia is unfair. You may not agree with them, but they aren't just 'hate driven'

I think that kind of arguments should be taken with a grain of salt. It generally seems quite possible to accomodate new knowledge into moral, religious, philosophical or spiritual ideas. The interesting question is whether one is willing to do that. It is not like any really fundamental change of opinions is necessary to accomodate for the possibility of homosexuality.

Originally Posted by dor

....in order to 'advance acceptance' some of groups have been resorting to some pretty intolerant tactics themselves ....and yes, so does the 'other side'.

Well, obviously homosexuals are not better than "normal" people, so they will go about things the wrong way sometimes just as well. The cause never justifies using means that are bad. This applies to both sides of the debate. Using bad means will in the end just hurt the cause.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Chris, there are moral, religious, philisophical and spiritual arguments against homosexuality simply equating any sort of opposition to the practice as xenophobia is unfair.

Out of curiosity, would you be interested in moral, religious, philosophical, and spiritual arguments in favor of homosexuality?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Out of curiosity, would you be interested in moral, religious, philosophical, and spiritual arguments in favor of homosexuality?

Not really, I have no intention of picking up the practice anytime soon
Seriously, I suppose that would naturally umm come out .....in the course of a thread about arguments against....


Vanilla I later clarified what i said...i have lots of other things going on in my life and frankly have been getting side tracked with these arguments- but if you really have a question just pm me and i will answer it by pm or here - I am not subscribing to this thread or any other 'unproductive' arguments (not that they aren't interesting!)...and I don't want to stear the thread off course again.

[emf]

Originally Posted by helgi

Whenever I see a man that is open and joyful my gay-o-meter lights up -- it is as if 'enlightened' qualities are somehow more common in gay men.

Anyone noticed this?

That behavior is why the term "gay" is often used to refer to homosexual males. Being lively and light hearted doesn't always indicate enlightenment though. It's just fun to be around. I've noticed that people prefer women with gay personalities as well.