A Spiritual Perspective on Homosexuality (Blog)

[Angela]

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.

So, you think someone can be argued out of being homosexual? There are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against females, too; the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice). If a person tries to make an argument against homosexuality, which a person is born with (like being female), I would believe that person is likewise operating out of hatred or prejudice.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, you think someone can be argued out of being homosexual? There are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against females, too; the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice). If a person tries to make an argument against homosexuality, which a person is born with (like being female), I would believe that person is likewise operating out of hatred or prejudice.

No I didn't say they could be argued out of it.... however I did say if they wanted to change they could be treated out of it in some cases. So does Dr. Spitzer who originally got it declassified as an abnormality.
Whether people, especially women, are 'born' homosexual is still debated ,and probably too politicized to be discussed openly. -certainly there are women who have changed their orientation over time. I don't know what you mean (nor do i care what you mean ) by 'against females'.
You can believe that person is operating out of hatred all you want. But making these arguments you're only making my point:
"the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice)"
labeling, name calling and not discussing.
it translates to 'since the people who making them are haters their argument is hateful. That's a tight little circular argument. ....as you have made clear, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

[Michael Chui]

You can be treated out of being female, too. Are we proposing sex changes?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

No I didn't say they could be argued out of it.... however I did say if they wanted to change they could be treated out of it in some cases. So does Dr. Spitzer who originally got it declassified as an abnormality.
Whether people, especially women, are 'born' homosexual is still debated ,and probably too politicized to be discussed openly. -certainly there are women who have changed their orientation over time. I don't know what you mean (nor do i care what you mean ) by 'against females'.
You can believe that person is operating out of hatred all you want. But making these arguments you're only making my point:
"the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice)"
labeling, name calling and not discussing.
it translates to 'since the people who making them are haters their argument is hateful. That's a tight little circular argument. ....as you have made clear, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

Well, you DID say there are arguments to be made against homosexuality. If not the homosexuals, who would the arguments be made to? To society, that they should discourage or eliminate homosexuals? In little intellectual salons, where people judge what's right or wrong for everybody else? or what?

By the way, I wasn't making an argument at all, circular or otherwise, (but thanks for telling me I have a tight little anything.) I'm saying that a person trying to argue another out of being something there born with (like homosexual, or female), regardless of whether or not that characteristic can be changed, would be making what I'd consider a hateful argument. Because it's intolerant and interventionist -- that's what I would call hatred.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm saying that a person trying to argue another out of being something there born with (like homosexual, or female), regardless of whether or not that characteristic can be changed, would be making what I'd consider a hateful argument. Because it's intolerant and interventionist -- that's what I would call hatred.

no you didn't, you said

There are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against females, too; the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists (operating out of hatred or prejudice).
If a person tries to make an argument against homosexuality, which a person is born with (like being female), I would believe that person is likewise operating out of hatred or prejudice.

in short you said" There are people who make arguments (moral etc.) 'against females (? what this means is unclear, I know of no one who makes arguments 'against females' ) the people who make them are generally considered to be misogynists

That is a circular reference. if you intended it to mean something else, the intention was lost on me.

I am not going to waste my time with this any longer, anymore than I am going to waste my time providing facts about northern ireland. I won't respond to your posts anymore.

Michael: I don't think that's relevant, or necessarily true, but I am not proposing anything, only saying it is possible.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

No I didn't say they could be argued out of it.... however I did say if they wanted to change they could be treated out of it in some cases. So does Dr. Spitzer who originally got it declassified as an abnormality.

I don't think it is a very good idea to base any serious conclusions on a controversial research paper. The arguments would be about the same as can be found in Steve's recent post "Health Studies Are Worthless to Those Who Care About Health". And I would also say that history has seen about enough "interesting" theories about the origins and "treatment" of homosexuality. Besides, what does "some cases" mean, anyway? Personally, I think the research pointing towards the conclusion that one is born with homosexuality has a strong enough case to bet a few bottles of good wine on, even if scientists do not yet want to officially draw that conclusion. You could be right, that it is less clear in the case of female homosexuality, though. I'm not sure about that.

@ Michael Chui:
Good joke! Of course, I could be treated out of being a homosexual by having my sex changed, but... nah... I'd rather not.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

no you didn't, you said

It was a simile, Dor. I was saying that arguing someone out of being homosexual is like arguing someone out of being female, and that I would consider such an argument to be a hateful argument, because it doesn't leave a person free to be what they were born as.

That's not an argument, circular or otherwise. It's stating how I feel about a subject.

Another opinion I have that I'd love to be persuaded out of: that your heart is so hardened against me because my opinions are often so different from your own that you can't clearly "hear" what I say. (hence, "no you didn't, you said...")

There's room for all kinds of opinions!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

I don't think it is a very good idea to base any serious conclusions on a controversial research paper:

Chris, firstly, I am glad you can discuss it without name calling and labeling. Anything that challenges the establishment is going to be controversial -Spitzer at one time challenged the establishment -that's what makes his study interesting -
I agree with many points of steve's blog...

However, I do think treatment should be offered as an alternative or discussed and not just shunned away as 'impossible' as many activist groups do - Even if there was some genetic basis -tendency is different from behavior - that's why people go around in circles about alcoholism (is it genetic or behavior) what is one (even if you don't drink every day, anyone who gets cravings for alcohol, etc) - and thus one making a 'moral' argument might say, ..an alcoholic has a predisposition to drink but that doesnt' mean he's condemned to die in the gutter with a a bottle in his hand.

What I find disturbing in all these medical/scientific debates is politicization of them - on both sides. (Granted even science get get politicized or become political. ) let there be discussion.

Personally and actually getting back to the topic on hand I know people and have read of people who have had radical spiritual transformations and their orientations changed.

[Angela]

"Spitzer admits that he had 'great difficulty' finding people who claimed to have changed their orientation from gay to straight. Ex-gay groups regularly claim to know of 'thousands' of people who have 'changed' or 'left homosexuality.' But after searching for nearly a year and a half, Spitzer could only find 274 possibilities." Virtually all were evangelical christians.

Dr. Robert Spitzer finally studied 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." During 45 minute telephone interviews with each subject, they were asked 60 questions about their "feelings and behavior before and after their efforts to change orientation. They discussed their motives for change; their strategies, which included counseling, support groups, prayer and mentoring; and their current relationships with the opposite sex".

Dr. Spitzer reported:

-- That 86% of the men and 63% of the female subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. That is, after therapy they are bisexuals, not heterosexuals.

-- That sixteen (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. It is not known how many of these had entered therapy as bisexuals and how many had been homosexuals.

-- "Of the 112 men (out of the total 143) who acknowledged that they masturbated, more than half (56 percent) said they used homosexual fantasies some of the time and about one-third (31 percent) said they seldom had opposite-sex masturbation fantasies."

I sure wouldn't want to be one of the poor christian women who find themselves married to one of these "recovered homosexuals." Or the guy who finds himself in that position, either!

[rono]

Originally Posted by mtrimpe

Recently someone on our forums asked this question: “Where does the preference for apples fit into the existence and higher self of those who prefer apples?” I think some people wonder how the higher realms view the preference for apples. Here is my understanding.

Where there is love, there is Source.

Where there is shame and guilt, there is low vibration.

Where there is control, power, or fear, there is ego.

Just as people who prefer oranges can be engaged in sexual unions that are loving or that are abusive/controlling, so too can two people who prefer apples engage in sexual unions that are loving or that are abusive/controlling.

Do people choose to incarnate knowing they will prefer apples? Yes. Do people choose to incarnate not knowing they will prefer apples and later choose to prefer apples? Yes. Do people choose to incarnate believing they will prefer oranges but end up engaging in acts of apple eating or bi-fruit eating due to earthly influences or an overactive belly chakra? Yes, absolutely.

There is nothing spiritually or physically wrong with a person who prefers apples

As long as there is love and mutual consent and no one is being coerced, controlled, forced, or abused, there is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring apples.

Remember, our higher selves are, in fact, fruit-preference neutral. They appear to be fruit-preferential only once we incarnate. Appreciating the physical charms or physical attributes of a fruit is normal. I know people that prefer oranges who can appreciate the quality of a good Golden Delicious and not consider themselves to prefer apples. And I know a lot of people that prefer apples who can appreciate a nice Valencia, yet they’re comfortably preferring apples.

The spiritual lesson behind preference towards apples is how we all react to its existence. If you react negatively to someone’s fruit-preference, why is that? Why do these differences cause you to feel resistance?

The preference for oranges is obviously important to the continuation of our species. But if we’re just talking about sharing and expressing affection or even lust between each other, why should other people’s choices meet with any resistance from those with different preferences?

I absolutely loved this "perspective"

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

However, I do think treatment should be offered as an alternative or discussed and not just shunned away as 'impossible' as many activist groups do.

If someone chooses to subject him/herself to such a therapy that is their choice. However, I think it is highly unethical to propose that someone should undergo it without making sure that the person is aware of the dangers/disadvantages. These are
(1) in lots of cases the therapy simply does not work;
(2) the side effects can be very bad: depression and the development of suicidal tendencies are not unkown;
(3) many ex-gays later turn into ex-ex-gays;
(4) no serious medical organization aproves of this kind of therapy;
(5) in the case of "aversion therapy" it is rather hard to see how the actual practice of this therapy is to be reconciled with the concept of human dignity;
(6) quite often the therapists do not have proper qualifications and, compared to standard psychotherapy practices, seem to operate in rather amateuristic ways.

Originally Posted by dor

Personally and actually getting back to the topic on hand I know people and have read of people who have had radical spiritual transformations and their orientations changed.

Being a christian myself, I wouldn't doubt it to be within Gods power to change homosexuals into heterosexuals, if He would desire to do such. I have also read some of these stories and on an other forum on which I partipate, they are discussed on a somewhat regular basis. Having heard the stories of gays, ex-gays, and ex-ex-gays, I am very much inclined to think something along the lines of "that you changed into a heterosexual is very nice for you, but let us just wait a bit and see what you say about it five years from now.". There are also some stories that make me wonder if the ex-gay really was gay. This is in the case that a lot is talked about the things these persons DID but nothing is being said about what kind of sexual feelings they had at the time and have now. Sometimes people end up engaging in homosexual activities (mostly during puberty) where it does not seem they have actually chosen to do so, but it simply happened more or less by accident. That this kind of "homosexuality" can be "cured" is not very surprising. Finally, hearing admissions that some of these ex-gays sometimes still enjoy looking at gay porn (usually one has to wait for that admission until the point that the ex-gay turns into an ex-ex-gay, BTW), while engaging in a heterosexual relationship, does not really add to credibility.

Taking Angela's remarks into account it seems more like Spitzer wanted to write something controversial and was looking for evidence than that he knew about the evidence and wanted to write something about it. This is a practice that is also not unheard of in science, unfortunately.

[dor]

Chris,

(1) in lots of cases the therapy simply does not work;
(2) the side effects can be very bad: depression and the development of suicidal tendencies are not unkown;
(3) many ex-gays later turn into ex-ex-gays;
(4) no serious medical organization aproves of this kind of therapy;
(5) in the case of "aversion therapy" it is rather hard to see how the actual practice of this therapy is to be reconciled with the concept of human dignity;
(6) quite often the therapists do not have proper qualifications and, compared to standard psychotherapy practices, seem to operate in rather amateuristic ways.

In my opinion it is because the field has been politicized by for lack of a better term 'pro gay' forces -the same way the fields of anthropology and history took far left terms post WWII. Anthropology's turn was based on out right falsification and lies - which are still widely believed.

With improved techniques, and as you imply - if more professional bodies took up the practice, we might see better results.

Most substance treatment programs like AA and such have low sucess levels too. i don't think its a reason to stop them.
You say the side effects can be bad - maybe so, but the successes often say they find new levels of happiness - even one of the psychologists who treated them said he was able to get gays out of a destructive anonymous sex pattern - there are plenty of testimonials here:
Interviews/Testimonials

regarding spitzer:
Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.
Spitzer Study Critiqued in the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy
It appears that the activist-authors of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy were outraged that the study was published at all, a sad commentary for a professional journal. Spitzer's motives were questioned, his credibility attacked and his research subjected to a kind of scrutiny unparalleled in any scientific arena.

As a scientist, I find the journal's approach in this issue to be both disingenuous and intolerant. Disagreement among scientists is healthy. Name-calling and intimidation tactics are not.
To me, that speaks volumes.

Socarides treated patients for homosexuality throughout his career. He reported that "about a third" [1] of his patients became heterosexual and led heterosexual lives after treatment.
Charles Socarides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far

[Angela]

Charles Socarides and his followers' theories revolve around his belief that "Homosexuality is based on the fear of the mother, the aggressive attack against the father, and is filled with aggression, destruction and self-deceit". [Robert Spitzer, quoted in Bayer, p.36] According to Socarides, "almost half of those who engage in homosexual practices have a concomitant schizophrenia, paranoia, or latent or pseudoneurotic schizophrenia, or are in the throes of a manic-depressive reaction". [Bayer, page 35]. Socarides developed an elaborate 'cure' based on these theories and claimed a success rate of greater than 50%. [Bayer, p.37]

Interestingly, Charles Socarides was never able to change the sexual orientation of his son, Richard. Richard became a gay rights attorney, worked in the Clinton administration, and went from there to head the corporate communications division of New Line Cinema.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by dor

In my opinion it is because the field has been politicized by for lack of a better term 'pro gay' forces -the same way the fields of anthropology and history took far left terms post WWII. Anthropology's turn was based on out right falsification and lies - which are still widely believed.

I have doubts about this. As far as I know the reason that the idea that homosexuality is a disease was abandoned is that noone knows how to realiably "cure" it and that, apart from the disinclination to mate with partners of the opposite sex, no detirmental effects come with the mere fact that one is homosexual. This raises the question why one would even want to attempt to "cure" homosexuality.

Originally Posted by dor

With improved techniques, and as you imply - if more professional bodies took up the practice, we might see better results.

One of the theories that seems rather likely about the origin of homosexuality is that it is (maybe among other causes) caused by hormone levels in the blood of the mother already experienced by the foetus. This then would cause certain parts of the brain to develop in a female-like way in male embryos, thereby causing homosexuality. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then going about this in a psychotherapeutical way seems rather silly, really. No definitive conclusions have been reached on this, though.

Originally Posted by dor

Most substance treatment programs like AA and such have low sucess levels too. i don't think its a reason
You say the side effects can be bad - maybe so, but the successes often say they find new levels of happiness - even one of the psychologists who treated them said he was able to get gays out of a destructive anonymous sex pattern - there are plenty of testimonials here:
Interviews/Testimonials

I think the "destructive anonymous sex pattern" is another issue. It is also quite imaginable to get out of such a pattern without changing your sexuality fundamentally. I do think that the succes levels are important. At least, for me they are. If I could become heterosexual without too much trouble, guaranteed succes, few negative side effects and were a bit younger, I might want it, but at the moment I simply see no reason to desire change.

Originally Posted by dor

regarding spitzer:
Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.

To be able to say whether I consider credible what Spitzer has to say about this I would rather read his study than reading a comment that comments other comments. Much less so, considering the fact that this is again published by the NARTH. Personally I think both the existence of an organization like the NARTH as well as the exsistence of a scientific journal for "gay and lesbian psychotherapy" are a bit strange. This renders the fights between the two organizations largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Originally Posted by dor

Socarides treated patients for homosexuality throughout his career.

Socarides is a psychoanalist. When one is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Who says that a psychoanalytical approach to homosexuality is the most suitable? The last few decades a biological approach has produced more interesting results IMO. A rather serious problem in the dicipline of psychoanalysis is that next to nothing seems provable.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Angela

There are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against females, too;

Not wanting to stir the pot here, but I'd really like you to elaborate this one more.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Erki

Not wanting to stir the pot here, but I'd really like you to elaborate this one more.

Hey, Erki, how you doin'?

That remark I made is obviously taken out of the context of that old discussion with Dor, who seemed to believe that homosexuality was something that one could (and should) be "cured" of. I disagree very strongly, and in fact, I find that kind of talk to be hateful, shame-inducing, and completely out of place on a personal development forum. I wasn't willing to let it stand unchallenged.

Dor had made a remark that "...there are moral, religious, and philosophical arguments against homosexuality..." and I was simply equating that to the anti-female rhetoric that has come down through the ages. There's a lot of that -- you don't want me to list instances, do you? That's not something I want to focus on. My point was that arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against females, or against the left-handed (an argument that has been strenuously made, amazingly).

I believe each individual's sexuality and gender is his/her/its concern, and should not be subject to anyone else's scorn or attempts to change or judge.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Angela

Hey, Erki, how you doin'?

Hi, Angela. I guess I'm mostly fine - I'm still alive. Thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by Angela

There's a lot of that -- you don't want me to list instances, do you? That's not something I want to focus on.

Actually I think I still do...

Originally Posted by Angela

I believe each individual's sexuality and gender is his/her/its concern, and should not be subject to anyone else's scorn or attempts to change or judge.

I agree with this view too.


Reason of my questions?
Here and there, mostly in spiritual websites I have found feminine described as "divine" or "sacred". But I don't remember any mentioning of divine masculine... So, I'm not a woman, and from what I understand, therefore I am not divine. But I want to be divine too goddammit. Maybe I should become a "masculist".

Or have I gotten the masculine/feminine and male/female thing wrong? That male has a portion of femininity and female has a chunk(or hunk?!) or masculinity in them? Or some other thing?

I guess this doesn't really fit into this thread anymore... maybe there'll be a new thread about it soon...

PS: I hope my low self esteem didn't show. :cool.

[Angela]

Well, I think you're divine. I'll look out for your new thread.

[Michael Chui]

I was going to wait to post this in the new thread, but knowing me, I'll forget to check in half an hour and I'll miss it when it does appear. So I'll just fire off this link now and give you some brief context.

Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Archetypes

The webpage is an extraordinary overview of, you guessed it, gender stereotypes and sexual archetypes. Huzzah. But the sheer volume of information it provides, and the depth to which it dares explore every detail is impressive by itself.

The key, in my opinion, is mystery. The female is mysterious, the divine is mysterious; therefore they were connected. But I've been called on that before, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Erki]

Angela: I'm flattered. Yes I look forward to that thread as well... I only don't know when I'll compose it, I have to get my thoughts on the screen somehow but I don't know how...it might take some time.

Michael: Not that looks massive...I take my shovel and go digging then...

[RallyMcnally]

I'm gay. Anyway I think your just attracted to what your attracted too.
Why do people need to classify and judge things over & over again.

I'm sure if we all look within without judgement, we'll find that we all have been attracted to our same sex in a sexual way at some time in our life. It's normal. It's ok. Jeewiz!

Sex is good. Sex is great. Thank God for sex and it's many ways of having it. =)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by RallyMcnally

I'm sure if we all look within without judgement, we'll find that we all have been attracted to our same sex in a sexual way at some time in our life.

I would actually be interested in a scientific study confirming that homosexual attraction exists in a majority of the population. The problem is that I don't know how to operationalize "sexual attraction" in an acceptable way.

[The David]

I've never really figured out if that's true or not. It's not necessarily possible to figure out.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by The David

I've never really figured out if that's true or not. It's not necessarily possible to figure out.

It might be. They might be more willing to work on it in Germany or somethin'.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

One of the theories that seems rather likely about the origin of homosexuality is that it is (maybe among other causes) caused by hormone levels in the blood of the mother already experienced by the foetus. This then would cause certain parts of the brain to develop in a female-like way in male embryos, thereby causing homosexuality. If this indeed turns out to be the case, then going about this in a psychotherapeutical way seems rather silly, really. No definitive conclusions have been reached on this, though.

Hey, Chris, I don't know if you are still looking at this thread as you posted a while ago, but I was wondering if you have a source for that. I would really like to read more about it. Thanks.

[palimpsest]

If, during the early stages of pregnancy, testosterone is suppressed in the fetus of the male, the chance of giving birth to a gay boy dramatically increases because it is the female hormones that configure the brain... in simple terms, there are two main centers associated with homosexual behavior, the "mating" and "behavior" center. The "mating" center is located in the hypothalamus and decides which sex we will be attracted to. In males, it needs to be dosed in male hormones so that a man will be attracted to a woman. If it receives insufficient male hormones it will remain, to a greater or lesser extent, female in operation, so the man will be attracted to other men. The behavior center in the brain may not, however.

- Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps by Barbara and Allan Pease

The above publication has been criticized for its oversimplification, but it does give a general overview of some pretty interesting findings.

Also some articles that suggest some mothers' bodies develop a resistance to masculine proteins.

I could've sworn Diane Ackerman also had something on it, but I can't find it anywhere in An Alchemy of Mind and I think her Natural History of Love only concentrated on the cultural impact of homosexuality rather than the hormones.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Thanks, palimpsest. I will take a look at those.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by SenorKaffee

And don´t forget that there are A LOT of humans on this planet. Mankind is not likely to become extinct because of homosexuality, even if it would be the sexual orientation of the majority.

The perspective is a little cold, but in theory the continuation of our species could be completely based on artificial insemination - completely seperated from sexual intercourse.

I think all kinds of people have kids and that includes people who have determined that their sexual orientation is homosexual in nature. I remember some very visible and public people who are "out" and parents.

Whether people make babies through personal contact, artificial insemination or adopt children there is within many of us the imperative to nurture children. I think human extinction will not occur because of same sex relationships.

[palimpsest]

Originally Posted by Gene

I think all kinds of people have kids and that includes people who have determined that their sexual orientation is homosexual in nature. I remember some very visible and public people who are "out" and parents.

Whether people make babies through personal contact, artificial insemination or adopt children there is within many of us the imperative to nurture children. I think human extinction will not occur because of same sex relationships.

I think the "man and woman ONLY can make and raise kids" argument is just a case of inferring a social should from a biological is, which saves us from thinking. Say, homosexuality is unnecessary (doesn't produce children) and therefore is unnatural in the way of meaning aberrant. Because the rest of us heterosexuals eat our meat raw and sleep in a tree.

You're right, though, all kinds of people have kids -- and that includes abusive fosters, drug-addicted teenagers, pedophiles, sweat-shop factory owners... or simply people who can't make ends meet financially to keep up the baseline for their own quality of life let alone a dependent, or an occasionally violent and temperamental or easily stressed person who yet forms strong emotional attachment and investment to their child, or parents so concerned that their child behaves properly (like a pet) that they never really care to know their child at all. These people can be of any sexual orientation, at any point in the spectrum of the nurture-torture imperative. But people are complicated, and labelling homosexuals as unfit to be parents is simple and saves us from getting the point of love. Really, how ever will society transcend?

I heard someone say once that homosexual and interracial relationships were so beautiful: that's what love is really about -- seeing the person inside, not out.
And I said, uhh... no. Not necessarily. Sex and race are still things shown outside the body. Heterosexual same-race couples could have just as much transcendental love as any other people, can't they? Each person is unique in their own respects -- why do we keep seeking generalizations like this?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by palimpsest

Each person is unique in their own respects -- why do we keep seeking generalizations like this?

Because, it seems to work. If I read a page of a book, I can generalize that the book itself is bad. It may be, it may not be, but after that one page, I can guess and decide whether or not to waste my time on a probably bad book.

But if you want people to understand love, teach it to them without examples, make sure they understand the abstract notion, and then ask them to find it in the real world. They'll be able to see it, then.