LGB ErasureReplying to "the assertions of T are the same as those of LGB"

submitted by dilsencySame-sex community from reddit.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

More the logic. Their fundamental idea is that internal feelings do not necessarily agree with external circumstances. This seems obvious but most people are not used to applying the principle in daily life (and in fact, in my experience, it has taken more than a decade of a serious meditation practice to understand what application means). They are defining the "sexual act" in purely animal terms of reproduction/procreation, and thus homosexual sexual encounters are by definition not "sex acts", they are something else. This person proposes that they are some kind of confusion of disordered sexual attraction (this is a Roman Catholic idea that I am inferring based on several contextual clues) with actual procreation. In terms of the definitions they are using this is accurate -- it would be profoundly detached from reality to see what gay people do in bed as something that is procreative in a strict biological sense.

I also see where they are coming from, from a more fundamental spiritual perspective, but this gets into a realm of "shared experience" that not everybody has: the symbolic meaning of actions. Homosexual sex does not "make sense" at this level in the way that procreative heterosexual sex does. Thus, the person is arguing that the LGB position may be similarly detached from this layer of reality in a way that is similar to the T position, although the latter is much more blatant. However, if this layer of reality is not meaningful to you, i.e. you've never experienced it, then it this sounds like nonsense. I'm personally OK with the idea that homosexuality is, in this logical sense, "disordered". But keep in mind that in this imperfect realm of existence, every human being is disordered, i.e. imperfect, in some way. Part of spirituality is accepting this about yourself and others.

My childhood religious background is a mix of Roman Catholicism and Buddhism. As an adult I lie somewhere in a space between Buddhism, Western Occult practices, and Roman Catholicism. At a deep level they all point in the same direction, but of course if you want any kind of community experience of spirituality (in the West) it is most expedient to stick to the Christian "forms".

I'm happily partnered to another man, in the legal sense (although I see why people would object to the term "marriage" for some of the reasons mentioned above), and have made my peace with the fact that I am unable to live a heterosexual life. But I understand the perspective of others that don't view my life as "spiritually complete". Again, everybody is spiritually incomplete in some way.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I totally agree with this. This is the difference between not acknowledging the facts vs not agreeing with the meaning ascribed to the facts.

Part of being at peace with being homosexual or being homosexually-paired is acknowledging the facts of what that means and the factual circumstances that flow from that. By definition, none of our sexual activity can create life. We will never be able to have biological kids together that share both our genetic lines. What would it mean to accept oneself as gay and not accept those things as true? If a Bible thumper were to say those things to us, we don’t respond “No, that’s not true” and go into an existential crisis. It’s healthy to acknowledge the ways we are different from heterosexual or heterosexually-paired people.

It doesn’t mean we cannot experience love between one another and have meaningful relationships and healthy, happy, and meaningful sex lives. It doesn’t mean we can’t create our own families in a different way that end up looking substantially similar to heterosexually-paired families, if that’s what we want.

But if deriving meaning from our lives relied on denying any and all differences between us and heterosexual people, well that would be unhealthy. There are actually some LGB people who think that way and that’s a commitment to a lifelong struggle with reality not unlike that of TQ.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I reached out to the Catholic person and linked to this thread, just to make sure I was characterizing their position correctly. They confirmed that I represented it fairly. They pointed out that their intention was not to criticize LGB so much as to point out that the logic is the same between LGB and T (it's a shame that they were downvoted so aggressively but reddit be reddit). I agree up to a point, but if it is similar "in kind" it is not nearly the same "in degree". In any case, we all have what I like to call "private reality" and these can differ substantially from person to person (even between spouses). What matters here is what I call, in contrast, "public reality": what are the rules by which we are going to live so that we can live together in relative peace? The problem with T+ (at least their most outspoken advocates) is their insistence that the rules must change to accommodate them, and not just rules at the margins (e.g. who you can put on a marriage certificate) but core rules around language, sexual agency, protection of children and their development, etc.

But, yes, I agree with what you write above. My partnership isn't about procreation, it is about the embodiment of male friendship on a deep level. I understand that, and I don't need to make it something else. I might have wanted to experience the family/procreation archetype, but that wasn't open to me in this lifetime and anyway we can't experience everything in a single life.

It was great having this exchange! Happy Holidays to you!

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I really appreciate your comments in this thread. Religious LGB perspectives are illuminating and unfortunately rare. That said, I don't see how "the logic is the same between LGB and T". In an earlier comment you said

In terms of the definitions they are using this is accurate -- it would be profoundly detached from reality to see what gay people do in bed as something that is procreative in a strict biological sense.

but I have never heard a gay person claim such. Does this essentially boil down to an objection to the use of the words "marriage" and "sex" to describe anything other than heterosexual marriage and PIV intercourse (because if so, I get that) or is there something deeper I'm missing here?

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Does this essentially boil down to an objection to the use of the words "marriage" and "sex" to describe anything other than heterosexual marriage and PIV intercourse (because if so, I get that) or is there something deeper I'm missing here?

It's pretty much about definitions and the logic that flows from them. If you see sex as solely a procreative act, then what gay people do is not sex. If you see marriage as a partnership (or sacrament) between a man and a woman for the purposes of raising a family (almost always in the straightforward biological manner) then same-sex partnerships are not marriage. I can appreciate spiritual perspectives that would dictate such definitions (I don't necessarily want to go into them here in detail but they would be based on an archetypal realm of reality). Whether I agree with these definitions and perspectives is irrelevant, there are people in the world who do and their perspective matters. As does the perspective of people who disagree. The larger point is that we all have to get along with each other and so we should seek rules, agreements, and understandings that allow us to do so without infringing too much on others' rights.

So, for example, let me have my civil union, "marriage", or whatever, with my same-sex partner, with appropriate tax, power-of-attorney, and inheritance benefits (since they don't impact you at all), and in return I will refrain from insisting that the partnership is a "marriage" by the standards of your religion, and I will respect your desire not to be involved in the ceremonies, celebrations, etc. TRAs don't do that: they're in everybody's face, all the time, with no respect for the feelings of others.

[–]soundsituationI myself was once a gay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I definitely agree that what matters in a practical sense is tolerance and legal equality, and that trans activism is an authoritarian project while gay activism is a broadly liberal one.