homosexuality probably has something to offer to imperial societies for their perpetuation. but i question the desirability of imperial societies at large.

And there’s also the question of how do you know the intention was good in the first place…

I think that’s a fine point as well. It’s perfectly easy to convince yourself that you have nothing but good intentions when you’re secretly operating from a place that is utterly self-centered. You may not even realize it until much later or until someone else points it out to you.

despite having good intentions, bad things can happen

And there’s also the question of how do you know the intention was good in the first place…

I don’t know the full implications of any of my actions, but if my intention is pure in my co-creation activities I believe the greater repercussions are the responsibility of the god(desse)s — so I build my works on an underlying assumption of sincerity/compassion/being open to accepting without being tied to the particularity of an outcome that might involve problematic generation.

I think this is a good point. But I also think the whole point of spiritual awareness is to develop a very wide and long view of the consequences of our actions.

A good leader (or policymaker) should be able to assess the collective good and write policy/laws that reflect that wisdom. Such laws may at times contradict the liberal approach that allows anything with “good intentions”. Of course, there are plenty of poor leaders, or worse, selfish evil ones. Consequently there is often no resolution as to whether a particular controversial act is “good” or “evil”.

This is a very messy endeavor. There are no easy answers

Though I don’t totally agree with it, I think it’s interesting that Scientology is one of the few alternative religions which addresses this directly and sets up a hierarchy to judge action by:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/06/08/the-8-dynamics-of-scientology/

I prefer to respect all people and realize that, if they have a stupid belief, there’s probably a good reason for it (childhood trauma, poor perspective, etc.).

Or how about this: I respect all beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I won’t ridicule some, detest others, and argue against a few with fiery rhetoric.

I can respect someone that hates someone based on religion, color, etc as long as they can keep their opinions to themselves. Once their beliefs goes into the realm of causing physcial or mental harm to another person, then I will cease to respect that person, and also stand up for the person under attack.

So what you’re saying is that you can respect anyone as long as they keep quiet? Aren’t you really causing “mental harm” yourself by advocating that people not express themselves?

PS. Slomo, there are all kinds of really good topics for discussion there. It might be interesting to branch these issues of homosexuality out into a discussion all on its own. Toward that end, here’s a link for people who want to discuss that topic on it’s own.

While it sounds very simple in that context, what constitutes “harm” to another is an extremely thorny topic, beyond even just not respecting somebody’s beliefs, as described above. To me, it seems like a lot of these New Religious Movements insistence on “harming none” is well-intentioned, but ultimately not an adequate standard for human action. I’ve never seen any of these groups delve really deeply into the intricacies of this topic, or give much more guidelines or advice than simply avoiding harm. Real life consists of a million shades of grey around such things.

Absolutely. And the only spiritually honest approach is to admit that there are a million shades of grey.

I used to believe that anything was OK “so long as it harms no other”. But it is possible to cause harm indirectly by participating in a collective activity that is, in the long run, harmful. For example, driving a gas guzzling SUV seems like it really isn’t harming anybody, and in a direct sense it isn’t. However, SUV’s make the road less safe for smaller cars. More importantly, they use up more gasoline, therefore depleting oil more quickly, leading to greater dependence on foreign oil supplies (therefore leading to war). This isn’t to pick on SUV drivers — somebody could issue the same criticism about my ridiculously long showers — I’m just trying to point out that behaviors have harmful consequences that we don’t always consider.

On the issue of homosexuality, there is something that bothers me about it that I have never heard directly addressed. And, in full disclosure here, I’m gay. The fact is that widescale acceptance of homosexuality cannot exist except in imperial civilizations. The reason is that, when human beings are struggling for survival, “alternative” family structures are a luxury and run counter to the collective project of survival. Only when survival is taken for granted (usually at the expense of others far away) can alternatives be supported. I’m painting with a broad brushstroke here, I am fully aware that there are some tribal cultures (not very many) that have accepted homosexuality. It’s not that homosexuality is wrong in-and-of-itself. But it is perhaps a symptom of empire, which I think some of your readers would view as ultimately destructive. If biblical stories are to be believed and trusted, the problem with Sodom (and with the corrupt Roman culture that Paul rails against) has more to do with empire, a symptom of which is homosexuality.

My personal view is that there can be a place for gay people, but our roles need to be understood in terms of our benefit to the survival of our communities, the unique gifts that we bring to the table. I don’t think it makes sense to argue that we have an intrinsic right to exist, because really (in absence of a beneficial role) that right is contingent upon a whole host of other factors, many of which are negative.