Theos-Talk Archives (July 2000 Message tt00033)

In a message dated 07/13/00 10:50:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net 
writes:

<< Homosexuality refers to a physiological and an emotional
 (personal) condition which has nothing to do with the progress
 and existence of the REAL SPIRITUAL SOUL OF MAN or WOMAN.  The
 SPIRITUAL-SOUL  (Buddhi-Manas) is SEXLESS as is the ATMAN.  Only
 the personality has a "sex" at this cycle of our evolution.  Are
 we "in control?" or, are we not ? >>

Just so I am clear Dal. When you say physiological, do you mean as in: 
GENETICS/DNA phisiological? Are you saying that at the physical plane level, 
you believe homosexual behavior is not a learned sexual activity but rather, 
an inherent built in of characteristic? This point is at the root of so many 
modern dialogs regarding this subject.  I think it is imoportant that we all 
understand what we mean when we use certain terms.

<< Are we "in control?" or, are we not ? >>

Should we be in control? Control of what? Indeed, CAN we be in control of 
whatever is part of our genetic makeup?

<<What ought to be determined is the REASON WHY homosexuality is
attractive or repulsive to people.  What are the reasons for
sexual activity?  What duties relate to any family?  And,
especially to children?>>

I tried to pose the same thoughts, in different words perhaps, but got 
nowhere. I will be very interested to read the responses to the way you have 
phrased this vital question.

Louis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 7:39 AM
To: Thoesophy Activists List
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & Theosophy

Teos9@aol.com wrote:
> Just so I am clear on the implications of this quote. Do I
understand then,
> that beyond personal ethical choices, there is no such thing as
a cosmic or
> universal ethical and moral bias? A bias which is associated
with and
> resonant of evolutionary intent. And the violation of which,
carries no
> Karmic consequence so long as ones ethical judgments are pure
at the personal
> level.  Is this what we are suggesting that the first object
should mean?

        I believe that there certainly is  "cosmic or universal
ethical and
moral bias". I also believe that:

a) Many decisions we make, because of mistakes we have made
leading up
to making these decisions, requires that we violate this to some
degree
b) Not being omniscient, we cannot tell for sure how to minimize
the
violation, and therefore
c) We must do the best we can and,
d) What Blavatsky calls "The Secret Doctrine" (not the book of
that
name, which is a book ABOUT the Secret Doctrine) contains the
information needed to make the decisions.

        Bart Lidofsky



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.