Reconciliation with religion?

I recently saw a request in an internet queer group asking for resources to 'reconcile' religions views with homosexuality/queer lifestyle.

Here's what I wrote back:

I am not sure if I would be contributing in any useful way to your project but after having read a lot on various religions, I have come to the one inescapable conclusion - no religion is broad minded enough to accept gay rights;

In fact, the only religion, as far as I can tell, that acknowledges that there could be something natural in same sex preference is Jainism.

Cleary Hindu scriptures, the Bible and the Koran are homophobic. Inspite of some ambigious stories, the bulk opinion -atleast in the hindu dharma shastras is against gay sex. From the story in Bhagavatha purana where asuras had homosexual impulse to rape their father God Brahma (which is strangely mirrored in the biblical tale of Noah's son but which also adds racism to it!) to the dharmashastras where sex with a man is considered one of the 'Jati bhramshakara' sins('expulsion from ones caste'), it is futile to search for some support in religion for gay rights.

I became an atheist purely by in depth study of Hindu scriptures and later moved on to read other religious texts including those of jainism and Buddhism in their original Pali/ardhamagadhi.

I would have become an atheist even if I had not been gay - merely by reading the morally repugnant stuff that religious texts are made up of..

Truly, there is no need to 'reconcile' religious views as they are unanimous in being homophobic.

Theravada buddhist Pali canon is the exception but even there, the traditional commentators make it clear that they are against homosexuality.

As I said earlier, in Jainism, the acknowledgement(NOT accceptance) of various sexual preferences rose due to historical reasons within the comunity of monks.
It starts from the divide of Jains into Swetambara(wearing white clothes) and Digambara(Naked monks) sects.
Digambaras refused to accept Swetambaras as full monks and said moksha can be attained only by practicing nudity.
Incidentally , since both digambaras and swetambaras did not allow women(nuns) to be nude, digambaras also held that women could not attain moksha.

This being the state of affairs, the swetambara monks strove to show that women can attain moksha. This they did grudgingly onnly because they could then maintain that they(white clad monks) could also attain moksha.

In the only text accepted by both sects called 'tattvarta sutra' by Umaswati - there is a mention that irrespective of 'linga/gender' one could become a liberated being.

The Digambaras, to hold on to their doctrine, intepreted it to mean only mental gender and not physical gender. I don't want to go into the details of the arguments on both sides but suffice to say that both sects accepted this division of having both a mental and a physical gender.

Thus a dravya purusha(physical man) can be a bhava stri (mental woman) ie experience sexual attraction towards a man.
Similarly there is also drvya stri, dravya napumsaka(transgendered) and bhava purusha, bhava napumsaka(attraction to both sexes).

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft138nb0wk&chunk.id=d0e7289&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e7289&brand=ucpress

Refer link for more details.

--------

I just want to stress that most religious texts, if not all, are bigoted, narrow-minded and written by people who had no clue about scientific method.

It is counter-productive to search for support of gay rights or any sort of individual's right from religious books.
What is needed is an appeal to evidence, common sense and empathy.

The very recognition of something called individual's rights - let alone gay or womens rights - came about only in the Age of Enlightenment (late 17th and 18th century), the first full fledged expression of which was probably the french declaration of rights. (The US declaration of independence which came before had "God" although probably a deistic one, referred to in it).

------
Rgs/

Glorification of women or of women's bondage?

I recently came across a passage maquarading as something that glorifies women. It was being shared in facebook and couldnt help but comment it. Sharing both the passage and my comments here:

"A little boy asked his mother, "Why are you crying?" "Because I'm a woman," she told him. "I don't understand," he said. His Mom just hugged him and said, "And you never will." "All women cry for no reason," was all his dad could say. The little boy grew up and became a man, still wondering why women cry. Finally he put in a call to God. When God got on the phone, he asked, "God, why do women cry so easily?" God said: "When I made the woman she had to be special. I made her shoulders strong enough to carry the weight of the world, yet gentle enough to give comfort. I gave her an inner strength to endure childbirth and the rejection that many times comes from her children. I gave her a hardness that allows her to keep going when everyone else gives up, and take care of her family through sickness and fatigue without complaining. I gave her the sensitivity to love her children under any and all circumstances, even when her child has hurt her very badly. I gave her strength to carry her man through his faults and fashioned her from his rib to protect his heart. I gave her wisdom to know that a good man never hurts his woman, but sometimes tests her strengths and her resolve to stand beside him unfalteringly. And finally, I gave her a tear to shed. This is hers exclusively to use whenever it is needed." "You see my son," said God, "the beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman must be seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart - the place where Love resides." ♥♥♥..

Sadly,even women seemed to like this post. But here is the comment I sent thru my mobile phone. I couldnt wait till I had access to my laptop.

"Hi, though on d first glance this appears very nice n friendly to women, it is actually not - in my opinion. Unfortunately or otherwise, i am a hard core feminist and am constantly trying to deconstruct such statements n reading the...ir subtext.
1."when i made ....special". This is a typical patronising male chauvinistic view. Women dont hve to b special. They are equals and shud b treated as such. 

2.' Weight of d world'. There is no reason why women shud carry d weight of d world alone. The weight shud b shared equally between men n women. Also note that by 'world' only family responsibility is meant. If the author meant otherwise, there is no reason why women are singled out to bear d burden. Ofcourse, family responsibilies are also to b shared n not borne by women with 'strong shoulders'!

3. 'Inner strength ... child birth'. This stmt is wrong at so many levels. There is an underlying assumption that is characteristic of all religious minds - in this case, christian, that by ' women', what is meant is a mother. But a woman can choose not to marry, if married- not to bear children, if wanting children, she need not give birth but adopt or use a surrogate mother. This would not make them any less of a woman. The fact that women hve to bear a painful child birth process is an accident of evolution. The day will come when children could be grown externally in vestibules without women having to bear or suffer. This is what science shud strive for.

4.' Hardness ... everyone else gives up'. This stmt is positively anti female. Note that ' leveryone else' means only men because women are excluded by context. So what the sentence actually says is that- women shud not give up even if men do. So in a relatioship, it is the woman who shud keep struggling to keep the relationship running even if the man gives up. Thats why god gave women 'hardness' - whatever that means. This is betrayed by the sentence which follows' carry her man thru his faults'. What appalling sexist nonsense!

5.'frm his ribs to protect his heart'. This is a ref to biblical story that eve was creatd frm adams rib. What d sentence means is that god created the man first. The woman, only for his sake!

6. I am burning with rage when commenting on d next stmt.'wisdom...unfalteringly'. So when a 'good man' cheats or beats a woman up, he is testing her strength, right? Her unfaltering ability to put up with crap as god ordained. 

Enough said, i could go on but am typing this frm my mobile n my thumb is in pain as is my heart".