Religion, Queer Theology, and Conscious Celibacy
Why do religions look down on homosexuality at all? And why brahmacharya is important.
So the whole reason I’m writing this is that I ran across an article this morning about queer theology. I have a lot to say on this subject that won’t fit the side of either narrative, and since what I have to say is lengthy, I’m breaking my thoughts up into separate posts. Today, let’s look at the issue of sexuality and religion.
If you’re going to be honest with yourself, you cannot blame the LGBTQ+ movement for being pissed off at religion. Despite the teachings of Jesus to love everybody, for too long, Christians did not practice what they preached, especially when it came to people who stepped out of the bounds of so-called moral sexuality.
Given the disdain, hatred, and sometimes outright abuse, it’s no wonder that LGBTQ+ people abandoned the church and many turned their backs on God. Many of these folks are returning to church, and remaking it in their own image.
I don’t think this is necessarily all bad, because I believe many queer people are genuinely seeking God, and simply trying to seek God in a way that feels comfortable to them. However, there does seem to be a somewhat vocal contingent that is not necessarily returning to church in good faith, but instead there to dismantle and destroy the church that previously offended them.
Given the politics currently surrounding the LGBTQ+ movement, the issue of queering up the church is going to be extremely volatile and not very popular in many circles. Indeed, it may be difficult to completely distinguish the political aim to destroy what is seen as a homophobic and transphobic church from a genuine reaching out to God.
Some of you reading this might say that the church deserves to be destroyed: It’s been patriarchal and homophobic and an oppressive force in the minds of many. I don’t think the world is better off without traditional churches, and there’s room enough for nontraditional churches. But is queer theology a viable way forward? I will explain this further in future posts.
Why do religions look down on homosexuality at all? I found this video from an Islamic teacher that explained the Islamic view on Pride month. I felt it was a fairly thoughtful presentation that did not attempt to blanket condemn people who were stepping outside of heteronormativity. He even calls out the Muslims who have behaved in less than loving ways towards gay people. But the ultimate argument comes down to the idea that God made us male and female, and the sexual act is supposed to be limited to that union.
Let’s back up a sec. So even if God supposedly prefers straight sex, why do people have such a strong reaction to homosexuality?
I actually think there’s an evolutionary component that most people miss. If we’re driven by evolution to procreate and pass our genes down, those people who are successful at passing their genes down are the ones who are more likely to have offspring. That means the people with the strongest heterosexual drives are going to be the ones that have more children. As such, homosexuality would be a “regressive” gene (I don’t mean a negative value judgment here).
In periods of famine or war or other hardship, when children would often die before they grew up, having the most children would probably be seen as the biggest virtue. Therefore, any sexual activity that did not produce children would have been looked down upon as a waste of energy and time. For the survival of the tribe, I can see why heterosexual sex would have been promoted within a stable partnership in order to provide the best success for the children and the tribe as a whole.
In other words, I believe there is probably an evolutionary and survival reason as to why people have made rules against homosexuality. And that this is a human ideal that’s being projected on God vs. the other way around.
Now that we live in a world where overpopulation is a threat, the need for everyone to use their sexual energies to procreate is a lot less than it used to be. It could be argued that it is therefore evolutionarily advantageous to have non-heterosexual relationships.
I know some of my readers might say, Well, the powers that be are actually promoting LGBTQ+ because they want to depopulate the planet. I’m not talking about conspiracies, I’m simply saying that when there’s a certain amount of people and abundance, perhaps the evolutionary drive to procreate is tempered with a natural drive to pull the population back a little bit.
As such, I don’t personally feel that non-straight relationships are an inherent affront to God as some religious people might suggest. And in reality, if you truly read the rules in the Bible (and probably the Quran too), it’s not just gay relationships that are condemned but “fornication,” or any sex outside of marriage, including straight sex.
Sexual Restraint as a Virtue
Sexual restraint is a hallmark of almost all historical religious and spiritual traditions and for good reason. However, in modern times, we have so gotten obsessed with sex that we bristle at any idea of sexual restriction.
In the yogic tradition, the ideal of celibacy is called brahmacharya, but because Western people can’t handle celibacy, most yogis will rewrite the definition to suit their desires instead of understanding why celibacy can be helpful. Here’s how Sadhguru redefines brahmacharya:
In that sense, everyone should become a brahmachari – not necessarily in terms of lifestyle, but internally. Everyone should be on the path of the divine. Brahmacharya does not just mean celibacy. That is just one of the aspects that have been taken up as a supportive system. To become a brahmachari means you are ecstatic by your own nature. You can be married and still be a brahmachari. It is possible because you are joyful by your own nature instead of trying to extract joy from your husband or wife. This is how it should be. The whole world should be brahmacharis. Everyone should be joyful by their own nature. If two people come together, it should be a sharing of joy, not extraction of joy from each other.
But celibacy and sexual restraint have their advantages. Napoleon Hill tells in his famous book Think and Grow Rich:
Those who succeed in an outstanding way seldom do so before the age of 40. More often, they do not strike their real pace until they are well beyond the age of 50.
The reason? Young men are too obsessed with sex.
I have found that my most productive years spiritually and professionally are the ones where I have not been distracted or had my energy disrupted by sexual encounters with men, especially in noncommitted relationships.
Focusing on sex distracts you from higher pursuits, period.
It’s also energetically problematic.
Speaking from experience, the reason why you don’t want to be promiscuous is not because of some sort of made-up chastity ideal, but because when you have sex you are exchanging energies. Since most people aren’t very spiritually evolved, you can pick up a lot of crappy energy by sleeping around. You are most certainly going to pick up on some negative energy if you join in on an orgy. Pornography? Also negative energy.
Being hyper-focused on sex is not good for anyone, gay or straight. And if the church (or the mosque) was to be truly consistent on this issue, religious leaders would be calling for more conscious celibacy among everyone who was not married.
Conscious celibacy = the conserving of your sexual energies for creative and spiritual pursuits instead of wasting the energy on cheap one-night stands or temporary relationships not based in love.
The idea of conscious celibacy is not about pointing the finger at people of certain orientations but simply encouraging a different way to look at sexual energy and energetic integrity.
Thus, any theology that is actively promoting or pushing wanton sex, whether gay or straight, is missing the mark. The idea of a “queer theology” is still putting too much emphasis on sex, not God, and ultimately, the aim of all genuine spiritual traditions is to let go of our ego attachments and fleeing physical pleasures to achieve mystical union with God.
That’s all for now, and I’ll try to continue this soon in another article.
I don’t think the world is overpopulated, just a lack of Will to distribute food appropriately.
I am a God guy. No monk. I believe everyone has a path and a higher blueprint of their best operating aware self. Which makes sex sacred.
I don’t care what happens in the bedroom, but leave the young kids alone. I find it extremely in
Decadence that the letter community thinks it’s ok to push their sexual preferences down adults and children’s throats.
Fine form your churches. Your own state.
But stop demanding special privileges bc you are offended by the conventional accepted Christian
Ethos. Heterosexuals are batting 50% in their marriages, not a great batting average.
Until the letter agency’s can represent themselves in a more diplomatic manner, they are going to get
Pushbacks.
I worked with gay men, had the best neighbors that were living as gay men do. They are sophisticated and genteel.
As far as being offended or threatened the letter community the loudest ones get only disdain.
Same for the climate terrorist. Same as the racist who call themselves social warriors. And since this is mostly about distracting people to take their eyes off a country being sold piece by piece, I’d say that I don’t care about your sexuality. We have a country to save. Having men say they identify as woman and compete as such is way beyond acceptable.
If you want a sex change, pay for it yourself. If you identify as gay trans freak guess what your not the only confused people trying to find where you belong in a dis functional culture.
Sex is sacred. Sex between consulting adults.
Does give room for decadent promiscuity or pedophilia.
Since the vaxxines now have left young people sterile, many won’t get a chance to discover their
Having children. A forced neutered without consent.
Sex is a natural driving force that needs boundaries and respect.
“Perhaps the evolutionary drive to procreate is tempered with a natural drive to pull the population back a little bit”: hard to see how there is a difference between the idea of evolutionary drive and a natural drive. Most would say these are one and the same. If you mean a rational drive then that would override an evolutionary one. But overall, think looking at the post-modern ideas of essence vs existence and the priority they give to existence over essence, vs the church that gives priority to our essence (and Gods) over one’s will helps identify causes for the ideas you are grappling with. Things like dismantling power structures arise from Sartre and Foucault, and we would all do well to understand how they created the cultural waters we swim in.