Homosexuality & Aspects for it

Ok, Claire and Ebenia,

I seriously doubt that you can see gender preferences in a chart....

I know people who cant categorize themselves...(me too at times)...why would you be able? You could categorize with the bisexuality cop out, or you could understand the changing nature of a persons sexual nature throughout life, and probably every humans latent bisexuality anyway, and realize that the labels are the problem here....thats why you cant see homosexuality in a chart......or heterosexuality either.....

I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, aren't I ? .................

Looking to Jupiter,

Thank you for that excellent post!

planetmotion said:

What is really interesting however is how this subject has fired up so many different responses and emotions – proving how sexuality belongs in the 8th house of taboos.

Click to expand...

That's strike one.

Nonetheless, I shall tread carefully upon these metaphoric eggshells, and note how all three charts that Modcleopatra put up all show the configurations that I mentioned:

Click to expand...

Then have I got a treat for you.

On another note...

Apart from having had the supreme good fortune to be taught astrology by a gay man, Howard Sasportas, I can and do empathise when dealing with such strong taboo issues...

Click to expand...

Say no more...

The girl with square to saturn has a GREAT relationship with her father. A few spats but she was always his favorite child and they do scientific research together. Besides, we were looking at uranus-venus-mars aspects. No one said aaaanything about saturn.

But here is my sister's chart. She's straight.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid=3wbfilefgrr1L-u1108330500&lang=e&gm=a1&nhor=28936578&nho2=860505&btyp=2&mth=gw&sday=20&smon=7&syr=2008&hsy=-1&zod=&orbp=&rs=0&ano=1&ast=

Ouch Kai using our threads for a blog.... Kind of using some of my post to put in your thread to disregard my points. I am non too happy my posts are used this way. Don't know how other forum members feel.

And to be fair no one puts up tests for your astrological theories, I know you are trying to prove a point but you need more than two charts to do it in my opinion. Tests usually need a larger data.

I'm actually just starting to think this whole thing is ridiculous. I was saying a lot before but now that I see that everyone is so bent on proving that homosexuality can be in the chart and being someone who is a "homosexual" (that term is ridiculous and awful) it's just painful either way. I feel like I'm being pried apart. No one asks why someone is straight. Why is being gay SO WRONG or SO MYSTERIOUS? It sickens me and saddens me from very deep within. Vomit and tears are not a nice mix.

I'll stop posting about this because I don't think anyone is really listening to me or considering how hurtful this whole post is. The science of sex is a sensitive issue, and astrology is not exempt from that. Does anyone realize we are discussing people with feelings here? An insect has "tendencies" a human being has feelings.

Well anyway, have a nice day all.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Ray, I meant nothing so underhanded. People write about what other people say all the time, and sometime's it's used in much more devious ways than that. Also, to be fair, I mentioned Aquarius's mythology before anyone else did. Unless this isn't what you meant? I took people's points and commented on them. I see no wrong in this as I and everyone else does this every single day.

And to be fair no one puts up tests for your astrological theories

Click to expand...

Well why don't they? It seems statistics and all that is the only way things get taken seriously here. I think it's a fantastic idea. Also, I don't see you berating Modcleopatra for putting up links to her friends' charts. I fail to see the differance in what she did compared to what I did.

I know you are trying to prove a point but you need more than two charts to do it in my opinion. Tests usually need a larger data.

Click to expand...

This is definately true, however, again, there's no differance in what I did and what Modcleopatra did, however I'm the one getting in trouble for it. All she did was offer one chart more than I did (and if you wanted to get technical, I actually offered four). Tests do need larger data, but apparently these tests have already been conducted as there are reportedly ways to see these conditions in a natal chart. I'm just requesting the application.

Shining Ray said:

Ouch Kai using our threads for a blog.... Kind of using some of my post to put in your thread to disregard my points. I am non too happy my posts are used this way. Don't know how other forum members feel.

Click to expand...

Agree!! I mailed with this ex-member in this forum. The person left because of it. I don't use the persons words because of the censor...

Let's just say he/she did'nt liked it./JJ

Im listening modcleopatra......

Look you just have to realize that some people are gonna think they know everything.....doesnt matter what the subject is......people will make opinions without hearing a word that anyone else says....and be convinced they're right
who cares what others say....really......you know in your heart what is right, and if people wanna convince themselves that they can see homosexuality in a chart then let em.....hopefully one day they will embarrass themselves enough to learn.

Kai.....hehe......i guess we'll end up having a few astrological geniuses here

planetmotion said:

So, here I learnt that because astrology can be so revealing, one must be very careful about how much one exposes, for fear of offending or misleading, especially with the impressionable. In my own world, outside this forum which I rarely use unless I can or have the time to be helpful, or have burning question (which I did once), unless a client came to me personally, questioning a confused sexuality, I wouldn’t dream of bringing the subject up. Here we are faced once again with issue of the ethics, and that must be opened up to another 8th house issue, that of trust.

Click to expand...

That is my main concern: ethics. Granted, this problem is not just linked to this discussion but just about everything. Some will always use astrology as a power trip, and they will do great damage.

I am also concerned about throwing out simplistic, pat answers in an environment where many people are learning the basics of astrology.

My concerns may or may not be valid here. If those who are reading this thread have come only to learn and are keeping an open mind, then there will be no foul. No damage. However, the rather extreme connection between the sign Aquarius and being gay has been a strong sub-theme of this thread, and I continue to believe that this is, at best, totally misleading.

Gaer

Ebenia said:

You must be new to astrology as mars does indicate our sexuality along with its aspects. Why would searching for a gay "gene" upset you? It is an anomaly and not normal however those who are gay or sympathetic may say that is. It affects maybe 10% of the population. I imagine you think that it is not something to be cured. Well perhaps you are right. Medically it can be explained by a lack of male hormone in the womb for men and too much for women. Why it happens??? I dont know. This is what the research is all about.

Click to expand...

Nope, been studying astrology vigorously for 5 years now and I believe I've accumulated the better part of a millenia worth of astrological theories, techniques and practices, which makes me confident in posting this: Mars is not the only sexual planet, let's not forget Venus, Pluto, the Sun and Moon to a lesser extent and the asteroids Vesta and Juno. You also have to consider the 5th, 7th and 8th houses and Black Moon Lilith.

I don't believe in the "gay gene". I think what a person finds sexually appealing or repulsive is a much more complex matter of their personal psychology (if you're not doing anything for a year I can explain some of my theories and observations to you!), though I'm not ruling out genetics entirely. I feel the "gay gene" search is another manifestation of homophobia.

That's an interesting theory, but hormones in the womb don't affect us long-term. Our physical body is determined at conception and in the womb, but the psyche and body chemistry change throughout a persons' life. When a baby boy is inside his mother this is one of three times his body will be exposed to puberty-level amounts of testosterone, but soon that wears off as the fetus develops and his body won't repeat this dosage of testerone until puberty and soon after sexual muturity (I'm getting this info from a PBS documentary on human sexual development I saw a few years back). How, then, do you biologically explain males who are homosexual through puberty when all that testosterone (or let's call it "Essence of Mars" or something for the sake of astrology) is charging through their bodies? You can't explain it this way, suggesting a gene determines a person's sexuality is as batty as saying a person is a criminal for having too lumpy of a head!

I'd just like to add that the most homosexual person I know had the cusp of his 5th house in Gemini. Good looking guy and all the women liked him.

That placement, for some reason just jumped out at me.

c

By coincidence, here is an article from the Beeb, called
“Why is John Barrowman gay?” in “The Making of Me”. Did anyone see this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7523567.stm

I don’t have a telly, but thought the programme timely regarding this rather emotive issue:

So I read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/07/25/nosplit/bvtv25last.xml

Which is quite revealing about Mr Barrowman if nothing else.

Here are birth details: John Barrowman born March 11 1967, Glasgow, Scotland. 4W15, 55N53

Unfortunately, I haven’t found a time. Nonetheless, Barrowman has Venus in Aries, while not conjunct it is in the same sign as Saturn, which in turn trines Mars in Scorpio. Venus is quincunx Pluto. These aspects therefore have the Venus-Saturn, Mars, Pluto Scorpio theme. Not to mention his dad dressed him in a bikini?! Hilarious...

If you’re still reading this thread, Modcleo, I omitted to thank you for sharing charts last weekend, so bless you for that. I realise to do so is such a big thing… But no one has, so far as I am aware, said exactly that homosexuality is wrong on this thread, nor been so judgemental. But sex, in whichever shape or form, has always had an element of mystery - straight or wiggly, that’s why there are mystery rites and other teachings that are so special (and in 8th house.)

Apart from all silly insinuations towards Aquarius/uranus, which, like gaer, I would be very careful about taking on board, what a lot of people appear to be getting hot under the collar about is how one can see such personal issues in the chart.

But if we can use astrology to find a lost cat, then surely we can also find the sometimes illusive spot that turns us on, or off, as the case may be? Why restrict astrology to the ordinary, when we beings are totally extraordinary. Or is that too personal once again? But hey, I have a loaded 8th house; so what is too personal for me might be way below the belt for someone else (pun intended).

The point is that, as astrologers, we learn the heavens will always reflect what is going on.

From the psychological viewpoint, a horoscope shows numerous complexities; to explain astrologically how someone has a propensity, if you have been told that the propensity is there, is surely a lot easier, especially with certain guidelines in place. Whereas reading a chart without any reference points is a lot more difficult, and an eventual astrological and/or psychological synthesis could take years (of therapy, study, and/or heartache).

Clair and ebinia Re: hormones in the womb, very interesting theory, but this, along with the pre-natal epoch, the Tibetan concept of conception, and gay gene, go into my ‘I really can’t say’ bag; but just because I don’t fully grasp the way everything works, it still fascinates, especially the pre-natal-epoch, by it accuracy. The problem with genes is that the person who has such and such a gene, may or may not even manifest said gene’s expression – which makes it tricky to be so clinical and ‘scientific’. The same goes for dna testing.

To share a personal story about just knowing about this gene: One of first boyfriends, whom I was at art school with during the 70’s (he was a life-long friend), died of the dreaded hiv (about the same time as Howard). My friend’s brother was also a then famous British actor; the newspapers went crazy and made everyone’s life a misery. The only way my friend’s mother could handle any of it was by knowing that Simon had this gene, which made him (bisexual, wonderful, creative, artistic, witty and generally amazing and daringly) gay. To this day, she still attributes this gene to his character. Would I contradict an old woman, now in her eighties, who finds solace in such concepts? No, I would not.

But here are his chart details, Simon: 20 December 1954, 8:00, Karachi, Pakistan 67E03,24N52

(Goodness, it’s been years since I looked at his chart. I hadn’t taken board before how my Venus sat on his descendant, which now makes so much sense! Perhaps even as to why I have allowed myself to be drawn into this subject).

Apologies for not being able to upload charts - my computer seems to crash after downloading charts from astro.com, so am just giving details (and avoiding internet explorer).

Lastly, Re using posts from forums to fuel personal ideas; in itself this is not such a bad idea, as long as people give permission, are asked, credit and respect given; once again, we are down to ethics… also the forum rules are that one cannot use anything outside this forum without express permission...

Dear Kai, while your blog is interesting, if I were so inclined to ‘prove’ astrology, I might pick up the gauntlet and relay it straight over to the Dean and Dawkins camp. But I have no inclination, unless of course, there’s bags of lucre to entice Donly joking) Or am I? Perhaps then I might spend more time deciphering… Interesting, though, how all the charts you have shown do have some kind of hard Venus apsect, which proves one point, and one point only, and that is just because someone has these configurations, they don't have to be gay! The heavens are not so literal!

Planetmotion, just to clarify, I have not said anything about hormones and "I" have been quoted by words that I did not say, but someone else did. So I have nothing to say into the hormone stuff - or maybe yes, but I have not said anything about them in this thread, nor will.

Quite right, Ebinia, excuse-moi! You have not said anything about hormones! It is an interesting theory though, I must admit...

planetmotion said:

Apart from all silly insinuations towards Aquarius/uranus, which, like gaer, I would be very careful about taking on board, what a lot of people appear to be getting hot under the collar about is how one can see such personal issues in the chart.

Click to expand...

Let me make my own position clear, if I can explain it well enough so that I'm sure it *is* my position.

I have no objections whatsoever in exploring possible astrological connections to different expressions of sexuality IF—and this is a huge IF—IF the people who are discussing the subject have no axe to grind.

My view is this, based on a lifetime of observing and thinking and, I hope, growing as a human being: when any two human beings bond in a way that puts together a great deal of what many people (or at least I) see as a deep friendship together with deep sexual intimacy, and both people grow as a result of such a bond, it's a wonderful thing, period. Furthermore, doing anything to pull two such people apart is something I view as mean, at best, purely evil at worst.

Perhaps some people will see my position as a bias in favor of something. I don't know.

(For those people who prefer many sexual relationships, not just one committed one, let me make it clear that I am not saying that such a preference is wrong. I just see it as a different way to relate to the world. I just happen to be a person who bonds deeply with only one person…)

Regardless, I don't see anything that is more or less natural about being attracted to your own sex, the opposite sex, or both sexes. We can certainly find examples of people who are obviously straight who are in relationships that are troubled, to put it mildly. Often terribly unhappy and sometimes clearly abusive.

There are gays who are in loving relationships who would probably be an example to all of us about how love should be but who might not be taken seriously by some because they are the same sex.

The bottom line is that we can find both healthy and very unhealthy gay and straight relationships.

That adds a *huge* extra challenge to astrology, because when looking for difficult aspects, we may be reading difficulty, not sexuality. I would expect both straight and gay people in comfortable relationships who are happy with themselves, living without guilt or sorrow, to have that healthiness show up in their charts.

For the same reason, I would expect gay or straight people who are at war with themselves through jealousy, guilty, anger, etc. to reflect this in their charts. They are working things out. Those are the challenges in my view, not sexual orientation itself.

Another related subject might be bisexuality, which is something that is not talked about too much because so often it is linked to "being in the closet", the presumption being that many people who label themselves as bisexuals are really gay but using a label that sounds a bit more "normal" or less "gay". What we don't know much about yet is how many people may be close enough to the center, sexually, to actually have to make a choice at least once in their lives as to which way they want to "swing", assuming that they ever want to make a temporary choice one way or the other—which is by no means a "given".

To sum up: I think our problem as astrologers is that we are dealing with a subject, sexuality, that is still so hidden, in general, that people who are completely honest about who they are, sexually, may actually be punished for their honesty.

One final point. Sexuality is not like skin color, weight, even intelligence. Suppose we imagine, for example, that tomorrow all the totally straight people (assuming their are people who are 100% attracted to the opposite gender and zero to their own) will magically turn pure blue.

And all gay people will magically turn pure red, assuming again that there are people who have zero attraction to the opposite sex.

How many people would actually be totally blue or red? How many people would be odd shades of something in between?

I think we would all be shocked by the truth, since not only do most societies encourage us to hide many our deepest sexual feelings, but in addition the lack of openness in most of the world makes it nearly impossible to be 100% sure of exactly what we feel.

Just some things to think about…

Gaer

An interesting fact about twins and homosexuality where one of the twins is homosexual and the other is not. It is not clear whether genetical factors and receptors in dna/ rna molecules show up for the homosexual or whether these receptors actually change in relation to psychological perceptions in life.

Coming out scenarios for gay and lesbian folk can sometimes be a kind of epiphany realisation which may be around 13 years of age, 20 or 40 -50 years. There is no determining of when or why some are of sexualy diverse gender however the coming out process will most likely show in dynamic astrology workings.

There are several areas of homosexual natures that might be interesting here. There are feelings (fantasy) continuum which may be explained in why heterosexual's have feelings/adoration of some same sex physiques for example. Then the behaviour continuum between same sex and opposite sex, and identity issues in the continuum between gay/lesbian and heterosexuals.

There are gender roles, where gay couples take on masculine or feminine roles just like opposite sex couples may have variations in roles. That is when the hubby is more sensitive and prefers to take on the nurturing homemaker type of roles.

There is Gender identity and Gender expression which relates to female or male roles and then how that might be expressed in appearance such as clothes and facial make up etc. One could say that David Bowe in his Ziggy days showed his Gender expression although his Gener role may be something different.

Freud stated that we are all born bi sexual and from there we develop (via complex pathways) into a way to express our gender and identity. There is still much to be learned scientifically about what causes the difference in sexuality however how ever that happens is complex and involves multi levelled understandings. It is not therefore such a linear process in determining or differentiating sexually diverse gender by astrology or psychology.

kingsley

Planetmotion,

Astrology, like an traditional institution of knowledge, is built upon a few things we assume to be "natural," or "givens." One these is includes the oppositional, complementary relationship we ascribe to masculine and feminine. Now, I'm not going to argue that there are not tangible distinctions between men and women, however, we as a society rely upon, reify, such distinctions to increasingly epic proportions, and use them to justify unfair treatment (often times horrendous treatment, such a marital rape) and subsequent ego denial of all so that we may obliging fill prescribed gender roles according to our bodies.

What I don't like about this post are a number of things:

1) Unless done with express intent of aiding a person in being open to their unique sexuality, I don't see the point in seeking out the nature of one's sexuality in a chart. Kudos to Kingsley and Gaer for somewhat going in this direction.

2) The indeterminable number of ways people devise, speculate, and tease out "proof" that homosexuality has a distinct and real signature in one's chart, whereas little such attention is given to rendering a distinct heterosexual signature. This boldly realizes that homosexuality is the abnormal, the marked, the different. No one questions "why heterosexuality?" The answers are obvious and easy. Is easy always right?

3) Posts need not be blatantly offensive to be hurtful and problematic. This post is hurtful because it is species-making of people. It is problematic because of the reliance on both Jung and Freud. Jungian psychoanalytic theory still requires that, in terms of personal and spiritual individuation, we ideally materialize our internal anima or animus respectively according to our bodies. Homosexuality is still pitted as unintegrated. Freudian theory does just the same, but calls homosexuality "arrested development."

4) A major point, which I keep making, is about the idea of sexuality as classifiable. When you call someone homo or hetero, you are implying that the nature of one's sexual desire is to indiscriminately desire one of the respective sex. Is this the case?

5) The word choice in regards to homosexuality on this post is HORRENDOUS. This is not taxonomy class.

Thanks,

Mod!