{Homosexuality: Postscript*}[4th December 1987]

[Redbook4:195][19871204:0100]{Homosexuality: Postscript*}[4th December 1987]

19871204:0100

[W] said that homosexuality might be wrong because it does not involve opposites – and I think this may be right. The Attraction to Unity of Male and Female (among other) opposites is through +C†I~; their Distraction and Diversity is through A~.** Homosexuality in this context is meaningless, a bias or distortion of reality. This may be wrong not so much in the sense of being separated in a particular degree – although it probably is*** – as in the sense of being incorrect, in the same way that we would regard men who deliberately mutilated themselves for no good reason as being wrong.****

*[To [Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987]ff, presumably.]

**But cf. also dynamic cycles: O[uter] C[ircle] (disintegration) & I[nner] C[ircle] (integration). <930529>

***[But see [Redbook4:190][19871130:0920e]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987], fn,

& [Redbook4:188-189][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued] – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987].

<20170413>]

****[As in wrong-headed, presumably. Old-fashioned stuff, and now pretty much guaranteed (along with all that has preceded it on this subject) to make gay blood boil, one would think. It would be convenient to be able to cap this off by dramatically revealing that the writer has since come out as homosexual himself; but he hasn’t, and as far as he can tell isn’t, although the idea of being a lesbian does hold some fanciful attraction. <20170414>]

[PostedBlogger14042017]