Many people who are curious about Taoism may wonder what the general consensus among Taoists is regarding many political and ethical issues. Some of these are in the middle ground between politics and ethics; issues like "is homosexuality 'wrong' or 'unnatural'?" Some may argue that Taoism's emphasis on assuming a natural state is a condemnation of homosexuality, since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce and is somehow "not natural". Since they do not further the species (the basest of goals to all animals, including humans), they are "wrong", as well. Those who attempt a more Taoist approach claim that the relationships between homosexuals is unbalanced; "yin-yin and yang-yang produce too much of one type of energy and cannot find a balance", they say. This argument seems reasonable at first, but let's think about it for a moment. Scientists have exposed and proven homosexual behavior in animals multiple times. I'm definitely not an animal expert, but I'm pretty sure animals are about as close to nature as we're going to get. The animals that show homosexual behavior don't have social structures nearly as complex or as developed as the systems humanity has conjured, so surely the behavior has come about simply because it's what those particular animals prefer. With that, one can say with confidence that homosexuality is indeed a naturally occurring phenomenon. Next, we consider the argument that homosexuality is wrong because homosexual couples cannot help fulfill the basic goal of the species: to procreate. This argument fails to take into account the hundreds of heterosexual couples that are unable to have children for various reasons, most of them incurable medical conditions. Some couples even choose not to have children. Are these couples wrong, or any less deserving of the pursuit of love simply because they cannot (or do not) produce offspring? Most would answer "no", and the same answer can be applied to homosexuals. Considering the current population of humanity (pushing 7 billion or so), one would think that our species could use a little population control. Homosexuality could be seen as a natural manifestation of population control. Do you remember the old adage, "Too much of a good thing is bad"? The same principle applies everywhere. Let's tackle the argument regarding yin and yang energies. The argument stands on a foundation that assumes that all men exude yang energy, and all women exude yin energy. However, is every man proactive and aggressive? Is every woman passive and receptive? We know many men and women in our lives that have various "mixes" of yin and yang; many women in today's age are proactive career women, and some men are assuming roles previously dominated by women, such as nursing, homemaking, and clerical work. With this in mind, is it really wise to say all men are proactive and all women passive? We haven't even considered relationship roles yet. Every relationship has a series of dynamics to it. At any given time, one person is more "in-charge" and handles the finances, or makes sure the groceries are well-stocked. They might pay for nights out on the town, or be the final decision-maker. The other person may focus more on managing conflict, helping balance the budget, cooking the meals, and so on. There are too many dynamics to place concrete labels on, and these roles are not reliant upon one's sex. The important part is that the energies between people -- especially lovers -- is constantly changing. With this in mind, we know on an intuitive level that a man can possess yin energy and a woman can possess yang energy. The intricacies multiply when sexuality enters the equation. The core point is that any relationship that succeeds has a healthy balance of energies. Too much aggression and two partners clash, unable to come to admirable conclusions to their conflicts. Too much passiveness and the two partners become co-dependent, afraid to confront the other for fear of losing them. It is logically sound, then, to claim that homosexual couples are no more prone to dysfunction than heterosexual couples. We know this because we know everyone has differing mixes of yin and yang, and gender is not a factor outside of social conditioning. The crux of this argument is love. That is, whatever force that drives people to be together. At many points in our lives, we will face various social challenges. The one thing we all have in common is a desire to love. One must ask himself or herself, "Does one's sexual preference warrant social discrimination or condemnation of their lifestyle?" The underlying principles of Taoism (harmony, humility, and acceptance) point to "No". Homosexuals are no more unnatural than the grass that blankets this earth. They pursue love just like virtually every other human being. Discriminating against them is the same as denying someone the basic human right to love and be loved. This ideal is not new to the world, nor is it exclusive to Taoism. Even Jesus — regarded as the savior and supreme role model of Christians — preached about loving your neighbor and accepting your fellow human. Most religions and philosophies out there send a similar message of kindness and acceptance. This article is my view of the situation and how it relates to Taoism. |
