Minutus

Hi Vera,
without knowing the whole case it's difficult to comment further.
People do have strong opinions when it comes to sexuality though, bit
of a minefield:-)
Which is one reason why as far as I'm concerned it is the patients
reality that matters and that I work with, not mine. that way there is
never any conflict
Simon

Having read some appalling thoughts regarding homosexuality and
deviations I am glad Soroush has brought some sanity back to the
discussion.

There are plenty of useless rubrics in the reps and these could be some
of them but of course it depends on each individual case and, as
Soroush says, what needs to be cured - although as homeopaths this
concept might go beyond what a client comes to see us about it must
definitely NOT include a judgement call as to what we think should be
cured.

The actual rubric suggests pathology 'homosexuality, pathological, in
men, in women'. Rubbish, it isn't a disease - never has been, never
will be. Only the societies that render it as such is diseased. Even if
genetically engineered, i.e. determined genetically and bilogically, -
so what, if the client has fulfillment then it doesn't need to be
cured. And if the client has deep struggle with coming to terms with
this state then homeopathy should be available to help them be
comfortable with it - most problems, in my experience, come from
society's disapproval - as Chris said, the second class citizen
syndrome. Healthy gay men adore women and healthy gay women adore men -
this is why I keep saying that health is the ultimate enlightenment
because it means our vision of the world is healthy and tolerant etc.

Mysogamy (aversion to women), and its female gender alternative, would
suggest pathology that needs to be cured and although you might never
get a case that presents with this as the main complaint, it might well
come through the case taking process and would need to be explored.

I really hope that Chris, and others, haven't been totally insulted by
some aspects of this vital discussion.

Best wishes as always, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
edited
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thanks, Chris.
Vera

Chris Gillen wrote:

I agree with Soroush. Don't waste everyone's time.
Use your private email addresses for such posts.
_____

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Finrod
Sent: 10 August 2005 14:30
To: Minutus
Subject: FW: [Minutus] Enlightenment Vs Classical Homosexuality
I have no problem regarding discussion on sexuality - what I objected to was
the meaningless banter between you two!
Soroush

And you use yours for yours


Simon

That seems really odd to me! For a child (how old? or *anyone*, for
that matter) to be "constantly masturbating" is so *obviously* a sign
of imbalance, I don't see how it could be taken as a bad sign, in
itself? I'm not saying this from a "masturbating is a sin" standpoint,
but I really can't see how it could be anything *other* than a sign of
imbalance?

Dear Chris,

Thank you so much for your post, I think I felt I had a "good" understanding of these situations, but humbly realise they were a bit superficial in light of what you have explained.

I do remember asking where on earth they got such rubrics (as well as those mentioned by Soroush) as "Mind, Sexual, behaviour, homosexuality, pathological"??? Not from a proving surely? ) And what on earth does it mean?

I was reminded of a situation when I came to this part of the country and had a number of staff selling memberships. A spouse could have one at a discounted rate. One staff member hissed at me that the gentleman would like to buy a membership and one for his spouse - also male. I thought, well, OK. "But that's illegal here!" I just stared at him, jaw on the ground. In my own little world I was oblivious to what others experienced at the hands of society. Needless to say, we sold him both. A few years later the law finally changed, and I don't remember dates, but this is only in the last 10 years or so. Imagine the attitudes in Kent's time! No wonder we have some rubrics that I don't find helpful.

And while I would be looking for rubrics centred around grief or humiliation etc rather than homosexuality, you have reminded me to go deeper and find the real issues - disappointment or rejection by their parents, the church they depended on, society, loss of friends and family, not belonging etc.

The real issues. Like interpreting dreams, it's not necessarily about the monkeys or the bats or whatever, but what they feel about them etc. Something about your post has got my mind whirring in a number of enlightened directions and I'm glad you took the time to write it and share what you did. Thank you.

Best wishes, Elizabeth

It was not EVER meaningless.
Please suspend your judgement. And ALLOW things to unfold in due course in
time.

Is 'due course' other than 'time'?
That aside, what are you on about?
Soroush

"Due course", means that people are very busy, there are important issues
being discussed, and an integration of what has previously been discussed
needs to take place. ALLOWING things to unfold often precipitates greater
understanding even though it takes more time, that is, rather than forcing
or coercing one's point of view upon others.
What does "due course" mean to you?