The following was prompted by a question on Yahoo!Answers: Some are saying that given that Wicca is all about the gender polarity between the Goddess and the God, homosexuality in a Wiccan context is a bit of a problem; others argue that the point is that new life in a biological sense comes from male/female coupling, and that an individual's sexual orientation is not an issue in Wiccan practice.
What do you think? Is this even an issue? Do you have any thoughts on how it could be addressed in a coven context where male-female pairs are integral to the coven structure?
While the traditional imagery of Wicca is very heterosexual, I see no reason why that should require people to be heterosexual. That's why its "metaphorical."
Also, we have a much more complex concept of gender than when Wicca originally developed. Male and female designations used to be primarily decided by genitalia. Today we recognize that very feminine people can still have a physical penis, for example.
Thus, sexual balance isn't just about having a certain number of people with a penis and a certain number of people with a vagina. I can see a group of homosexual men still having a metaphorical gender balance, depending on the people involved.
Finally, we seek balance in ourselves. Women are encouraged to recognize that male part within themselves and men recognize the female part. To me, the idea of insisting people fit into stereotypical male and female models is actually contrary to Wicca. each of us is so much more complex than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that everyone identifys more with one polarity, male or female and that matters more than what plumbing they have when it comes to working in a coven.
I don't see where you get the idea that the importance of gender polarity is "metaphorical" (a metaphor for what?).
Everyone I know, whether gay, straight, bi, or not identifying with anything along a gay/straight continuum had two genetic parents, of whom one was male and one was female. There's nothing metaphorical about that.
Since most people I know also don't live on a diet of mushrooms and yeast-powder, the food they eat also came about because of male and female polarity of a sort that is very much not metaphorical.
As such, it's pretty much impossible to get away from the importance of male-female polarity. If you're homosexual then you may not be particularly keen in taking part in some aspects of it (though exceptions abound), but that's true if you're heterosexual too. It's also true that heterosexuals generally don't take part in the entirety of male-female fertility (eh, humans generally only get to impregnate or be impregnated, not both).
Frankly, I find the idea that the fertility-cult nature of Wicca has to be spun as "metaphorical", to be just as homophobic as those who have argued that as a fertility cult it has no place for homosexuals. Just because somebody does not want to engage in heterosexual acts does not mean they can't revere the importance of fertility in bringing us all to this world and keeping us all alive (including them and their lovers), and hence find meaning in the practices of a fertility cult like Wicca.
For that matter, what about gay and lesbian farmers. They'll take part in more harvests or birthings of livestock than even the most fecund of het couples will have children.
Rather than argue that either gay and lesbian people don't belong in a fertilty cult, or else that we have to remove or spin as "metaphorical" one of the core features of Wicca to accommodate them, one could just as reasonably argue that only farmers and gardeners could be Wiccan and that everyone else should be excluded, it's no less ridiculous, except that we're much more in the habit of deciding what homosexuals think about things that we are in the habit of thinking what farmers think.
You've piqued my curiosity here.
Would you mind elaborating on what is metaphorical about heterosexuality in Wicca?
Perhaps I'm thick, but I don't see how one of the primary dogma in my religion can be construed as metaphorical.
In my opinion, if heterosexuality in Wicca is metaphorical, that would render Life metaphorical by association.
I have no problem with homosexuality. Those who are of that sexual orientation may do as they will. But I do take issue with a writer that I have cited as a reference on NUMEROUS occasions over the last several years trying to incorporate such orientation into my religion by dismissing heterosexuality as metaphorical.
I am somewhat dissapointed with the sloppiness with which the "Gender and Sexuality in Wicca" post was handled.
First off, I am curious as to how a core component of Wicca (interaction of the masculine and feminine as representations of the divine) can be so easily disposed of as no more than "traditional imagery". Gender polarity was clearly intended as far more than window dressing. This focus was unambiguously concerned with the union of the god and goddess, and as applied to the practioner, between man and woman. Gardner was very clear in this.
And I would like to know when Wicca became hellbent on "inclusiveness". Wasnt it and isnt it by its very nature an exclusive religion? So why then do we so easily bend over backwards and sell out the fundamental principles? When did we become so weak-kneed about Wicca being about the god and goddess, and men and women by extension? And why do we insist on never-ending twisted redifinitions of traditionally understood concepts of masculinity and femininity? Altering such important elements of Wicca to be politically fashionable says quite a bit about us, I would think.
If by now you have determined that the gender implications in Wicca are merely "metaphorical", then I would humbly suggest that you have completely missed much of the heart of Wicca. To say something like "we have a much more complex concept of gender than when Wicca originally developed" says a lot more about what we have turned Wicca into rather than the validity of its precepts.
Let me be clear, I could care less about who's buggering who. And I believe that it is the right of each individual to pursue genuine happiness in thier own lives, regardless of in whose arms that happiness is found. So please, no reactionary charges of homophobia, if you wouldnt mind. That schtick is quite old by now.
What this is about is bending over backwards and redefining core components of an intentionally exclusive religion in order to win the approval of groups for whom the model was clearly not designed.
Wicca, with its traditional understandings of gender polarity, is clearly not an optimal fit for homosexuals? Is it not clear that for them there is some sort of disconnect between thier perceptions and ours of the natural intereaction of the masculine and feminine? Rather than be honest about this, we would prefer to close our eyes and reject one of the primary (and to some the most important) principles of the religion? And why? To persuade ourselves that we are compassionate, enlightened, and inclusive persons?
Of all people, I would have expected you to have given this topic full consideration and to have championed the traditional perspective rather than the politically correct one. I am more than willing to extend you understanding, however, it seems to me that you have either poorly considered this topic, or else you have completely failed to understand a primary component of Wicca. Again, I am sadly disappointed.
This is a very intriguing concept. I'm very new to Wicca and not a member. I'm still in the process of learning.
I noticed that a lot of people here took issue with your opinion, but at the same time I wonder if perhaps they focused too much on the word "metaphorical" and didn't quite try to absorb what you were saying overall. I could be wrong, maybe they did and took issue with the entire explanation.
Either way, I still find this interpretation of things very interesting. :)
I do agree, however, with those that mentioned that they would've liked a much longer explanation, as I'm still a little confused about it, myself.
I agree with this answer completely. Male and Female are may be biological terms, but they are also philosophical. Just because someone is born with male genitalia, that does not mean they feel they are "male" in a cultural sense. Trans-gender surgery should be more than proof of that.
Just because breeding is a biological imperative, it does not mean that every member of the species must, or even should, procreate. There are even some species other than humans that display homosexual behavior at times. Why should human deny themselves what is clearly part of nature?