posted December 29, 2011 06:43 AM            

Iīm new to this forum and only recently read and became intrigued by Lindas Love Signs. However, the 5-10% of people who like myself are gay or lesbian will find nothing of relevance in that book (or any of the others? Certainly we donīt seem to exist in other writings on spirituality) to ourselves. Suppose we spend our money on buying it to get an insight into our relationships...there is after all no warning that the book is just for heteros...then find that our relationships apparently donīt exist?
My background is in Primal Therapy where lesbianism and homosexuality are by some regarded as neuroses, by others not. The jury is out. But I would have expected at least some explanation of Lindas position on homosexuality in her book(s); instead she refers obliquely to gays and lesbians a handful of times in the book then drops the issue like a hot brick. Why?
I know the spiritual theory about masculine and feminine being opposites and so on, which might explain why Love Signs deals only with males and females. But where does that leave us? On the other hand Radical Feminism (Dworkin, Stoltenberg etc) holds that "masculine" and "feminine" are merely artificial social constructs and they do not actually exist in nature; as classifications they have no real use except to create the illusion that the two sexes are really much more different than they are, and that our roles and behaviour are also very different, hence giving licence to those academics and demagogues who would prescribe male and female roles in society (dangerous!!) and control and subjugate women.
For example, whom is to say that women are passive (as Linda does) sexually and men active?
Are women who prefer being active to feel they are unnatural?
There are in fact as many sexes as people and people are first and foremost individuals. As such everyone is free to become him/her(or Hir)self rather than trying to fit into some preconceived feminine or masculine format, which is the opposite of being true to oneself.

posted December 29, 2011 07:10 AM            

One thing that I'll point out is that "Love Signs" was published in 1978. Linda herself was born in 1925. So, in fairness to her, she probably was a product of her time, to some extent.

Something that frustrates me a bit about her books is that she presents herself as a progressive/feminist, but still holds very traditional views about gender roles. Now, I'm not criticizing her for having those views--my issue is more that she doesn't seem to see this in herself. If she would have been more forthright and just said, "I am a social conservative", I would have been like "oh, OK, she's a conservative and this is her viewpoint; I understand where she is coming from". If a person has a bias or comes from a particular viewpoint, fine, but just state that/make that clear so that readers will be able to understand your views and know where you are coming from.

There are a few other issues that bugged me as well. I didn't like, for example, that she looks down on people (like me) who choose not to have children, describing it (I think in one of the Libra-Gemini chapters) as "avoiding responsibility". The way that I see it, some people are called to be parents, and some are not, and that's OK. She says something like "it's their choice", but her attitude is one of disapproval. The way that she refers to gays and lesbians bothered me, too, though as I said, I really do think that she was a product of her time, to an extent. Yes, others in her generation were more progressive, but they were ahead of their time.

I also get the impression, though, that even though she was a social conservative and traditional, she perhaps may have felt torn between feminism and traditional ways. I seem to recall her being for the ERA, but yet she frequently makes points about the man leading and whatnot. I think that she sometimes presents the idea that women are just as important as men and should be equally respected, yet then she goes back and advocates traditional roles again. I have wondered more recently if she struggled with conflicting feelings. I can understand that. So, to be fair, perhaps she wasn't intentionally contradicting herself or not presenting herself accurately--perhaps she felt torn about wanting social change and then not wanting it.

I will say this, though: I do feel that she had a very good grasp of the signs, and that she honestly tried to be fair to each one. She mentions particularly liking Leos and Aquarians, but nonetheless I do feel like she tried to see the good in all signs. She did know each sign inside and out, truly. I do like her astrological insight, even if I do not agree with a lot of her personal and spiritual views. I will also give her credit for having the guts to publish her beliefs and for exploring different ideas, however "out there". So, I don't hate her as astrologer or anything--I don't share all of her opinions on non-astrological things, but I do think that she really knew her stars.

Also, just wanted to say welcome to this forum! I hope that you will feel welcome here. :-)

There are other LGBT people here as well; hope that you'll get the chance to interact with them a bit.

posted December 29, 2011 07:16 AM            

In some Native American traditions, for instance, there are the "two-spirits", though this seems closer to transgender than gay/lesbian.

some links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-knapp/queer-faith_b_981725.html

http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm

http://www.integrityusa.org/ (this is Episcopalian)

I myself belong to a mainstream Protestant denomination that is very diverse, and I really like that.

*note: my own bias here is one of a liberal Christian

To borrow a quote from a local rabbi who came to visit my former college, "Whatever you think of being gay, stop the hate". That's basically how my denomination sits on this issue. People in my denomination are generally accepting and welcoming--one of our big values is hospitality--and so most of us put aside differences to come together and worship. Some who feel strongly against LGBT people have left our denomination altogether and have split off from the church, but generally speaking we are an inclusive bunch.

posted December 29, 2011 10:29 AM            

She struggled with it..because of
the belief that, in the beginning
we were split in two, male and female..
opposites, as you mentioned..

In each of these relationships ..
we can see that one assumes the male
role and the other the female role..
so, no matter what the Soul, is still
what is was in the beginning,
it was to simple for her to SEE...
In the time frame she lived..

and to figure karma into it...

and why?

She knew it was a sensitive issue...

posted December 31, 2011 02:03 PM            

However, with dealing with mortal humans, we must consider such...

I always bark about mainstreaming sun signs and remind that we must apply gender and culture and the time of which the individual was born in.

SO many things go into astrology!!!

great topic, by the way, and welcome!

posted December 31, 2011 04:28 PM            

For instance, I believe Isis and Osiris
were Iris the Rainbow God/dess..an
androgyne,

I also believe, that In Heaven..
we are with the Other Half of Us..
I see us connected by a cord,
but separate..
and this cord reaches Us on Earth...

perhaps the Earth Experience
changed Us!?

and, maybe I'm just crazy, lol