Was Gardner homophobic?

[David19]

I've just been thinking about this recently, and wanted to know, was Gardner homophobic, 'cause it just seems that he (and i think this is still stressed in Gardnerian traditions today) the 'male/female' polarity thing, and i think i've read that you had to be paired up with someone of the opposite sex, and you even have to be initiated by the opposite sex, i haven't seen any quotes from Gardner personally, so that's why i'm asking.

Or, if there was a coven that he was initiated into, were they the ones that stressed the 'male/female' polarity thing?.

I did find some interesting quotes from Wiccans about homosexuality on this site (http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/flsh_phobia.html):


"Anyone who is bisexual or homosexual cannot advance spiritually."

remark by Wiccan High Priestess, 1985.

"Homosexuals cannot be true witches...we want no kinks in our circle."

quoted from a wiccan magazine, exact source unknown.

"What people have to remember is that Wicca; man and woman, God and Goddess is a fertility cult - a heterosexual fertility cult."

Wiccan author Keith Morgan, interviewed at Autumn Link-Up '89

"The Wiccan cult stands for fertility and re-creation and not the sexual union between two 'spiritual' members of the same sex as some groups like to believe."

Kevin Carlyon, Hastings & St. Leonards Observer, 1985.

"The (Hornsea) Group ... considers that any genuinely contacted fraternity could not countenance working with sexual deviants of any sort. The reasons for this should be obvious to any trained occultist."

"...you can't work magic with a homosexual. Homosexuals just can't create a current."

Quotes from Tanya Luhrmann's 'Persuasions of the Witches' Craft'

"Homosexuals are not human"

Nicholas Tereshencko, in a letter to the Lamp of Thoth

A lot of these quotes seem to come from traditional Wicca, and so i was wondering if this is common among Traditional Wiccans or something (kind of a shame that every religion has something against LGBT people).

Anyway, thanks for any help you can give me :).

[KeaErisdottir]

First, I see nothing there that is directly from Gardner.
Second, a phobia is an unreasoning fear of something. I nothing unreasoning in the majority of those statements.
Third, an observation about mysticism or spiritual matters is just that, an observation.

The use of the word 'homophobic' is entirely sensational. It's hyperbole, and in most cases, a bullying tactic. It has no place in a productive discussion.

So no, I do not believe that Gerald Gardner was 'homophobic'.

The question of what the others quoted believe is a different matter.

[Greyharp]

a phobia is an unreasoning fear of something.....The use of the word 'homophobic' is entirely sensational. It's hyperbole, and in most cases, a bullying tactic. It has no place in a productive discussion.

I've only ever heard Christians use this argument before. Yeah sure, "phobic" normally applies to a fear of something, but in the general usage of the term "homophobic", it has very little to do with fear but a whole lot to do with hatred, prejudice and anger. I think most people realise this and so I believe splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "has no place in a productive discussion".

As for there being no quotes from Gardner - fair point. As far as the issue goes, yeah sure, biologically we need both the male and female to create life, you know - fertility cult and all, but is this true or even relevant spiritually? If the gods are everywhere and in everything - immanent, then they are within us. Therefore we all have both the male and female energies in our make up (without even entering into the biological chromosone argument). Surely the Goddess doesn't stay out of men and likewise, the God is only immanent in men?

Wicca has and is evolving and I believe has often reflected trends and mores from within society as a whole. Three of those quotes are dated to the 80s and I think society has matured a bit since then, in respect to non-hetro sexuality at least, with Wicca doing likewise.

[David19]

I know that there are no quotes from Gardner, that's why i was asking to see if he felt the same way as some of the people quoted, of if it's known how he felt, i think Alexander Sanders was more open 'cause, wasn't he bi? (correct me if i'm wrong).

And, BTW, phobia may mean afraid of something, but homophobia generally, in society and the collective conciousness of people mean hatred, as Greyharp said, against LGBT people. The KKK are homophobic, but somehow i don't think would be 'afraid' of me or other LGBT people.

[Eran]

There is no evidence whatever that Gardner was homophobic. There is no reason to suspect he was. He never made any known statements on the subject.

The opinions of others have no bearing on Gardner himself.

We may ask this question about anyone - Is David19 homophobic? - and then present quotes from other people which have nothing to do with him.

It's even easier to ask such a question - and to imply whatever answer one wishes - once the victim of the question is dead.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Really, the only "heterosexual" notion is that sperm + egg => baby. But it's a *fertility* cult rather than a *sex* cult. If it were about sex, then it wouldn't matter, would it? And for that matter, sex is sacred... not just heterosexual sex, but "all acts of love and pleasure". It's just certain areas where fertility is emphasized, you'll find a "heterosexual" polarity in operation. Because it's not about sex in those areas, it's about fertility.

You question Gardner's motives, but then quote from various Wiccans (why not throw Mark Ventimiglia into the mix? He'd fit right in)... And we have no context for those quotes either. Are they speaking out of their own beliefs or what *they believe* Gardner thought? Does *any* Wiccan (even Doreen or Fred, who knew him) really speak for Gardner?

My impression is that you're attempting to draw a line from a bunch of homophobic Wiccans to Gardner... a does not equal b. ^_^

Wicca, in my mind, has never been homophobic... or even heterosexist. The fact that people (be they Wiccans themselves and critics of Wiccans) can't see the difference between sex and fertility just boggles my mind.

[David19]

We may ask this question about anyone - Is David19 homophobic? - and then present quotes from other people which have nothing to do with him.


You know it'd be really funny if i was homophobic considering, wait for it, I am GAY.

So, somehow i doubt i would be.

[KeaErisdottir]

I've only ever heard Christians use this argument before. Yeah sure, "phobic" normally applies to a fear of something, but in the general usage of the term "homophobic", it has very little to do with fear but a whole lot to do with hatred, prejudice and anger. I think most people realise this and so I believe splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "has no place in a productive discussion".

I'm sorry, but I really get tired of the redefinition of words for political correctness. You want to talk phobias, then we can certainly find those with unreasoning fears, not only about homosexuals, but also getting pregnant from doorknobs and toilet seats. Prejudice is generally not unreasoning. Hatred may have a root in fears or unreasoning fears, or may stem from unpleasant experiences that give the person reasonable cause to hate. Anger is a normal human emotion--not phobia.

Wanna talk issues? Great. Let's look at the problems individually. Want to blanket everything uncomfortable with a politically correct term that is just as abusive as the people it purports to target? Unproductive.


As for there being no quotes from Gardner - fair point. As far as the issue goes, yeah sure, biologically we need both the male and female to create life, you know - fertility cult and all, but is this true or even relevant spiritually?

What a strange question about what you acknowledge to be a fertility cult! Looks like a lot of overly inclusive rhetoric.


Wicca has and is evolving and I believe has often reflected trends and mores from within society as a whole. Three of those quotes are dated to the 80s and I think society has matured a bit since then, in respect to non-hetro sexuality at least, with Wicca doing likewise.

I would generally agree that society has become more tolerant of difference. I will not, however, say that society has matured overmuch.

I would also not agree that Wicca is evolving in an X-Men sort of way. The fertility aspects of the religion have yet to be excised from the core of the faith, and the quality of the Mysteries themselves still requires transcendance of the ego, as well as one's own sexuality (homo/hetero/a) in order to be experienced. It is all too easy to claim that the religion is 'evolving' as a means to justify one's personal spiritual tastes, but that still isn't the path.

As usual, I see the pattern developing that religion must change and evolve to suit the individual, rather than the individual changing and evolving. Something wrong with that picture.

[shuvanilu]

Another kind-of odd thing is that some of the quotes in your link, that were deemed "Occult Homophobia", were quote about Macrobiotics. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Macrobiotics, but it's roughly a health-diet based on local organic foods and yes, some yin/yang thought....But I certainly wouldn't term it "occult". I do agree with you though, that many of the statements you listed are not very open-minded....But I don't see them as applying to Gardner. ---shuvanilu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic_diet

[David19]

Really, the only "heterosexual" notion is that sperm + egg => baby. But it's a *fertility* cult rather than a *sex* cult. If it were about sex, then it wouldn't matter, would it? And for that matter, sex is sacred... not just heterosexual sex, but "all acts of love and pleasure". It's just certain areas where fertility is emphasized, you'll find a "heterosexual" polarity in operation. Because it's not about sex in those areas, it's about fertility.

But doesn't fertility usually suggest hetrosexual sex (although science is now progressing where they can create a baby without it), and i wasn't trying to judge Gardner by those other Wiccans, but i've read in a book (can't remember which one, it was ages ago) that Gardner, while not as homophobic as the writers mentioned, didn't view it that favourably (ironic considering how he did associate with Crowley, who was famous for his sex with other men).

I wasn't trying to insult Gardner or Wicca or anyone like that, but i was just trying to see if anyone knew how he felt about it, or why he did stress 'male/female' polarity in his coven(s) (or maybe that was already a part of the coven he was initiated into?).

[KeaErisdottir]

I know that there are no quotes from Gardner, that's why i was asking to see if he felt the same way as some of the people quoted, of if it's known how he felt, i think Alexander Sanders was more open 'cause, wasn't he bi? (correct me if i'm wrong).

We don't know how Gerald actually felt about gays. Speculation of that sort, based on the quotes of others, is flawed on principle. What we do know is that he founded a fertility cult that has a strong heterosexual component to its Mysteries, and that there are a lot of heterophobic gay people who seem to be mortally offended by that. :)

[David19]

I'm sorry, but I really get tired of the redefinition of words for political correctness. You want to talk phobias, then we can certainly find those with unreasoning fears, not only about homosexuals, but also getting pregnant from doorknobs and toilet seats. Prejudice is generally not unreasoning. Hatred may have a root in fears or unreasoning fears, or may stem from unpleasant experiences that give the person reasonable cause to hate. Anger is a normal human emotion--not phobia.

Wanna talk issues? Great. Let's look at the problems individually. Want to blanket everything uncomfortable with a politically correct term that is just as abusive as the people it purports to target? Unproductive.

What do you mena 'purports to target', are you saying that gay people or other LGBT people aren't targets of bigotry, 'cause then you really should open your eyes to the world around you (e.g. look at Matthew Sheppard, etc), or perhaps, a friend recently told me 2 teen boys in Iran are on the death sentance 'cause they're gay, etc.

[Dawa Lhamo]

What do you mena 'purports to target', are you saying that gay people or other LGBT people aren't targets of bigotry, 'cause then you really should open your eyes to the world around you (e.g. look at Matthew Sheppard, etc), or perhaps, a friend recently told me 2 teen boys in Iran are on the death sentance 'cause they're gay, etc.I'd reread Kea's post if I were you. She was saying that the word "homophobic" purports to describe people who dislike/hate/are prejudiced against gays, and that it's an offensive word in itself. Not that I particularly agree with that sentiment, but no where did she even come close to suggesting that gays are never the target of discrimination.

[Dawa Lhamo]

But doesn't fertility usually suggest hetrosexual sex (although science is now progressing where they can create a baby without it), and i wasn't trying to judge Gardner by those other Wiccans, but i've read in a book (can't remember which one, it was ages ago) that Gardner, while not as homophobic as the writers mentioned, didn't view it that favourably (ironic considering how he did associate with Crowley, who was famous for his sex with other men).

I wasn't trying to insult Gardner or Wicca or anyone like that, but i was just trying to see if anyone knew how he felt about it, or why he did stress 'male/female' polarity in his coven(s) (or maybe that was already a part of the coven he was initiated into?).Just how often do you think we perform the Great Rite??? ;)

Let me put it to you this way. Do you believe yourself to have a fertile imagination? Does that mean that you are always thinking about heterosexual sex? No! ^_^ Fertility is about creation... not ex nihil, but Coniunctio. Where one force and another force come together, mingle, and something wholly new is born. It's a Mystery. Fecundity. Does the seed have heterosexual sex with the soil? No! Yet germination takes place anyway! Does an artist have heterosexual sex with his media? No! (bad mental image!) Yet put them together, and voilà! A new objet d'art is born.

Now, human sexual reproduction is a *powerful* symbol of fertility. And it's something we can all relate to. Believe it or not, *every* human being has genetic material from a male AND a female, i.e. a biological mother and father. Even if we never participate in human sexual reproduction to create our own offspring, we all, humans that we are, at the very least, are the product of human sexual reproduction. Even if there is never actual sex between the male and the female in a particular situation (in vitro fertilization), they are, nonetheless, ultimately each descended from *someone* who had it...

Heterosexual sex is a *symbol* of fertility, and it's one that we can all relate to (unless we utterly deny our origins)... Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your POV), the connection is so strong in people's minds, that one implies the other.... Fortunately, that makes it a great symbol to use... unfortunately, people confuse the symbol for the thing.

I know that I've read a much better explanation, elsewhere, than the one I just gave, but I think it will have to do for now.

[Eran]

I wasn't trying to insult Gardner or Wicca or anyone like that, but i was just trying to see if anyone knew how he felt about it, or why he did stress 'male/female' polarity in his coven(s) (or maybe that was already a part of the coven he was initiated into?).
One of the vital points here is that "how he felt about it" is not relevant to anything. What possible difference could that make?

Why did he (that is, why did the ancient religion he was initiated into) stress the mechanics of fertility in a religion that uses fertility imagery? Gosh, I would have thought that was obvious. It has something to do with fertility imagery. And nothing whatever to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

You know it'd be really funny if i was homophobic considering, wait for it, I am GAY.

So, somehow i doubt i would be.
So asking if you were homophobic would be silly. Actually, the main reason it would be silly is because it isn't relevant to anything. Just as in this case.

Yet we could do to you what you just did to Gardner. Wait until you're dead and then string together quotes from people you don't know and you never met, people who aren't talking about you, and ask, "Despite the lack of any evidence whatever, despite the relevance of the question to anything that matters to anyone, was David19 homophobic?"

And by the way, you were way wrong in your original post in this thread:

A lot of these quotes seem to come from traditional Wicca, ...
No, some of them come from individuals who claimed to be Wiccan. None of them "come from traditional Wicca". I'm not even sure what could be meant by "quotes [that] come from traditional Wicca". Wicca does not speak, and can't be quoted.

[Eran]

I know that I've read a much better explanation, elsewhere, than the one I just gave, but I think it will have to do for now.
You did very well indeed!

There are (at least) two ways to abuse and misuse fertility symbols:

1) take them literally, and pretend that they mean only hetero sex is good, and therefore homosexuals are bad.

2) take them literally, and pretend that they mean only hetero sex is good, and therefore the symbolism is bad.

Both of these are complete misunderstandings of the meaning of the word symbol. In fact, there's no real difference between these two.

By the way, there are many gays and lesbians (and bi's and straights) who quite happily use the fertility symbolism of the religion of Witchcraft, and who don't make the mistake of imagining that it has anything whatever to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

There are also many gays and lesbians (and bi's and straights) who don't connect well with the fertility symbolism of the religion of Witchcraft, and so follow other paths - and who, even so, don't make the mistake of imagining that it has anything whatever to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

[Dawa Lhamo]

No, some of them come from individuals who claimed to be Wiccan. None of them "come from traditional Wicca". I'm not even sure what could be meant by "quotes [that] come from traditional Wicca". Wicca does not speak, and can't be quoted.Lol. Very, very good point! ^_^ One that should be remembered.
You did very well indeed!Awww, thanks! ^_^

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Um.....Gardner DID no-no homosexuality. It's right there in the Old Laws - or is it the passage on 'To Gain the Sight'? If a man teaches a man, or a woman teaches a woman, they'll suffer from that whole Curse of the Goddess thing (because a certain fondness may grow between them), which has been explained to me by a man who has his thirds in Alexandrian and Gardnerian to mean that the person will NOT reincarnate, I believe.

[_Banbha_]

I don't have a horse in this race, not being Wiccan, and I have not made my mind up about Gardner's views. Here is a POV I've read and I'd be interested to hear some informed opinions on:


...Gerald Gardner, in his books, speaks of homosexuality in derogatory tones ~ referring to it as the Templars sin, and all but calling it a curse of the Goddess ~ and some fundamentalist followers of his doctrines (the "Hard-Gards") repeat this line without allowing rational thought or historical research a chance to enter their minds. Some of the writers who have followed in old Gerald's wake echo his sentiment. The Farrars have little positive to say, and Lois Bourne emphasises Gardner's homophobia, adding that she has never met a gay witch. The poor old dear should try getting out more! Before I go any further down this line, I want to point out that some of my dearest friends are Gardnerian, and they rightly recognise that Gardner was a man born and raised in the Victorian era and that much of his morality is best left in that period.

http://ipc.paganearth.com/diaryarticles/bonus/queer/queer5.html

[Eran]

I don't have a horse in this race, not being Wiccan, and I have not made my mind up about Gardner's views. Here is a POV I've read and I'd be interested to hear some informed opinions on:
Being someone who is often included among the "Hardgards" mentioned in the quote you provide (in fact, within Gardnerian circles I am often the person pointed to as "the primary example of a Hardgard"), I can give you quite an informed opinion. In fact, I can confidantly say there is probably no one on the planet who is more qualified to provide an informed opinion. So my opinion is this:

Every possible implication of that quote is utter and complete nonsense, and is incredibly offensive to boot. It is totally wrong. It is something invented by someone with a political agenda unrelated to sprituality, or to the Craft, or to Gardner - or even to the "Hardgards". It is nonsense and it is false, and I repudiate it in every single way.

I hope that was not too subtle. :)

[Eran]

Um.....Gardner DID no-no homosexuality. It's right there in the Old Laws - or is it the passage on 'To Gain the Sight'? If a man teaches a man, or a woman teaches a woman, they'll suffer from that whole Curse of the Goddess thing (because a certain fondness may grow between them), which has been explained to me by a man who has his thirds in Alexandrian and Gardnerian to mean that the person will NOT reincarnate, I believe.
Even pretending, for a moment, that these alleged quotes have anything even remotely to do with the Oathbound teachings of the Craft as Gardner passed them on -

and even pretending, despite the utter and complete lack of evidence, that Gardner personally had anything whatever to do with composing these passages (if he didn't create them himself, then they do not necessarily have anything to do with his own opinions) -

Even assuming all that, what does who "teaches" who in an esoteric path have to do with the sexual orientation of anyone?

I fail to see what this has to do with sexual orientation, or with Gardner's opinion of sexual orientation - or what Gardner's opinion of sexual orientation has to do with anything at all. Can you elaborate?

[_Banbha_]

Being someone who is often included among the "Hardgards" mentioned in the quote you provide (in fact, within Gardnerian circles I am often the person pointed to as "the primary example of a Hardgard"), I can give you quite an informed opinion. In fact, I can confidantly say there is probably no one on the planet who is more qualified to provide an informed opinion. So my opinion is this:

Every possible implication of that quote is utter and complete nonsense, and is incredibly offensive to boot. It is totally wrong. It is something invented by someone with a political agenda unrelated to sprituality, or to the Craft, or to Gardner - or even to the "Hardgards". It is nonsense and it is false, and I repudiate it in every single way.

I hope that was not too subtle. :)

Umm...it's okay. I wasn't expecting subtlety.

And I didn't post it to offend, to be clear. :)

Did Gardner ever refer to homosexual sex as the "Templers Sin"?

Was he a man ahead of his time in his views of homosexulity or more typical of his time and the beliefs he might have been raised with?

[Eran]

Umm...it's okay. I wasn't expecting subtlety.

And I didn't post it to offend, to be clear. :)
That's cool. No problem :)

Did Gardner ever refer to homosexual sex as the "Templers Sin"?

Was he a man ahead of his time in his views of homosexulity or more typical of his time and the beliefs he might have been raised with?
I don't think Gardner ever expressed his own thoughts one way or another about any aspect of these issues. Since the sexual orientation of an individual doesn't need to have anything to do with what spiritual path that individual follows, I don't know of any statement by Gardner regarding this topic.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

OK, so the Old Laws just dropped ready-made out of thin air, and had nothing to do with Gardner's little spat with Valiente and her fledgling splinter group with their 'Thirteen Proposed Rules for the Craft'? Being a mere Odyssean, I cannot say anything about any Gardnerian oathbound information. The information I was 'allegedly' quoting is from the Book of Shadows as given on the Sacred Texts Archive - NOT the 'Internet Book of Shadows (*shudder*), the one that's actually a Book of Shadows. And yes, I know full well that Sacred Texts isn't the be-all and end-all of everything. However, I have been told that there's a good chance most of it is legit, and as it's all I have to go by, guess what? I'm going by it.
The passage about 'To Gain the Sight' has also been published in the Farrar's 'A Witches' Bible Compleat', and 'The Old Laws' are found in the back of 'The Grimoire of Lady Sheba'.
Now. Gardner was a product of the Victorians, and the Victorians were rather down on the homosexuality, as Oscar Wilde could attest. And Gardner was writing and concocting his religion in a very conservative time. So it seems obvious to me that he would have slipped that in there, because he may well have been anti-gay, or because he wanted to make his religion seem respectable. However! I myself believe it was the first case, as, to be honest, it never occurred to me that a man teaching a man, or a woman teaching a woman, or any other combination of man and woman would lead to romance. I just never made that mental connection, and I can also say that I've never seen that in the numerous student-teacher pairings we have at the Wiccan Church of Canada.
Now, to be honest, I don't see a problem with it if it does, so long as they can ethically have a relationship. Nor do I see anything wrong with same-sex relationships.
Now, Gardner did not speak of a 'Templar's Sin', however he did speak about them not properly containing the power he thought they raised, which caused them to 'did evil, man to man', the context of which I am uncertain. I suspect he was relying on some shoddy, pseudo-scholarly work on the Templars that gave credence to the rumours and accusations that led to their destruction.
The Farrars aren't anti-gay anymore, so far as I know. They do touch on this topic briefly in the chapter 'Witchcraft and Sex' in 'A Witches' Bible' and conclude that you can be a gay man as long as you act like a man in Circle.

[David19]

I'd reread Kea's post if I were you. She was saying that the word "homophobic" purports to describe people who dislike/hate/are prejudiced against gays, and that it's an offensive word in itself. Not that I particularly agree with that sentiment, but no where did she even come close to suggesting that gays are never the target of discrimination.

Sorry about that, i didn't mean my post to sound harsh, it's just i wasn't actually thinking and i had some other things on my mind at that time.

So sorry again, and thanks i did reread the post, i guess that shows i should focus more (or not write when i have other things to deal with) :).

Thanks :).

[Dawa Lhamo]

Sorry about that, i didn't mean my post to sound harsh, it's just i wasn't actually thinking and i had some other things on my mind at that time.

So sorry again, and thanks i did reread the post, i guess that shows i should focus more (or not write when i have other things to deal with) :).

Thanks :).No worries. ^_^ Hope everything's ok.
The information I was 'allegedly' quoting is from the Book of Shadows as given on the Sacred Texts Archive - NOT the 'Internet Book of Shadows (*shudder*), the one that's actually a Book of Shadows. And yes, I know full well that Sacred Texts isn't the be-all and end-all of everything. However, I have been told that there's a good chance most of it is legit, and as it's all I have to go by, guess what? I'm going by it. Where is it on here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm)? I don't see it, and "Find in this page" doesn't either. From what I can see, several places (on the internet) write out the Old Laws and say nothing about men and women and who should teach who... yet a lot of the ones that break it up into 161 laws do... lol... Actually, I do see it on the "Internet Book of Shadows" there (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/jrflaws.htm)...

I find it interesting that it's printed in some lists but not in others. I'm not saying anything about the quality of the lists where it is printed, but the discrepancy is curious.

Another thing that's interesting is that in the places where it *is* listed, it's given like this (http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/):

TRAINING
153.It has been found that practicing the art doth cause a fondness between aspirant and tutor, and it is the cause of better results if this be so.
154.And if for any reason this be undesireable, it can easily be avoided by both persons from the outset firmly resolving in their minds to be as brother and sister or parent and child.
155.And it is for this reason that a man may be taught only by a woman and a woman by a man, and women and women should not attempt these practices together. So be it ordained. That middle passage is interesting, non?

And we ought to remember that breaking any of these laws brings, alternately, The "Curse of the Goddess", the "Curse of the God and the Goddess", or the "Curse of the Gods". Like this one:
28.And only if it be safe may the Covens meet in some safe place for the great festivals.
29.And while there, none shall say whence they came nor give their true names..Or this one:
46.Members of the old Coven may join the new one when it is formed.
But if they do, they must utterly avoid the old Coven.And there are also various other things, like only keeping a book in one's own handwriting, only having wax pentacles, and not engraving your tools, about keeping separate herb books (one for healing, one for harming)... It's not nearly so bad as Leviticus is for Jews and Christians, but it's obvious that, in the same way, the Laws were written for a certain time, a certain situation. Whether or not Gardner actually wrote them himself doesn't *really* matter, because if he did, he wrote them to have the *appearance* of something much older... something written long ago and pertaining to a long time past. And *as if* someone else had written them. I'm not convinced the passage is that prejudicial, but even if he wrote it, who's to say he didn't include it to further "date", or "back-date" really, the document?

But I'd still like an explanation (from anyone) why some accounts of the Old Laws have those last few bits, about Craft training, and others don't. It's very curious.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Well, yes. The Old Laws say a lot of stupid things that aren't applicable anymore, and the same-sex thing is one of them, says I.

[_Banbha_]

That's cool. No problem :)
I don't think Gardner ever expressed his own thoughts one way or another about any aspect of these issues. Since the sexual orientation of an individual doesn't need to have anything to do with what spiritual path that individual follows, I don't know of any statement by Gardner regarding this topic.

Yes, it is true in the 21st century that enlightened folk know that sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual paths. In Gardner's time though? Was he known to be a progressive? I heard Gardnerians boast of his conservatism while mocking the common liberal or progressive Wiccans that are most common these days.



Now, Gardner did not speak of a 'Templar's Sin', however he did speak about them not properly containing the power he thought they raised, which caused them to 'did evil, man to man', the context of which I am uncertain. I suspect he was relying on some shoddy, pseudo-scholarly work on the Templars that gave credence to the rumours and accusations that led to their destruction.
The Farrars aren't anti-gay anymore, so far as I know. They do touch on this topic briefly in the chapter 'Witchcraft and Sex' in 'A Witches' Bible' and conclude that you can be a gay man as long as you act like a man in Circle.

What does that last statement mean? :foh: A man is a man, gay or otherwise...is it no transsexuals (and, if so why) or is it transvestites can't wear woman's robes?

On a general note, I think both your perspectives are really interesting. I can see how the gender polarity as a part ritual and tradition could lead to some feel left to the side on a basic level. These considerations were not at the fore of common thought during his time, which inherited much from the Victorians, including scholarship, when Wicca was created. I think there is heresy from dissenters, like how SFDM illustrated how the Templar comment, while false, might have evolved from an earlier Gardner statement. If I'm reading correctly.

I've not really seen any to see any indication he was a vanguard in these matters and more that he was a man of his era.

[KeaErisdottir]

Um.....Gardner DID no-no homosexuality. It's right there in the Old Laws - or is it the passage on 'To Gain the Sight'? If a man teaches a man, or a woman teaches a woman, they'll suffer from that whole Curse of the Goddess thing (because a certain fondness may grow between them), which has been explained to me by a man who has his thirds in Alexandrian and Gardnerian to mean that the person will NOT reincarnate, I believe.

No, that was a reasonable prohibition of a practice that would lead to something other than what the rites intend. That little Fecundity thing is THAT important.

It also has no relevance outside of Wicca, and I note the number of groups who are dealing specifically with m-m/f-f Mysteries is growing. Good on them! I am really hoping to start seeing thoughtful commentary about the nature of their Mysteries in the future.

Knowing the Alexandrian and Gardnerian in question, it would be worth your time to make sure that you understand his position clearly before representing him and his thoughts on the Internet.

[KeaErisdottir]

I don't have a horse in this race, not being Wiccan, and I have not made my mind up about Gardner's views. Here is a POV I've read and I'd be interested to hear some informed opinions on:

I will echo Eran's sentiment here. The agenda here is to assign homophobia where none exists and to exert social and political pressure to spiritual matters, which is nothing more complex than tyranny and religious persecution.

Hope that was plain enough.

[KeaErisdottir]

Well, yes. The Old Laws say a lot of stupid things that aren't applicable anymore, and the same-sex thing is one of them, says I.

And on what theological basis do you make this assessment? Since your personal one is already stated, I think it's fair for you to give one in context to religious practice, as well as discuss your qualifications and experience to make that judgement.

[Eran]

Being a mere Odyssean, I cannot say anything about any Gardnerian oathbound information.
Exactly so.

The information I was 'allegedly' quoting is from the Book of Shadows as given on the Sacred Texts Archive - NOT the 'Internet Book of Shadows (*shudder*), the one that's actually a Book of Shadows.
That is not "actually a Book of Shadows". It's cr@p taken directly from Aidan Kelly. It is wholly unreliable. And if it was reliable, putting it on the internet would be wholly unethical, since the Gardnerian Book of Shadows is Oathbound.

And Gardner was writing and concocting his religion in a very conservative time.
Since you are of the opinion that Gardner "wrote" and "concocted" "his religion" - despite the complete lack of evidence for that, and despite the enormous amount of evidence pointing in other directions - there's little more to say. You're welcome to your opinion, and welcome to assign any motives you please to whomever you wish, for whatever purposes you hold, and I won't try to sway you.

But since my research has led me to disagree with your starting assumption - that Gardner "wrote" and "concocted" "his religion" - the rest of your argument is unconvincing.

Nor do I see anything wrong with same-sex relationships.
Nor do I. It is good to find areas of sound agreement!

[Eran]

But I'd still like an explanation (from anyone) why some accounts of the Old Laws have those last few bits, about Craft training, and others don't. It's very curious.
Let me see if I can help! The answer is really very simple. The published material is unreliable, and contains a lot of political spin - or theological spin, or simply unrelated nonsense - from many sources. The actual Gardnerian material remains unpublished and private. What is available is a hodgepodge from lots of different people who were simply guessing about what is or isn't Gardnerian material - or who intentionally published false information.

This happens in many secret societies. A lot of the variations are intentional blinds - that is, various people put various nonsense into the public eye just to see who is gullible enough to believe it! :) The technique works rather well, and helps to keep the real stuff private. After all, who will even look for the real stuff if they're convinced they already have it? :)

So - very important - don't put much stock in any of the accounts you find concerning what is or isn't Gardnerian material. The details of any tradition's inner writings and lore are not really important to anyone else anyway, and they're things that make sense only from within that particular tradition.

I do hope this helps!

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

What does that last statement mean? :foh: A man is a man, gay or otherwise...is it no transsexuals (and, if so why) or is it transvestites can't wear woman's robes?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what they mean. Let me go and have a look at the exact passage in question.


We deliberately refrain from commenting on the 'gay' covens (another particularly American phenomenon) because we feel that we are not equipped to do so, and because anything we could say might be interpreted as anti-homosexual prejudice. We have homosexual friends to whom we related happily as people as we do with other friends - namely, on those things which we have in common, our sexual attitudes not being one of those things. We have always regarded their sexual attitude as their own business, and have defended them against any attempts to make them suffer for it. We have even had one or two homosexual members during our coven's history, when they have been prepared and able to assume the role of their actual gender while in a Wiccan context, and when their personalities have been harmonious with the rest of us.
"A Witches' Bible', Farrar and Farrar, chapter: 'Witchcraft and Sex'.

I think they're saying that a gay man can be in a Circle as long as he acts like a man? Or a woman a woman? Honestly, the idea I get from this is that they (the Farrars) are under the impression that a gay man is feminine and a gay woman masculine. As far as I have seen with gay people in a Circle, this is not something that has ever been brought up or worried about. I am sure that there may be certain groups among those who place emphasis on male-female polarity would would probably get big headaches working out where a transgendered person would fit it - there would be all sorts of questions: Pre-op or post-op, for instance? This is something that I have no idea how to respond to, and to my knowledge it's not something that's come up in any ritual I myself have been to.

Now, on to my source - the information I was given about the 'Curse of the Goddess' was given in an open public class environment, so I'm operating under the assumption (and yes, I know about assumptions) that it's safe to bring up in a discussion.
(he is a wonderful person, though, isn't he?)
Now. As for the 'Old Laws', while they do have some valid points, I think that the sections about "Keep a book in your own hand of write" and "And long have we kept to this rule, 'harm none', and in England now 'tis many a year since a witch has died the death" and "and they have devised a pit of everlasting fire in which their God casteth all who worship him, that men be mad with the terror of it, and think 'an I can but catch one of the Wicca I shall scape this firey pit'." are more than outdated and do not apply today, if they ever did.
As for the Wiccan authenticity debate, well, we're not going to convince the other of our argument, and doesn't belong in this thread.

[Eran]

As for the Wiccan authenticity debate, well, we're not going to convince the other of our argument, and doesn't belong in this thread.
I'm afraid I don't know what "authenticity" means, and I don't think anyone brought that up.

We did touch on the history of the religion of Witchcraft, and that has been brought into this thread - by you, in fact, when implying that since Gardner "wrote" and "concocted" this religion, his personal feelings about homosexuality might have some implications for the religion itself.

If you want to maintain that history shouldn't be brought into this thread, then we must also agree that Gardner's own opinions are not relevant to the nature of this religion. And that means this whole thread is a pointless excusion into an irrelevant topic.

[~Owl~]

Just how often do you think we perform the Great Rite??? ;)

Let me put it to you this way. Do you believe yourself to have a fertile imagination? Does that mean that you are always thinking about heterosexual sex? No! ^_^ Fertility is about creation... not ex nihil, but Coniunctio. Where one force and another force come together, mingle, and something wholly new is born. It's a Mystery. Fecundity. Does the seed have heterosexual sex with the soil? No! Yet germination takes place anyway! Does an artist have heterosexual sex with his media? No! (bad mental image!) Yet put them together, and voilà! A new objet d'art is born.

Now, human sexual reproduction is a *powerful* symbol of fertility. And it's something we can all relate to. Believe it or not, *every* human being has genetic material from a male AND a female, i.e. a biological mother and father. Even if we never participate in human sexual reproduction to create our own offspring, we all, humans that we are, at the very least, are the product of human sexual reproduction. Even if there is never actual sex between the male and the female in a particular situation (in vitro fertilization), they are, nonetheless, ultimately each descended from *someone* who had it...

Heterosexual sex is a *symbol* of fertility, and it's one that we can all relate to (unless we utterly deny our origins)... Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your POV), the connection is so strong in people's minds, that one implies the other.... Fortunately, that makes it a great symbol to use... unfortunately, people confuse the symbol for the thing.

I know that I've read a much better explanation, elsewhere, than the one I just gave, but I think it will have to do for now.

I didn't want to butcher this quote, so I'll just take the whole thing.
I personally think this was written rather well, and expresses my views on the subject as well.

Now, as far as Gardner and Sanders, Gard/Alexandrian trads go...
I know they *emphasize* male/female, and *emphasize* the fertility aspect of Wicca as "The Great Rite" as the sexual union between a man and a woman, but no, I do not believe either to be homophobic.

Myself, have been initiated in the mid 80's, I remember it was a hot topic even back then. So this is an issue that CLEARLY needs to be brought up to the light, so the Hydra can be destroyed. (Not sure what I'm talking about? Read up on your Mythology ;))

But I certainly believe that ALL creatures of Nature, man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, etc... etc... have a place in the "Great Circle" of life, therefore should be able to participate in the rituals as a means of celebration.
After all, that's what our rituals are for. To celebrate Fertility, not soley CAUSE it.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

'Authenticity', n. The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine. (dictionary.com)

I was attempting to prevent this thread from going off-topic. The Gardner-historical-credence debate has been done unto death, let's not drag its corpse in here, OK? There are plenty of threads for that already and we don't need it stinking up the place.

If Gardner's opinions are not relevant, then honestly, I don't understand why you're posting in this thread. I am under the impression that you believe he was not the creator of the Wiccan religion and therefore didn't have influence over its dogma at the time of its creation / development. And as this thread is titled 'Was Gardner homophobic', it deals with *Gardner*. I'm genuinely confused here.

Now, I'm thinking maybe 'homophobic' isn't the term we're looking for here. That implies an uncontrollable fear, intolerance, and hatred, which I've never really noticed in Wiccan writings of any variety. Dion Fortune, now, she essentially accused homosexuals of outright Satanism (when I have a title and reference, I'll give it, however the book is currently out of town - sorry!) Perhaps 'heterosexist' would be a better fit?

We mention 'fertility' an awful lot in a ritual context, but it is not always meant to be baby-spawning and is rarely *defined*. It would be fertility of *anything* - your garden, your artistic work, getting a baby, money, anything. Remember, fertility boils down to growth, spread, and development, none of which are gender-associated ideas so far as I can tell. Dawa Lhamo said it best, really.

[David19]

(the Farrars) are under the impression that a gay man is feminine and a gay woman masculine. As far as I have seen with gay people in a Circle, this is not something that has ever been brought up or worried about. I am sure that there may be certain groups among those who place emphasis on male-female polarity would would probably get big headaches working out where a transgendered person would fit it - there would be all sorts of questions: Pre-op or post-op, for instance?

Off topic: but if they really think that, they really don't know any gay people, i know a lot of gay guys and lesbians who you wouldn't think were gay at all, although i also know some who you could probably guess were (i fit somewhere in the middle of that, i think ;)).

It would be interesting to know where they'd place Transgendered people, i personally don't think it should matter, if someone is born a 'boy', but has the operation to become a girl, their female, no matter what.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic, and thanks for all the replies, to everyone, there's a lot of good information here from people :).

[KeaErisdottir]

The bottom line in this discussion comes down to this:

Can we, based on the statements of people not Gerald Gardner, and statements put forward in various forms of the Book of Shadows that prohibit the teaching of a specific magical practice male-to-male and female-to-female, infer that Gardner was 'homophobic'?

I believe that strains credibility and demonstrates a genuine lack of understanding of the writings to accept such an inference as a fact. Some of what I see here is a desire to condemn a set of widely misunderstood practices based on ignorance about the Mysteries in play as they are practiced. The description of "To Gain the Sight" is specific about only one thing, that being the practice of magic. In a religion whose practice revolves around the matter of fertility and fecundity, whose priesthood enacts rites meant to lend aid to the continuation of the Cycle of Life, Death, and Rebirth, whose rites are specifically geared around interactions that are ultimately heterosexual in nature, like it or not.

So, in respect to the common descriptions of "To Gain the Sight", ask yourself a question or two about the roles of priests and priestesses in the religion. Are males supposed to take on the role of the Goddess and are females supposed to take on the role of the God? The answer, in this instance, is a pretty resounding 'no'. (And, before we spout off the nonsense about women putting on the sword to enact the male role, please remember that it is not a common occurrance and is neither done lightly, nor easy to do.))

[_Banbha_]

I will echo Eran's sentiment here. The agenda here is to assign homophobia where none exists and to exert social and political pressure to spiritual matters, which is nothing more complex than tyranny and religious persecution.

Hope that was plain enough.

I do not see an agenda at all, but a question that could have been phrased differently. I think the OP and SFDM have addressed that. I don't see someone having a different opinion as having an agenda.

I respect both your and Eran's opinions. I though, am not viewing this through a theological or spiritual lense. I do not believe the asking of questions, even seemingly impertinent ones, is religious persecution. And if I have come off sounding disrespectful here, it is not my intention.


I was attempting to prevent this thread from going off-topic. The Gardner-historical-credence debate has been done unto death, let's not drag its corpse in here, OK? There are plenty of threads for that already and we don't need it stinking up the place.

Yes, I was putting Gardner in perspective of his times in order to better understand (in about 5 words I bought it up in the middle of a sentence), you were keeping the thread on topic. I was not trying to delve into the history debate per say.

Thank you for the Farrar quote, and your commentary. I think how they express themselves on the topic of homosexuality in that quote is quaint to say the least.


Now, I'm thinking maybe 'homophobic' isn't the term we're looking for here. That implies an uncontrollable fear, intolerance, and hatred, which I've never really noticed in Wiccan writings of any variety. Dion Fortune, now, she essentially accused homosexuals of outright Satanism (when I have a title and reference, I'll give it, however the book is currently out of town - sorry!)

Yeah, I think it's something alright. That's why I was trying to put it all the context of the times in oder to understand it in a fair and open-minded way.


Perhaps 'heterosexist' would be a better fit?

I agree, homophobic is not how I would describe Gardner from what I've heard here. There is a 'heterosexualist' slant for sure. That has perhaps blossomed into some bad feelings over the years and there have been misunderstandings and exaggerations.


We mention 'fertility' an awful lot in a ritual context, but it is not always meant to be baby-spawning and is rarely *defined*. It would be fertility of *anything* - your garden, your artistic work, getting a baby, money, anything. Remember, fertility boils down to growth, spread, and development, none of which are gender-associated ideas so far as I can tell. Dawa Lhamo said it best, really.

This is how I've always thought of Wicca and the fertility aspect of it.

It was really interesting to hear everyone's viewpoints. I think I understand Wicca as a whole a little better as well.

[Vigdisdotter]

I've just been thinking about this recently, and wanted to know, was Gardner homophobic, 'cause it just seems that he (and i think this is still stressed in Gardnerian traditions today) the 'male/female' polarity thing

Oh probably. And yes, it's still stressed by the BTWs I've worked with.

[Vigdisdotter]

But it's a *fertility* cult rather than a *sex* cult.

I've always wondered why some people have such a limited view of what constitutes fertility. It's more then just biological procreation. Fertility of mind and spirit are just as important (it not more so) as of the body.

I mean what happens to those those heterosexual practitioners that have the misfortune to be infertile? Or don't desire children?

Getting hung up on plumbing seems to be missing the point, IMNSHO.

[Carla O'Harris]

Silverfire Darkmoon said,


The Gardner-historical-credence debate has been done unto death, let's not drag its corpse in here, OK?

But it is truly a dying-and-rising god ... it can be killed as many times as you wish, and it will rise again, a Green Man ... it is the nature of the beast. How many times has it been said that the Great God Pan is Dead? And yet ... he keeps returning.

[Carla O'Harris]

I've always wondered why some people have such a limited view of what constitutes fertility. It's more then just biological procreation. Fertility of mind and spirit are just as important (it not more so) as of the body.

I mean what happens to those those heterosexual practitioners that have the misfortune to be infertile? Or don't desire children?

Getting hung up on plumbing seems to be missing the point, IMNSHO.


I agree with you. I think that fertility includes the ability to make things infertile. If the High Priestess is calling the Mistress of Animals into herself, then this Goddess distributes fertility as she wishes, and as seems ecologically appropriate to each species in balance.

I've known friends who did fertility rituals, asking the gods to transfer their fertility to the trees, the animals, and the crops, so they themselves wouldn't get pregnant!

[Carla O'Harris]

Let's keep in mind that Gardner was a reader of Pierre Louys, the author of the story about King Pausole, whose Utopian kingdom coined the phrase that captured the spirit of the witch's ethics that became the Rede.

This is significant. Let's look a little at Pierre Louys :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Lou%C3%BFs


He studied at an Alsacienne school, and there he developed a close friendship with a future Nobel Prize winner and champion of homosexual rights, André Gide. In the 1890s, he became a friend of noted English dramatist and homosexual, Oscar Wilde. Although heterosexual, Louys enjoyed entree into homosexual circles.


. He followed up in 1894 with another erotic collection in 143 prose poems- Songs of Bilitis (Les Chansons de Bilitis), this time with strong lesbian themes.


The Songs of Bilitis... was praised as a fount of elegant sensuality and refined style, even more extraordinary for the author's compassionate portrayal of lesbian (and female in general) sexuality. Some of the poems were tailored as songs for voice and piano, and, in 1897, Louÿs' close friend Claude Debussy composed a musical adaptation. In 1955, one of the first lesbian organizations in America called itself Daughters of Bilitis, and to this day Louÿs' Songs continues to be an important work for lesbians.


Louÿs went on to publish Les Aventures du roi Pausole (The Adventures of King Pausole) in 1901, Pervigilium Mortis in 1916- both of them libertine compositions


Pierre Louÿs deserves attention on his own merits within the pagan community, being an amazingly sensual and exquisite poet :

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sob/


To connect the dots here, here is a quote from The Adventures of King Pausole, from http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/pausole.shtml


I have the French original
[1], which has:

Code de Tryphême

I. - Ne nuis pas à voisin.
II. - Ceci bien compris, fais ce qu'il te plaît. (p. 14)

and the Lumley translation [2]. Now Lumley (p. 16) translates this
into

Code of Tryphemiz

I. Thou shalt not harm thy neighbor
II. This being understood, do as you wouldst.

Now my poor French agrees with the first point, but the "wouldst" of
point II. seems fairly weak for "plaît." which should be more like
what one "likes" or "pleases," which would make point II. something
like: "This being understood, do as you please" or ". . . do as you
like."

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/ThreeFoldLie.html


According to Gardner, the "creed" is derived from "Good King Pausol" who declared, "Do what you like so long as you harm no one." King Pausol is a fictitious character from the French novel by Pierre Louys (1870-1925): Les Adventures du Roi Pausole: Pausole (Souverain Paillard et D�bonnaire) (1901 and reprinted in 1925 numerous times since), or the Adventures of King Pausole (The Bawdy and Good Natured Sovereign).

http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/pausole-a.shtml :

The work looks to be Victorian erotica, as do the other works of
Louÿs [3a]. One reviewer described the book as "Fine, funny, risqué novel
of the king of a strange country, who has a thousand wives, and believes in
sexual freedom for everyone except his own daughter Aline. Aline finally
runs away with a "boy" who is really a disguised girl." [5]


he book was also made into a film directed by Alexis Granowsky [10]
(released 1933) featuring the Swiss born Austrian actor Emil Jannings
(1884-1950, Oscar for best actor in The Way of All Flesh, 1927 and The Last
Command 1928): released variously under the titles Die Abenteuer des Königs
Pausole (Germany), König Pausole (Austria), King Pausole (Great Britain) and
The Merry Monarch (USA) [11]. According to the storyline the plot goes:
"Happy king Pausole reigns peacefully on the kingdom of Triphème. Each
night, to share its layer, it chooses one of its 366 wives who live all in
waiting of this annual event. The life runs out calmly until the arrival of
an aviator who, falling under the charm from the girl from Pausole, hustles
the practices of the palace."


Clearly, King Pausole is a Libertine who feels specifically that any kind of sexuality is ok so long as it harms none, and was written by a man known for his sensual lesbian poetry, and who was a friend of Oscar Wilde!!

And this is the reference Gardner --- a nudist, witch, and nonconformist --- chose to illustrate the witch's ethics! I think that is worthy of some consideration.

[Eran]

'Authenticity', n. The quality or condition of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine. (dictionary.com)
Thanks for providing a definition. I don't see what relevance that word has to the current discussion - or indeed to any discussion about religion - so I was (and still am) confused as to why you brought that word into this particular discussion. Can you indicate anywhere that anyone mentioned questions of the "authenticity" of the religion of Witchcraft?

I was attempting to prevent this thread from going off-topic. The Gardner-historical-credence debate has been done unto death, let's not drag its corpse in here, OK?
If you feel the matter of Gardner's relationship to the history of the Craft should not be discussed in this thread, I have to ask - Why did you bring it up? It feels a little as if you're saying it's okay to present your view of the matter here, but beyond presenting your view, we shouldn't actually have a conversation about it.

If Gardner's opinions are not relevant, then honestly, I don't understand why you're posting in this thread.
Because anyone is allowed to post in any thread, and I had something to offer on the topic of this particular one.

I ask you - if you think Gardner's view of homosexuality is an important question to ask, why do you feel it is important? (Remember, you do not want to discuss issues about the historical roots of Wicca in this thread, so please present a reason that is not related to the issue of the historical roots of Wicca.)

I am under the impression that you believe he was not the creator of the Wiccan religion and therefore didn't have influence over its dogma at the time of its creation / development. And as this thread is titled 'Was Gardner homophobic', it deals with *Gardner*. I'm genuinely confused here.
And I answered concerning Gardner. I said there was no evidence whatever that he was homophobic. I commented on matters of Craft history only in response to your comments on matters of Craft history.

Now, I'm thinking maybe 'homophobic' isn't the term we're looking for here. That implies an uncontrollable fear, intolerance, and hatred, which I've never really noticed in Wiccan writings of any variety.
I agree with you here. KeaErisdottir made a similar point:

... a phobia is an unreasoning fear of something. I nothing unreasoning in the majority of those statements.
... to which Greyharp replied:

I've only ever heard Christians use this argument before. Yeah sure, "phobic" normally applies to a fear of something, but in the general usage of the term "homophobic", it has very little to do with fear but a whole lot to do with hatred, prejudice and anger. I think most people realise this and so I believe splitting hairs over the meaning of the term "has no place in a productive discussion".
Now, I happen to agree with you and KeaErisdottir. The word is inappropriate - or, at the least, it is entirely inapplicable to Gardner or to Traditional Craft.

We mention 'fertility' an awful lot in a ritual context, but it is not always meant to be baby-spawning and is rarely *defined*. It would be fertility of *anything* - your garden, your artistic work, getting a baby, money, anything. Remember, fertility boils down to growth, spread, and development, none of which are gender-associated ideas so far as I can tell. Dawa Lhamo said it best, really.
Yes indeed, as I also agreed, Dawa Lhamo expressed this viewpoint wonderfully. Fertility is a very big concept. This concept happens to be expressed in various traditions in different ways - different trads use different forms of symbolism. It is a mistake, as I previously said, to take the symbolism in a concrete way - for instance, to condemn the symbolism itself, and so pretend it is homophobic (or even heterosexist).

[Vigdisdotter]

I agree with you.

Ack! Run, hide! The world is coming to an end! Carla agreed with me :P

I'm glad that made sense :)

And your friends had an interesting idea. Do you know if it worked out for them, the not getting pregnant part I mean.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, in the ritual I was told about, it was after a condom broke, and that was several years back, and no one got pregnant. So you can either call that lucky, or luck enhanced by a ritual!

[Eran]

The bottom line in this discussion comes down to this:

Can we, based on the statements of people not Gerald Gardner, and statements put forward in various forms of the Book of Shadows that prohibit the teaching of a specific magical practice male-to-male and female-to-female, infer that Gardner was 'homophobic'?

I believe that strains credibility and demonstrates a genuine lack of understanding of the writings to accept such an inference as a fact. Some of what I see here is a desire to condemn a set of widely misunderstood practices based on ignorance about the Mysteries in play as they are practiced.
Very well expressed! Yes, that is the issue exactly.

We could as easily ask - since many people use knives as part of Wiccan / Witchcraft rituals, and since knives can be used in war, and since there are people who approve of the current war in Iraq, does that mean Gardner would have supported President Bush? And, by inference, does that mean Traditionalist Wiccans/Witches are all Republicans (some openly, some not)?

It is an enormous leap to take the statements of a few people - statments unrelated to Gardner - and to claim that these statements tell us something about Gardner's opinion, and then to imply that, therefore, Wicca/Witchcraft was constructed to agree with those statements. This seems rather to be pushing some envelope.

[Vigdisdotter]

So you can either call that lucky, or luck enhanced by a ritual!

Sound to me like they need to repeat it a few times. For research purposes of course :P

[KeaErisdottir]

Very well expressed! Yes, that is the issue exactly.

Thank you. :)


It is an enormous leap to take the statements of a few people - statments unrelated to Gardner - and to claim that these statements tell us something about Gardner's opinion, and then to imply that, therefore, Wicca/Witchcraft was constructed to agree with those statements. This seems rather to be pushing some envelope.

This is something I have seen repeatedly, and especially in the internet. It's always been kind of amusing/troubling to see partial quotes from things that have been said elsewhere used to construct an impression that someone's positions are other than what they are. Much of it is absolutely intentional, illconsidered, and unethical, especially when the use of inflammatory words like 'homophobic' are in play, or accusations about extremism in more traditional groups are on the table.