The Divine View:
On the object of sexuality in the horoscope, where the matter of a
person’s taste may be described, but not their gender.

An astrologer ponders the object of sexuality in the horoscope
For the thousands of years that humans have made up stories about the stars, read them for prophecy or hailed them as heavenly, the astrologer has frequently been put to test their skills at their folkloric meaning. Questions, such as “What sex will my child be?” “Whom shall I love?” And, “When Will I Marry?” are the daily exchange between astrologers and their clients.

What no one realizes except the astrologer, is that gender is never included in any chart. The astrological chart does not show gender preference or sexual identifiers. No astrologer has ever found the glyph of the sky, the astrological a chart, looked at it and said with credibility, "Oh, this is the chart of a woman!"

The fact of the matter rests with the certain myopia of The Divine View. If the astrological chart is the divine view (as it is a portrayal of The Heavens on the moment of a birth) and if the chart cannot reveal to astrologers whether it is the chart of a man or a woman, it is possible that The Divine enters no cognition of gender. From this point of view, biological genitalia is an "accident" of fate, and no longer within the purview of the Divine. Men and women may be "LOVERS" but not necessarily of one sex or the other, from this heavenly point of view. We are humans, capable of loving, and after that no further distinction is offered by the chart in and of itself. Gender is not something indentifiable by any reliable means in the astrological chart. It has never been done, not in ancient times, nor now.

On the discussions at http://YahooGroups/All_astrology (Nearly 600 members, discussing since 1998) the issue of sexuality, abberational behavior, sexual preference and the cause of homosexuality are no longer fit subjects for discussion among the astrologers gathered there, at the Astrologers' Water Cooler.

Whether boys love girls will not be discussed. We will certainly still name our partners as lovers, boyfriends or girlfriends. Our new dialogue is by edict (since it won't be voluntary) inclusive and relates humans to humans, but not by gender identification. This policy seeks to humanize the discussion of human sexuality, but will not tolerate any practice of hate, ridicule or otherwise undermine the dignity of humanity during discussion.

A question by the astrologer: Whom Do You Love?
To get at the implications of gender identification, and to avoid an offense against an entirely human urge, the instinct to couple and be a lover, I want to clarify an important difference.

Sometimes the subject of embryo research is joined to homosexuality as if to say that medical science will find the problem and "heal" the homosexuality, as if it were a treatable disease. This is so dehumanizing as to be offensive.

It also used to be the wrong thing to say if we ended a sentence with, "Pretty good for a girl."

Similarly, if it were considered unfashionable to be a girl (which it was), by using this logic, we might need to find a good medical reason for being a girl, and perhaps the implication might be, "She can be healed of it." It is this very type of logic which is completely hurtful and undignified. Such reasoning actually identifies a certain lack of humanity in the persons making the "research statement" on the subject of homosexuality.

Someone else may take another route toward the hurtful practice of naming a man "homophobic," with the implication that this man should not snarl under his breath, or otherwise feel something which to him comes most naturally; but again this man is being berated for his personal choices. What is truthful is that while no one wants to be touched inappropriately, it should be understood that the "phobia" is not a reason make someone wrong or to attack for that fear. Men who are "homophobic" in this instance, are expressing their natural inclination, though unfashionable it may be.

If the chart does not give us the sex of an individual (girl or boy) then how is it then supposed to divulge the sexuality or sexual preference? Homosexuality, like any sexuality, is not really a matter of taste, as much as it is an imperative of the soul to reach out (like everyone) for like-mindedness where libido and instinct meet: The astrologer must ask the question, "Whom do you love?"

The chart has never once provided a positive identification on the object of Love! The tastes of a lover can be described. The Lover and his Beloved are described in general astrological terms, as well. Mercury in the 5th house or ruling the 5th indicates someone who might vary in his or her sexual practices, may enjoy some "kinkiness." This configuration appears in the charts of homosexuals, heterosexuals, pink, yellow and green people’s charts, as well as truck drivers and people confined to wheelchairs. In other words, a person’s taste may be described, but not their gender. Nor is there any correlation between the numbers of those who have such aspects and the population exclusively homosexuality, for instance. We are speaking of a moment in time! Not biological gender. As such, any kinkiness shared by lovers may be shared without our noticing their gender at all, since we presume such acts of kinkiness to occur in private. Similarly, "plain vanilla sex" is shared by beings who are developing their intimacy, but the charts cannot determine the boy versus the girl or any combination thereof, nor is it any of the astrologer’s real business.

Our view is the Human View. We use the Sun to light our way, working 9 - to - 5, allowing us to distinguish the males and females according to our personal experience. But the Divine View does not include this important detail: it is however quite human to impose a gender upon the Divine. Orthodox Catholics use the masculine gender in reference to “The Father.” But that is how humans behave: they attach gender to everything. Astrology is from the Divine. Its Divine practice reveals NOTHING about the sex of the individual. The Divine View does not comprehend our gender. We, the humans walking around in our current lifetime costume, thus identified with this or that sexual organ, are the ones who put these labels on the Divine. Perhaps the use of a different light, that of the Moon, the Great Unifier is what is needed: That lamp of the night illuminates by coloring the entire landscape in her milky midnight light, it’s a bit more forgiving, allowing room for privacy.

We astrologers cannot say, "Oh, this chart prefers female lovers, or this chart prefers same-sex partners." It has never happened. The chart does not say, "This is a BOY!" Therefore it cannot also say, "You prefer GIRLS!"

The pleasure-seeking proclivities are designated by the planets, but the sexual identification is not. The proclivities do not identify the sexuality as we Americans are fond of calling that which is the libido.
It can describe how (a person described by the chart) makes choices, and why. But to extend this identifying power to the impossible, i.e., to identify which sex is this chart, since it cannot be associated with a gender-specific identity in the chart, fairly well reveals more about that astrologer's lack of power with their astrology. Even to say that a Gemini planet causes or creates a homophobic reaction reveals a lesser understanding of the Divine.

The "tastes" of a lover are to be left to that person's discretion. Even phobias are sacred! To name it something, to point it out and rub noses in that part over which the astrologer feels something shameful is to practice projection of shame, not astrology.

It is our CULTURE, that misreads the need for privacy projects shame upon sacred union, and suggests that something is wrong! It is rebelling against the personal compulsions indicated by the chart, that we may attract a fitting "disaster". Note also the etymology of the word itself, "dis" + "aster" meaning "against" and "the star(s)".

The Constitutional Amendment: Marriage Rights for the Right Genders
It was the Declaration of Independence which stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...”

Whatever shape or identity may influence our human relations may well be our current government's neo-conservative atmosphere of repression and complexity, it is so far distant from the experience of LOVE that it boggles the mind. The government wants to legislate LOVE by gender! John Ashcroft reveals more about his personal shame by draping the nude figures of the halls of various public buildings.

This after the language of our core US documents was amended to abolish differences between race, gender, creed. The “great leveler,” of inclusiveness (like the Moon’s unifying light) was now seeking a peek inside bedrooms (using the harsh light of the Sun) to find who was qualified for the sacred rite of marriage. The goverment would seek out a greater scope than what the Divine would circumscribe as beyond its holy horizon.

When legislators place a greater value on their civil duties instead of playing God, remarking that the vote has been expanded to both men and women, they may assess, along with the astrologers, that the vote, like the chart, reveals nothing about the gender of the voter.

Claire-France Perez, Astrologer