The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate

[Arthur Brain]

Yes it is, it is one of the conottations of love, along with lust. It is that romantic, foolish passion that you speak of. There is no other word for it that I am aware of.

No, it isn't. There's a complete difference between having a 'schoolboy crush' on someone and actually being in love with someone. It's not some 'foolish passion' and it is something utterly beyond your control.

Now you add a new distinction to your idea of love that wasn't present before in this discussion: its not just passion. Before you were describing your romantic love as an intense passion, even beyond one's control. Now you contradict yourself. Of course, you haven't given any specific details or words to describe this alternate passion.

Love is intense, but it's not simply an infatuation with somebody. I thought I was in love when I was 16 but I realize I was simply infatuated with a beautiful woman. Most lads where I were at were jealous of my working with her because of just how physically beautiful she was. It was nothing other than a crush based purely on physical attraction. There was no way a relationship could have feasibly come out of it.

You are simply trying to make it sound like the feelings you have are superior to/greater than my own. It is non-sense.

No, I'm simply pointing out to you that being in actual love with someone goes beyond any sort of crush or infatuation. I even gave you a personal example which you somehow seemed not to comprehend properly and I'm not that surprised you didn't address my utterly bemused response.

 

[csuguy]

Yes, because heaven forbid we ever feel anything.:chuckle:

And never miss a chance to take a cheap shot at art. Well done.:yawn:

Good job constructing more strawmen to attack Granite - how many posts in a row do you think you can go? You've got two now.

You realize that test is borderline worthless, yes? Sorry to burst your bubble, Spock.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

Fiesty aren't you? I never said the test was anything special - its not like I'd pay to be tested. Nor do I think it, or any other, personality test is perfect. That doesn't mean it doesn't do a good job of categorizing people and describing them. As a personality description, INTP fits me like a glove.

Also - I never liked Star Trek. Stargate was good though. I'm more into anime than sci-fi.

Then your cheap shot was uncalled for. "In place of lust"? Seriously, where did that come from and what's your point, exactly? So far what I'm seeing is a guy who's either totally full of himself or very naive...and contempt for homosexuals, which frankly is pretty standard on TOL.

It's not a cheap shot to use accurate terminology. "Love" carries so many connotations that it is easy for people to talk about one thing, like lust, but carry with it the rhetorical power of other connotations, like agape. Hence the Greeks used separate terms to refer to these different kinds of love.

Calling things what they are is important in discussion - it doesn't let people hide behind ambiguities.

Furthermore, I have no contempt for homosexuals. You have come at me quite viciously and thrown all kinds of false accusations at me - only serving to demonstrate your own hate. I disagree with homosexuality - yes - but that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. To the contrary, I have several good friends who are gay, bisexual, transexual, etc.

 

[csuguy]

Sure there is, but like you said, you're someone who goes by their own experience as well as what they study from philosophy and theology. I don't think most philosophers can understand the irrational and theology is more concerned with covenants/commitments and reproduction.

Love is by no means beyond the bounds of Philosophy or Theology. To the contrary, it is a very important topic in Christian Theology.

Also, I disagree that love is irrational. It has a very rational basis - whether you are speaking of agape, lust, etc.

The kind of love we are referring to is irrational and the knowledge of it is experiential. I can't claim to have experienced everything there is to experience in the realm of emotions/feelings. Do you believe you've experienced everything there is to feel?

That is just feel-good non-sense. Just because hollywood depicts love as irrational doesn't mean it is so. I have experienced this same romantic love - and for you to disregard my experiences as somehow less than yours is nothing more than snobbery.

Do you think people who've felt utter happiness or Nirvana are thumbing their nose down at people who haven't when they discuss it? Maybe people shouldn't talk about their own experiences from fear of making someone who hasn't had them feel condescended to.

To say you've experienced something is one thing - to disregard other people's experience as less than your own - that is condescension.

And Nirvana isn't happiness - it is emptiness. Freedom from pain at the cost of everything else. Truly a sad goal to have.

 

[csuguy]

When the Bible mentions acts that we moderns call "homosexuality" meant three things in ancient, tribal culture:

Domination, male aggression and fertility rites.

There is no mention of what we would call "homosexual" acts.

The only evidence for a "loving" relationship between two men is the story of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament (the "Hebrew Bible"). The relevant passages do not say anything about sex between them per se, but it seems like from the context it may have actually happened between them.

Today's young people know Christianity as bigoted and not either compelling or persuadable to them. This should not be surprising.

The hysterical focus on sex and sexuality in both Christianity and Islam are a turn off to people living in today's global culture.

Muslims aren't the only ones who are in favor of Shar'ia Law.

Leviticus 20:13
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Sounds like condemnation of homosexuality to me.

 

[csuguy]

No, it isn't. There's a complete difference between having a 'schoolboy crush' on someone and actually being in love with someone. It's not some 'foolish passion' and it is something utterly beyond your control.

You are clearly incapable of having a reasonable discussion. You simply act condescending - dismissing my experiences as mere 'crushes' in contrast to your 'true' love. You try to distinguish your love that is 'utterly beyond control' from 'foolish passion' but can provide no justification or differentiation.

 

[resurrected]

You are clearly incapable of having a reasonable discussion.

to be fair, he's probably drunk

 

[Lighthouse]

The only evidence for a "loving" relationship between two men is the story of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament (the "Hebrew Bible"). The relevant passages do not say anything about sex between them per se, but it seems like from the context it may have actually happened between them.

Idiot.

 

[Granite]

Good job constructing more strawmen to attack Granite - how many posts in a row do you think you can go? You've got two now.

Addressing what you actually said isn't a strawman attack, guy.

I never said the test was anything special - its not like I'd pay to be tested. Nor do I think it, or any other, personality test is perfect. That doesn't mean it doesn't do a good job of categorizing people and describing them. As a personality description, INTP fits me like a glove.

I'm sure it does. The Barnum Effect is a helluva thing.:cheers:

It's not a cheap shot to use accurate terminology. "Love" carries so many connotations that it is easy for people to talk about one thing, like lust, but carry with it the rhetorical power of other connotations, like agape. Hence the Greeks used separate terms to refer to these different kinds of love.

I've got four years of koine under my belt, guy (ah, the wonders of a parochial high school education). I'm aware of the differences. That said, you seemed to be reducing one form of love (same sex) to lust, as though someone was trying to pull a fast one on you.

Furthermore, I have no contempt for homosexuals. You have come at me quite viciously and thrown all kinds of false accusations at me - only serving to demonstrate your own hate.

Of what? Stuffed shirts?

I disagree with homosexuality - yes - but that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals.

Yet you'd be happier with them and for them if they were straight. Correct?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

to be fair, he's probably drunk

Well, is WAS almost Friday

 

[Quincy]

You are clearly incapable of having a reasonable discussion. You simply act condescending - dismissing my experiences as mere 'crushes' in contrast to your 'true' love. You try to distinguish your love that is 'utterly beyond control' from 'foolish passion' but can provide no justification or differentiation.

You aren't doing anything different than you claim he is. You call his idea of true love foolish passion. That's just as condescending as what you accuse him of. You're telling us what we've felt isn't what we believe it is and all we are saying is that what we've felt doesn't sound like what you describe. You don't want us to disagree with you? Do you want us all to just submit to your knowledge of love?

 

[Town Heretic]

...Also, I disagree that love is irrational. It has a very rational basis - whether you are speaking of agape, lust, etc.

I've never seen anyone reason their way into love; though I have seen, sadly, many a soul reason their way out.

That is just feel-good non-sense. Just because hollywood depicts love as irrational doesn't mean it is so.

There's a difference between being able to rationalize a thing and the thing being rational itself.

I have experienced this same romantic love - and for you to disregard my experiences as somehow less than yours is nothing more than snobbery.

It's all in how we contextualize, isn't it. The love of my life came to me contrary to my best reasoning on the point. Thank God.

And Nirvana isn't happiness - it is emptiness. Freedom from pain at the cost of everything else. Truly a sad goal to have.

A Buddhist would say that "everything else" you want to hold onto is a bag of jagged glass with the word "mine" scribble on it and the "i" dotted by a heart.

 

[csuguy]

I've never seen anyone reason their way into love; though I have seen, sadly, many a soul reason their way out.

Emotions do arise independent of our conscious decision to feel emotions, generally speaking (though a good actor can force themselves into a given emotional state). This can especially be true for infatuation.

Nevertheless, our conscious decisions determine the fate of that emotion. Do we nourish it and attempt to form a relationship, or do we resist it and let it die. Even if not immediate - overtime, our emotions conform to our conscious decisions and beliefs.

There's a difference between being able to rationalize a thing and the thing being rational itself.

There is also a difference between feeling in control of something and that thing being irrational.

A Buddhist would say that "everything else" you want to hold onto is a bag of jagged glass with the word "mine" scribble on it and the "i" dotted by a heart.

That everything includes everyone you ever cared about, any love that ever had, anything that you ever found joy and happiness in doing, etc. It also costs your morality - for to reach Nirvana you must rid yourself of all good and bad karma.

 

[Quincy]

Love is by no means beyond the bounds of Philosophy or Theology. To the contrary, it is a very important topic in Christian Theology.

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean either branch of knowledge fully encapsulates the experience of love.

Also, I disagree that love is irrational. It has a very rational basis - whether you are speaking of agape, lust, etc.

I disagree. Some aspects or types of love are rational, others aren't. Think of Eros, which is classically understood as being mania. The whole being struck by Cupid's arrow myth. Later philosophers/psychologists have tried to rationalize it but none of them agree, which is rather telling.

That is just feel-good non-sense. Just because hollywood depicts love as irrational doesn't mean it is so. I have experienced this same romantic love - and for you to disregard my experiences as somehow less than yours is nothing more than snobbery.

I never said that. I said I disagree that what you are describing is what I've felt. I even gave you positive rep because I agree with what you're saying pertaining to certain types of love. Thanks for assuming everyone is the same and that you're experiences are mine. Regardless, I still disagree and all I'm saying is that what you describe isn't what I've felt. I've not made any statement that what I've felt is better or that you can't feel what I've experienced. I'm curious as to why you're projecting that into it.

To say you've experienced something is one thing - to disregard other people's experience as less than your own - that is condescension.

You're disregarding my experience for your own and implying that I'm nuts. :chuckle:

Which maybe you aren't but I'm inferring that you are, it's funny how people can infer something different than what you're implying.......

And Nirvana isn't happiness - it is emptiness. Freedom from pain at the cost of everything else. Truly a sad goal to have.

I know that, I left out the word experienced by mistake. Anyways, I'm done with this. It seems like you think you know it all and that you're accusing me of being condescending when all I'm doing is disagreeing with you.

 

[csuguy]

Addressing what you actually said isn't a strawman attack, guy.

You didn't address what I said - you went off on a completely different tangent, attacking notions I do not hold.

I'm sure it does. The Barnum Effect is a helluva thing.:cheers:

It's not the Barnum Effect. There is actual reasoning behind the classifications, and reasoning behind the detailed descriptions. No - it might not be a science, but that doesn't mean its random gibberish either. It is a philosophy based upon an intelligent man's observations and analysis.

I've got four years of koine under my belt, guy (ah, the wonders of a parochial high school education). I'm aware of the differences. That said, you seemed to be reducing one form of love (same sex) to lust, as though someone was trying to pull a fast one on you.

People do try and pull a fast one by using 'love' in place of what it actually is - lust, and potentially infatuation. They use love for its rhetorical punch - "how can loving others be wrong?!"

Of what? Stuffed shirts?

Apparently of anyone who doesn't say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - you automatically assume the worst of them and attack them viciously.

Yet you'd be happier with them and for them if they were straight. Correct?

For them, yes. With them, no. We are all sinners, I don't make it my job to condemn people.

 

[Granite]

You didn't address what I said - you went off on a completely different tangent, attacking notions I do not hold.

Well yes, I did. Your problem is you just don't care for my opinions. Moving on.

It's not the Barnum Effect. There is actual reasoning behind the classifications, and reasoning behind the detailed descriptions. No - it might not be a science, but that doesn't mean its random gibberish either. It is a philosophy based upon an intelligent man's observations and analysis.

Then you should re-check the link I provided (assuming you did in the first place). Interesting reading, to say the least.

People do try and pull a fast one by using 'love' in place of what it actually is - lust, and potentially infatuation.

You can speak to your own experiences, guy, but sitting in judgment of others is its own kind of presumption. Love, romance, lust, what have you, is different for everyone and every pairing.

They use love for its rhetorical punch - "how can loving others be wrong?!"

Which is why we have folks insisting that what gay people feel isn't "really" love. That they don't or can't "actually" care for someone. That their romance isn't "real." And so forth.

Apparently of anyone who doesn't say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - you automatically assume the worst of them and attack them viciously.

I have low tolerance for bigotry. I don't much care for people with thin skins, for that matter.

For them, yes. With them, no. We are all sinners, I don't make it my job to condemn people.

So for you to feel even better about these friends of yours they'd need to fundamentally change who they are.

Uh humm.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are clearly incapable of having a reasonable discussion. You simply act condescending - dismissing my experiences as mere 'crushes' in contrast to your 'true' love. You try to distinguish your love that is 'utterly beyond control' from 'foolish passion' but can provide no justification or differentiation.

I've been reasonable, as has everyone else who is disagreeing with you. I've provided you examples as to how love is beyond a conscious choice or control (as have others) and yet you dismiss it all and stubbornly maintain the contrary. If I had such control over feelings there are times in my life where I would have chosen not to develop those feelings for someone, so if you continue with your ongoing a conversation with you is just pointless.

 

[quip]

And Nirvana isn't happiness - it is emptiness. Freedom from pain at the cost of everything else. Truly a sad goal to have.

Freedom = -cost.

Transient "costs"....well, they cost. You're like a silly dog enjoying the chase of your own tail. Such an enthralling task.....at least, for the time being. :dog:

 

[csuguy]

Well yes, I did. Your problem is you just don't care for my opinions. Moving on.

The problem is that your opinions are far off the mark and demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension. For instance, this:

Yes, because heaven forbid we ever feel anything.:chuckle:

I'm not a stoic, I never said that emotions were bad. To the contrary, they add a lot to life. Life would be far less interesting without emotions. I merely don't confuse, as the feeling types do, emotions for truth or for the way things should be. Emotions must give way to reason, not the other way around. A foolish man lets his emotions run wild, saying whatever comes to mind. A wise man restrains himself.

Then you should re-check the link I provided (assuming you did in the first place). Interesting reading, to say the least.

I looked over it - its basic premise is that its not science, and therefore junk. That is a silly notion - science is itself a philosophy built on top of other philosophies. For that sect of knowledge to which it is dedicated - the study of natural processes - it is great. But that is only a tiny portion of the knowledge to be had out there, and it is relatively unimportant. Science figures out natural processes that we may manipulate them to our advantage - it provides tools. This is far less important than how to use the tools available to you. Science can help prolong life, but can't give it meaning or direction.

You can speak to your own experiences, guy, but sitting in judgment of others is its own kind of presumption. Love, romance, lust, what have you, is different for everyone and every pairing.

I'm not condemning anyone - this is the fourth strawman you've put fourth. I'm am merely analyzing and using more specific terminology. People don't like the more specific terminology because it removes the romantic mystery and the rhetoric.

Which is why we have folks insisting that what gay people feel isn't "really" love. That they don't or can't "actually" care for someone. That their romance isn't "real." And so forth.

Some may, but I've never said any such thing. To the contrary, I'm sure their emotions are as real as anyone elses. It is really irrelevant as far as my stance goes.

I have low tolerance for bigotry. I don't much care for people with thin skins, for that matter.

You are the only bigot in this conversation - I haven't said one hateful or derogatory statement about gays. Anything I've said here applies to everyone, straight, gays, etc.

So for you to feel even better about these friends of yours they'd need to fundamentally change who they are.

Uh humm.

Incorrect - I said I'd feel better FOR them, not ABOUT them. If your friend had a problem with drugs and they finally chose to stop and seek help - wouldn't you feel better FOR them. It doesn't mean you care for them more than you did before - rather you are happy for their sake.

Also, hopefully someone has more substance to them than their mere sexual orientation. It would be quite sad for someone's homosexuality to be the fundamental building block upon which their identity is framed. If it is the case - all the more reason for them to change and find some real substance in their life.

 

[csuguy]

I've been reasonable, as has everyone else who is disagreeing with you. I've provided you examples as to how love is beyond a conscious choice or control (as have others) and yet you dismiss it all and stubbornly maintain the contrary. If I had such control over feelings there are times in my life where I would have chosen not to develop those feelings for someone, so if you continue with your ongoing a conversation with you is just pointless.

You continue to misunderstand my position, which must mean you either have zero reading comprehension or you are simply skimming my posts without paying any attention to what is being said.

READ THIS: I never asserted that one can simply turn on/off their feelings on a whim. What I asserted is that overtime one's conscious decisions to act on or reject the emotions one feels results in those emotions changing. You can nourish feelings so that they grow, or you can reject them and harden your heart against them.

 

[csuguy]

Freedom = -cost.

Transient "costs"....well, they cost. You're like a silly dog enjoying the chase of your own tail. Such an enthralling task.....at least, for the time being. :dog:

The costs of existing are worth a little pain, for there is far more joy and love to be had. Don't like the state of the world - work to make it a better place - its not like you are planning on reaching Nirvana this life anyways. Abandoning the world because you are afraid of a little pain - that's just cowardice. And the means of doing so - abandoning all that is good and moral, tossing aside your love for others - this is evil.

Besides, freedom has no meaning when you lack the desire to do anything.