The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

quip

BANNED
Banned
It might not happen immediately, but a practicing Buddhist must ultimately give up love for others if they are to reach Nirvana. To chase after Nirvana all that is good and moral must be abandoned - and for what? Nothingness..

It might be necessary to give up love to escape Samsara - but why escape in the first place? Do you remember your countless life times? When you were born - were you tired of living? Are there no new experiences for you? Is there no love in your life?

There is pain in life, sure. But there is happiness, love, and fulfillment in life as well - and these outweigh any suffering. Indeed, according to Buddhists teachings, to do good results in good things happening to you - while bad things result in bad things happening to you. Surely, then, you can plan ahead for a happy existence by doing lots of good things - and avoid any pain by avoiding sin.

I see you're fully committed to the pursuit of fleeting passions...while there's nothing wrong with that, Buddhists ultimately realize the futility of such treadmill ego pursuits. There's no absolute wrong or right here...Buddhism is merely a suggestion. No dogma nor eternal punishment associated. Good Luck.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
.......Buddhists ultimately realize the futility of such treadmill ego pursuits.........

Buddhists don't even know the true God, and based on your posts, they don't even know basic Right from Wrong.

All you've got is statues of some some fat Asian dude.
 

zippy2006

New member
I cannot comprehend this focus on homosexuality.

Maybe I can help. ;)

My theory is that it is the easiest sin to despise, granting you the illusion of being holy as opposed to the gays.

Your theory is that everyone talking about this is just a pharisee? I suppose that's one way to look at it. Granted, it's a fairly easy and broad-brushed approach.

Where are the threads that condemn adultery, ridiculous divorce rates (evangelicals being among the absolute worst when it comes to divorce)...

How do you think adultery, divorce, or fornication stack up with homosexual acts as far as sin is concerned? Which is more sinful, which is more obviously known as sin, which is more heavily sanctioned by society, etc.? If you think about such things, perhaps you will be better able to "comprehend the focus" and not rely solely on pharisaism as an explanation.

To my mind, homosexuality, pornography, and masturbation are some of the most destructive and controversial current topics which need to be discussed. The latter two are not allowed on TOL, and homosexuality is currently a central political topic in countries throughout the world. There simply is nothing that deserves more attention at the moment. That's not to say it can't be given too much attention, but it deserves quite a bit.

...greed, aggression, hatred, pride and failing to care for the poor and the least of us?

These are general categories of sinful behavior, not behaviors themselves. Do you really expect and desire threads entitled, "Why I am anti-greed/hatred/pride"?

Is homosexuality really what sticks out as the worst problem in the world today?

In a certain sense, yes, especially once you consider the nature and purpose of a theological and political forum. Hunger is a great problem, but it is not a battleground so much as a unanimous belief. For other points, see above.

:e4e:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I'm not talking about people who die in their sleep or something as a result of their severe emotional stress. I was clearly referring to those who commit suicide; they do choose to end it all of their own free-will. It is in their control.

They don't choose to experience such intensity of emotion/depression/stress that drives them to try and end the pain. For people in the throes of such devastating grief and loss it's questionable that they're choosing to act out of 'free will' at all. They're out of control due to such extremes if anything.

Even when the false-dichotomy is pointed out you just return to it...

You can use that phrase as if you've countered the point as much as you like. No dice.

Their conscious experience led to a change in their emotions

But the emotional reaction to such news is not a conscious decision made.

Incorrect - more often than not one's values are a result of conscious experiences and decisions. For instance: when one converts to a religion/philosphy they adopt values from that religion/philosophy as their own. Or again, the people you value are a matter of choice - you choose who to spend your time with, who you consider a friend or foe. Democrats vs Republicans. Capitalists vs Socialists. Israel vs Palestine. etc.

Except if your subconscious attractions actually inform the choices you make then it isn't solely a conscious will at work in any decision making.

Granted not all movies are gonna move you - but some do. And that demonstrates that emotions aren't operating in their own dimension apart from our conscious life. Our conscious mind is linked to our emotions - there is no reason to conclude that this is a one-way communication channel.

Yes, some do, but I have no say in whether a film touches me on such a level. I either am or I'm not. I could be left cold by a movie while the person next to me is in tears. The ones that tend to move me are ones reflective of real life and have to be believable enough in order for any emotional connection to develop.

Wrong - I refer to myself as an intellectual for that is what I am: I am naturally drawn to thinking logically and looking for the optimal solution regardless of people's emotions on the matter. I am drawn to the study of philosophy, theology, Computer Science, etc. This doesn't mean that I innately have control over my emotions more than anyone else, it simply means that I don't embrace emotional appeals as a guide for life. Emotions are good and enhance life, but they aren't an indication of truth or the way things should be.

The feeling types, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with other people's emotions: they seek harmony. A good goal - but they are willing to sacrifice logic to make people feel good. They are more prone to using emotions as a guide for life, though they are as equally capable of using logic as the intellectual.

The only thing I'd agree with you on here is that basing life and arguments on emotional appeals isn't exactly the best idea. I think your reduction of those who don't identify as 'intellectual' as willing to sacrifice logic to once again be somewhat condescending as well as simplistic.

Being an intellectual doesn't give you control over your emotions, that is something that comes from the conscious will disciplining the mind. A fool blurts out whatever he feels, a wise man restrains himself.

With certain feelings it can certainly be controlled. Choosing to walk away from an argument or a fight for example where you may realize that anger needs to be calmed down. Not with everything though.

I didn't downplay anyone's emotions. I fully grant that it hurts terribly, and for a long time. But one doesn't commit suicide independent of their will - that is something they choose.

And for some people time just doesn't heal the wound. See the beginning where it comes to the rest.

By choosing how you act on them - or refusing to act on them - you are deciding the fate of the emotion. If you constantly and emphatically refuse an emotion, then eventually it will change. Emotions are really no different, in that respect, from any other function of the brain. It is a matter of positive and negative reinforcement to develop connections in the brain that result in a change in behavior (or emotions in this case).

You can refuse to act on an emotion - such as inappropriately pursuing a woman, but by doing so you're not deciding to fall out of love with her, just the same as if you did act on it where it was appropriate and you were turned down etc. It ain't something you can will away, which is why I said that life would be a lot easier in certain regards if one could...
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
The Muslim prohibition of open sexuality goes back to the pre-Islamic culture from which it sprang. It can also be seen in their prohibition against placing human images on walls or as decoration.

Somehow the idea of modesty and humility got conflated with displays of human body forms. The display of a human body form can be done in humility and modesty, though there are some who misuse such displays. So in some cases promiscuity and some behaviors associated with homosexual culture do go against humility/modesty.
Anthropoligists have determined that the Semitic culture (both ancient and modern) were overly concerned with maintianing one's honor in front of others.

In Jesus' day, to even gaze upon someone who was naked brought an intense shame to the person doing the looking.

This might be why Jesus said "if someone takes your cloak, give them your tunic as well." This would immediately mean the crowd would become shamed.

In a two-garment society, giving up one's tunic would mean nakedness, which would shame the onlooker.

Where does it say in ancient literature that promiscuity and males aggressively or dominately having sex with other males was the concern?

Small statues outside of some cities' gates would show a large eye ("We are watching you") or a small statue with a large erection ("Behave yourself or you will be &$#&@*!").

Again, loving relationships between two men are not testified to in Herbrew culture. The one exception to this might be the loving relationship between David and Jonathan in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible). The relevant passages do not explictly say the two had sex, but the idea is strongly inferred nonetheless.

Is there any provision in Hebrew Law back then that talks about "misuse," "humility" or "modesty" in law during the time of Jesus?
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
We can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East.

But male-male affection was not unknown in that place and time.

As I mentioned before, the famous example from the Bible is the close relationship between Jonathan and David depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel. David says of Jonathan, "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26). And yet, the account of their relationship never mentions sex. Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean "I love you." It means "I own you."

Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean "I love you." To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Homosexual behavior among human beings is an aberration of nature.
Even though homosexual behavior is IN nature and God has pronounced Creation "good."

...So I guess with that out of the way, we are all free to offer our pronouncements on what the world is really like....
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Even though homosexual behavior is IN nature and God has pronounced Creation "good."

...So I guess with that out of the way, we are all free to offer our pronouncements on what the world is really like....
you're a fool if you think such behavior was extant when God proclaimed His creation good.
 

Tinark

Active member
Thanks. My point is not the glorification or heterosexuality, rather my own feeling as to how homosexuality would be impossible for me, even if I were abused by witches and castes spells upon.

For me, there is only two possibilities, alive and heterosexual, or dead/ bran dead and be nothing.

But even you must have your particular preferences as a heterosexual - you have certain fantasies or like particular sexual things that other heterosexual females do not like or may find repulsive, and there are things that heterosexual females like or have in their fantasies that are maybe repulsive or foreign to you.

At no point did you choose to be turned on by whatever the particulars are that really turn you on.

Homosexuality is just simply another kind of sexual preference in the same vain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top