Homosexuality

[JayJay77]

Hey, you're the one who admitted being bisexual. Jesus said it's all about the heart, right?

 

[LogosRhema]

But as I have just the one girlfriend, to whom I'm committed to being 100% faithful, that's not really an issue.

David.

You asked how it would be unfaithful to be bisexual =\

 

[David Brider]

Hey, you're the one who admitted being bisexual. Jesus said it's all about the heart, right?

Yes.

So, back to the question - in what way does my being bisexual equate in your eyes to my being unfaithful to my girlfriend?

David.

 

[LogosRhema]

Oh wait I see, you are admitting to being bisexual and saying you have one girl. Oh ok. Nvm.

What i was saying if you purused both and had both gf and bf that would be an unfaithful thing to do.

 

[David Brider]

Oh wait I see, you are admitting to being bisexual and saying you have one girl. Oh ok. Nvm.

What i was saying if you purused both and had both gf and bf that would be an unfaithful thing to do.

Yes, unless it was a polyamorous relationship. Which it isn't.

David.

 

[JayJay77]

Jesus said that if I even think lustfully (much less, sexually) about a girl, I'd be sinning in my heart. This doesn't account for my thoughts in my monogynous relationship with my wife. I can think sexually about her all day long, and it's moral.

What you've admitted to is being faithful in one relationship, but open to others later on. NOT MONOGYNOUS.

 

[David Brider]

Jesus said that if I even think lustfully (much less, sexually) about a girl, I'd be sinning in my heart. This doesn't account for my thoughts in my monogynous relationship with my wife. I can think sexually about her all day long, and it's moral.

What you've admitted to is being faithful in one relationship, but open to others later on. NOT MONOGYNOUS.

I think you mean "monogamous," but anyway...

No, I've not admitted to being open to other relationships later on. I'm curious as to how you could possibly have read that into anything that I've written. My girlfriend (fiancee, actually) and I are committed to being totally 100% faithful to each other. No wriggle room for maneuvre, no possible other relationships later on.

David.

 

[JayJay77]

But, isn't your sexual orientation in your heart, still? (Btw, thanks on the sp. I looked it up and saw "monogyny," which means the same thing, only it's an older spelling.)

 

[David Brider]

But, isn't your sexual orientation in your heart, still?

I'm not sure exactly where it is. But it has absolutely no effects on my intentions to be totally faithful to my fiancee.

David.

 

[JayJay77]

Don't you mean "fiance?" Lol. (Yeah, it was a poor attempt at a joke hinging on the fact that "fiancee" is another older spelling.)

Anyway, I'm not questioning your faithfulness to your fiance. But bisexuality as a definition in itself implies unfaithfulness. "Being attracted to two...."

To be faithful to your fiance would render you an "inactive" bisexual, if indeed you are that way to begin with. But doesn't bisexuality suggest action? Being faithful would describe your current status as a heterosexual.

 

[beechy]

Don't you mean "fiance?" Lol. (Yeah, it was a poor attempt at a joke hinging on the fact that "fiancee" is another older spelling.)

Anyway, I'm not questioning your faithfulness to your fiance. But bisexuality as a definition in itself implies unfaithfulness. "Being attracted to two...."

To be faithful to your fiance would render you an "inactive" bisexual, if indeed you are that way to begin with. But doesn't bisexuality suggest action? Being faithful would describe your current status as a heterosexual.

If a heterosexual man is engaged to a woman, is he monogomous even though the fact of his heterosexuality means that he is generally attracted to women?

 

[OllieFranz]

I said that as a straight foward comment, please read what I write in context before you say something off hand. What I meant by that is it says what it says and you can take it as it is or leave. Most leave it in two ways. One ignoring it. Two warping it to their own desires.

Yes I realize it does not say what I'd like it to say. The Bible isn't for my desires, but for His desires.

Accepting Christ does not make us infallible. We are just as susceptible to "warping it to [our] own desires." That is why we should continue to pray and study, and why we should show a reasonable amount of respect to those who sincerely and honestly see the point of a scripture differently from how we understand it.
[BIBLE]Romans 14:1-23[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 8:1-13[/BIBLE]

 

[JayJay77]

by beechy:
If a heterosexual man is engaged to a woman, is he monogomous even though the fact of his heterosexuality means that he is generally attracted to women?

First of all, it seems as though you're trying to catch me in a trap of my own words. Saying "women" (plural) is not what I mean by being heterosexual.

Secondly, being monogamous goes against that "plurality" because it is faithfulness to one's spouse.

So, yes, a heterosexual man committed to one woman is being monogamous as long as it is not only in action, but thought and heart, as well.

That's why Jesus said that if you think it, you are committing adultery in your heart.

My whole point on bisexuality was that it means having sexual desires for both genders...PLURAL. Not singular, i.e. "monogamous."

 

[beechy]

First of all, it seems as though you're trying to catch me in a trap of my own words. Saying "women" (plural) is not what I mean by being heterosexual.

Secondly, being monogamous goes against that "plurality" because it is faithfulness to one's spouse.

So, yes, a heterosexual man committed to one woman is being monogamous as long as it is not only in action, but thought and heart, as well.

That's why Jesus said that if you think it, you are committing adultery in your heart.

My whole point on bisexuality was that it means having sexual desires for both genders...PLURAL. Not singular, i.e. "monogamous."

In modern parlance, sexual orientation describes the gender that a person is romantically attracted to -- not the number of people within that gender.

A picky bisexual guy may be attracted to a very small number of people, some of whom are men and some of whom are women.

A not-so-picky heterosexual guy may be attracted to just about every woman that crosses his path.

Monogamy can be experienced by either of those guys, once he commits to an individual partner.

 

[OllieFranz]

First of all, it seems as though you're trying to catch me in a trap of my own words. Saying "women" (plural) is not what I mean by being heterosexual.

Secondly, being monogamous goes against that "plurality" because it is faithfulness to one's spouse.

So, yes, a heterosexual man committed to one woman is being monogamous as long as it is not only in action, but thought and heart, as well.

That's why Jesus said that if you think it, you are committing adultery in your heart.

My whole point on bisexuality was that it means having sexual desires for both genders...PLURAL. Not singular, i.e. "monogamous."

I call foul!

Sexual orientation describes the natural attraction a person has for people of the same sex (homosexual), opposite sex (heterosexual) or both sexes (bisexual).

Jesus said that if a (married)man lusts after a (married) woman, then in his heart he has already committed adultery.

You tried to equate these two different things by calling them both desire.

Attraction ≠ Desire; Desire ≠ Lust They are, perhaps, in some ways related, but only in some ways, and even in their relation they are at different points along the scale. One can recognize an attraction without entertaining desire, and one can feel desire without sinking into covetousness and lust.

 

[JayJay77]

Foul well called.

But seriously, both genders?

 

[beechy]

Foul well called.

But seriously, both genders?

Yup. Another way of thinking about it is that bisexuals are attracted to individual people, without regard to gender.

 

[LunarPlexus]

Yup. Another way of thinking about it is that bisexuals are attracted to individual people, without regard to gender.

Yup. Follow the heart, not the anatomy.

There is a certain purity to it, don't you think?

 

[JayJay77]

LunarPlexus:
Yup. Follow the heart, not the anatomy.

You seem to imply going against the created order.

 

[LunarPlexus]

You seem to imply going against the created order.

If a bisexual loves someone, then what's between their legs is irrelevent. I think this is a good mindset.