Homosexuality

[Confused-by-christianity]

CF rules don’t permit that discussion in this forum. The SOP for the Ethics forum says "discussion and debate should only be directed toward political, legal, historical and civil rights issues, and should not be directed toward the morality of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality or transgenderism/transexualism."

Aside from a couple of denominational groups (ELCA and Methodist, I think), that discussion is only allowed in the Liberal forum.

That's pretty restrictive.

Although, I'd argue I'm discussing errors in exegesis and for names of critics of a position. This is not the same as discussing the "Morality of homosexuality". Although - I guess you don't want to risk it, and it's CF opinion.

I guess you can't express RG's errors without directing toward the morality of homosexuality

 

[muichimotsu]

The Bible doesn't just condemn bisexuality. The ancient Greek practiced homosexuality as a result of sex addiction and were also gay pedophiles but the Bible mentions neither practice.

And the Greeks didn't have a concept of sexual orientation, you completely missed the point: what is condemned is based on a modern understanding, however antiquated the perspective is regardless in affirming outdated sex roles and norms.

Pedophiles are not innately gay, technically speaking, it's not under the broader sexual orientation, it's an attraction based on an age group, not sexual characteristics. Let's not generalize based on bad stereotypes and also, maybe not paint with broad brushes about people that I'm pretty sure neither of us are as familiar with as we like to think.

 

[muichimotsu]

Bisexuality doesn't exist. The same mechanism that causes homosexuality doesn't function in a way that a person can find both genders equally attractive. Jesus mentioned people born eunuchs. Why would someone be a male or female if they didn't have the equipment? It means people born asexual. There are people who develop normally and are asexual but there's no evidence the same exists for bisexual people

Not sure you've remotely explained why this is the case because you haven't enumerated what this supposed mechanism for sexuality is, which appears to be so malleable that, in fact, it could cause you to be attracted to both sexes, just not in equal measure most of the time. Abuse and trauma don't always result in the things you think they do and even if there was some factor for that, it isn't addressing sexual attraction itself, only people's regard to sexual acts that can be colored in part by trauma from the past

I don't think he said they were born as such, though it's also not necessarily clear what he means, because eunuch could be interpreted as someone with intersex traits, which is different form a condition I'm not certain exists at all, where you're born without genitals.

Asexuality is a spectrum, like sexuality, but again, I don't think you understand the difference between sexual orientation and preference, even if you're reducing this to mental aspects of sexuality as a concept in the first place, because my lack of real attraction to having sex with others is not the same as me not having any libido at all, an entirely different situation.

 

[muichimotsu]

Romance means a connection to sexuality without the intention. Technically all friendships are relationships and all relationships function like friends with benefits relationships but without the intent. Romance is a love that is consummated but it's also not the intent of that love.
Ones gender identity is not separate from their biology.

Romance and sexuality are not always intertwined, but I wasn't talking about friendships, I was specifically referring to romantic relationships (which don't have to involve sex, asexual people exist and should not be trivialized or insulted)

Defend your position, otherwise I'm not convinced, because I don't think you understand that gender /=/ sex much as the vernacular is still trying to be forced into that conflation

 

[Sammy-San]

Not sure you've remotely explained why this is the case because you haven't enumerated what this supposed mechanism for sexuality is, which appears to be so malleable that, in fact, it could cause you to be attracted to both sexes, just not in equal measure most of the time. Abuse and trauma don't always result in the things you think they do and even if there was some factor for that, it isn't addressing sexual attraction itself, only people's regard to sexual acts that can be colored in part by trauma from the past

I don't think he said they were born as such, though it's also not necessarily clear what he means, because eunuch could be interpreted as someone with intersex traits, which is different form a condition I'm not certain exists at all, where you're born without genitals.

Asexuality is a spectrum, like sexuality, but again, I don't think you understand the difference between sexual orientation and preference, even if you're reducing this to mental aspects of sexuality as a concept in the first place, because my lack of real attraction to having sex with others is not the same as me not having any libido at all, an entirely different situation.

Isnt an intersex person a male or a female because they have sperm/eggs and male female by definition means you are either one or the other?

Do you agree that lesbianism is more of a choice than male homosexuality? Females relate to each other differently from how men relate to one another, and theres more evidence of gay genes than lesbian let alone bisexual genes.

I dont think anyone is asexual in the sense of developing normally and experiencing no sexual attraction or intrusive thoughts whatsoever.

 

[Sammy-San]

Romance and sexuality are not always intertwined, but I wasn't talking about friendships, I was specifically referring to romantic relationships (which don't have to involve sex, asexual people exist and should not be trivialized or insulted)

Defend your position, otherwise I'm not convinced, because I don't think you understand that gender /=/ sex much as the vernacular is still trying to be forced into that conflation

A romance is a form of a relationship that has the connection to sexuality but not intention, a category of its own, similar to how some people think intersex people have a steel or flower symmetry.

I believe a lot of asexual and bisexual people embellish their sexuality to form an identity. I believe all marriages become more asexual after a certain point, and people who dont struggle with lust are asexual to a certain degree.

Sexless marriages still have a connection to sexuality. A chastity couple is the opposite of friends with benefits-which is sexuality with the intention, a chastity couple is has a connection to sexuality but no intention, in fact, the opposite.

John Piper said gender and sex are not totally disconnected. Hes right. People name their animals masculine or feminine names because they are like family members and they want them to have the personality of people, which is a steel flower symmetry.

I think asexual marriages have the connection to sexuality, because people say Mohammad was a pedophile because he married Aisha, and same sex marriage wouldnt be controversial if it didnt have a connection to people having sex.

Romantic isnt neccesarily sexual, but if someone said they fell in love with their sibling it would sound very strange, so there is a connection to sexuality.

 

[Sammy-San]

And the Greeks didn't have a concept of sexual orientation, you completely missed the point: what is condemned is based on a modern understanding, however antiquated the perspective is regardless in affirming outdated sex roles and norms.

Pedophiles are not innately gay, technically speaking, it's not under the broader sexual orientation, it's an attraction based on an age group, not sexual characteristics. Let's not generalize based on bad stereotypes and also, maybe not paint with broad brushes about people that I'm pretty sure neither of us are as familiar with as we like to think.

The Greeks were bisexual men who looked down on gay men. Thats a form of heterosexual bigotry and chauvanism and snobbery, even though bisexuals are to a certain degree gay people.

When I said the Ancient Greeks were gay pedophiles, I meant that older soldiers had improper relationships with adolescent boys. I meant that it was a combination of those two behaviors.

 

[Salvadore]

Must we forbid the following people to be in leadership too.

no sinners in leadership

 

[Sammy-San]

Not sure you've remotely explained why this is the case because you haven't enumerated what this supposed mechanism for sexuality is, which appears to be so malleable that, in fact, it could cause you to be attracted to both sexes, just not in equal measure most of the time. Abuse and trauma don't always result in the things you think they do and even if there was some factor for that, it isn't addressing sexual attraction itself, only people's regard to sexual acts that can be colored in part by trauma from the past

I don't think he said they were born as such, though it's also not necessarily clear what he means, because eunuch could be interpreted as someone with intersex traits, which is different form a condition I'm not certain exists at all, where you're born without genitals.

Asexuality is a spectrum, like sexuality, but again, I don't think you understand the difference between sexual orientation and preference, even if you're reducing this to mental aspects of sexuality as a concept in the first place, because my lack of real attraction to having sex with others is not the same as me not having any libido at all, an entirely different situation.

Asexuality does not exist, and is a blanket term for other problems, you are not "fine" if you are "asexual" and (for example) have those problems. CMV : changemyview

Pardon me, but I really don't think Asexuality exists. I believe its just another one of these special little snowflake syndrome things with no scientific backing. I have never, ever seen any shred of evidence that "asexuality" is an actual thing. Actually, Asexuality is a thing, you can be asexual if you can produce offspring with out a partner, its not what just any one claims it is.

That's it. Its not the inability to feel pleasure from sex. That is entirely different. That has a medical basis, not some "I'm perfectly normal, just call me X name for it" thing, it IS a problem regardless if people want to consider it that or not. In fact I could list off a number of causes for people not feeling pleasure from sex, all medical, all legitimate, all real bad problems, but just "being fine" is not one of those causes.

Now I'm not saying any one should be forced to do anything, but it's time for people who identify as asexual to grow up, and realize they aren't just "asexual". At least that's what I think now until some one/people change my mind.

The feelings and things associated with asexuality are real, the term is not. The problem with asexuality as a term to describe what you think it is, is that asexual are not like other similar terms, for example homosexuality, having low sexual drive can be and is most often caused by problems, issues, medical issues, mental issues, traumatic experiences. Homosexuality isn't caused by problems. What causes homosexuality doesn't harm you, some things that cause asexuality does.

 

[muichimotsu]

Isnt an intersex person a male or a female because they have sperm/eggs and male female by definition means you are either one or the other?

Do you agree that lesbianism is more of a choice than male homosexuality? Females relate to each other differently from how men relate to one another, and theres more evidence of gay genes than lesbian let alone bisexual genes.

I dont think anyone is asexual in the sense of developing normally and experiencing no sexual attraction or intrusive thoughts whatsoever.

No, pretty sure intersex entails that you aren't fitting into the binary, either in regards to chromosomes or sexual characteristics like genitals.

It isn't as simple as you'd like to believe and not dealing with that is the major problem in this discussion: an unwillingness to bend in regards to ideas you think are immutable and unquestionable is not indicative of genuine critical thought

No, because sexual orientation is no more a choice than handedness or other traits of that involuntary or unconscious nature, you're trying to make this about females being somehow different: lesbian IS gay, there isn't the need for male and female homosexuality being distinct unless it is pertinent to a discussion, lesbian was a term connected to a Greek island Lesbos, similar to Sapphic speaking about female homosexuality because of the associations to the poet Sappho.

Sexual attraction and sexual arousal are not strictly the same thing, one is a desire to engage in sex, the other is a physiological reaction based on a general perception of someone as attractive, in no small part because of hormones that teenagers have a lot of.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, pretty sure intersex entails that you aren't fitting into the binary, either in regards to chromosomes or sexual characteristics like genitals.

It isn't as simple as you'd like to believe and not dealing with that is the major problem in this discussion: an unwillingness to bend in regards to ideas you think are immutable and unquestionable is not indicative of genuine critical thought

No, because sexual orientation is no more a choice than handedness or other traits of that involuntary or unconscious nature, you're trying to make this about females being somehow different: lesbian IS gay, there isn't the need for male and female homosexuality being distinct unless it is pertinent to a discussion, lesbian was a term connected to a Greek island Lesbos, similar to Sapphic speaking about female homosexuality because of the associations to the poet Sappho.

Sexual attraction and sexual arousal are not strictly the same thing, one is a desire to engage in sex, the other is a physiological reaction based on a general perception of someone as attractive, in no small part because of hormones that teenagers have a lot of.

Then why isnt there a male equivalent of that word? Sodomite and the f word are just bibical terms for temple prostitutes and meaningless slurs for gay people not an actual equivalent. Maybe sodomite also means gays or lesbians in certain situations.

A cousin of a cousin has no official term.

Sexual attraction leads to mating so the two are not distinct in a certain degree.

Do you think chromosomes and genitalia are related in terms of symmetry or just function? Adam was created first to show Gods image is masculine, and marriage is Gods permissive will because he is a jealous God who knows we are but flesh, so I think there is more than genitalia and the definition of mating than just reproduction, because if God didnt create Eve there would be a one man world.

 

[muichimotsu]

Asexuality does not exist, and is a blanket term for other problems, you are not "fine" if you are "asexual" and (for example) have those problems. CMV : changemyview

If you don't think asexuality is real, then maybe those holding that view should actually offer a substantive term to describe it instead of just expecting everyone else to do it for them. Asexuality is a spectrum, it ranges from being sex positive and receptive to sex-repulsed, this is not difficult to do some research into, which I made the effort myself a month or so ago. But most importantly, I don't presume to be an expert in the slightest

I don't claim to be "fine" in regards to my general state of things, but me being asexual is not something that someone should assume is aberrant or damaging without actually bringing up an actual argument and reasoning for WHY that should be considered the case. Just because someone doesn't fit into the neat little box you want to put everyone into for sexual behavior doesn't make them someone you have to treat like they are broken, that's not only ableist, but generally a needless bigotry against those who are different

 

[Sammy-San]

No, pretty sure intersex entails that you aren't fitting into the binary, either in regards to chromosomes or sexual characteristics like genitals.

It isn't as simple as you'd like to believe and not dealing with that is the major problem in this discussion: an unwillingness to bend in regards to ideas you think are immutable and unquestionable is not indicative of genuine critical thought

No, because sexual orientation is no more a choice than handedness or other traits of that involuntary or unconscious nature, you're trying to make this about females being somehow different: lesbian IS gay, there isn't the need for male and female homosexuality being distinct unless it is pertinent to a discussion, lesbian was a term connected to a Greek island Lesbos, similar to Sapphic speaking about female homosexuality because of the associations to the poet Sappho.

Sexual attraction and sexual arousal are not strictly the same thing, one is a desire to engage in sex, the other is a physiological reaction based on a general perception of someone as attractive, in no small part because of hormones that teenagers have a lot of.

I also disagree because lesbian sounds more feminine than gay. If someone said lesbian and I had no idea of Greek history it has the feminine flower language like girl names being softer.

People use the word gay for females because its shorter simpler and they dont wanna draw undue attention to peoples sexual life. I dont think the word lesbian has to do with ancient Greece.

Maybe its somewhere in the middle-maybe they are born that way in a way not different or much different from men.

 

[Sammy-San]

If you don't think asexuality is real, then maybe those holding that view should actually offer a substantive term to describe it instead of just expecting everyone else to do it for them. Asexuality is a spectrum, it ranges from being sex positive and receptive to sex-repulsed, this is not difficult to do some research into, which I made the effort myself a month or so ago. But most importantly, I don't presume to be an expert in the slightest

I don't claim to be "fine" in regards to my general state of things, but me being asexual is not something that someone should assume is aberrant or damaging without actually bringing up an actual argument and reasoning for WHY that should be considered the case. Just because someone doesn't fit into the neat little box you want to put everyone into for sexual behavior doesn't make them someone you have to treat like they are broken, that's not only ableist, but generally a needless bigotry against those who are different

I dont think people are asexual in terms of not having sexual attraction through puberty. If someone is sex repulsed that early on they might have had a hormonal or abuse imbalance, so its not asexuality the same way people are gay or straight. When people are in elementary school they fall in love with their classmates. Maybe thats just a precursor to marriage, but I think its peoples troubled sinful nature.

Aleister Crowley was a bisexual who preferred one gender so I dont think he was both gay and straight he was just a sex addict.

 

[muichimotsu]

Then why isnt there a male equivalent of that word? Sodomite and the f word are just bibical terms for temple prostitutes and meaningless slurs for gay people not an actual equivalent. Maybe sodomite also means gays or lesbians in certain situations.

A cousin of a cousin has no official term.

Sexual attraction leads to mating so the two are not distinct in a certain degree.

Do you think chromosomes and genitalia are related in terms of symmetry or just function? Adam was created first to show Gods image is masculine, and marriage is Gods permissive will because he is a jealous God who knows we are but flesh, so I think there is more than genitalia and the definition of mating than just reproduction, because if God didnt create Eve there would be a one man world.

Because language is not as binary as you'd like it to be; again, demanding things to be a certain way in a society where people have autonomy and things will progress memetically because of human nature is being quite immature, to be frank

The f-word is much more recent in usage from even just a cursory search of linguistic history connected to it, 19th century at the earliest. And sodomite in terms of translation assumes the associations around 13th 14th century that are first recorded for the use of that would've corresponded to that meaning in rendering particular terms utilized pretty much only in the New Testament to my knowledge (arsenokoites basically made up by Paul)

It's called a 2nd cousin, pretty sure, you're obfuscating to something that isn't germane to the discussion at hand and making this about how you don't understand terms and insisting on your meaning instead of having the humility to consider you could be wrong

Sexual attraction doesn't have to lead to mating, we have self control, but merely because attraction tends to be a factor does not mean people who mate have to be attracted to each other, especially when it comes to social pressures that make us behave otherwise

I'm not going down this route because you're mistakenly assuming something not evidenced in fact at all: the human population did not result from 2 people, it's far more complex than that because of how actual biology works versus the metaphorical story Genesis presents for the alleged origin of humanity and its flaws.

And even taking it as a mere metaphor doesn't grant credence to applying that idea to science about chromosomes and sexual traits because our ideas of what we think sex ought to be are not always how it actually is in nature.

Chromosomes are not something about design, that entails agency and such that is assumed without actual evidence or understanding of design as a concept in the first place

 

[muichimotsu]

I dont think people are asexual in terms of not having sexual attraction through puberty. If someone is sex repulsed that early on they might have had a hormonal or abuse imbalance, so its not asexuality the same way people are gay or straight. When people are in elementary school they fall in love with their classmates. Maybe thats just a precursor to marriage, but I think its peoples troubled sinful nature.

Aleister Crowley was a bisexual who preferred one gender so I dont think he was both gay and straight he was just a sex addict.

Pretty sure I didn't claim that was a thing or what asexuality was, you're dishonestly putting words in my mouth, which isn't helping the discussion

Someone not having interest in sex doesn't strictly mean there are problems in that respect, repulsion in regards to sex is not something so specifically of import that we have to regard that as aberrant versus someone not liking the smell of onions or certain textures

Preference is not the same as orientation, I could swear I discussed this already, but I'm also beginning to think this discussion is going nowhere because you're unwilling to even consider you're wrong, but just keep doubling down on the mistaken ideas Trump-style and expect me to either cave or give up, either way, you've potentially deluded yourself into thinking you're right because I don't want to engage further

 

[Sammy-San]

Not sure you've remotely explained why this is the case because you haven't enumerated what this supposed mechanism for sexuality is, which appears to be so malleable that, in fact, it could cause you to be attracted to both sexes, just not in equal measure most of the time. Abuse and trauma don't always result in the things you think they do and even if there was some factor for that, it isn't addressing sexual attraction itself, only people's regard to sexual acts that can be colored in part by trauma from the past

I don't think he said they were born as such, though it's also not necessarily clear what he means, because eunuch could be interpreted as someone with intersex traits, which is different form a condition I'm not certain exists at all, where you're born without genitals.

Asexuality is a spectrum, like sexuality, but again, I don't think you understand the difference between sexual orientation and preference, even if you're reducing this to mental aspects of sexuality as a concept in the first place, because my lack of real attraction to having sex with others is not the same as me not having any libido at all, an entirely different situation.

Thats exactly what Im saying. I dont think theres any evidence people are born sexless. Even infertile couples have private parts they just dont work normally.

Similar to bisexuality I dont think asexuality has the same biological causes of heterosexuality and homosexuality. There was a wierd story on Youtube about the woman with no private parts, and the Lina Medina story.

I think relationships naturally become asexual as people get older. Marriages based on sexuality often end up in divorce. The honeymoon phase doesnt last forever, maybe not even in friendship, to whatever degree.

 

[muichimotsu]

I also disagree because lesbian sounds more feminine than gay. If someone said lesbian and I had no idea of Greek history it has the feminine flower language like girl names being softer.

People use the word gay for females because its shorter simpler and they dont wanna draw undue attention to peoples sexual life. I dont think the word lesbian has to do with ancient Greece.

Maybe its somewhere in the middle-maybe they are born that way in a way not different or much different from men.

The sound of a word does not follow to it being feminine or masculine, that's not the sole trait in regards to how society understands any given term and it varies anyway

Linguistics does not follow to concrete and immutable associations of gender norms

You don't think it does, but I'm pretty sure it does and you can research it pretty quickly. If you actually have evidence it isn't linked to Lesbos, bring it forth, otherwise you're just asserting the opposite with no substance

If you admit people are born that way, then you CANNOT say that same sex attraction or even attraction to both sexes is a choice...but you also cannot claim that attraction to the opposite sex is somehow natural and ALSO a choice, it doesn't follow

 

[Sammy-San]

Because language is not as binary as you'd like it to be; again, demanding things to be a certain way in a society where people have autonomy and things will progress memetically because of human nature is being quite immature, to be frank

The f-word is much more recent in usage from even just a cursory search of linguistic history connected to it, 19th century at the earliest. And sodomite in terms of translation assumes the associations around 13th 14th century that are first recorded for the use of that would've corresponded to that meaning in rendering particular terms utilized pretty much only in the New Testament to my knowledge (arsenokoites basically made up by Paul)

It's called a 2nd cousin, pretty sure, you're obfuscating to something that isn't germane to the discussion at hand and making this about how you don't understand terms and insisting on your meaning instead of having the humility to consider you could be wrong

Sexual attraction doesn't have to lead to mating, we have self control, but merely because attraction tends to be a factor does not mean people who mate have to be attracted to each other, especially when it comes to social pressures that make us behave otherwise

I'm not going down this route because you're mistakenly assuming something not evidenced in fact at all: the human population did not result from 2 people, it's far more complex than that because of how actual biology works versus the metaphorical story Genesis presents for the alleged origin of humanity and its flaws.

And even taking it as a mere metaphor doesn't grant credence to applying that idea to science about chromosomes and sexual traits because our ideas of what we think sex ought to be are not always how it actually is in nature.

Chromosomes are not something about design, that entails agency and such that is assumed without actual evidence or understanding of design as a concept in the first place

Attraction by definition means a connection to sexuality but not the intention. Not friends with benefits, not friends, because friendship has limits. If it has the same qualities and intentions of a true friendship with no desire for mating then its a relationship.

Lesbianism is a worser sin than being a gay man, possibly because of the non genetic nature people have more control over it.

Cousins can be a wierd genetic situation. There are cousins who marry which is almost like an uncle dad or aunt mom type situation. There are double cousins, double cousins who are more closely related than regular double cousins, there are situations where two siblings have kids with the same person, and they are half siblings and cousins at the same time.

Just because two people who mate dont have to be attracted to each other doesnt mean attraction has no connection to mating.
Whether Eden is an allegory or not is an endless genealogy. its like discussing what the forbidden fruit was-a pomegrante, an apple.

 

[Sammy-San]

The sound of a word does not follow to it being feminine or masculine, that's not the sole trait in regards to how society understands any given term and it varies anyway

Linguistics does not follow to concrete and immutable associations of gender norms

You don't think it does, but I'm pretty sure it does and you can research it pretty quickly. If you actually have evidence it isn't linked to Lesbos, bring it forth, otherwise you're just asserting the opposite with no substance

If you admit people are born that way, then you CANNOT say that same sex attraction or even attraction to both sexes is a choice...but you also cannot claim that attraction to the opposite sex is somehow natural and ALSO a choice, it doesn't follow

If someone said a man was a lesbian it would sound wierd.