Homosexuality

[muichimotsu]

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.

I didn't say people were born sexless and that's NOT what intersex is at all, you're fundamentally not grasping what I say and just continue on with a deluded and mistaken idea of the conversation that is concerning to any real understanding or dialogue. Instead of assuming what I said, make an inquiry as to whether I said the thing you seem to think I did claim, because that shows you aren't stubbornly presupposing your assessment is unquestionable

Not everything we see online is necessarily to be concluded as truthful merely because we hear about it or such

Asexuality is not the same as a loss of libido and such, I believe I brought that distinction up, however roughly. And neither of us are marriage counselors or such, so the idea that asexuality, a trait more relevant to sexuality overall rather than specifically marital intercourse, is related to issues of marital relationships is oversimplifying

 

[Sammy-San]

I didn't say people were born sexless and that's NOT what intersex is at all, you're fundamentally not grasping what I say and just continue on with a deluded and mistaken idea of the conversation that is concerning to any real understanding or dialogue. Instead of assuming what I said, make an inquiry as to whether I said the thing you seem to think I did claim, because that shows you aren't stubbornly presupposing your assessment is unquestionable

Not everything we see online is necessarily to be concluded as truthful merely because we hear about it or such

Asexuality is not the same as a loss of libido and such, I believe I brought that distinction up, however roughly. And neither of us are marriage counselors or such, so the idea that asexuality, a trait more relevant to sexuality overall rather than specifically marital intercourse, is related to issues of marital relationships is oversimplifying

How is it not a loss of libido if people say asexuals can have sex? I think they are just looking for an identity.

 

[hedrick]

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.

The phrase image of God is from Gen 1:27 "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." The image is quite explicitly present in male and female equally.

 

[Sammy-San]

I didn't say people were born sexless and that's NOT what intersex is at all, you're fundamentally not grasping what I say and just continue on with a deluded and mistaken idea of the conversation that is concerning to any real understanding or dialogue. Instead of assuming what I said, make an inquiry as to whether I said the thing you seem to think I did claim, because that shows you aren't stubbornly presupposing your assessment is unquestionable

Not everything we see online is necessarily to be concluded as truthful merely because we hear about it or such

Asexuality is not the same as a loss of libido and such, I believe I brought that distinction up, however roughly. And neither of us are marriage counselors or such, so the idea that asexuality, a trait more relevant to sexuality overall rather than specifically marital intercourse, is related to issues of marital relationships is oversimplifying

the f word is offensive because by its nature it has a connection to things people dont wanna hear about. It doesnt just have a grotesque sound in and of itself. This has to do with what you mentioned earlier.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Attraction /=/ sexual attraction and even romantic attraction doesn't have to entail sexual attraction by necessity

Relationship is an umbrella term, it's not referring to anything not romantic or sexual in nature, the qualifier is the adjective BEFORE relationship, not the word relationship

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

And you just saying that doesn't make it true, you have to actually offer evidence or the discussion goes nowhere. Neither appear to be a conscious choice at all, because, again, sexual orientation is distinct from sexual preference and certainly sexual behavior

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.

Not sure how this observation regarding complexities of family relationships is pertinent to the moral implications or the conscious/unconscious consideration of sexual orientation, preference and behavior

Just because two people who mate dont have to be attracted to each other doesnt mean attraction has no connection to mating.

Sexual attraction would connect to sexual intercourse, yes, but not all attraction is sexual, you're dealing in this like a child, it's not indicating any real investigation into it, just mere "common sense" sophistry

Whether Eden is an allegory or not is an endless genealogy. its like discussing what the forbidden fruit was-a pomegrante, an apple.

Your invoking of it speaks to problematic prejudices about how women ought to behave as well as needless black/white binary thinking about sex's purpose

 

[Strathos]

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

What if they meant a man who lived on the isle of Lesbos?

 

[muichimotsu]

the f word is offensive because by its nature it has a connection to things people dont wanna hear about. It doesnt just have a grotesque sound in and of itself. This has to do with what you mentioned earlier.

No, it's because it's used as a slur, words themselves vary, and the f word in particular we're talking about used to simply refer to a bundle of sticks, it was much later that it became associated with gay people as an invective against them.

I can discuss sex openly with someone even though I'm asexual, my not having a desire to have sex with other people does not mean I cannot understand empathically that they do want to have sex and offer advice if they ask it of me (which is very rare anyway)

 

[Sammy-San]

The phrase image of God is from Gen 1:27 "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." The image is quite explicitly present in male and female equally.

He named them Adam and blessed them.

I believe God has both masculine and feminine qualities but isnt androgynous.

That verse doesnt negate the idea that Adam was created first to show Gods image is masculine, or private parts exist for reasons beyond reproduction. The Bible says woman is the image and glory of man, and a womans long hair is her glory, meaning gender in its true sense and not the nonbinary stuff is about a steel flower symmetry that goes beyond eggs or having certain private parts or hormones or appearences.

God could have created all men and all women (a comment someone said) means gender is more than reproduction.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, it's because it's used as a slur, words themselves vary, and the f word in particular we're talking about used to simply refer to a bundle of sticks, it was much later that it became associated with gay people as an invective against them.

I can discuss sex openly with someone even though I'm asexual, my not having a desire to have sex with other people does not mean I cannot understand empathically that they do want to have sex and offer advice if they ask it of me (which is very rare anyway)

Lesbianism and male homosexuality function differently. People dont call gay women gay as an in that was so gay of a shirt, meaning lesbianism function in a way related to how women nurture.

 

[Sammy-San]

What if they meant a man who lived on the isle of Lesbos?

It just sounds feminine.

 

[Sammy-San]

Attraction /=/ sexual attraction and even romantic attraction doesn't have to entail sexual attraction by necessity

Relationship is an umbrella term, it's not referring to anything not romantic or sexual in nature, the qualifier is the adjective BEFORE relationship, not the word relationship



And you just saying that doesn't make it true, you have to actually offer evidence or the discussion goes nowhere. Neither appear to be a conscious choice at all, because, again, sexual orientation is distinct from sexual preference and certainly sexual behavior



Not sure how this observation regarding complexities of family relationships is pertinent to the moral implications or the conscious/unconscious consideration of sexual orientation, preference and behavior




Sexual attraction would connect to sexual intercourse, yes, but not all attraction is sexual, you're dealing in this like a child, it's not indicating any real investigation into it, just mere "common sense" sophistry



Your invoking of it speaks to problematic prejudices about how women ought to behave as well as needless black/white binary thinking about sex's purpose

If someone said they were attracted to a friend it would mean they might not be friends anymore because friends has limits. A person says their spouse is their best friend in a vague relative sense, not that they are their friends with benefits.

Frank Turek he said he loves his son but hes not gonna marry him. People marrying animals is wrong because it has connotations of bestiality

 

[Sammy-San]

Attraction /=/ sexual attraction and even romantic attraction doesn't have to entail sexual attraction by necessity

Relationship is an umbrella term, it's not referring to anything not romantic or sexual in nature, the qualifier is the adjective BEFORE relationship, not the word relationship



And you just saying that doesn't make it true, you have to actually offer evidence or the discussion goes nowhere. Neither appear to be a conscious choice at all, because, again, sexual orientation is distinct from sexual preference and certainly sexual behavior



Not sure how this observation regarding complexities of family relationships is pertinent to the moral implications or the conscious/unconscious consideration of sexual orientation, preference and behavior




Sexual attraction would connect to sexual intercourse, yes, but not all attraction is sexual, you're dealing in this like a child, it's not indicating any real investigation into it, just mere "common sense" sophistry



Your invoking of it speaks to problematic prejudices about how women ought to behave as well as needless black/white binary thinking about sex's purpose

Im not saying all attraction of any kind romantic or not is sexual but the office of attracted to someone in romance exists because not everything has an absolute answer and the intention is not friends with benefits.

 

[muichimotsu]

If someone said they were attracted to a friend it would mean they might not be friends anymore because friends has limits. A person says their spouse is their best friend in a vague relative sense, not that they are their friends with benefits.

Frank Turek he said he loves his son but hes not gonna marry him. People marrying animals is wrong because it has connotations of bestiality

No, you're still using terribly simplistic and frankly stupidly myopic meanings of word: attraction /=/ sexual attraction, I've said it several times, you're not grasping it and if you don't indicate you have, then this conversation is definitively over until such time as you show you aren't being a regressive troglodyte whose understanding of sex is from the Victorian era

Most people don't use the term friends with benefits except with the sexual aspect, but that's because the benefits entails that, while friend can entail overlapping kinds of relationships and attraction

People marrying animals is wrong because animals can neither consent nor understand the implications of marriage or sex in the notion humans have of it being more social than merely procreative and impulsive

 

[muichimotsu]

Im not saying all attraction of any kind romantic or not is sexual but the office of attracted to someone in romance exists because not everything has an absolute answer and the intention is not friends with benefits.

But that's a qualifier, not the meaning of attraction itself, we have the qualifier of romance because I could have attraction in the sense that the person seems like they could be a good friend, not that I have any kind of romantic or sexual interest in them

 

[Sammy-San]

No, it's because it's used as a slur, words themselves vary, and the f word in particular we're talking about used to simply refer to a bundle of sticks, it was much later that it became associated with gay people as an invective against them.

I can discuss sex openly with someone even though I'm asexual, my not having a desire to have sex with other people does not mean I cannot understand empathically that they do want to have sex and offer advice if they ask it of me (which is very rare anyway)

Do you think the other f word is so offensive just because it refers to mating or also because it has grotesque sounds or refers to pornography or pornography related behaviors or anything off limits or butts or sexual intimacy not related to actual intimacy?

 

[Sammy-San]

No, you're still using terribly simplistic and frankly stupidly myopic meanings of word: attraction /=/ sexual attraction, I've said it several times, you're not grasping it and if you don't indicate you have, then this conversation is definitively over until such time as you show you aren't being a regressive troglodyte whose understanding of sex is from the Victorian era

Most people don't use the term friends with benefits except with the sexual aspect, but that's because the benefits entails that, while friend can entail overlapping kinds of relationships and attraction

People marrying animals is wrong because animals can neither consent nor understand the implications of marriage or sex in the notion humans have of it being more social than merely procreative and impulsive

animals can only understand marriage and relationships and friendships with other animals.

 

[muichimotsu]

animals can only understand marriage and relationships and friendships with other animals.

Nope, done, you don't seem to even grasp that those ideas are NOT animal concepts, they are human ones. We don't have animal marriage period, animals pair bond in a different manner.

This is the most glaring indication you have no real sense of nuance in this discussion and refuse to even countenance that you could need to change at all in thinking even something as simple as, "Maybe sexual orientation isn't chosen at all," if you even understand what sexual orientation is in the first place, but you appear to just conflate attraction and sexual attraction so that's unlikely

 

[Sammy-San]

Nope, done, you don't seem to even grasp that those ideas are NOT animal concepts, they are human ones. We don't have animal marriage period, animals pair bond in a different manner.

This is the most glaring indication you have no real sense of nuance in this discussion and refuse to even countenance that you could need to change at all in thinking even something as simple as, "Maybe sexual orientation isn't chosen at all," if you even understand what sexual orientation is in the first place, but you appear to just conflate attraction and sexual attraction so that's unlikely

Attraction has at least dormant sexual attraction. Its not the intention but its there. Thats why the idea of Jesus having a wife or marriage to a deity sounds strange.

 

[Paidiske]

That verse doesnt negate the idea that Adam was created first to show Gods image is masculine

Nothing in Scripture establishes that "God's image is masculine." It is very dangerous to ascribe maleness/masculinity to God, as if we can project our human characteristics onto the deity; or as if we can think that some human beings are somehow more like God than others.

gender in its true sense and not the nonbinary stuff is about a steel flower symmetry that goes beyond eggs or having certain private parts or hormones or appearences.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff about steel/flower symmetry, but it's not Scriptural. It also comes across as deeply sexist.

The question of whether attraction always has an erotic dimension is interesting. I've sometimes watched, say, a charismatic lecturer walk into a classroom and there be a certain... frisson... across the class. But if we do allow for an erotic dimension to all attraction then we might need to conceive of an eroticism which is about more than sexuality.

 

[Sammy-San]

Nothing in Scripture establishes that "God's image is masculine." It is very dangerous to ascribe maleness/masculinity to God, as if we can project our human characteristics onto the deity; or as if we can think that some human beings are somehow more like God than others.



I don't know where you're getting this stuff about steel/flower symmetry, but it's not Scriptural. It also comes across as deeply sexist.

The question of whether attraction always has an erotic dimension is interesting. I've sometimes watched, say, a charismatic lecturer walk into a classroom and there be a certain... frisson... across the class. But if we do allow for an erotic dimension to all attraction then we might need to conceive of an eroticism which is about more than sexuality.

Its indirectly related to sexuality.

I think unbelievers indirectly know about hell, when we say we dont know everything we admit that there is a certain level at which there is no answer (even God wouldnt take bets).