Some thoughts on homosexuality

[Amittai]

yet its the anti-gay individuals and groups that equate love with sex.

There are some, but in addition and more fundamentally, the propagandists want to turn everybody into sex maniacs altogether. Stirring up strife artificially spices it up for them.

The OP is raising this very scene for the very critique you & I are both making.

 

[Amittai]

... so when the same things are about heterosexuals it good but those same things are about gays it's creepy, sad, unsettling and degrading ...

Yes the strategy is to pit some people against others. Frankly I address severe words first to religious people that haven't thought faith and boundaries out well enough.

JP II's body theology is creepy and leaves out people who aren't nuclear family members. He tried to alter the thinking of Scheler but there were probably better models for him to base his thinking on in the first place.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

and then

Pointless.

and then

Also pointless.

you talk about the necessity of emotional connections and romance....but then focus on sex. again why the focus?

No, I focused on sex being the other part of romance, both of which are separate from necessary platonic emotional connections. Do you even read anything I post, or are you just here to get mad at me for not being a mindless sheeple that isn't a slave to other people's subjective emotions and opinions?

and then
so when the same things are about heterosexuals it good but those same things are about gays it's creepy, sad, unsettling and degrading...

That sentence literally makes no sense in regards to what I posted. Besides that, I was calling the overt homoeroticism in media creepy and unsettling--not gay people in general. Homoeroticism is worse than just flat out depicting a gay pairing, it's homosexual undertones to things that otherwise are straight, not flat out homosexuality(although the two do show up in the same media on occasion, like in sailor moon). That's why I find it creepy--it's literally there to be vague and confusing as if we don't already have enough harmful stigma and confusion around closeness with others.

and then
like what?

The existence and consumption of snuff films and inappropriate content with women having sex with dogs and horses should speak for itself.

yes, that is exactly the message of abusive organized-religion tyrants.

I actually have no idea what you're talking about now. You're not being specific at all.

and who does that?

The fact you even need to ask that question makes me suspect you are exactly the type of person to glomp all people with varying levels of homosexual tendencies in the same big ole' category.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Yes - but the propagandists and those who are naively influenced by them say that it is. My friend's 9 year old is gay because he was told at school and also because Pete Buttirzerz says. Gays' inalienable right to tell the children this and implicate the latter in all the prurience before they are able to stand up to authority figures stems straight from their transubstantive ontology.

Gays are told they must consider themselves authority figures otherwise they are letting their caste system down. I do know some chaste pairs of the same sex who continue to call themselves "gay" simply to present a model (among many models) to others like them.

This kind of package dealing is something it is hard work to reject and unfair. We've got to mix & match our own lives. I'm glad, Quatermaine, that you've held out for what you want.

There's regulation dress and gestures, which shouldn't have to have connotations attached to them.

Some boys had a light and twisty step and quiet voices and struck up what relationships they wanted in their own time.

Is gay supposed to be a more terrible kind of butch?

I originally 'agreed' with both this and your post after this, but I'm not going to lie; I actually have no idea what point you're trying to make. Sorry.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

There are some, but in addition and more fundamentally, the propagandists want to turn everybody into sex maniacs altogether. Stirring up strife artificially spices it up for them.

The OP is raising this very scene for the very critique you & I are both making.

I see where this is going now I think. Interesting, because I did agree with what your first post, at face value, appeared to be saying.

My entire point is that same sex affection and same sex attraction are not the same. One is not a homosexual for having strong bonds or affection for someone of the same sex; it's sexual desire that turns something platonic into something romantic.

I don't need to stir anything up. Our culture has been obsessed with sex and pushing it into the spotlight for years now, far before I was even born.

Romance and sexual attraction are two sides of the same coin; neither, however, are the only means for expression and exchange of love and affection.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Yes the strategy is to pit some people against others. Frankly I address severe words first to religious people that haven't thought faith and boundaries out well enough.

JP II's body theology is creepy and leaves out people who aren't nuclear family members. He tried to alter the thinking of Scheler but there were probably better models for him to base his thinking on in the first place.

Very sad that you and Quartermaine seem to only be able to see this in black in white. If either of you had cared to take into context what I was saying, you'd realize I was not talking about gay people themselves being 'creepy or unsettling'.

 

[Amittai]

...

And lastly, I don't think homosexuality is what they say it's about. LGBT advocates say it's just about 'who you love', but romantic love has a sexual undertone--you can't separate romantic love and sexual love, because it is two sides of the same coin1. After all, you can theoretically love anyone and be devoted to them for your whole life, but not be sexually/romantically attracted to them whatsoever and still move on to find a proper opposite-sex companion2. ...

I agree with your point about the oversexed atmosphere.

The sensible definition of "homosexual" is an activity (or, in christian life, at a stretch an obsession with it) and needn't be considered an identity of a person. (I am not querying individuals' current definition of "identity".)

Last time I looked, about sex the law said - consenting - adults - private.

Numerous side issues don't have to be packaged into the deal.

Individuals can embrace their private definitions and even shared definitions of course.

God doesn't see "orientation" except as there is something concrete going on to orient. He keeps it simple!

1. Here we have a thing that's more complex and most individuals will be amidst an evolving scenario. A relationship that is in the process of becoming chaste may still be thought by either party to be "romantic", whatever meaning they attach to that (I've had some friends like this so I saw or they told me).

We needn't necessarily attach our values to other people's names for the concepts. It's good to equip others casually and not pointedly, to stand up for their individual wants as quickly or slowly as they want. We can leave people space for their own minding of their business.

2. For some, they may find their "partner" in the sense of spouse (or similar), and they may still think of other old friends in what they term a "romantic" way.

The important thing is that we model ourselves being ourselves, and only stand up for those not able to enforce their own boundaries. This does NOT involve fussing about "orientations".

(Am not sure what view Molinist-Preterists have about how God sees things? )

 

[Amittai]

I see where this is going now I think. Interesting, because I did agree with what your first post, at face value, appeared to be saying.

My entire point is that same sex affection and same sex attraction are not the same1. One is not a homosexual for having strong bonds or affection for someone of the same sex1A; it's sexual desire that turns something platonic into something romantic2.

I don't need to stir anything up3. Our culture has been obsessed with sex and pushing it into the spotlight for years now, far before I was even born4.

Romance and sexual attraction are two sides of the same coin; neither, however, are the only means for expression and exchange of love and affection5.

1. They are three things because same sex attraction is thought by some to include several different kinds of attraction.

1A. Precisely exact.

2. It might turn it into something lustful both instead of as well as as well as romantic. I wouldn't be altogether surprised if a few people think the platonic may be slightly romantic in a weak sense. Until or unless they get in the way of those more vulnerable than themselves, I personally wouldn't fuss either about the nuance of others' emotions nor their names for them.

3. I wasn't thinking it was either you or Quatermaine.

4. Precisely exact.

5. Precisely exact and for all I know there might even be more than two, or might not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry! I'm really bad at communicating my thoughts properly, so I'll try to give a baseline of my point;

Essentially, I think the oversexed/romance obsessed culture is giving LGBT agenda a foothold by labeling any close friendship--same sex or not--as 'romantic', just because society categorizes any kind/devoted bond with another person as that. Like for example how it's weird to say 'I love you' to people even thought the same words can be used to express love to a family member, or something like 'I love soda'(I.E. not romantic at all). I think we should have different words for different kinds of love to avoid confusion.

Mistakenly labeling any kind of platonic affection/attachment as romantic might be causing youth to feel like they're homosexual, for example.

And lastly, I don't think homosexuality is what they say it's about. LGBT advocates say it's just about 'who you love', but romantic love has a sexual undertone--you can't separate romantic love and sexual love, because it is two sides of the same coin. After all, you can theoretically love anyone and be devoted to them for your whole life, but not be sexually/romantically attracted to them whatsoever and still move on to find a proper opposite-sex companion.



TLDR: I'm realizing what's considered 'gay' is not really gay outside of the sex aspect, and people act like strong lifelong platonic bonds don't or can't exist.

OK, I understand and some good points there. It would be nice if you had the opportunity to convey them to the masses, as they are a little deeper than most go, and could do some good.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I agree with your point about the oversexed atmosphere.

The sensible definition of "homosexual" is an activity (or, in christian life, at a stretch an obsession with it) and needn't be considered an identity of a person. (I am not querying individuals' current definition of "identity".)

Last time I looked, about sex the law said - consenting - adults - private.

Numerous side issues don't have to be packaged into the deal.

Individuals can embrace their private definitions and even shared definitions of course.

God doesn't see "orientation" except as there is something concrete going on to orient. He keeps it simple!

1. Here we have a thing that's more complex and most individuals will be amidst an evolving scenario. A relationship that is in the process of becoming chaste may still be thought by either party to be "romantic", whatever meaning they attach to that (I've had some friends like this so I saw or they told me).

We needn't necessarily attach our values to other people's names for the concepts. It's good to equip others casually and not pointedly, to stand up for their individual wants as quickly or slowly as they want. We can leave people space for their own minding of their business.

2. For some, they may find their "partner" in the sense of spouse (or similar), and they may still think of other old friends in what they term a "romantic" way.

The important thing is that we model ourselves being ourselves, and only stand up for those not able to enforce their own boundaries. This does NOT involve fussing about "orientations".

(Am not sure what view Molinist-Preterists have about how God sees things? )

It's really not as complicated as you're stating. Once again--you either are sexually attracted to someone(which as I said before, can be as subtle as simply kissing or being physically affectionate to a degree you wouldn't normally have with other people)or you're not. People confuse love with sexual attraction frequently since both come with similar side effects.

Homosexuality is an orientation in which people engage in homosexual activities; same-sex relations.

Furthermore, if homosexuality is considered a sin(which it is--saying otherwise is in direct violation of this forum's rules)then it doesn't matter if it's private, so long as they're making it open available knowledge to the world. Are we as Christians also expected to let adulterers and those who have sex before marriage sin simply because it's 'private', even though they've already made no effort to hide what they're doing?

No.

God doesn't see orientations, you're right; he sees sin. Practicing homosexuality is a sin, there's nothing else to it.

He really does keep it simple too...when he created Adam and Eve as the model of 'marriage', the vessel for romantic love and sexual attraction.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

1. They are three things because same sex attraction is thought by some to include several different kinds of attraction.

1A. Precisely exact.

2. It might turn it into something lustful both instead of as well as as well as romantic. I wouldn't be altogether surprised if a few people think the platonic may be slightly romantic in a weak sense. Until or unless they get in the way of those more vulnerable than themselves, I personally wouldn't fuss either about the nuance of others' emotions nor their names for them.

3. I wasn't thinking it was either you or Quatermaine.

4. Precisely exact.

5. Precisely exact and for all I know there might even be more than two, or might not.

I would normally continue conversing with you, and I think I'm beginning to understand your POV--but I think there's something that's simply too confusing about the way you write. With a language barrier like that, I can't really continue this conversation since I'll likely be misinterpreting a great deal of what you're saying. Sorry.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

OK, I understand and some good points there. It would be nice if you had the opportunity to convey them to the masses, as they are a little deeper than most go, and could do some good.

I plan on doing so, one way or the other. I tend to depict a lot of my views in storytelling, and I plan on releasing a comic at some point that I can use as both a creative outlet and a vessel for thoughts I can't share easily.

 

[Amittai]

Very sad that you and Quartermaine seem to only be able to see this in black in white. If either of you had cared to take into context what I was saying, you'd realize I was not talking about gay people themselves being 'creepy or unsettling'.

I see everything as huge subjects and in even more nuances and shades than you. (I thought spatially from infancy until people told me I mustn't, now I give myself permission to go back to doing so.) To some extent I was trying to show how my view and ultimately yours, actually complements the position I presume Quartermaine is seeking.

(I'm either big headed, or a Large Brained Primate )

(I was also re-editing while you posted - sorry.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

I plan on doing so, one way or the other. I tend to depict a lot of my views in storytelling, and I plan on releasing a comic at some point that I can use as both a creative outlet and a vessel for thoughts I can't share easily.

Great! Someone who actually follows through, and your choice of media sounds like a good plan..

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I see everything as huge subjects and in even more nuances and shades than you. (I thought spatially from infancy until people told me I mustn't, now I give myself permission to go back to doing so.) To some extent I was trying to show how my view and ultimately yours, actually complements the position I presume Quartermaine is seeking.

(I'm either big headed, or a Large Brained Primate )

(I was also re-editing while you posted - sorry.)

Apologies for my remark--again, the way you phrase things are very hard for me to 'get' so I took it differently than you intended, which is my bad.

I figure Quartermaine is an ally of some sort to the LGBT, which in and of itself I don't mind--but his defensive method of debate mixed with how he 'picks and chooses' what I say certainly rubs me the wrong way. I too care about LGBT+ individuals, but in order to even begin to be of any real help, I first have to understand and 'digest' what the whole issue surrounding sexuality consists of--which I am in the process of doing.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Following for the conversation, will contribute my own thoughts later.

 

[renniks]

Yeah, exactly. I think some people could get lonely being a eunuch though, which is why I suggested having a best friend you're particularly close to perhaps would be a good choice as you could still have that closeness without worrying about it being romantic. As I said in my first post, due to our sex-obsessed culture I think a lot of people mistakenly confuse love of a philia/agape nature for something romantic/sexual due to the shallow depiction society paints of platonic and romantic relationships.

This is a good point. Did you ever wonder why the lord of the rings movies were so popular? There's a lot of reasons but, I think one was the close friendship between men shown, that is rarely seen in our culture. Men have their drinking buddies but how many of them have really deep friendships with other men? I know I don't at this point in my life, but the few times I did it was something I really valued.

 

[Amittai]

... (which as I said before, can be as subtle as simply kissing or being physically affectionate to a degree you wouldn't normally have with other people) or you're not ... Are we as Christians also expected to let adulterers and those who have sex before marriage sin simply because it's 'private', even though they've already made no effort to hide what they're doing?

No.

...

I agree completely with your post no. 30 throughout. Here you express elegantly as subtleties what I presented clumsily as complications. I see continuums within categories (and overlapping categories) but haven't perfected a means of conveying those yet.

By "our role" in "letting" those outside our faith conduct their lives do you mean as models and teachers towards those of our peers that show an interest? I think your writing plans will be of tremedous good! Indeed you here refer to those "they've already made no effort to hide" which I considered more or less excluded from my category of "private".

Discretion = tact
Blatancy = potentially up to something, or else naively copying those who want them to fall into the pattern, or being manipulated by propagandists

Those who gain in individuality will develop a capacity for tact and for respect for their own privacy as they mature.

Sex addicts for example are victims of manipulators who in effect steal their self respect from them.

Most people were told to stop their hobbies before O levels and sex is framed as a "remedy" for shame at mixed performance amid stress and probably indifferent teaching.

I only just spotted your no. 30, as the forum interface keeps skipping up and down by itself and omits some of the posts some of the time, I must get round to asking the administrators to repair it (it's not my browser because no other site does it).

 

[nolidad]

*note: To be clear, I do believe that same-sex sexual relationships are considered a sin. More on this view to come*


Hey everyone, I'm here with some food for thought.

I've been seeing a lot of homosexual content in media lately(it's almost everywhere at this point)and it has lead me to do some long thinking on the subject. I've had some thoughts about it, and so as to keep things short & sweet I'll just summarize them in bullet points;

• I don't consider love or devotion to someone the same sex homosexual. This is because to me, I think the defining distinction(unpopular opinion here)between romantic and platonic love is the sexual attraction. Even things like an innocent kiss, while not being overtly sexual, are usually an expression of subconscious attraction that--in one way or another, preferably after marriage--will almost always end in sexual intimacy.
• To add to that point is a favorite saying of mine; "Love is love...but just because I love my best friend and my parents, doesn't mean I want to have sex with any of them."
• Having said all of that, if two people of the same sex(not excluding people without homosexual orientation)deeply care about each other and want to stay together for all of their lives, I don't mind if they end up being buddies in celibacy; so long as there is no sexual temptation or sexual intimacy...at which point I really wouldn't even consider them homosexual anymore. (I don't think this would be a sin? Unless it's with someone you're already sexually attracted to)
• Has anyone noticed the homoeroticism in media these days, or is it just me? I'm an avid anime fan, and I know for certain it is extremely popular in the older animes and the shoujo genre in particular(examples that come to mind are neon genesis evangelion, cardcaptor sakura and sailor moon). On one note it's a little creepy and unsettling to me, and on another note, I would actually really enjoy the relationships if they didn't have overt undertones of a sexual nature(I.E. being classified as 'gay' instead of a close friendship). I find the kind of pure, strong and devoted love to someone of the same sex actually really endearing and inspiring...and I know I'd catch a lot of heat for saying this anywhere other than here, but it's really sad to see those kinds of relationships being degraded to 'crushes' or something of a romantic/sexual nature.
• I'm starting to resent the fact that english only has one variant of 'love'. The greeks, imo, had the right idea having different words for different classifications of love. I actually really don't think many examples of 'homosexuality' is eros love, on that note; perhaps a mixture of agape and philia would be more accurate(I do not follow plato's notion that eros strengthens philia; I believe agape is much more fitting)
• Lastly, let us not forget that one can be trained to find almost anything--weird as it may be--sexually stimulating so long as it gets us...off....you know. (Ex-inappropriate content addicts and kinksters, I'm looking at y'all)

That's pretty much it for now. I'd love to hear some comments and opinions on these points.

A lot of believers need to realize that if a homosexual gives their life to christ and get saved, that does not mean they become heterosexual. They may have sexual desires for the same sex the rest of their lives!

As long as they do not enter into a marriage type relationship (via the law) and remain celibate- I do not see any prohibitioni n the Bible.

A heterosexual who falls into sexual sin will sin with the opposite sex. A homosexual will fall with one of the same sex. We tend to be far more forgiving of the heterosexual sin than the homosexual sin. God is equalling forgiving of both believers if they practice 1 John 1:9 in faith.

With that said, I would recommend two homosexual believers from sharing the same dwelling together. It is just as tempting as to have a guy and girl living together and trying to be celibate.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I agree completely with your post no. 30 throughout. Here you express elegantly as subtleties what I presented clumsily as complications. I see continuums within categories (and overlapping categories) but haven't perfected a means of conveying those yet.

By "our role" in "letting" those outside our faith conduct their lives do you mean as models and teachers towards those of our peers that show an interest? I think your writing plans will be of tremedous good! Indeed you here refer to those "they've already made no effort to hide" which I considered more or less excluded from my category of "private".

Discretion = tact
Blatancy = potentially up to something, or else naively copying those who want them to fall into the pattern, or being manipulated by propagandists

Those who gain in individuality will develop a capacity for tact and for respect for their own privacy as they mature.

Sex addicts for example are victims of manipulators who in effect steal their self respect from them.

Most people were told to stop their hobbies before O levels and sex is framed as a "remedy" for shame at mixed performance amid stress and probably indifferent teaching.

I only just spotted your no. 30, as the forum interface keeps skipping up and down by itself and omits some of the posts some of the time, I must get round to asking the administrators to repair it (it's not my browser because no other site does it).

I'm understanding your point more now, and I am in agreement. It's just one of those things; very simple, but can be made extremely complicated.

Yes, that's what I mean. I, of course, have no intention of going around pointing any fingers at anyone--gay people included--and condemning them. This is especially true for those who aren't even of the church; however, I also cannot lie and say that such behavior is not sinful when asked. I want to use my writing as an example of my views on the different kinds of relationships one can experience in this life, as well as the nuanced differences between love and romance--to show things from a different angle in a way that isn't intimidating or confrontational to those with opposing views. Especially in propelling more loving, affectionate bonds between companions and friends. Something we're lacking in this day and age.

I would also never try to pry into the lives of those who do not make their lives public.

I think one celibate lesbian I follow worded it perfectly; it's impossible to live as a celibate homosexual when we're expected to find love and emotional intimacy only from romantic relationships.