The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate

[Arthur Brain]

I've been infatuated with people - I know how it goes. I also know that my decisions regarding that person have the ability to nourish or smother my affections for them. No - its not a switch that I can turn on/off in the moment, it takes time - but I am in control all the same.

Being infatuated with someone, or having a crush is not the same as actually falling in love. You don't get to switch that feeling either on or off...and you are not in control of any of it.

 

[csuguy]

No offense to anyone, but chemistry driven love isn't rational. You can try and make it rational all you like but it doesn't work that way. You might avoid acting on it post discovery, but you have no choice in it happening and if it ever goes away, it's because it wasn't nurtured properly.

This is a good stance. I've been stressing the role of our actions for the purpose of this thread, but I do agree that you are able to just hit it off with certain people and feel a connection with them out of nowhere. But ultimately this feeling must be nourished through our freewill decisions for it to become a Romantic relationship.

 

[csuguy]

Being infatuated with someone, or having a crush is not the same as actually falling in love. You don't get to switch that feeling either on or off...and you are not in control of any of it.

Being infatuated is that romantic, passionate love we have been speaking of. Of course, if you have an actual term for what you are speaking of - vs introducing unnecessary distinctions to make your own love and passion appear greater than my own - then present it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Being infatuated is that romantic, passionate love we have been speaking of. Of course, if you have an actual term for what you are speaking of - vs introducing unnecessary distinctions to make your own love and passion appear greater than my own - then present it.

No, it isn't. I've been infatuated with people in the past, had crushes etc. It's not the same as actually being in love with someone where it goes beyond that. You'll only know it when it happens. When it does you'll realize how ridiculous your arguments about how it's under any sort of control or 'decision/process' will appear to be.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've been infatuated with people - I know how it goes. I also know that my decisions regarding that person have the ability to nourish or smother my affections for them. No - its not a switch that I can turn on/off in the moment, it takes time - but I am in control all the same.

Infatuation is not love. At the age of 16 I was infatuated with an absolutely beautiful woman of 21 who worked in the same department.
I was attracted to her because of her physical beauty obviously and also she had a nice personality to go with it. But I know now it wasn't love even if I thought it was back then. There's a complete difference even if passionate feelings for someone inform both.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is a good stance. I've been stressing the role of our actions for the purpose of this thread, but I do agree that you are able to just hit it off with certain people and feel a connection with them out of nowhere. But ultimately this feeling must be nourished through our freewill decisions for it to become a Romantic relationship.

Well, supposing you're in actual love with someone and it isn't requited? You won't get to make a 'free will' decision to 'smother' that particular...

 

[PureX]

I'm not speaking of anything that is outside of the common human experience.

How do you know what is the common human experience? You are presuming that what is common for you must be common for everyone. And that simply is not true. It's also very arrogant and disrespectful.

If you find anything I've said is not common among mankind then bring it up for discussion.

I have. Many people experience sexual attraction in terms of "chemistry". What that means is that they don't get to choose who they are attracted to through reason. And the same is true for the people who are attracted to them.

Do you have romantic/sexual feelings for every good looking human you see? Is there no-one that, though attractive, you would never desire a relationship with?

Sexual "chemistry" isn't much about what someone looks like. Nor is it about our willingness to act on it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

You make a valid point that we each have our own respective strengths and weaknesses - but that also makes strengths and weaknesses a common human experience, even if the specifics differ.

It's because the specifics differ that you don't get to use how you deal with yours as the measure by which you pass judgment on how everyone else deals with theirs.

I also have not judged anyone here - I'm speaking purely about the ability to control one's sexual desires and to even change them overtime.

You are assuming that everyone has that ability. Why are you assuming that if not to pass judgment on gays for not denying or "changing" who they're attracted to?

 

[Quincy]

This is a good stance. I've been stressing the role of our actions for the purpose of this thread, but I do agree that you are able to just hit it off with certain people and feel a connection with them out of nowhere. But ultimately this feeling must be nourished through our freewill decisions for it to become a Romantic relationship.

There are many types of romantic relationships. I agree with you here only in the sense of some types of them. Relationships built on just intimacy and/or commitment can have a bond and can be nurtured through actions. If you add in the element of passion brought on by chemistry, things change. It becomes a matter of feelings and it doesn't matter what "freewill" actions you take.

You can take the woman out on a date, buy her flowers, chocolate or whatever you can imagine every single day or you can just stay at home with her chatting or listening to music. The feelings don't change. The only way to stop that is if you don't go around her and you're still likely to remember the woman and miss her for a long time if not for the rest of your life.

I get what you're doing, you want to say relationships require conscious decision making but that only applies to the commitment area, as well as intimacy. You decide to commit to this woman and/or get to know her on a deeply personal level. There I agree with what you're saying. The passion (I'm not talking about sexual attraction) aspect of it, if there, is something irrational. You can't turn it on or off and it will influence your conscious decisions about intimacy and commitment.

If homosexuals experience that, then their relationships are no easier to refrain from than a heterosexual's.

 

[csuguy]

Infatuation is not love. At the age of 16 I was infatuated with an absolutely beautiful woman of 21 who worked in the same department.
I was attracted to her because of her physical beauty obviously and also she had a nice personality to go with it. But I know now it wasn't love even if I thought it was back then. There's a complete difference even if passionate feelings for someone inform both.

Yes it is, it is one of the conottations of love, along with lust. It is that romantic, foolish passion that you speak of. There is no other word for it that I am aware of.

Now you add a new distinction to your idea of love that wasn't present before in this discussion: its not just passion. Before you were describing your romantic love as an intense passion, even beyond one's control. Now you contradict yourself. Of course, you haven't given any specific details or words to describe this alternate passion.

You are simply trying to make it sound like the feelings you have are superior to/greater than my own. It is non-sense.

 

[Granite]

Yes it is, it is one of the conottations of love, along with lust. It is that romantic, foolish passion that you speak of. There is no other word for it that I am aware of.

Now you add a new distinction to your idea of love that wasn't present before in this discussion: its not just passion. Before you were describing your romantic love as an intense passion, even beyond one's control. Now you contradict yourself. Of course, you haven't given any specific details or words to describe this alternate passion.

You are simply trying to make it sound like the feelings you have are superior to/greater than my own. It is non-sense.

There's a world of difference between crushing on someone and actual love, guy. This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[csuguy]

How do you know what is the common human experience? You are presuming that what is common for you must be common for everyone. And that simply is not true. It's also very arrogant and disrespectful.

Um... because I am a human, live among and study humans... I can safely say I'm qualified to speak of the common human experience.

I have. Many people experience sexual attraction in terms of "chemistry". What that means is that they don't get to choose who they are attracted to through reason. And the same is true for the people who are attracted to them.

But you get to choose whether or not you act on those feelings, to nourish them into a romantic relationship or to squash them. I've experienced "chemistry" - I've been deeply infatuated before. Those same people that I couldn't get out of my head then, I don't even think of now. I can see them and hang out with them and not feel attracted to them anymore. Why? Because I chose to leave that relationship behind, and overtime my feelings transformed to reflect my conscious decision.

Sexual "chemistry" isn't much about what someone looks like. Nor is it about our willingness to act on it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Physical attractiveness is one of major components behind "chemistry" - though not the only one. How important it is depends upon the person in question - but no one's going to have "chemistry" with someone who physically repels them.

It's because the specifics differ that you don't get to use how you deal with yours as the measure by which you pass judgment on how everyone else deals with theirs.

1. I'm not passing judgement here
2. Just because the specifics differ doesn't mean that it is invalid to use the general experience as a common ground.

You are assuming that everyone has that ability. Why are you assuming that if not to pass judgment on gays for not denying or "changing" who they're attracted to?

1. I'm not simply assuming it. As a matter of personal experience as well as a matter of theology/philosophy I know that people have this ability. I'm nothing special that I alone have this capability.

2. I am discussing this as an extension of the discussion of whether or not gays, pedophiles, etc. Have any say on their sexual tendencies - but not so I can judge them. You are the one judging here, not me. I simply find the topic important and interesting. It is important that people not behind this false idea that these things our beyond our control.

This isn't Disney - there's no true love at first sight.

 

[csuguy]

There's a world of difference between crushing on someone and actual love, guy. This is pretty basic stuff.

In terms of passionate emotions - no there's not. Its the same emotions.

And, again, depends upon how you are using the term. The way he has been using it - infatuation is the proper term. The way that defenders of homosexuality usually use the term - they are using it in place of lust. Christians use the term to refer to altrusim, agape.

 

[Granite]

In terms of passionate emotions - no there's not.

Your arrogance and presumption's really, really off putting. In fact, I don't even think that's quite right--you just don't seem to know what you're talking about. How's a high school crush anything like actual love? Again, basic stuff here. You seem interested in being contrary for its own sake.

The way that defenders of homosexuality usually use the term - they are using it in place of lust.

Only because you think homosexuals are incapable of feeling the same way as straights, which is, simply put, asinine and ignorant.

 

[csuguy]

Your arrogance and presumption's really, really off putting. In fact, I don't even think that's quite right--you just don't seem to know what you're talking about. How's a high school crush anything like actual love? Again, basic stuff here. You seem interested in being contrary for its own sake.

I'm not speaking of a mere crush, I'm speaking of full blown infatuation. I've been through both as well as my share of relationships. The difference is that I'm not one of these artsy feeling types who regard emotions as truth or an indication of what is right. Indeed, my personality type (INTP) is regarded as the least romantic of all types. I don't allow my emotions to blindly lead me; that is a choice.

Only because you think homosexuals are incapable of feeling the same way as straights, which is, simply put, asinine and ignorant.

Uh - I never said that homosexuals are incapable of feeling the same way as straights. Don't put words in my mouth. To the contrary, it is you who is trying to look down on the feelings that I speak of.

 

[Granite]

I'm not speaking of a mere crush, I'm speaking of full blown infatuation. I've been through both as well as my share of relationships. The difference is that I'm not one of these artsy feeling types who regard emotions as truth or an indication of what is right.

Yes, because heaven forbid we ever feel anything.:chuckle:

And never miss a chance to take a cheap shot at art. Well done.:yawn:

Indeed, my personality type (INTP) is regarded as the least romantic of all types. I don't allow my emotions to blindly lead me; that is a choice.

You realize that test is borderline worthless, yes? Sorry to burst your bubble, Spock.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

Uh - I never said that homosexuals are incapable of feeling the same way as straights.

Then your cheap shot was uncalled for. "In place of lust"? Seriously, where did that come from and what's your point, exactly? So far what I'm seeing is a guy who's either totally full of himself or very naive...and contempt for homosexuals, which frankly is pretty standard on TOL.

 

[Quincy]

This isn't Disney - there's no true love at first sight.

Sure there is, but like you said, you're someone who goes by their own experience as well as what they study from philosophy and theology. I don't think most philosophers can understand the irrational and theology is more concerned with covenants/commitments and reproduction.

The kind of love we are referring to is irrational and the knowledge of it is experiential. I can't claim to have experienced everything there is to experience in the realm of emotions/feelings. Do you believe you've experienced everything there is to feel?

Do you think people who've felt utter happiness or Nirvana are thumbing their nose down at people who haven't when they discuss it? Maybe people shouldn't talk about their own experiences from fear of making someone who hasn't had them feel condescended to.

 

[noguru]

Do you believe you've experienced everything there is to feel?

Only when I have died will I have experienced "everything there is to feel".

Do you think people who've felt utter happiness or Nirvana are thumbing their nose down at people who haven't when they discuss it?

Nirvana is not utter happiness. Nirvana is the complete absence of any emotional attachment to anything physical. The concept of nirvana in Buddhism is the escape from the karmic wheel of life. Buddha brought reform to Hinduism by proposing there is an escape from infinite reincarnations. In Buddhist philosophy pain comes from the loss of that which we were attached to and that once brought us pleasure. In order to remove one's self from the karmic wheel of reincarnation one must learn non attachment from all physical things.

 

[Quincy]

Only when I have died will I have experienced "everything there is to feel".

That's true and you can and will experience many degrees of emotional reactions by then.

Nirvana is not utter happiness. Nirvana is the complete absence of any emotional attachment to anything physical. The concept of nirvana in Buddhism is the escape from the karmic wheel of life. Buddha brought reform to Hinduism by proposing there is an escape from infinite reincarnations. In Buddhist philosophy pain comes from the loss of that which we were attached to and that once brought us pleasure. In order to remove one's self from the karmic wheel of reincarnation one must learn non attachment from all physical things.

I can't disagree with you there, you're right. I left out the word experience before Nirvana by mistake.

 

[aikido7]

When the Bible mentions acts that we moderns call "homosexuality" meant three things in ancient, tribal culture:

Domination, male aggression and fertility rites.

There is no mention of what we would call "homosexual" acts.

The only evidence for a "loving" relationship between two men is the story of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament (the "Hebrew Bible"). The relevant passages do not say anything about sex between them per se, but it seems like from the context it may have actually happened between them.

Today's young people know Christianity as bigoted and not either compelling or persuadable to them. This should not be surprising.

The hysterical focus on sex and sexuality in both Christianity and Islam are a turn off to people living in today's global culture.

Muslims aren't the only ones who are in favor of Shar'ia Law.

 

[noguru]

When the Bible mentions acts that we moderns call "homosexuality" meant three things in ancient, tribal culture:

Domination, male aggression and fertility rites.

There is no mention of what we would call "homosexual" acts.

The only evidence for a "loving" relationship between two men is the story of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament (the "Hebrew Bible"). The relevant passages do not say anything about sex between them per se, but it seems like from the context it may have actually happened between them.

Today's young people know Christianity as bigoted and not either compelling or persuadable to them. This should not be surprising.

The hysterical focus on sex and sexuality in both Christianity and Islam are a turn off to people living in today's global culture.

Muslims aren't the only ones who are in favor of Shar'ia Law.

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.