Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Good to know you misunderstand my position.

If you love someone of the same gender, you are not homosexual. You are free to do that however much you please. You are only homosexual if you want to have sex with someone of the same gender, and that is about sex, not love. An "intimate relationship" is not a sexual relationship. Only a sexual relationship is a sexual relationship, regardless of the gender. A heterosexual sexual relationship is still a sexual relationship.

You are still assuming that love = sex, when they are separate things. Sex being used to express love is completely arbitrary, just like using a flower to express love, or tickets to the next Yankees game.

Does love make it easier to fulfill the existential satisfaction and pathological desire of a sexual relationship? Yes, it does. However, that is under the given that a relationship is sexual, and still remains completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

So then you are denying that two people of the same gender can be "in love" with each other, as in romantic love? You are quantifying love only in an affection way that does not include romance.

And sex is now pathological? That is, if two people of the same gender who are "in love" want to have sex, then it is only a matter of pathology, because they can't be in love in the first place?

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Have I not been against that concept of the "romantic" idealism throughout this entire thread? The romantic idealism is based on the pathological and existential fulfilling side of sex, and this is what so many people confuse for love. In fact, that is the only relationship between love and sex. Otherwise they exist independently of each other.

Now, if you want me to define what the sexual attraction is (something I have only hinted towards, and not strictly defined), it IS a pathological appeal, although it is one we are more than glad to accept as a necessity.

There are two factors to this strictly sexual appeal, and both of them are vanity based.

#1: The obsession over traits. This is what I hinted to in my first post, which I will quote

[quote]
Even with things that we consider "sexy", such as large breasts or a thin figure (do not say that you do not agree with those. Not my point.), those are also a product of accepting peer pressure. What is considered "sexy" is some arbitrary association evolved strictly through society, and is subject to change as a society changes it's opinion. The only relationship seems to be that the more idolized appearances are rarer, and that possessing a rarer attribute somehow makes something more valuable.

When you break down your senses, your sense of touch doesn't care what you have sex with. It stimulates just the same. What you smell or hear isn't as important unless it is extremely obtrusive. What you see, now that is meaningless until you assign meaning to it. It is this association that assigns what is sexy or attractive and what isn't, very similar to how our brains assign meaning to the words we see written on this forum. It is arbitrary, and really all the sexual association is, is vanity.

What a relationship should be about is who someone is, and not what someone is. Devaluing someone into such a system breeds a variety of problems.[/quote]

That last sentence I included because it has caused some confusion for Darren, and in retrospect I should have defined things a little better.

#2: The expansion of vanity includes the position held by a particular individual, such as someone who is rich, someone who is strong, someone who is foreign, someone who is fast, someone who smokes, and the like. These are also an exercise in vanity.

BTW, your example of being "in love" is already assuming a sexual relationship between the two. You can have a sexual relationship before the actual intercourse, though that time frame usually isn't very long.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Have I not been against that concept of the "romantic" idealism throughout this entire thread? The romantic idealism is based on the pathological and existential fulfilling side of sex, and this is what so many people confuse for love. In fact, that is the only relationship between love and sex. Otherwise they exist independently of each other.

Now, if you want me to define what the sexual attraction is (something I have only hinted towards, and not strictly defined), it IS a pathological appeal, although it is one we are more than glad to accept as a necessity.

There are two factors to this strictly sexual appeal, and both of them are vanity based.

#1: The obsession over traits. This is what I hinted to in my first post, which I will quote



That last sentence I included because it has caused some confusion for Darren, and in retrospect I should have defined things a little better.

This expansion of vanity includes the position held by a particular individual, such as someone who is rich, someone who is strong, someone who is foreign, someone who is fast, someone who smokes, and the like. These are also an exercise in vanity.

BTW, your example of being "in love" is already assuming a sexual relationship between the two. You can have a sexual relationship before the actual intercourse, though that time frame usually isn't very long.[/QUOTE]

Um... I don't get this argument at all anymore. We're all human beings, and we all fall in love (or can have the capacity to). Analyzing sex psychologically doesn't really make sense the way I'm reading this, because then that means everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is influenced by vanity and the pathology of sex. You're saying we're all pathological in that way.

And you don't have to assume a preexisting sexual relationship between two people who are in love. Attraction is based on more than sex appeal.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

You are exactly right. I have come to the conclusion that we are all pathological in that manner. We all lust and try to fulfill our most vane opinions on the matter. If your definition of "in love" is the presence of this lustful appeal, then yes, I am arguing against lustful appeal.

I ask a question: Why is it that someone would favor sex in a relationship where it has no operation? Why not have a better but non-sexual relationship with your fellow gender, and have a sexual relationship with the opposite gender? The answers were that sex was for vanity, and not operation. The relationship wasn't ordered toward procreation, but for entertainment.


Other appeal =/= sex appeal. Sex appeal is sex appeal.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You are exactly right. I have come to the conclusion that we are all pathological in that manner. We all lust and try to fulfill our most vane opinions on the matter. If your definition of "in love" is the presence of this lustful appeal, then yes, I am arguing against lustful appeal.

I ask a question: Why is it that someone would favor sex in a relationship where it has no operation? Why not have a better but non-sexual relationship with your fellow gender, and have a sexual relationship with the opposite gender? The answers were that sex was for vanity, and not operation. The relationship wasn't ordered toward procreation, but for entertainment.


Other appeal =/= sex appeal. Sex appeal is sex appeal.[/QUOTE]

You continue to dismiss the assertion that sex can be used as an intimate means to express deep love between two people because it is pleasurable, and not strictly for the purpose of breeding. If sex weren't pleasurable, then perhaps your argument might mean something. You seem to be coming from a rather puritan (if one can use the word without implying insult) notion that sex in ONLY for procreation.

[Kastom]

*sigh*
Even the title of this thread disappoints me. It's implying the idea that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong".

I truly can't believe that there's still so much argument over such a menial topic. Apparently the human race shall live in ignorance until we all become extinct.

"GRR. Someone is doing something that I don't like! Sure, it's not affecting me in any way shape or form, as it's not hurting me, it's not hurting others, it's not destroying the environment, or doing anything that could possibly affect me in any way, but I think I'll say it's WRONG."

Like, I just don't understand what could possibly be the problem here.

One of the main things I noticed was that of religion.
Which just disappoints me.
A bunch of you are talking about religion in this discussion as though anyone cares, or as though it actually matters. Sure, I have my own views on religion. But does anyone care? I highly doubt it.
Ok, you're religious, so what? All that means is that you don't actually think of your own philosophies on life, and instead decide to take advice from stories written supposedly a couple of thousand of years ago. Is that supposed to be more overruling than everyone else's own philosophies? That's nothing more than sheer arrogance.

Also the talk of sex as procreation, and how, due to the nature of homosexuality, this function will obviously not occur.
To that I say, so what? Are you all afraid that everyone will eventually stop having children? If so, the result is simply that humanity dies out.
Once again, I say, so what? If it happens, it happens. Humans changed. Whose to say that something that everyone is doing right now will cause humanity to die out in a few thousand years?

[Lunar]

[quote name='Kastom']

One of the main things I noticed was that of religion.
Which just disappoints me.
A bunch of you are talking about religion in this discussion as though anyone cares, or as though it actually matters. Sure, I have my own views on religion. But does anyone care? I highly doubt it.
Ok, you're religious, so what? All that means is that you don't actually think of your own philosophies on life, and instead decide to take advice from stories written supposedly a couple of thousand of years ago. Is that supposed to be more overruling than everyone else's own philosophies? That's nothing more than sheer arrogance.

Also the talk of sex as procreation, and how, due to the nature of homosexuality, this function will obviously not occur.
To that I say, so what? Are you all afraid that everyone will eventually stop having children? If so, the result is simply that humanity dies out.
Once again, I say, so what? If it happens, it happens. Humans changed. Whose to say that something that everyone is doing right now will cause humanity to die out in a few thousand years?[/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Sienna"]I didn't really want to jump back into the thread in the first place, thanks alot!!!:animeangr alot of man's philosphies in life are most often wrong because they are influenced by the philosiphies of others. The only man that could be said to have his own philosphies that was not influence by others is Adam, the first man on earth. As for sheer arrogance, no it isn't. That's like saying trusting in your own philosphies make them right. These writings were written thousands of years ago sure, but these people actually had some [I]sense.[/I] They weren't influenced by anyone. As for humanity dying out, I deny that claim. There is always going to be someone who's gonna keep humanity alive. The way humanity is going to end is by this famous war that is going to take place near the end of days: Armageddon. And humans will no longer be on earth during this war because they either got taken by God or went to Hell. Simple as that.:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[Kastom]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]alot of man's philosphies in life are most often wrong because they are influenced by the philosiphies of others.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Once again, using words like "wrong" just do not work with me. Define "wrong", then talk to me.

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"] The only man that could be said to have his own philosphies that was not influence by others is Adam, the first man on earth.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You have every right to believe whatever it is you want to believe.

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]As for sheer arrogance, no it isn't. That's like saying trusting in your own philosphies make them right.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I don't know where this is coming from, but this would be a very fun point to discuss. But I fear I would digress too much from the original argument, so I'll just not get into it here. Maybe I'll start a thread...

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]As for humanity dying out, I deny that claim. There is always going to be someone who's gonna keep humanity alive. The way humanity is going to end is by this famous war that is going to take place near the end of days: Armageddon. And humans will no longer be on earth during this war because they either got taken by God or went to Hell. Simple as that.:catgirl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Once again, you can believe whatever you want. Just please, you are doing the thing I detest the most: pushing your opinions onto others as though they are facts.

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Sienna"]I am?! No, I hope not..................I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, I'm just stating what I believe. Not forcing, I think.................when I say wrong, I mean that the human's mind is not the purest mind in the world. We're not naturally people who are all perfect and pure. Our nature is kinda bad...........[/COLOR]

[Kastom]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]I am?! No, I hope not..................I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I believe, I'm just stating what I believe. Not forcing, I think[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Perhaps I just misunderstood you. I apologize. It was just that your speech on said "Armageddon" sounded like you were saying this as though it was a fact.
If I merely was over-assuming, I apologize.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Kastom']Perhaps I just misunderstood you. I apologize. It was just that your speech on said "Armageddon" sounded like you were saying this as though it was a fact.
If I merely was over-assuming, I apologize.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Oh, it's okay! I reread it and it did sound like that. But I wasn't forcing my beliefs, just saying what I believe. :catgirl:[/COLOR]

[Esther]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Just thought I'd pop in and say this:

[B][I][U]Today, October 10th, 2008, same-sex marriage was legalized in the state of Connecticut. [/U][/I][/B]

California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are now amongst the 3 states to give same-sex couples their rights.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[quote name='Hartford Courant']The state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry swept through the state with the force of a cultural tidal wave.[/quote]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Kastom'] Just please, you are doing the thing I detest the most: pushing your opinions onto others as though they are facts.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]And yet here you are, pushing your moral nihilism on the rest of us.

And that's [I]wrong.[/I][/color]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Esther'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Just thought I'd pop in and say this:

[B][I][U]Today, October 10th, 2008, same-sex marriage was legalized in the state of Connecticut. [/U][/I][/B]

California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are now amongst the 3 states to give same-sex couples their rights.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I read about that this morning. Looks like we'll have more battles to come. Personally I agree with the decision.

There is a "marriage protection" amendment on the ballot here in Florida, too. I plan on voting against it.

[Esther]

[quote name='TimeChaser']I read about that this morning. Looks like we'll have more battles to come. Personally I agree with the decision.

There is a "marriage protection" amendment on the ballot here in Florida, too. I plan on voting against it.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Good choice. I'll be voting against the proposition that won't protect marriages -- all marriages. ;)

Edit: Had to rephrase that. It made me sound like I was voting for the proposition to ban same-sex marriage, heh.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Good choice. I'll be voting against the proposition that won't protect marriages -- all marriages. ;)

Edit: Had to rephrase that. It made me sound like I was voting for the proposition to ban same-sex marriage, heh.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

I was confused at first, but I got what you meant. The wink helped. :animesmil

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][QUOTE=Kastom]*sigh*
Even the title of this thread disappoints me. It's implying the idea that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong".[/QUOTE]If you truly believe that there is no right or wrong then why are you doing this here:[QUOTE=Kastom]I truly can't believe that there's still so much argument over such a menial topic. Apparently the human race shall live in ignorance until we all become extinct.

"GRR. Someone is doing something that I don't like! Sure, it's not affecting me in any way shape or form, as it's not hurting me, it's not hurting others, it's not destroying the environment, or doing anything that could possibly affect me in any way, but I think I'll say it's WRONG."

Like, I just don't understand what could possibly be the problem here.

One of the main things I noticed was that of religion.
Which just disappoints me.
A bunch of you are talking about religion in this discussion as though anyone cares, or as though it actually matters. Sure, I have my own views on religion. But does anyone care? I highly doubt it.
Ok, you're religious, so what? All that means is that you don't actually think of your own philosophies on life, and instead decide to take advice from stories written supposedly a couple of thousand of years ago. Is that supposed to be more overruling than everyone else's own philosophies? That's nothing more than sheer arrogance.

Also the talk of sex as procreation, and how, due to the nature of homosexuality, this function will obviously not occur.
To that I say, so what? Are you all afraid that everyone will eventually stop having children? If so, the result is simply that humanity dies out.
Once again, I say, so what? If it happens, it happens. Humans changed. Whose to say that something that everyone is doing right now will cause humanity to die out in a few thousand years?[/QUOTE]Which is essentially implying that what people are doing, in this case 'having religious beliefs and discussing the merits of what is considered right or wrong'- is in [I]itself[/I] wrong? [/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

N-man, your still here? Nice. Good to see you again.

[quote name='TimeChaser']You continue to dismiss the assertion that sex can be used as an intimate means to express deep love between two people because it is pleasurable, and not strictly for the purpose of breeding. If sex weren't pleasurable, then perhaps your argument might mean something. You seem to be coming from a rather puritan (if one can use the word without implying insult) notion that sex in ONLY for procreation.[/QUOTE]

I am not ignoring that it is used as a means to express love. In fact, I have even elaborated that a loving relationship fulfills the existential support and status condition towards sexual appeal. The thing is, so can flowers, or a dinner, or tickets to the next Yankees game. To bring things into a sexual relationship remains a choice of the persons involved, and this cannot be done without establishing various aspects of sex appeal. In particular, homosexuality ignores the purpose for sex as procreation, and just does it for entertainment or pleasure.

I established the given that sex was pleasurable, and stated that people's obsession over the pleasure of sex was a big problem in the first post of this thread. What I am arguing for is that sex should be ordered to and largely reserved for procreation (even in it's pleasure).

[Lunar]

[quote name='Crimson Spider'][B]I established the given that sex was pleasurable, and stated that people's obsession over the pleasure of sex was a big problem in the first post of this thread. What I am arguing for is that sex should be ordered to and largely reserved for procreation (even in it's pleasure[/B]).[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]I agree with you. Sex was made for the world to be populated. God made it a pleasurable experience so that women can have children and therefore more people can go to Heaven and help the world by being doctors, police officers, or just a cook. Yay!:animesmil[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

You don't need to say that God made sex for procreation (even though I think it was). That is almost a given from the various statistics that show that the healthiest families are the ones with steady parents with accurately established father-mother roles.

If everyone was ordered more towards monogamy and procreation instead of entertainment, the spread of STD's would plummet, the prostitution and human trade industries (all their glorious selves) would cease functioning, the pornographic industry would dwindle, and thus women would get more respect. The cheating issues and bitter divorces founded off of late night flings would dwindle, abortions would drop in number... those are the obvious effects I can come off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other positive effects that would occur.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']
I am not ignoring that it is used as a means to express love. In fact, I have even elaborated that a loving relationship fulfills the existential support and status condition towards sexual appeal. The thing is, so can flowers, or a dinner, or tickets to the next Yankees game. To bring things into a sexual relationship remains a choice of the persons involved, and this cannot be done without establishing various aspects of sex appeal. In particular, homosexuality ignores the purpose for sex as procreation, and just does it for entertainment or pleasure.

I established the given that sex was pleasurable, and stated that people's obsession over the pleasure of sex was a big problem in the first post of this thread. What I am arguing for is that sex should be ordered to and largely reserved for procreation (even in it's pleasure).[/QUOTE]

I prefer to think of it in nobler terms than that. I find that view just too clinical. And anyone can ignore the procreative aspect of sex and just do it because it is an expression of their love for someone. And it's hardly analogous to giving someone a flower or taking them out to a nice dinner, it's on a different level than those things.

And you will never get everyone to agree to go back to the old view that sex should only be for procreation.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You don't need to say that God made sex for procreation (even though I think it was). That is almost a given from the various statistics that show that the healthiest families are the ones with steady parents with accurately established father-mother roles.

If everyone was ordered more towards monogamy and procreation instead of entertainment, the spread of STD's would plummet, the prostitution and human trade industries (all their glorious selves) would cease functioning, the pornographic industry would dwindle, and thus women would get more respect. The cheating issues and bitter divorces founded off of late night flings would dwindle, abortions would drop in number... those are the obvious effects I can come off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other positive effects that would occur.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]So you agree with me? :excited: Yay! Seriously though........the world would be such a better place if sex wasn't used just for pleasure. Men would be more faithful to their wives because the porno industruy isn't exciting. Abortions I'm against. [/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']If everyone was ordered more towards monogamy and procreation instead of entertainment, the spread of STD's would plummet, the prostitution and human trade industries (all their glorious selves) would cease functioning, the pornographic industry would dwindle, and thus women would get more respect. The cheating issues and bitter divorces founded off of late night flings would dwindle, abortions would drop in number... those are the obvious effects I can come off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty of other positive effects that would occur.[/QUOTE]

Sex in a monogamous relationship is also used to express love, not just for procreation.

And the rest of your argument doesn't really hold up, because it's also a matter of people's own personalities and foibles. We're not all like that just because sex is pleasurable. Some of us want to hold off from sex until we are with a person we truly love. I have no desire to go out and run wild merely because I believe sex is not only for procreation. I believe it's a noble expression of deep love that isn't something to be trivial about as so many people are, sadly.

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Sex in a monogamous relationship is also used to express love, not just for procreation.

And the rest of your argument doesn't really hold up, because it's also a matter of people's own personalities and foibles. We're not all like that just because sex is pleasurable, some of us want to hold off from sex until we are with a person we truly love. I have no desire to go out and run wild merely because I believe sex is not only for procreation. I believe it's a noble expression of deep love that isn't something to be trivial about as so many people are, sadly.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, it is. But most of the time, when people have sex, it's just for the pleasure, not for love. When someone gets married it's most of the time(hopefully) because they love each other. I'm not talking about a Vegas marriage, a marriage that they spent time on, a marriage in which they spent months engaged. So, it kinda matches up, when a married couple has sex they do it because they love each other and so they can procreate! Isn't it awesome the way some things work??:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Yes, it is. But most of the time, when people have sex, it's just for the pleasure, not for love. When someone gets married it's most of the time(hopefully) because they love each other. I'm not talking about a Vegas marriage, a marriage that they spent time on, a marriage in which they spent months engaged. So, it kinda matches up, when a married couple has sex they do it because they love each other and so they can procreate! Isn't it awesome the way some things work??:catgirl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

But it's about more than just the pleasure when it's in an intimate relationship. It is combined with that emotional aspect of your love for the other person and their love for you, which raises it up beyond the level of lust or just satisfying an urge.

And that love doesn't have to absolutely [I]need[/I] marriage to be valid.

We're more complex than other animals in our emotions and intellects, we have evolved in ways that set us apart from them. We have gone beyond the simple in-built need to procreate.