Human Sexuallity

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 April 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1271807791' post='2097069']
The meaning of your question is unclear to me. I'm going to presume to reword it to say, "Is 'homosexual' the only word for anyone who has any attraction to the same sex?" Constant thoughts about and attraction toward the same sex are probably a decent indicator of homosexuality.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

ok...i agree with you...having sexual attractions towards the same sex is an indicator of homosexuality. but when defining someones sexual identity...should we lable them as homosexual? because like a lot of people are saying on this thread...peoples attractions fall along this thing known as a "bell curve". and also you have to consider other emotions in the equation as well.

i think there are more factors than just sexual feelings involved. you have to consider emotional connections, romantic feelings, and love as well.

so really what i was getting at...is how one should identify ones self and how should society identify an individual...who is same sex attraction positive. should we immediatly jump to the conclusion that the person is homosexual? or should we consider the possiblity that they may have attractions/feelings towards the opposite sex as well?

i hope you see where i am going with this...

[God Conquers]

[quote]so really what i was getting at...is how one should identify ones self and how should society identify an individual.[/quote]


This is how you should identify yourself:

First Name, Baptismal Name, Last Name.




WHy pigeonhole yourself or anyone else? Especially if there are struggles there in the first place. DOn't put yourself inside or outside any boxes. Or closets.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JustJump' date='21 April 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1271819890' post='2097161']
Psychologically, sexuality is represented on a continuum from 0 to 6, where 3 is the middle ground ("bisexual"). Six is homosexual, and it's estimated to be about 8% of the population. The problem I have with my psych test book is that I'm not really sure how they define homosexuality. The labels on the continuum say things like "exclusively heterosexual behavoir", "predominantly heterosexual, only incidental homosexual behavior". Really from what I can gather these tests only seem to work if the participants are willing to be truthful. I also feel like a lot of them only count acting on the feelings. But I'm not sure what is considered behavoir or acting. I feel like it's normal for people to at some point have some mild attraction to someone of the same sex. I don't agree that people should act on it. I don't believe that anyone can be completely homosexual...I feel like it's normal to want to reproduce; something you obviously can't do in a same sex relationship.


I think that a lot of the confusion has to do with the way love has been twisted. People think that if they feel a strong connection, friendship, and love with someone of the same sex they must be gay. Mainly if this occurs with the slightest bit of sexual attraction. And our society does pressure us to define ourselves and to be okay with being homosexual and acting upon it.

It all comes down to not knowing what true love is. Never being close to anyone, not knowing what a true friendship, and a true relationship is a commonplace problem. Love is unconditional. We should love everyone: our friends, our family, our selves, God, our foes, the stranger on the street. And we should love them all equally, that's what we strive for as followers of Christ.


[/quote]
That is a real stretch for your estimate, 1-2 % is far more accurate.
I think you are correct about the confusion between love, lust and friendship. With half the population divorced, many living in sin - most people have never been a part or even seen a stable family relationship as an example how to conduct their lives.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='21 April 2010 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1271829743' post='2097234']
This is how you should identify yourself:

First Name, Baptismal Name, Last Name.




WHy pigeonhole yourself or anyone else? Especially if there are struggles there in the first place. DOn't put yourself inside or outside any boxes. Or closets.
[/quote]

you are right...unfortunately society behaves otherwise. so how should leaders influence society in these areas?

i think it becomes difficult because so many people define themselves in different ways...

for example, Obama identifies himself as half black and half white. whereas, other people who are half african and half caucasian identify theirselves as black. why is that? possibly because society tells them that they are black. i was reading an article the other day about this young adult female who identified herself as black even though one of her parents was 100% caucasian. her reasoning behind that was...if she had existed 150+ years ago in the states she would have been a slave. i think people who consider themselves multiracial have felt the freedom to be proud and embrace all parts of their heritage. its possible that with some multiracial people, they never felt that freedom and assume an identity that they feel is more acceptable within society.

[Laudate_Dominum]

infinitelord1!


It is good to see you around again! Peace and long life my friend.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1271838169' post='2097244']
infinitelord1!


It is good to see you around again! Peace and long life my friend.
[/quote]


thanks guy. good to see you too. ive been more active on the forum over the last few months. hope all is well!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='21 April 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1271828741' post='2097224']
ok...i agree with you...having sexual attractions towards the same sex is an indicator of homosexuality. but when defining someones sexual identity...should we lable them as homosexual? because like a lot of people are saying on this thread...peoples attractions fall along this thing known as a "bell curve". and also you have to consider other emotions in the equation as well.

i think there are more factors than just sexual feelings involved. you have to consider emotional connections, romantic feelings, and love as well.

so really what i was getting at...is how one should identify ones self and how should society identify an individual...who is same sex attraction positive. should we immediatly jump to the conclusion that the person is homosexual? or should we consider the possiblity that they may have attractions/feelings towards the opposite sex as well?

i hope you see where i am going with this...
[/quote]You are making a huge mistake asking people on this forum to help 'define' you. 1-You define yourself according to your conscience and understanding. They aren't in your head and heart and there is only so much you can convey by typing. 2-Everybody has opinions, some are experienced, educated, or thoughtfull. Others may be immature, thoughtless. Understand whay you are getting from people here. 3-Ask your thearapist about this truism "What other people think of you is none of your business."

You've been struggling with this for years here at phatmass. It hasn't done anything significantly helpful for you. Stop exposing yourself to needless hurt when there is little chance of benefit for you. Stick with the thearapist and real-life people because your troubles are fundamentally about inter-relations, secondly about sexuality.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='21 April 2010 - 05:42 AM' timestamp='1271842961' post='2097250']
thanks guy. good to see you too. ive been more active on the forum over the last few months. hope all is well!
[/quote]
Thanks bro! All is pretty decent. Is it true that you're deployed!? When do you come back? Not to hijack ur thread or anything. lawl. About the thread, I tend to agree with Anomaly, I know I would never presume to define you, even if I knew you really well in RL. Well, I might say that you're a child of God and you have transcendent dignity but this wouldn't be a definition per se. You're cool. There.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='21 April 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1271849230' post='2097269']
You are making a huge mistake asking people on this forum to help 'define' you. 1-You define yourself according to your conscience and understanding. They aren't in your head and heart and there is only so much you can convey by typing. 2-Everybody has opinions, some are experienced, educated, or thoughtfull. Others may be immature, thoughtless. Understand whay you are getting from people here. 3-Ask your thearapist about this truism "What other people think of you is none of your business."

You've been struggling with this for years here at phatmass. It hasn't done anything significantly helpful for you. Stop exposing yourself to needless hurt when there is little chance of benefit for you. Stick with the thearapist and real-life people because your troubles are fundamentally about inter-relations, secondly about sexuality.
[/quote]

maybe this is a big mistake by doing this. while at the same time it may be helpful for others to see that it is possible to experience shifts in your attractions if you experience Same Sex Attraction. I will say that my struggle hasnt been as severe since seeking out therapy and other things that have helped me to overcome fears in my life.

Anyways, one thing i wanted to start getting into in this thread was how society can play a role in people self-idenifying themselves, and also how society can start taking a role that may even help people to experience shifts, in their attractions, towards the opposite sex (assuming they might have some level of same sex attraction).

I want to give this thread a little more time...and see how many more opinions we can get on the subject matter.

Edited April 21, 2010 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='21 April 2010 - 06:37 AM' timestamp='1271849854' post='2097271']
Thanks bro! All is pretty decent. Is it true that you're deployed!? When do you come back? Not to hijack ur thread or anything. lawl. About the thread, I tend to agree with Anomaly, I know I would never presume to define you, even if I knew you really well in RL. Well, I might say that you're a child of God and you have transcendent dignity but this wouldn't be a definition per se. You're cool. There.
[/quote]

thanks. hey i wish i could go into detail about my deployment but im not supposed to. ill be back soon enough though.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='21 April 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1271861317' post='2097310']
thanks. hey i wish i could go into detail about my deployment but im not supposed to. ill be back soon enough though.
[/quote]
Wherever you are deployed BE CAREFUL!!

[Ephrem Augustine]

I almost want to guess that this person is a girl...

teenage boys, and even our media pressures teenage girls to be consider girls sexually attractive, or to be experimental. There is so much obsession with women as sexual objects in our media culture, it is no surprise that young girls are not also caught up in girl sexuality worship.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Ephrem Augustine' date='22 April 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1271952952' post='2098042']
I almost want to guess that this person is a girl...

teenage boys, and even our media pressures teenage girls to be consider girls sexually attractive, or to be experimental. There is so much obsession with women as sexual objects in our media culture, it is no surprise that young girls are not also caught up in girl sexuality worship.
[/quote]

no if you read the thread its me. i am a man. no offense taken by that.

[Socrates]

No one should identify himself by his disordered inclinations or temptations.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='22 April 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1271960069' post='2098095']
No one should identify himself by his disordered inclinations or temptations.
[/quote]
What about the Cookie Monster?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 April 2010 - 01:17 PM' timestamp='1271960243' post='2098097']
What about the Cookie Monster?
[/quote]
The Cookie Monster is a creature perfectly in line with natural and moral law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='22 April 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1271960243' post='2098097']
What about the Cookie Monster?
[/quote]
Don't mess with the Cookie Monster, man.

[infinitelord1]

I think now is a good time to start moving forward in this thread...

a good place to start would be with defining what God intended for us when it comes to sexuality.

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." New International Version, Genesis 1:28


Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
--Genesis 2:24

I also want to point out that homosexuality does not fulfill "natural law" because it does not procreate. The main purpose of sex is procreation. Any other form of sex or sexual act that does not fulfill this is sinful. Love would be the next necessary requirement in experiencing sex as intended by God. Then Pleasure. All in order of precedence.

I wish i could find actual theological or even philosophical arguements/references that would back these claims up. These are things I was taught back in school. If anyone wants to add any scriptural or catechism references to this that would be great. I also want to point out that for someone who does not really take the bible literally (interpreting it liberally) or for people who do not really believe in God...these claims may not really appeal to them.

I know a lot of you at this point may be thinking that this is all common knowledge...because it is.

Edited April 23, 2010 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='23 April 2010 - 08:08 AM' timestamp='1272028083' post='2098491']
I think now is a good time to start moving forward in this thread...

a good place to start would be with defining what God intended for us when it comes to sexuality.

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." New International Version, Genesis 1:28


Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
--Genesis 2:24

I also want to point out that homosexuality does not fulfill "natural law" because it does not procreate. The main purpose of sex is procreation. Any other form of sex or sexual act that does not fulfill this is sinful. Love would be the next necessary requirement in experiencing sex as intended by God. Then Pleasure. All in order of precedence.

I wish i could find actual theological or even philosophical arguements/references that would back these claims up. These are things I was taught back in school. If anyone wants to add any scriptural or catechism references to this that would be great. I also want to point out that for someone who does not really take the bible literally (interpreting it liberally) or for people who do not really believe in God...these claims may not really appeal to them.

I know a lot of you at this point may be thinking that this is all common knowledge...because it is.
[/quote]

Furthermore, my opinion on sexual immorality is this... I dont necessarily believe that sexual acts, that do not fall within the context of what god intended, will send us to hell. I think it only becomes a mortal sin if one continuously commits the sin throughout that persons life. Many of us have probably commited a sexual sin at some point in our lives.

I want to use fornication as an example in the consequence of sexual sin. If 2 people, who have sexual attractions (and even romantic) for each other, decide to get involved in a sexual relationship (outside of the context of marriage)... then the consequences may result in a broken heart by one of the individuals, they may feel broken spiritually due to the fact that their emotional needs are not being completely met, the relationship will most likely fail, the relationship may become abusive (not only emotionally but phyically), because people's needs are not being completely met they may start to cheat on each other, and those who cheat and commit sexual sin will find that it is harder and harder to have a serious relationship with someone...its like taking 2 pieces of tape and sticking them together then pulling them apart...the more and more you repeat this the easier it is to pull them apart.

I think that christians (everyone for that matter), who are in a relationship with someone, should strive for marriage (before sex). 2 people who are in a relationship should get to know each other before being bonded by sex. By getting to know each other first, we can eliminate a certain degree of propensity to experience the consequences of sexual sin. By getting to know each other, we also learn how to respect each other. Respect can lead to some very positive things in a relationship such as love, even better sex with your partner (because you love that person more), and you meet each others emotional and physical needs more sufficiently.

Brief Overview...

Strive for marriage before sex
Learn to respect one another
Meet each others emotional and physical needs

Edited April 25, 2010 by infinitelord1

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='25 April 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1272180702' post='2099655']
Furthermore, my opinion on sexual immorality is this... I dont necessarily believe that sexual acts, that do not fall within the context of what god intended, will send us to hell. I think it only becomes a mortal sin if one continuously commits the sin throughout that persons life. Many of us have probably commited a sexual sin at some point in our lives.
[/quote]

Can you clarify this statement? It looks as though you're slipping into the fundamental option theory. I know you're probably not going into it knowingly, but it is a heresy. One act is all it takes to transform one's "fundamental option."

~Sternhauser