Monday, August 5, 2013

You are not your sexuality

I think I've fallen into a trap. This post is an attempt to get out of the trap.

I've given away too much thought share. Only physical gender is provable, because only physical gender exists. This heterosexual/homosexual stuff is just fantasy, from a culture that long ago divorced marriage from procreation and instead, at the insistence of the greeting card companies who made lots of money off of it, made it about romantic eros.

Romance is fine when kept in its place. It's a great way to bind parents together for life. Women seem to crave it. But it is not the end-all-be-all of love, let alone human existence. It is possible to survive with no romance at all. It's possible to live without any physical human contact at all.

Physical gender is required for pro-creation. But this romance stuff? All hooey.


Theodore Seeber said...

"Romance is fine when kept in its place. It's a great way to bind parents together for life."

Why does it not surprise me that you would have that attitude? I hope you don't mind if some of us actually enjoy our lives.

Theodore Seeber said...

Enjoyment of that sort is temporary at best, and heartbreaking at worst. It is better to avoid it.

Theodore Seeber said...

I think it is sufficient proof that gay men exist to hear all their stories. After all, their experiences are all similar in many ways and they have similar things to say about how it feels to be gay. I understand how you might have a problem understanding their experiences but I can assure you it is not a myth.

I also don't think it was just the greeting card companies who made marriage about romance. It is something that deep down most people desire. Most people need that initial romantic connection to begin a relationship. The period where they are together and experiencing romantic feelings usually helps draw the couple closer.

Theodore Seeber said...

I have no proof that gay men exist.

Their experiences are similar merely because they've all bought into the same lie, that homosexuality exists.

Before 1700, people got married to have kids and merge families. It is a modern invention. Romance is worthless.

Theodore Seeber said...

Actually, first off, homosexuality existed throughout ancient times, as noted in the bible, and various histories of the Roman empire. The existence of homosexuality has never been in doubt, it's the physical, psychological, sociological, and moral effects of homosexual acts that are a problem, not the fact that some people are attracted to the same sex.

Secondly, emotions are not necessarily anecdotal. Emotions are caused by a psychological reaction to stimuli, and are useful in identifying various different psychological and physical abnormalities or adaptations. Since emotions are in a large part caused by hormones, a record of a person's emotional states over a period of time can help identify hormonal imbalances, as well as psychological disorders such as depression and abandonment issues.

Thirdly, marriages among the general populace occurred for a variety of reasons, including mutual affection. While in some cultures, it was solely to profit in some manner and form alliances, in most it was a combination of factors, ranging from forming alliances with other countries or powerful families, gaining a better position through a daughter's or sister's marriage, and also attraction.

Romance finds its worth in a couple different ways. Firstly, in that it can help to provide a way to build a solid foundation for a relationship. Romance is usually used in the main during the beginning of a courtship, during which a young man and woman are trying to get to know each other. Using romantic methods to demonstrate love allows people to identify character traits in a person that they might otherwise overlook.

Secondly, it demonstrates ways that each person in the relationship is equipped to attend to the sociological needs and desires of the person that they're wooing. This helps establish whether or not they will be able to get along well with the person or not in a closer relationship than friendship, such as marriage, and help them to know how to ease tension and relieve stress in their lover's life, through learning their love language.

Love language, by the way, refers to the way in which a person will perceive being loved the best, whether it's through touch, such as rubbing their back, stroking their arms, etc.; affirmation, such as complimenting them on their talents; gifts, such as presenting them with small home-made items; quality time, such as making them dinner and taking a walk with them; or acts of service, such as doing the dishes or helping them clean up.

Although you are right in that romance and affection aren't strictly needed in a marriage, it is a very good thing to have to assure a strong relationship and the ability to work well as a team.

Also, it's not technically possible to live without any physical human contact at all, unless we neglect the psychological well-being of a person. It's possible to live, and be psychologically stable with no sexual contact, but no physical contact from any other human being 1) is impossible, since, hello, you were an unborn human inside another person, and 2) humans aren't capable of caring for themselves beyond a very limited range till about three to four years of age, so babies would die if someone didn't have physical contact with them in some form, even if it's only just to feed and clean them.

On a side note, I'm a woman, and I can't stand romantic notions in my relationships, because I'm by nature a very direct person. Likewise, I know many guys who crave a romantic partner, who can share their love of poetical works, love stories, etc. it's not just women who crave it.

Theodore Seeber said...

That sounds like it's based off of emotion, in which case, it's anecdotal, and not a valid argument, according to your own logic. Care to explain more fully, what your argument is based on?

Theodore Seeber said...

It is an argument against making judgements based on emotion alone, because human emotion is temporary.

Theodore Seeber said...

Homosexuality has always been a lie. It is an emotional denial of the reality of gender. Emotions can NEVER be trusted.

Eros based in lust is worthless.

Theodore Seeber said...

Human emotion is temporary, yes, but so is a human's life. We're not immortal, so anything that we think or feel, any behavior, is temporary. Since everything, not just emotion, is temporary, by the same logic, we shouldn't bother doing anything, because it's going to end eventually, from circumstances, social change, or changes in our own person. If all else fails, we'll just die anyhow, so there's no reason to live.

You need to get a better argument for your case, if you want to keep debating this.

Theodore Seeber said...

This has yet to be proven. Actually, it's highly probable that homoesxuality is caused by a variety of factors, from psychological make-up, to the circumstances in which a child grows up, to physiological abnormalities.

Emotions can be trusted, but only to a certain extent. identifying the cause of the emotions, and also examining the surrounding circumstances, your own psyche and any other people involved can help a person better understand their own wants and desires. I know it can be difficult understanding this, especially with ASD (believe me, I get that), but if you look into the psychological and physiological aspects which cause emotions, you'll see that they are actually very important in understanding people. The trust put in emotions varies, and in some things, it's a wise idea to trust them to some extent (such as in friendships or other relationships involving mutual aid and companionship).

Eros based in lust is worthless, yes, but not all romance is lustful, nor do all emotions qualify as lust. Being emotionally fulfilled through sex is a completely natural response to stimuli, found in all creatures that reproduce sexually.

Theodore Seeber said...

The whole point of this life is learning to become immortal. Learning to ignore whims for future profit. To deal with a changing world, by becoming unchanging ourselves, becoming as faithful as God is.

Real heterosexual marriage tests this. Homosexual marriage, not so much.

Theodore Seeber said...

However, that doesn't mean that a person must sacrifice every single good thing in their life and be miserable. In fact, it is specifically taught that a person's true vocation is the easiest and most joyful for that person to walk, and any other one would be much harder for them to walk while still attaining the goal of getting to heaven.

That being said, the reason why the Church is against gay marriage isn't because homosexuals won't learn to sacrifice anything through their relationship, but because marriage is between a man and a woman, because two men, or two women, can't actually have true sex, and thereby can't create a family, which is the point of marriage. To have sex, and to build a stable environment for children (in short. There's more to it than that, but the two main purposes of marriage are sex, and providing for the needs of children).

Of course, sacrifice is good, and commendable, but life is meant to also have some pleasure in it. Indeed, to despair is to sin. Joy and hope are both considered good by the Church, and a person is meant to be joyful in their vocation.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at