Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sexual Orientation

Options
13567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    prinz wrote: »
    In a way yes
    But not really in exactly the same way you would argue a homosexual should....
    prinz wrote: »
    I have renounced my own innate sexuality (heterosexual) in favour of pursuing the higher ideal of being faithful to my spouse, and my spouse alone. Does it mean I suddenly have no other sexual desires or attractions? Of course not. Do I put my commitment to my wife as being more important than indulging in those desires? Yes.
    How is sleeping only with your wife (a female, I assume) in anyway renouncing your heterosexuality? Renouncing the potential for promiscuity, yes. But not your heterosexuality.

    So homosexuals should realise there's more to this physical world and live a life of celibacy with the promise of a higher love to come. After all, this is far more important - indeed, the only really important thing in the world - than satisfying one's sexual desires.

    *Above rule does not apply to heterosexuals, no take backs*


  • Options
    #63
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    No-one is asking you to keep quite - but there is little point denying the experience of others when it differs to yours. I am fully aware that my experience is mine and that's what informs me. Also, you'll be judged on no-one else's actions but your own.

    And yet I am expected to tolerate references to "the gay lifestyle", as if there were such a thing. If we use such sweeping statements and offensive generalisations in discourse then I will be judged by the actions of others.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    He points out at the end of the blog for those who jumped on that particular part of the story:

    But I want to be clear about one thing, many people have commented pointing out the fact that I’m generalizing when I use the term “gay lifestyle”. When I say “gay lifestyle”, I am referring to my experiences in the gay lifestyle. I completely understand that there are many gay people who don’t drink, don’t do drugs, don’t sleep around, and are upstanding citizens in their communities. Pursuing homosexual relationships does not mean you automatically become a drunken, promiscuous heathen, like I did. Those things are found on both sides of the sexual spectrum.


    Again though, this is much more to do with seeking God, and putting yourself in his hands. Finding fulfillment and life in him. In this particular occasion, it gave the blogger in question the big picture perspective, showing him that there is so much bigger things than sexual desire.

    There is no such thing as "the gay lifestyle", so he can't have had experiences "in it". He led his life and did things he did, it doesn't and shouldn't reflect on gay people generally, any more than it should reflect on people with the same coloured hair as him, or people who use the same internet browser. It is extremely disingenuous to use misleading and pejorative language in an article and then attach a disclaimer at the end, while leaving the offensive content in place.

    I also don't buy his explanation to be honest. If he was referring to his experiences and his own behaviour he would have spoken about his own experiences and behaviour. Instead he presented the spectre of "the gay lifestyle", as if that was a thing. Imagine I went around talking about "the straight lifestyle". Would it make sense for me to use that term extensively and then note at the end "But of course I know that straight people are diverse and you can't group them together"?

    The elephant in the room here is that he thinks gay people are dirty, sinful and promiscuous and the ones who haven't found God stay that way. He just doesn't want to be that direct about it.


  • Options
    #64
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    doctoremma wrote: »
    But not really in exactly the same way you would argue a homosexual should....

    Well I haven't said that. I was merely pointing out there is a larger grey area, than the black and white of celibacy or indulging your sexual desires.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    How is sleeping only with your wife (a female, I assume) in anyway renouncing your heterosexuality? Renouncing the potential for promiscuity, yes. But not your heterosexuality.....

    ...because I am male, young, active etc. I still have sexual desires. I can still be attracted to someone of the opposite sex... that's not promiscuity that's me and my heterosexual nature. I choose not to act on those heterosexual impulses because I have something I deem more important.

    So I choose to put aside those attractions etc, in favour of my marriage, i.e. I renounce the attractions and physical responses brought about due to my innate sexuality.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    How is sleeping only with your wife (a female, I assume) in anyway renouncing your heterosexuality? Renouncing the potential for promiscuity, yes. But not your heterosexuality.....

    How is sleeping with nobody in anyway renouncing your homosexuality, (or for that matter heterosexuality)? Renouncing the potential for physical sexual relationships, yes. But not your homo (or hetero) sexuality........
    A person can be celibate and still be homosexual. A person can be celibate and still be heterosexual.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    So homosexuals should realise there's more to this physical world and live a life of celibacy with the promise of a higher love to come. After all, this is far more important - indeed, the only really important thing in the world - than satisfying one's sexual desires.
    *Above rule does not apply to heterosexuals, no take backs*

    Again, words in my mouth. I was merely responding to your assumption about Christians here being celibate. One can control ones normal sexual desires in more ways than celibacy, and celibacy does not mean renouncing your sexuality, anymore than monogamy does... as you have so helpfully pointed out.


  • Options
    #65
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I don't think you know what Heterosexual means Prinz.

    What you are saying is just bizarre, and I'm really struggling to see what exactly your sexuality has to do with you not cheating on your girlfriend.


  • Options
    #66
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    doctoremma wrote: »
    But not really in exactly the same way you would argue a homosexual should....


    How is sleeping only with your wife (a female, I assume) in anyway renouncing your heterosexuality? Renouncing the potential for promiscuity, yes. But not your heterosexuality.

    So homosexuals should realise there's more to this physical world and live a life of celibacy with the promise of a higher love to come. After all, this is far more important - indeed, the only really important thing in the world - than satisfying one's sexual desires.

    *Above rule does not apply to heterosexuals, no take backs*

    So is your issue that its a bigger burden for a homosexual? because if it is, I certainly would not argue with that. The thing is though, that there are many men of God who are burdened with a great deal of things, but they seek first the kingdom. Interestingly enough too, is that the blogger in the link I provided makes the point of stipulating the need for him to write the letter he did in that he truly understands the struggle with this particular sin.

    Good-meaning people have told me me, “Your sin is just like my sin”….. but that’s really not true. It’s radically different. Sin is sin, for sure, and the eternal consequence of sin is the same. But the effects in this life are not the same. You may have never listened to “church folk” before, because you knew they couldn’t understand. But trust me when I tell you….. your sin is just like my sin. I actually do understand. There are multitudes out there just like me who do understand. Don’t feel alone in this, because you aren’t. Know that even if no one in your immediate life understands, God does, and He’s with you. He will strengthen you if you trust Him.

    God’s main goal is not to make you heterosexual, but to make you holy. I’ve titled this, “Dear Gay Kid”, because I know the word “gay” is most the most easily understood term for what I’m trying to say, in our culture. But I want to tell you, you’re identity doesn’t have be found in your sexuality. You’re identity shouldn’t be found in your sexuality. All of our sexualities, gay or straight, are broken… and when we trust in Jesus, we aren’t defined by our brokenness anymore. You don’t have to be gay, even if you struggle with same sex desires. Your temptations don’t define you. Jesus defines you…and if you believe in Him, He says you are holy, blameless, pure and beautiful…. no matter what sin you struggle with.

    God wants you to value Him more than anything else in this life… and that may include your desire for a romantic relationship right now (if it’s a same-sex relationship you desire). That may sound like a lot to give up, but I can tell you from experience, once you really feel the love of God… it’s a small price to pay. All the people in this world are broken… and you can’t look to a broken thing and expect it to make your heart whole. Only the One who made your heart can truly satisfy your heart


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I don't think you know what Heterosexual means Prinz..

    Well feel free to highlight anything I have said that runs contrary to the generally accepted definition of heterosexual.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    What you are saying is just bizarre, and I'm really struggling to see what exactly your sexuality has to do with you not cheating on your girlfriend.

    I am heterosexual. I am sexually attracted sometimes to people other than my wife. However because I have a higher ideal (i.e. my commitment to her) I choose not to act on those sexual attractions. Does that stop me being heterosexual? No of course not. Simple concept. If I was single and celibate, would I stop being heterosexual, no of course not. So I am wondering why doctoremma seems to have confused acting on your attractions with your innate sexuality.


  • Options
    #68
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    In a way yes, I have renounced my own innate sexuality (heterosexual) in favour of pursuing the higher ideal of being faithful to my spouse, and my spouse alone. Does it mean I suddenly have no other sexual desires or attractions? Of course not. Do I put my commitment to my wife as being more important than indulging in those desires? Yes.

    You have renounced your innate heterosexual desires.....by having regular heterosexual sex?

    Eh, wtf!


  • Options
    #69
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    prinz wrote: »
    I am heterosexual. I am sexually attracted sometimes to people other than my wife. However because I have a higher ideal (i.e. my commitment to her) I choose not to act on those sexual attractions. Does that stop me being heterosexual? No of course not. Simple concept. If I was single and celibate, would I stop being heterosexual, no of course not. So I am wondering why doctoremma seems to have confused acting on your attractions with your innate sexuality.

    The blogger became celibate for a higher ideal, I think the point is why could he not both peruse a higher ideal and have a stable monogamous relationship in exactly the same way you do with your wife but with a man.


  • Options
    #70
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    prinz wrote: »
    Well feel free to highlight anything I have said that runs contrary to the generally accepted definition of heterosexual.



    I am heterosexual. I am sexually attracted sometimes to people other than my wife. However because I have a higher ideal (i.e. my commitment to her) I choose not to act on those sexual attractions. Does that stop me being heterosexual? No of course not. Simple concept. If I was single and celibate, would I stop being heterosexual, no of course not. So I am wondering why doctoremma seems to have confused acting on your attractions with your innate sexuality.

    But you haven't rejected your heterosexuality, you're still in a heterosexual relationship.

    If anything you're in a very simple, standard, dull ol' monogamous relationship. It's the pretty basic relationship. It's the same one I'm in, my mothers in, my best friend is in, my cousin...

    I'm really struggling to see your point. But congrats on not cheating on your partner I guess is in order?

    Being heterosexual has little to do with sleeping around, it would just define which gender you'd be doing it with.


  • Options
    #71
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    prinz wrote: »
    In a way yes, I have renounced my own innate sexuality (heterosexual) in favour of pursuing the higher ideal of being faithful to my spouse, and my spouse alone. Does it mean I suddenly have no other sexual desires or attractions? Of course not. Do I put my commitment to my wife as being more important than indulging in those desires? Yes.

    So if you've renounced your sexuality(i.e. sexual desires) by staying faithful to your wife, you're pretty much saying you've got no attraction to your wife. Otherwise you haven't renounced your sexuality at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    finality
    Registered Users Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭finality


    prinz wrote: »
    Well feel free to highlight anything I have said that runs contrary to the generally accepted definition of heterosexual.



    I am heterosexual. I am sexually attracted sometimes to people other than my wife. However because I have a higher ideal (i.e. my commitment to her) I choose not to act on those sexual attractions. Does that stop me being heterosexual? No of course not. Simple concept. If I was single and celibate, would I stop being heterosexual, no of course not. So I am wondering why doctoremma seems to have confused acting on your attractions with your innate sexuality.

    I don't see what point you're trying to make. You have a loving relationship with your wife, in which you can presumably express your sexuality. Being celibate means not expressing your sexuality at all. Only expressing your sexuality with one person is absolutely nothing like being celibate.

    In any relationship, straight or gay, the two people involved usually value the relationship more than acting on desires for people outside of it. But that's because the relationship provides them with love and sexual expression. Feeling forced to become celibate because of some religion is a huge burden for most, because they have to give up ever having a relationship like that which you have with your wife.

    How do you not see the difference? If it were discovered that there had been a passage in the bible stating heterosexuality was a sin, would you leave your wife?


  • Options
    #73
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    You have renounced your innate heterosexual desires.....by having regular heterosexual sex?
    Eh, wtf!

    No, my point was that I haven't renounced my innate sexual desires. I have controlled how I act on those desires which is a different thing. I was question why doctoremma concluded that celibacy is synonymous with renouncing your sexuality. It isn't. It's just how you choose to express it.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    But you haven't rejected your heterosexuality, you're still in a heterosexual relationship..

    ...and if I happened to be single and celibate would I have rejected heterosexuality? No.
    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    So if you've renounced your sexuality(i.e. sexual desires) by staying faithful to your wife, you're pretty much saying you've got no attraction to your wife. Otherwise you haven't renounced your sexuality at all.

    As above.
    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    The blogger became celibate for a higher ideal, I think the point is why could he not both peruse a higher ideal and have a stable monogamous relationship in exactly the same way you do with your wife but with a man.

    I think that's a question best answered by himself. I'm certainly not going to be going around checking his bedroom wardrobe and under his bed.


  • Options
    #74
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Snappy Smurf wrote: »
    Well I think there is only one 'orientation' as such: the man is oriented to the woman for the purposes of making baby.

    That is demonstrably false.


  • Options
    #75
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    - the Christian will say it degrades the spirit of both parties by its unnatural affections and acts, and brings God's wrath for its perversion of His provision of sex.

    So it hurts no one then. :)


  • Options
    #76
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    No, my point was that I haven't renounced my innate sexual desires. I have controlled how I act on those desires which is a different thing. I was question why doctoremma concluded that celibacy is synonymous with renouncing your sexuality. It isn't. It's just how you choose to express it.
    prinz wrote: »
    In a way yes, I have renounced my own innate sexuality (heterosexual) in favour of pursuing the higher ideal of being faithful to my spouse, and my spouse alone. Does it mean I suddenly have no other sexual desires or attractions? Of course not. Do I put my commitment to my wife as being more important than indulging in those desires? Yes.

    I think you can probably see the cause of the confusion:D

    But in the case of a gay man, can they not do the same? Find someone they love and settle down like you have (and i have, and probably most of the posters on here telling them they can't, have).
    Why should gays have to be alone?


  • Options
    #77
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    prinz wrote: »
    In a way yes, I have renounced my own innate sexuality (heterosexual) in favour of pursuing the higher ideal of being faithful to my spouse, and my spouse alone.
    prinz wrote: »
    No, my point was that I haven't renounced my innate sexual desires. I have controlled how I act on those desires which is a different thing.

    :confused::confused:


  • Options
    #78
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I think you can probably see the cause of the confusion:D

    Well in the first post I was going by the other posters definition of renouncing your innate sexuality which said poster later contradicted herself, and accepted that choosing/restricting when and who to have sex with isn't renouncing your sexual orientation or desires.
    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    But in the case of a gay man, can they not do the same? Find someone they love and settle down like you have (and i have, and probably most of the posters on here telling them they can't, have). Why should gays have to be alone?

    I don't believe I've ever said gays have to be alone.


  • Options
    #79
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    prinz wrote: »
    I don't believe I've ever said gays have to be alone.

    So youre all for two gay men or two gay women being together with all the same rights and respect you and your wife have?


  • Options
    #80
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    Post deleted due to breach of Charter.


  • Options
    #81
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    So youre all for two gay men or two gay women being together with all the same rights and respect you and your wife have?

    A gay couple being together....go ahead. Respect? That's a given. Rights? As far as each other go, tax, inheritance, next of kin etc etc..... that's up to the state and I certainly wouldn't object, the Civil Parntership didn't do enough there. When kids get involved that's where it gets tricky as far as I'm concerned.

    On a related note I also wouldn't support any particular church being forced to perform ceremonies etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    You may not have said it, but it's Christian belief that.....

    ....we're all sinners.


  • Options
    #83
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    Well in the first post I was going by the other posters definition of renouncing your innate sexuality which said poster later contradicted herself, and accepted that choosing/restricting when and who to have sex with isn't renouncing your sexual orientation or desires.



    I don't believe I've ever said gays have to be alone.

    I still have no idea if you have or haven't renounced!

    I didn't mean you had said gays have to be alone, i'm just asking the question do you personaly think it is ok for a gay man or woman to do exactly as you have done and find someone to love and settle into a loving relationship? Or do you feel that they should remain celibate?


  • Options
    #84
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I still have no idea if you have or haven't renounced!

    :D Maybe I should go into politics.
    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I didn't mean you had said gays have to be alone, i'm just asking the question do you personaly think it is ok for a gay man or woman to do exactly as you have done and find someone to love and settle into a loving relationship? Or do you feel that they should remain celibate?

    That's up to them. Personally ok? I have gay friends in relationships and I haven't held it against them or anything. Many Christians have a set idea of what sex is about and homosexual acts don't come within that, but neither does a huge range of other heterosexual acts etc. So personally I wouldn't rate one as any better or worse than the other.


  • Options
    #85
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    prinz wrote: »
    A gay couple being together....go ahead. Respect? That's a given. Rights? As far as each other go, tax, inheritance, next of kin etc etc..... that's up to the state and I certainly wouldn't object, the Civil Parntership didn't do enough there. When kids get involved that's where it gets tricky as far as I'm concerned.

    Fair enough, although I dont see an issue with a gay couple raising a child.
    On a related note I also wouldn't support any particular church being forced to perform ceremonies etc.

    Nor would I, a church is a private organisation and fully entitled to practice its own affairs however the church sees fit.


  • Options
    #86
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    prinz wrote: »
    A gay couple being together....go ahead. Respect? That's a given. Rights? As far as each other go, tax, inheritance, next of kin etc etc..... that's up to the state and I certainly wouldn't object, the Civil Parntership didn't do enough there. When kids get involved that's where it gets tricky as far as I'm concerned.

    On a related note I also wouldn't support any particular church being forced to perform ceremonies etc.

    So, basically a live and let live approach.

    I honestly approve of this, with the exception of the kids bit, because my parents are Gay and I turned out just fine.

    I do agree on the churches not being forced to perform ceremonies too.


  • Options
    #87
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    :D Maybe I should go into politics.



    That's up to them. Personally ok? I have gay friends in relationships and I haven't held it against them or anything.

    I don't mean to sound like an asshole or anything, but do you think your gay friends will be joining you in heaven? I assume you think you'll be going there yourself, or hoping you will in any case.


  • Options
    #88
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I honestly approve of this, with the exception of the kids bit, because my parents are Gay and I turned out just fine..

    Just to clarify on this, I don't think gay parents are going to raise gay kids, or messed up kids things like that. It would be of a concern about kids being caught in the middle of a three-way tug of war if things turn sour. Kids often suffer enough as it is through divorce and separation etc. I'm not 100% sure on how the rights of the biological parents and the third parent... or whatever combination could be ironed out putting the child first.... and that's now not restricted to homosexual couples either given the news from the US on kids being born with the genetic make up of three people... kids are becoming commodities.


  • Options
    #89
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    prinz wrote: »
    Just to clarify on this, I don't think gay parents are going to raise gay kids, or messed up kids things like that. It would be of a concern about kids being caught in the middle of a three-way tug of war if things turn sour. Kids often suffer enough as it is through divorce and separation etc. I'm not 100% sure on how the rights of the biological parents and the third parent... or whatever combination could be ironed out putting the child first.... and that's now not restricted to homosexual couples either given the news from the US on kids being born with the genetic make up of three people... kids are becoming commodities.

    I'm not sure how the sexuality of the kids adoptive parents changes any tug of war situation if they break up - it's the same number of people involved?
    Also what's this 3 person genetics thing?


  • Options
    #90
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I don't mean to sound like an asshole or anything, but do you think your gay friends will be joining you in heaven? I assume you think you'll be going there yourself, or hoping you will in any case.

    I don't know if I will or not, so I wouldn't guess at what anyone else is up to. I certainly don't think they've done anything that couldn't be forgiven for example. I've committed my own sexual sins so to speak in times gone by. So we're probably in the same boat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    He he, not sure what happened over the last couple of pages.

    My point was this. An argument I've seen here for why a homosexual should forgo their innate sexual desire for the same gender and not engage in homosexual acts is that they can find a greater good in the love of god, that actually this should be what everyone aspires to, far more fulfilling etc etc.

    Why does this not apply equally to the heterosexuals here? Why are they not eschewing bodily temptations in order to achieve a greater kind of love and fulfilment?

    Especially when you consider that apparently....
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Posted a letter which contained: All of our sexualities, gay or straight, are broken
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Posted a letter which contained: once you really feel the love of God… it’s a small price to pay. All the people in this world are broken… and you can’t look to a broken thing and expect it to make your heart whole. Only the One who made your heart can truly satisfy your heart
    So why aren't the heterosexuals giving up their broken sexuality? Why is it only homosexuals that are entreated to do so?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement