COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

on sexuality

is loving a person wrong? why is it that when a lesbian loves a girl and the girl loves in return they would always say na "sayang si ****(girl)" ? that's unfair!!!

Comments

  • ilpadrinoilpadrino The "Family" Man PExer
    It's not wrong, but because the "plugs" or "connectors" aren't compatible, it's all a waste. They can please, satisfy, gratify themselves all they want but they really wont be getting anywhere as far as genetics and procreation goes. Only time can tell what weighs heavier for 'em.
  • l'angel'ange Member PExer
    Originally posted by ilpadrino
    It's not wrong, but because the "plugs" or "connectors" aren't compatible, it's all a waste. They can please, satisfy, gratify themselves all they want but they really wont be getting anywhere as far as genetics and procreation goes. Only time can tell what weighs heavier for 'em.

    Ok, but are we not equating the true end of love with procreation? :)
  • QuentinQuentin Montejo PExer
    contemporary doctrinal religion prohibits such. but i do sometimes find them somewhat inhumane. or i am lacking in some enlightenment here.
  • ilpadrinoilpadrino The "Family" Man PExer
    Originally posted by l'ange
    Originally posted by ilpadrino
    It's not wrong, but because the "plugs" or "connectors" aren't compatible, it's all a waste. They can please, satisfy, gratify themselves all they want but they really wont be getting anywhere as far as genetics and procreation goes. Only time can tell what weighs heavier for 'em.

    Ok, but are we not equating the true end of love with procreation? :)

    AFAIK :D sex is the ultimate, final thing that happens in a relationship. Love & attraction is the vessel that gets a man and a woman there, and it always comes to a phase that it must be diverted or transmuted somewhat for nurturing offsprings. It's a phase, not an option I believe, that leads to the option of adoption for those who cannot have children.

    No one can really mess with the ORIGINAL design, one way or the other we'll end up complying with it. It's all a "Human-race Support System" as I see it. And there's no need to prove it's been working so well this past several hundreds of thousands of years. :)
  • Originally posted by PePs
    I would not call loving someone of the same sex wrong I would on the other hand, call it unnatural.

    It goes against a lot of the teachings of our religion, it goes against the values system that I hold on to, it even violates scientific laws. If going against the laws of god and even the laws of man is not strong enough proof against this practice -- I don't know what is.

    As always, I will not hold a person in less self esteem because of his choice of sexuality, but I will not practice nor condone it.

    :D

    i totally agree with you, PePs, on every point! :)
  • SportsterSportster Member PExer
    society defines sexuality..maybe times are changing since same sex relationships are gaining acceptance. traditional societies are less apt to change their views on this because of long held values and tradition. it is precisely because of this, that society either condones or not the practice.
  • l'angel'ange Member PExer
    Originally posted by ilpadrino
    Originally posted by l'ange
    Originally posted by ilpadrino
    It's not wrong, but because the "plugs" or "connectors" aren't compatible, it's all a waste. They can please, satisfy, gratify themselves all they want but they really wont be getting anywhere as far as genetics and procreation goes. Only time can tell what weighs heavier for 'em.

    Ok, but are we not equating the true end of love with procreation? :)

    AFAIK :D sex is the ultimate, final thing that happens in a relationship. Love & attraction is the vessel that gets a man and a woman there, and it always comes to a phase that it must be diverted or transmuted somewhat for nurturing offsprings. It's a phase, not an option I believe, that leads to the option of adoption for those who cannot have children.

    No one can really mess with the ORIGINAL design, one way or the other we'll end up complying with it. It's all a "Human-race Support System" as I see it. And there's no need to prove it's been working so well this past several hundreds of thousands of years. :)

    So, you are saying then that although love's end is procreation?

    But, that's to say that only heterosexuals could love with the end of procreating. I think there's no contention to that point.

    My point: sometimes it's hard for heterosexuals to see love in the perspective of homosexuals because they have their own conception of love. Most would say love is towards procreation... that's a valid opinion. But let's qualify that, not all love ends up in procreation.

    A male guy may love his brother... but that never ends up in procreation, isn't it? So does a daughter's love for her mom. Love comes in many form... and homosexual love is just one of them.

    So also, a sterile couple many not end up procreating but may still be much in-love with each other... amids the fact which you pointed out that they do have the option of adoption--it never changes the situation that they can not procreate.

    In short, we can never generalise what love really is. Love is too great for us to box into words/concepts. Maybe the thing between homosexuals may be just one form that love takes. It's quite unusual for some since they are not homosexuals... they evaluate homosexual love in terms of heterosexual love.
  • ilpadrinoilpadrino The "Family" Man PExer
    l'ange: Ok, homosexual love doesn't end in procreation, but why does it also engage in "sex"? Isn't this a form of simulation of the procreation act among heterosexuals? Why does it have to involve the stimulation of the genitals of which main function is for reproduction? Can't homosexuals love each other just like brothers and sisters?

  • l'angel'ange Member PExer
    Ok, I respect that point.

    However, I note that we are threading on two different but related planes... sex and love. It's good to see that so that we may be cautious of our association. In my humble opinion, I think, generally procreation does not form the essense of "sex." It's a noble thought to see it that way; but, there are many reasons aside from procreation, why couples (and even groups of people) engage in sex. (Please don't be scandalised by what I'm saying, I'm trying taking on a perspective of a social scientist).

    If the essense of sex were procreation, why then is it possible to use condoms while engaging in the heterosexual act. Physically, heterosexual acts normally lead to procreation... but not all the time. Sterile couple engage in the sexual act even with the knowledge that they can never form a product. There's something more then... I think... beyond procreation in sex.

    It may be love.... but again, not all the time. It may be lust.... but again not all the time. It may be the need for money (like in prostitutes).... but not all the time. The point I'm driving at is that the sexual act may be directed towards as many ends as there are people doing it. Procreation is just one aspect of it.

    When homosexuals engage in homosexual acts, in my honest opinion, they do not attempt to simulate the heterosexual procreative act. It's hard to generalise why homosexuals engage in that acts... but so are heterosexual acts.

    I agree to the point you raised. Physiologically speaking, the genitals mainly function in the process of reproduction. But, as the critique of modern ethicists on traditional ethics... that it relies heavily on function in determining what is the right thing to do... I do think that this is an dangerous position to take.

    For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that one of the three basic precepts of natural law (the law the determines the ethical rules that humans have to follow) is that humans are bent towards things which accord with his nature (the sense of what we share with any other animals)... like the coupling of male and female. Thus, being so, natural law restricts the coupling of humans other than the coupling of males and females... BECAUSE NATURAL LAW SPEAKS THE IT IS NATURAL FOR HUMANS TO DO SO.

    But, the common argument against this is that, if this were so, then is RAPE JUSTIFIABLE? If it were natural for humans to copulate and there is no restriction against this... then RAPE IS MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE. But, I take great insult in these insinuations. I think RAPE is morally wrong. (Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we are to disregard STA's ethics.... what I'm saying and rightly so, there may be other ways of looking at the STA's natural law ethics that radically goes back to STA's original insights. But maybe not this one.)

    As I have said, I think it's easy to raise the point of naturality against homosexual acts. This is because heterosexuals use heterosexual categories... which most of the time do not apply to the homosexual condition.

    Furthermore, homosexual acts are said to be unnatural becase it does not fit the whole picture that natural law presents us. But, if we question the whole traditional notion of natural law... it becomes evident that it in itself may not totally present the whole picture for heterosexuals.

    :)
  • BadGiRLBadGiRL procrastination specialist PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Originally posted by PePs
    .....but I will not practice nor condone it.

    Same here. I a firm believer of that cliche "my life, my choice." At the end of the day, it's their life and whatever decision they make, they'll be the one to handle the consequences. Who are we people to judge them for their choices. How do u know that heterosexual relationships are the real natural ones? It could be different. Afterall, it was man who wrote down those things religions teach. E malay mo the first one who recorded those stuff wrote by his own belief rather than a higher being's teachings.

    I think this society should stop relying on what religions teach so much, or rather follow them to the letter. Mag isip naman sila muna.
  • ilpadrinoilpadrino The "Family" Man PExer
    Well, why not us consider "procreation" here as an important component of the Great mechanism that sustains the Human Race? The thing that makes it thrive, the thing that we owe to our enjoying any kind of sex with any sex, in any place and any positions possible and our babbling here right now?

    Considering that, and to imply of it as a mere consequence of heterosexual sex acts in trying to equalize it with homosexual sex acts, don't you think is a form of blasphemy?

    Can we now conclude then that the sacredness of procreation being responsible of bringing us here in this "Matrix" automatically defines itself as the original and ultimate purpose of sex?

    There are no more reasons why people engage in sex other than being rewarded of pleasure. The goal with every sex act is to have an orgasm, and that's how our minds are "tricked" to be able to attain the higher goal of procreation and survival of the human species--of which we need not clutter our minds with as we can do a good job all the same simply trying to reach for an orgasm. With the appropriate partner of course :)

    What do you say right now we replace orgasm with multiple excruciating pain at the temples or all the teeth and lets see if there would still be people around in the year 2120? :D



    [Edited by ilpadrino on 12-24-2000 at 05:06 AM]
  • l'angel'ange Member PExer
    Ok, I have two points.

    First, I'm not saying the "procreation" is not an important aspect of heterosexual sex. In fact, I'm would say it is. But, I'm not saying that to the point that it is the exclusive end of every heterosexual sex. It's an important part of it, but not the only and determining part of heterosexual sex.

    And note, it's heterosexual sex.


    Second, I'm trying to say that there are different ethics that apply to different situations/conditions. Heterosexual ethics is not homosexual ethics. Now, how is that possible... i think the underlying factor is the considerable and substantial difference in both situations... which no one can take an absolute perspective (save for One). Thus, being part of this Matrix of perspectives, we can only take a certain perspective... regarding the morality of homosexual sex.

    It would be unfair (i.e., not fair to the whole truth behind the homosexual act) if we use heterosexual categories on it. Heterosexual categories work within the limited range of the heterosexual condition. If it preaches that sex is for pro-creation... that category does not apply to the homosexual condition.

    :)

    Merry Christmas. :)

  • sunfishsunfish Member PExer
    quite hard to understand for some people...the concept of two people of the same gender finding happiness in and with one another, no? i don't believe in lesbians and gays and straights. i believe in love. doesn't matter what gender, race or creed. i'm a lesbian and i've found my bliss. and it's really nice that people are becoming more and more open...then again, there are those who are just tolerant or just plain condemning. can'd o anything about that. to each his own.
  • ilpadrinoilpadrino The "Family" Man PExer
    Happy New Year, l'ange :)

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file