Amos

Heaven is the state of mind we once left behind and is therefore still part of our mind.

Yes that is true. The problem with friendship marriages is that they become rather boring because when two partners have all things in common it can be said that neither one has anything to offer the other person.

In the Catholic perspective (that formed the basis for free love marriages ever since the 11th century (?)), opposites are allowed to be the major attraction for marriages to be fruitfull and successful. The reason for this was that just as eros is opposite to agape so must males be opposite to females before a journey can be started that leads lovers from eros through philia and on towards agape.

Yes, and I don't think that it ever would have come to exist for our pleasure. Of course we can enjoy sex and we probably like it more than anybody we know.

The Catholic Church is the effective cause that created our civilization and is an inspired religion that can rationally be justified even if there seems to be nothing rational about it (this would have to be if it is inspired). So its bias is based on a long tradition that has proved itself time and time again (this would also be true if it is inspired).

It is not catchy but our sexuality is an illusion that is created by the opposites sexes and with the decreasing social identity between the sexes our sexual identity has become and increasingly become more blurred in the fusion between the sexes. It just that simple.

Let me put this another way. Both males and females are part human and part woman and the hormones they produce are therefore not sex specific. If our social norms encourage males to produce more estrogens and females to produce more androgens it is easy to see how in a gender equal society (wherein boys are encouraged to cry and girls are encouraged to beat their own chest), our gender identity can become blurred.

I don't care myself and in fact enjoy sex any way it comes my way.

The Church does not enforced morals but forgives sinners. I am thinking here that if morals were enforced sins could not be forgiven.

Amos

You right and I had heard about this on the radio. He certainly speaks his mind as the right-hand man of the guy who is at least partly responsible for the social well being in Christendom.

Doctor X

openeyes:

Indeed. I find it rather offensive that an institution that aided and abetted a horrible immorality should try to lecture on morality.

Amos:

Where in the mind?

Not actually true. "Opposites" repulse as frequently as "likes."

Free love marriages existed long before that time--also in other cultures . . . depending on the circumstances.

Anyways, the Church does not have a footing on judging the relative amount of love in a same-sex versus different-sex marriage.

On the contrary, the pleasure of it drives the behavior and companionship is more than sex and great companionships adds to sex.

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! . . . sorry, methinks other movements proved far more helpful--a few Greeks, a Roman, some guys in China. Indeed, one can argue that the rejection of the Catholic Church furthered progress most speedily. One can further argue that the Catholic Church retarded development.

It rather has disproven itself--allow me to introduce you to a child with a tumor. . . .

You have a most singular conception of "simple." On the contrary, given the FREQUENCY of homosexual contact in ancient times--and that includes Judea--while underscoring gender roles . . . it rather contradicts your supposition.

Sexual differences are hardly an "illusion." If the were, incidentally, one could have no problem with any combination of partnership . . . it all being an illusion 'n all.

I think one should not mistake equality of worth as equality of sex.

Right, now a bit of science:

and the "nonhuman part?" I gather you meant "man."

Incorrect. The male and female respond differently to the hormones--try as hard as you wish, you cannot get a male to ovulate or a female to understand the infield fly rule. They also produce different levels of hormones.

They do not.

What follows is a facile understanding of gender.

No, dear Amos, it is not all hormonal imbalances! Hormones can affect emotions and drives, of course; however, no one has demonstrated that a homosexual has "more female hormones" or a lesbian has "more male hormones" . . . now a dyke, that's a different story [Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . indeed . . . women who exercise and have more androgens do not necessarily become lesbians! Similarly, overweight alcoholics with higher estrogens--and peduncular breasts!--do not become homosexuals either. It is much more complex.

You have children with "ambiguous" genitalia--raised "one way" who always felt and finally decide that they should be "the other way." Nurture did not win out. On the other hand, you have genetic men with testicular feminization who look like women, are women . . . they cannot reproduce.

In otherwords, one cannot categorize gender and identity into such a simple rubrick. Though the world may seem to be rapidly approaching Hell in the proverbial handbasket--simply look at the popularity of Celine Dion--this is not a result of or a cause of a greater respect for the individual to have the freedom to persue life, liberty, and happiness.

As indicated in the links, it is certaintly trying. Granted, it was more "successful" during the Inquisition. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

Obviously that part which you do not recognize! (sorry I could not resist).

Correct and that is the motivator for us to journey from eros through philia and towards agape. Both the opposites that cause the attraction become the negative stand in the rout of discovery that later leads to the final rout that opens the pearly gates of Eden.

But has love got to do with it? You just said that love cannot be conceived to exist without hate. We/the Church do recongnize and will/may admid that homosexuals in general are nice people because they lack the polarization effect others must suffer (studies in prison have proved this beyond any doubt). [quote][b]

On the contrary, the pleasure of it drives the behavior and companionship is more than sex and great companionships adds to sex.[quote][b]

There you go, fruitless companionship and sex for the sake of sex.

Well if artistic expression is the accepted monitor of a civilizations' well-being we sure killed it during the Reformation, and if you think that aircraft carriers make better Cathedrals ask yourself why our taxes must pay for them.

I don't see the connection here or do you mean that multiple rape causes tumors.

Except that those in ancient times were androgyne once again because they had come full circle in life while today they never got past first base.

They must be if our sexuality is an illusion. Ever seen a boner with a bone in it?

Correct, and that is why I hold that our "[self] worth" is the illusion that causes our gender identity to become blurred which followed the transition from the old "opposite sex" society into the new "gender equal" society.

No, our humanity is masculine and our womanity is effeminate. Man is the neuter form and has no "-ity."

Sorry, I wrote that both males and females produce both hormones and the amount of each they produce is influenced by our social norms.

You mean that hormone therapy can't show results and that girls should not be on top?

Well yes, I often put things on a slippery slope so I can argue from opposites. That way the argument sticks better.

I like her alot but my favorite was Nana Muskouri (sp) who was from Greece.

Doctor X

No problem, but it is a serious question.

Must confess this reminds me of a Cooleridge poem. Like a Cooleridge poem, it is not the basis for law.

I did not.

They have not. On the contrary, "homosexuality" in prison is often a case of the only way to satisfy sexual desire rather than choice. You also neglect the fact that one of the reasons people are in prison is violence. You have a rather non-ideal population that you cannot necessarily extend to the general population. Nevertheless, the homosexual population is rather diffuse and suffers and enjoys the same dynamics that occur in heterosexual relationships.

Aircraft carriers serve a useful function.

Has to do to a discussion on unjustified suffering and what it leads to regarding religious beliefs. This occured on another thread in this forum.

I am afraid that does not respond to the objection. You are making claims--in this case not really relevant--without evidence, frankly.

Again, non-responsive. My point argued against your claim that sexual differences are an "illusion," but then noted that even if you were correct, it would undercut your argument. I am afraid I see no relevance to your entymology of a vernacular euphemism.

Whilst I more than applaud the desire to protect language from the ravages of the Great Unwashed who think "moot" means "not worthy of consideration," and that "prioritize" is actually a word, though it breaks Orwell's rules, you do have to stick to the understood English definitions--man is the masculine, woman is the feminine, and human is neuter. In English, "man" is "neuter" as a "default"--we do not know the gender and it is not obvious.

It avoids needless confusion.

Not quite true--you speak of relative differences which do not translate in to the gender roles and preferences that you imply. For example, you can "shut down" the menstual cycle in a gymnist . . . but this does not make her no longer female. Similarly, you can shut down the male drive with a hormone that does things in women but not really anything in men--with an excess production--and you do not make the man a female--though his breast tissue may start producing fluid.

Thus, it is more complicated that simple balances of hormones and environmental influences on the levels.

With regard to your second statement, therapy allows the secondary characteristics--or at least support them--but you need the identity before it. I am not sure what you intend to imply with the second part of your statement.

Which is a fallacious way to form an argument, so I would recommend ceasing the practice.

However, it is a general rule to never trust a woman singer with a big nose--unless she is Greek. . . .

--J.D.

conkermaniac

And do you have proof of that? I've heard that homosexual acts in prisons aren't as common as Christians make them out to be.

Amos

Sorry, I don't believe I even implied such a thing. Prison studies have shown that fewer homosexuals end up in prision and that agressive offenders are nearly always masculine males.

Amos

Free love Catholic marriages are said to be arranged in heaven because they are like soulmates as perceived by the eye of the soul-- which is the place where we are eternal, omniscient and the continuity of God.

Well I am glad to have a friend someplace.

Sorry for the confusion here but I was not looking at homosexual behavior in prisons at all. Studies have shown that homosexuals are more docile and therefore nicer people who are less likely to end up in prison. That was my point and at that time this was a contributing factor to move from the old opposite sex to the modern gender society.

Only when they become an artificial reef for the fishes below.

Well that is not exactly true because when the opposites are removed in the final rout the attraction will be gone but man will still be male. Remember here that just because there is no marriage in heaven does not mean that there is no sex in heaven.

I actually forgot the details here but it is wrong to think that artificial hormone therapy can alter our sexual-ity while natural hormone stimulation can not do the same thing. I think the missing link was that you failed to recognize that our sexual oriention (gender identity) is incarnate upon us and therefore not very responsive to hormone therapy.

Perhaps, but I think that human and woman correspond well with the functions of our divided mind wherein human is left brain and woman is right brain with man in the middle after the convergence that neuters both to become the androgyne we once were. Hence, man is the image of God and God is the image of man. [/quote]

Not quite true--you speak of relative differences which do not translate in to the gender roles and preferences that you imply. For example, you can "shut down" the menstual cycle in a gymnist . . . but this does not make her no longer female. Similarly, you can shut down the male drive with a hormone that does things in women but not really anything in men--with an excess production--and you do not make the man a female--though his breast tissue may start producing fluid.

Thus, it is more complicated that simple balances of hormones and environmental influences on the levels.[/quote]

True and I never meant to give the exact reason why things have become the way they are. Science will do that when it is too late.


So why can't a speaker magnify his case to make a point? Well I actually chose her because Greece is the place where boys are still boys and girls can still be famous.

It's been nice, thanks for your responses and feel free to continue.

Doctor X

Amos:

and where is that located?

I would caution such studies--recognition of how homosexual relationships compare to straight relationships has been slow--such as abuse . . . if a woman had a hard time getting help years ago, imagine a homosexual going to the police. Besides, if you are correct then you should support the lifestyle--much less crime that way.

I would disagree . . . they become very useful when it comes to removing bad guys. Ask the Japanese Imperial Navy. . . .

What would be the point then?

So fornication is legal in heaven?

Indeed, it generally does not. You may shut down much of someone's libido and cause hair to grow in odd places, but it does not "change" the person's preferences. Furthermore, as noted above, there is no evidence that preferences result from relative levels of hormones.

On the contrary, that was the point I made against your claim of hormone levels and gender preferences and social influences on hormone leveles. See above.

Now, I have to clean up some problems:

No. Despite the "pop" media stories that come and go there is no evidence of males being--sorry "human" in English is neuter--in the left hemisphere and women in the right. Indeed, nearly 100% of right-handed scum are "dominant" in the left brain for basic language function--the right also has language function. "Dominence" arose because losses for the left are easier to figure out--guy cannot speak--whereas the right tends to be things like recognizes differences in inflection.

There is no "middle"--there are fibers that connect the hemispheres--hemispheres usually do not work in isolation.

So . . . unfortunately, basic physiology does not fit your theory.

Incidentally, your "hence" does not follow from what you wrote.

Too late for what? To stop Lucas from making more films?

The slippery slope does not magnify an argument--it detracts for it. Just as an argumentum ad hominem may seem to underscore a point, it makes the user seem like a fool.

You need to read some Plato . . . the shorter Plato, not the turgid and pretentious The Republic. Check out The Symposium.

Maria Callas was Greek . . . and she had a nose. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

Subconcious mind.

No I do not have to support it and gave you my reason for it (our acceptance as normal would increase the number). It is best that we understand the cause so we can be tolerant and that would allow them the right to exist without any justification.

Yes crime prevention was a contributing factor.

In heaven man is censored by natural law and therefore all is lawfull. Sin is not possible when set free from the law.

Yes, either I failed to make this clear or you did not catch it.

There is also no left or right after the convergence of our twain mind and this is what I called "the middle" (God is the middle and the middle is God because that is how we get to heaven). Until then we are not God but both human and woman in our left and right brain. Yes they have relations with each other but only until they become one in the "final rout" of discovery with regard to the meaning of life = the final Form, final round of Samsara, Christ-mass or Par-ousia (final ousia).