Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[glassjester]

You don't need to be pursuing someone or obsessing over them in order to fall in love with a person.

Hello Arthur Brain,

I realize this is the popular belief on the matter. But I just don't see how it could be.

Are we talking about the concept of love at first sight?
I don't think that's possible. You can't really love someone that you don't even know.

Love at first sight is a wonderful plot device for the first act of a five-act play, but hardly resembles anything we would rightly call "love," in the real world.


It could be instead that you're referring to falling in love over a period of time, over the course of repeated interactions with a person (popularly held to be outside of one's conscious control). Is that what you mean?

 

[annabenedetti]

Hello Arthur Brain,

I realize this is the popular belief on the matter. But I just don't see how it could be.

Are we talking about the concept of love at first sight?
I don't think that's possible. You can't really love someone that you don't even know.

Love at first sight is a wonderful plot device for the first act of a five-act play, but hardly resembles anything we would rightly call "love," in the real world.


It could be instead that you're referring to falling in love over a period of time, over the course of repeated interactions with a person (popularly held to be outside of one's conscious control). Is that what you mean?

How in the world can you presume to define how anyone other than yourself fell in love?

 

[glassjester]

How in the world can you presume to define how anyone other than yourself fell in love?

I can't.

But I can speculate about it. As can you.
Was Plato just wasting his time, writing the Symposium?

So what do you think?
Is love at first sight, truly love?

 

[annabenedetti]

I can't.

But I can speculate about it.

You do speculate a lot.

As can you.

I don't tend to speculate why and how people fall in love, particularly when that speculation is only to "prove" that homosexuals can't have a heritable homosexual orientation.

Was Plato just wasting his time, writing the Symposium?

You're comparing yourself to Plato?

 

[glassjester]

You're comparing yourself to Plato?

Definitely not.
I'm just pointing out that people have always wondered (and argued) about what love is, and how it occurs.
Many times in history, this speculation has produced great works.

I don't presume greatness.
Honestly, I presume quite the opposite of myself.

But we should not try to suppress dialogue concerning this topic.
It's fascinating, and discussing it is often a fruitful experience.

 

[annabenedetti]

Definitely not.
I'm just pointing out that people have always wondered (and argued) about what love is, and how it occurs.
Many times in history, this speculation has produced great works.

I don't presume greatness.
Honestly, I presume quite the opposite of myself.

But we should not try to suppress dialogue concerning this topic.
It's fascinating, and discussing it is often a fruitful experience.

Who's suppressing? You're free to speculate all you want, and I'm free to ask you why you think you can define the parameters of someone else's love.

And I'm also free to point out that you probably wouldn't be having this fascinating conversation (which, if not suppressed might produce great works, and who am I to stand in the way of greatness?!) if you weren't so determined to prove that homosexual orientation isn't heritable.

 

[glassjester]

Who's suppressing? You're free to speculate all you want, and I'm free to ask you why you think you can define the parameters of someone else's love.

Fair enough.

And I'm also free to point out that you probably wouldn't be having this fascinating conversation (which, if not suppressed might produce great works, and who am I to stand in the way of greatness?!)

I realize that this particular conversation won't result in some great advancement in the study of human emotion. I just think it's a discussion worth having.

Like I said, I don't mean to compare myself to Plato.
But I like discussing some of the same topics.
Then again, who doesn't?

if you weren't so determined to prove that homosexual orientation isn't heritable.

Well... I don't think I'll prove anything.
But I might come to understand things better by talking with others.

And as you're aware, you're under no obligation to engage me.

 

[Selaphiel]

I don't think you necessarily have to subscribe to love at first sight to subscribe to the idea of falling in love is not an act of the will.

I don't think the reality of falling in love something that is established by syllogisms, it is something you know through experience. I've been there myself, it really can be like falling under a spell. A person that you really just experience as magnetic. Believe, it would have been convenient if it had been an act of the will.

To reduce this to lust is simply mistaken. It is real love, very strong love as well.

 

[glassjester]

I don't think the reality of falling in love something that is established by syllogisms, it is something you know through experience. I've been there myself, it really can be like falling under a spell.

As have I.
As I continue to be!

To reduce this to lust is simply mistaken.

Agreed. They are two different things, for sure.

I don't think falling in love can take place without a great deal of cooperation or consent on the part of the will. Think about how it happens - the order of events.

You realize you enjoy spending time with a particular person. This is almost always accompanied by a physical attraction as well, right? Then what?

You willfully seek more opportunities to interact with this person. Isn't that an absolutely necessary step for love to develop?

Am I wrong about the first step?
How does it start?

 

[Rusha]

You realize you enjoy spending time with a particular person. This is almost always accompanied by a physical attraction as well, right? Then what?

You willfully seek more opportunities to interact with this person. Isn't that an absolutely necessary step for love to develop?

Am I wrong about the first step? How does it start?

Why do you believe *willfully* seeking more opportunities to interact with someone is relevant? Didn't you willfully seek opportunities to interact with your spouse?

IF someone had told you that your relationship was wrong and you shouldn't pursue it, what would your response be?

 

[glassjester]

Why do you believe *willfully* seeking more opportunities to interact with someone is relevant?

Don't you need to interact with someone to fall in love with them?

Didn't you willfully seek opportunities to interact with your spouse?

Yes, of course. Every day.

IF someone had told that your relationship was wrong and you shouldn't pursue it, what would your response be?

I would ask why.

 

[dodge]

I don't think you necessarily have to subscribe to love at first sight to subscribe to the idea of falling in love is not an act of the will.

I don't think the reality of falling in love something that is established by syllogisms, it is something you know through experience. I've been there myself, it really can be like falling under a spell. A person that you really just experience as magnetic. Believe, it would have been convenient if it had been an act of the will.

To reduce this to lust is simply mistaken. It is real love, very strong love as well.

IS your sex life worth spending eternity in hell ?

Same sex is NOT about love it is about lust.

 

[annabenedetti]

I realize that this particular conversation won't result in some great advancement in the study of human emotion. I just think it's a discussion worth having.

Like I said, I don't mean to compare myself to Plato.
But I like discussing some of the same topics.
Then again, who doesn't?

I was teasing you regarding Plato. The remainder you can consider a friendly challenge.

Well... I don't think I'll prove anything.

I don't think you will either.

But I might come to understand things better by talking with others.

You might, but I think you won't allow yourself.

And as you're aware, you're under no obligation to engage me.

I'm aware. :chuckle:

By the way, you do realize that people fall out of love.

I don't think too many homosexuals fall out of homosexuality.

 

[annabenedetti]

Same sex is NOT about love it is about lust.

How do you know that?

 

[Selaphiel]

Agreed. They are two different things, for sure.

I don't think falling in love can take place without a great deal of cooperation or consent on the part of the will. Think about how it happens - the order of events.

You realize you enjoy spending time with a particular person. This is almost always accompanied by a physical attraction as well, right? Then what?

You willfully seek more opportunities to interact with this person. Isn't that an absolutely necessary step for love to develop?

Am I wrong about the first step?
How does it start?

The seeking of those oppurtunities are driven by the attraction and cannot be separated from it. Not to mention that it can be sub-conscious at first, and when you realize it, you are already there. As far as the physical attraction part, I see no need to separate that as something special. One falls in love with a human being: flesh, blood, mind, spirit as a totality.

I think you have a tendency to having a need to break everything down into logically necessary steps, problem is that this doesn't correlate very well with experience. There is no such thing as a pure cold calculating will in all of this (not even sure it is in anything), that is a an artificial division of the human psyche into a duality of the rational and the emotional.

You are assuming a ancient Greek inspired anthropology where pathos is a negative disturbance on an otherwise purely rational mind. I've seen you advocate a thomist 'rational soul' as the defining characteristic of a human person. Personally I believe that is a rather antiquated and erroneous understanding of man. First of all, it necessarily postulates that the creation of man was an interruption into the process of evolution, rationality from above, instead of being naturally developed mental capacity existing in various intensities in nature. I don't care for that, it creates the illusion of accepting the science of evolution, when it is anything but.
idea

 

[Selaphiel]

IS your sex life worth spending eternity in hell ?

First off, what do you know about my life?
Secondly, why do you assume this was a description of a same-sex falling in love? It wasn't.
Thirdly, why do you assume that this event was about sex?

Finally. What a God you worship. If you worship a being that tosses people into eternal damnation for violating one his fetishes, then the difference between that and the devil and the choice of which to worship would have to determined by nothing except interest in self-preservation at best.

Same sex is NOT about love it is about lust.

And you know this how? Hint: You don't

 

[glassjester]

First off, what do you know about my life?
Secondly, why do you assume this was a description of a same-sex falling in love? It wasn't.

It does not appear that he was referring to you, specifically.
In other words, "Is one's sex life worth going to hell for?"

To which the answer is, of course, no.
But who is engaging in an activity, sexual or otherwise, with the intention of damning themselves?

I would assume no one.

 

[glassjester]

I was teasing you regarding Plato. The remainder you can consider a friendly challenge.

Ah, ok.

You might, but I think you won't allow yourself.

That is not good.
I hope I will.

By the way, you do realize that people fall out of love.

Yes.

Of course, I would say that happens gradually, as a result of choices made by the people in the relationship.
Choosing to prioritize the relationship, and remain committed is indeed something that must be willed.

I don't think too many homosexuals fall out of homosexuality.

Generally, no.
Though some people do have that experience.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hello Arthur Brain,

I realize this is the popular belief on the matter. But I just don't see how it could be.

Are we talking about the concept of love at first sight?
I don't think that's possible. You can't really love someone that you don't even know.

Love at first sight is a wonderful plot device for the first act of a five-act play, but hardly resembles anything we would rightly call "love," in the real world.


It could be instead that you're referring to falling in love over a period of time, over the course of repeated interactions with a person (popularly held to be outside of one's conscious control). Is that what you mean?

Well no, I wasn't talking about love at first sight anyway but rather the lack of any conscious choice where it comes to having those feelings. I would say it's more attraction at first sight in general but I'm not going to knock the idea of it being possible. What you suggest is that people can somehow, by act of will fall in love and presumably (if you're consistent) fall out of love also. Doesn't work that way. Most of us aren't automatons who can control our feelings as if flipping a switch or circuit on and off...

 

[glassjester]

The seeking of those oppurtunities are driven by the attraction and cannot be separated from it. Not to mention that it can be sub-conscious at first, and when you realize it, you are already there.

People spend time with others without being aware of it?
If Maxwell calls Joan and asks her to a movie... he is not aware that he is trying to spend time with her?

As far as the physical attraction part, I see no need to separate that as something special. One falls in love with a human being: flesh, blood, mind, spirit as a totality.

Yes. That seems true.

I think you have a tendency to having a need to break everything down into logically necessary steps, problem is that this doesn't correlate very well with experience.

It correlates well with my experience... which is to say, the only experience I can reference.

There is no such thing as a pure cold calculating will in all of this (not even sure it is in anything), that is a an artificial division of the human psyche into a duality of the rational and the emotional.

People do live their lives with varying degrees of reflection, awareness, planning, and intention.
We are able to hand ourselves over to external loci of control. That, itself, would seem to be a choice.

You are assuming a ancient Greek inspired anthropology where pathos is a negative disturbance on an otherwise purely rational mind. I've seen you advocate a thomist 'rational soul' as the defining characteristic of a human person.

Together with the body, yes.

Personally I believe that is a rather antiquated and erroneous understanding of man.

Personally, I believe it fits quite well.

Idea 1:

First of all, it necessarily postulates that the creation of man was an interruption into the process of evolution, rationality from above,

Idea 2:

instead of being naturally developed mental capacity existing in various intensities in nature.

I do not see these two ideas as mutually exclusive.

I don't care for that, it creates the illusion of accepting the science of evolution, when it is anything but.

You are saying that a belief in God's creation of the human soul precludes a belief in evolution. That it could not be God's will and the product of evolution?

I am thinking about that.

Is the automobile a natural product of evolution, or an unnatural intervention?