There is no homo or hetero. It's all just sexual.

[greenfairy]

I’m somewhat unusual in that I don’t feel any lust for someone without a foundation of something like agape forming first (I really need that foundation of respect and awe for humanity to be there)- so I do agree with your premise that love should ‘lead’ (at least, for me)- but I disagree that we can ‘choose’ anything.

Good points. Actually I do need that sort of agape love; I was merely playing the devil's advocate. While casual sex is fine for me, I define it more like a temporary spiritual love relationship expressed in the physical, with no attachment to it being more than short term (even overnight). Most people think of love as romantic, and in that sense I can do it without love. I do not believe that sex equals love, unless we are simply talking about spiritual love expressed in the physical. I do believe that it is a spiritual thing when done right, and that can mean different things for different people.

 

[Rasofy]

Denominations are rarely perfect. Some people are always deviating.

We just call them the exceptions that make the rule valid and be happy.

And that's why typology works.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

To sex is easy. To love is hard.

Just a thought that goes with our theme here.

 

[Elfboy]

I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.
Upon contemplating a hypothetical romantic partner for myself, it dawned on me that if I say, "I am heterosexual and therefore my perfect mate is a male," that is the same as saying, "I am a homosexual and my perfect mate is a female". But what if my perfect mate is actually something other than what I think I identify with? This happens in other things regarding our lives, we think we *know* something but God shows us otherwise.
I think perhaps the Godliest way to be, if we want to live in God's will for us, is to just say we are sexual, if we must say anything at all. Perhaps we should just say we are loving, because we should not really be sexing for sex's sake, but for love, making love the primary impetus for sensual and sexual relations anyway.
If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love. And we are saying that who we love is based on who we want to have sex with. We are allowing our sexual inclinations (more superficial) to dictate love. Since love is THE primary substance of everything (because God is love and God is everything), this is wrong. So, for these reasons identifying who we are based on some misguided sexual notions, is not Godly.
So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.

I think you're just going too NF Sx dom with it
but seriously, love is great n' all, but you're missing the entire point of classifying sexuality in the first place. sexual attraction is an objective, instinctual phenomenon and, for most, it occurs exclusively with one gender.

 

[Lark]

I disagree too, its not the first time I've heard this kind of thing and I think it goes beyond a contemporary dislike of labelling to a dislike of any real or potential restriction upon choice.

Although its fine not to want certain things too and to choose not to identify with them, no one should get butt hurt about it and feel rejected because like the majority of people you dont feel any sort of same sex attraction.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think you're just going too NF Sx dom with it
but seriously, love is great n' all, but you're missing the entire point of classifying sexuality in the first place. sexual attraction is an objective, instinctual phenomenon and, for most, it occurs exclusively with one gender.

I think my point is not to classify it at all. To stretch for a higher ideal.


Instead of delineating what women can do versus what men can do, women's lib was all about doing away with cultural gender roles and sexual boundaries. I think I just see this as an extenuation of that.



And don't worry, All the Other Posters who have quoted me (and those who haven't ), I WILL get back to you.

<3,
~A

 

[Elfboy]

I disagree too, its not the first time I've heard this kind of thing and I think it goes beyond a contemporary dislike of labelling to a dislike of any real or potential restriction upon choice.
Although its fine not to want certain things too and to choose not to identify with them, no one should get butt hurt about it and feel rejected because like the majority of people you dont feel any sort of same sex attraction.

^this

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I don't even really understand what Lark is talking about.

Lark?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't even really understand what Lark is talking about.

LOL. Nor me. (What's all this now about someone getting butt hurt and feeling rejected?)

 

[violet_crown]

I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

Upon contemplating a hypothetical romantic partner for myself, it dawned on me that if I say, "I am heterosexual and therefore my perfect mate is a male," that is the same as saying, "I am a homosexual and my perfect mate is a female". But what if my perfect mate is actually something other than what I think I identify with? This happens in other things regarding our lives, we think we *know* something but God shows us otherwise.

I think perhaps the Godliest way to be, if we want to live in God's will for us, is to just say we are sexual, if we must say anything at all. Perhaps we should just say we are loving, because we should not really be sexing for sex's sake, but for love, making love the primary impetus for sensual and sexual relations anyway.

If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love. And we are saying that who we love is based on who we want to have sex with. We are allowing our sexual inclinations (more superficial) to dictate love. Since love is THE primary substance of everything (because God is love and God is everything), this is wrong. So, for these reasons identifying who we are based on some misguided sexual notions, is not Godly.

So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.

Yeah, but va-jay-jays are gross.

 

[jixmixfix]

So, no, I'm not bisexual. I'm not heterosexual. I'm not homosexual. I'm just loving. And when God wants me to have a sexualoving relationship, he'll give me someone to love that I may be sexual with.

you're bi.

 

[King sns]

I'm not sure how losing your sexual preference equates to being a medium for God's love. Love your brother's and sisters, love everyone, God loves all his sons and daughters, we presume romantic love and sex is more specified than that. I'm not sure how becoming a bisexual (yes, it is previously defined, you can't un-define it) is going to equate to reaching higher ideals... Loving a greater percentage of the population in a more specified and intimate way= becoming a more loving person in general perhaps?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

OMG. Why?

AGA, your ideas on sexuality tend to be unusual and extreme and you give the impression that everyone who doesn't do or see it your way is doing it/seeing it wrong.

Most people identify as gay, straight, bi or something. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think God makes us with a potential range of sexuality. Environment, experiences, and choice can influence your development within that range. Sometimes someone can fall in love with someone who is not their ordinary preference. You get that sometimes. Just like you sometimes get albinos but most of the time, people don't have pink irises. So as short-hand we generally say people have brown, blue, green, grey, or hazel eyes. It's possible to have other colors. It's possible to get your eye poked out with a stick. But we don't have to include those things in every conversation about eye color, IMO.

As a general rule, if you have a tendency to be attracted to (or lust after) a particular gender more than the other, you're probably best off with a partner of that gender. Just like if you prefer a particular body type, you probably shouldn't pursue people of the opposite body type. Assuming God gets involved in this kind of thing at this level, he's probably going to send you someone who is your type, since he made you in the first place.

I'm born again and doctrinally Evangelical, so I understand what you're saying about the lust thing. A lot of people do not share those views. I don't think it's right to hold people that do not share those views to the dictates of those views, personally. It would be like someone giving me a hard time about eating sausage for breakfast because their religion forbids the consumption of pork or meat. Or for not covering my head when I left the house or using electricity in the house. I can eat sausage, go around bare-headed and use electricity in the house with a clear conscience because those things do not violate my beliefs. So it is with those who do not hold to Conservative Christian standards on sex.

Personally, I've never fought the temptation to lust for a woman. I'm forty-two and I've only ever fought the temptation to lust for men. Generally stocky men with big butts. I consider that enough evidence to call myself straight and probably a chubby chaser. Not saying it could never change, but it's probably fairly unlikely at this point.

Well, good for you, Cafe. I'm not quite sure what to say to most of your post. I think it speaks for itself.

But lusting is never 'okay' if you are a Christian, even an evangelical one. And God will definitely send to us who we need, if anyone. And, yes, I 'am assuming he gets involved in this sort of thing'--I'm sure he is involved in everything, everyday whether we are aware of him or not, and most certainly he'd be involved in our love partners? Anyway, I like this segway. The point I am trying to put to the forum in this matter is that the less we proscribe our life and what we think we need, the more we give God the leeway to give us what we need. Good?

That is all I mean. I suggest having a consciousness about not being so quick to assign ourselves a sexual orientation, a gender orientation, or X-orientation because then we have decided what we think we need. And once we decide what we think we need, we close off opportunities that might be Divine. Sure, we CAN do this, and we do it.

I just really advocate letting go and letting God. I'm hardcore like that. I would like to see others do the same.

I can see what you’re saying, the power of identity (and feeling like certain choices are already made for us because our ego clings to the identity) is strong, but I personally don’t have any identity issues wrapped strongly around ‘hetero’ and it still isn’t a choice for me. Maybe you don’t have a strong predilection for exclusively one direction or the other, so maybe it’s hard for you to imagine what it’s like for one to truly be there in others.

There’s a certain organic truth under the labels and while using labels is often an attempt to sell a man-made construct about ‘human nature’ as an organic truth (“If we say we are X-sexual, we are trying to control who we love.”), that works in the other direction as well: getting rid of a label doesn’t get rid of whatever underlying organic truth the label was constructed to distinguish. I don’t think we really get to ‘decide’ what that underlying truth is; self actualization is more about uncovering it than deciding what it is.

We can never really 'uncover' a mate though, like we can uncover our own selves.

I actually wish what you are saying could be true- I’ve had far closer relationships with females, in the sense that I’ve felt far more understood and related infinitely better to female friends than any guys I’ve been in a relationship with- but the appetite just isn’t there. I’m somewhat unusual in that I don’t feel any lust for someone without a foundation of something like agape forming first (I really need that foundation of respect and awe for humanity to be there)- so I do agree with your premise that love should ‘lead’ (at least, for me)- but I disagree that we can ‘choose’ anything. Regardless of how strong the bond I form, lust really only follows that foundation in relation to males for me. Trying to ‘decide’ where that appetite ‘should’ be would ultimately be forcing the issue as much as letting the established labels make that decision for me.

I'd be careful about saying you use agape love. I'd be skeptical many could. I used my example with God for that very reason. But anyway, what if you developed romantic love for a woman? Don't you think you'd 'choose' to have sex with her? Perhaps you just haven't lived long enough. Really no one can say who they are capable of being sexual with, when they haven't, and will never, be exposed to everyone in the world. It will always be a possibility. Of course, one can close that door, but that is a choice. A choice to limit your sexualoving potentiality.

I'm not sure how losing your sexual preference equates to being a medium for God's love. Love your brother's and sisters, love everyone, God loves all his sons and daughters, we presume romantic love and sex is more specified than that. I'm not sure how becoming a bisexual (yes, it is previously defined, you can't un-define it) is going to equate to reaching higher ideals... Loving a greater percentage of the population in a more specified and intimate way= becoming a more loving person in general perhaps?

Mostly I have said why above here, and in the rest of this thread. I'm talking about broadening and opening and not labeling ourselves so that we are an open pallet for God.

 

[Pseudo]

I guess I don't really feel the need to say I'm heterosexual but on the other hand I have no desire for sex with women. I don't think you need to me everyone in the works to know that you are attracted to certain things. I've had some very close female friends and some people assume we're lesbians and that would cause me to ponder "Coukd I be with this/another woman romantically". As much as I cared for these women I didn't find the idea is touching or kissing them, even embracing to be arrows in or appealing.

One thought I had reading your post was why the idea of solmate is tied to romantic/sexual partnership. Perhaps my soulmate is a woman but does that mean our relationship would need to become physically intimate. I don't think an intense emotional bond needs to become anything more than a friend ship. I think it would be fine to recognize that certain manifestations of love are only possible with given people based on our sexual preferences. I might have two very intense relationships but they would offer different things. The relationship with the man having the benefits of mutual sexual fulfillment and allowing for romantic closeness. One with a woman having the emerita of almost sibling like closeness because of the lack of any sexual tension.

I think you can let go an let god, but in my case I think gas created a heterosexual person. I think I would say more that we should be more open to having intense platonic relationships rather than feeling the obligation to specialize them

 

[cafe]

Well, good for you, Cafe. I'm not quite sure what to say to most of your post. I think it speaks for itself.

Thank you! Communicating clearly in writing is something I aspire to.

But lusting is never 'okay' if you are a Christian, even an evangelical one.

That's why I said I fight it. Temptation isn't a sin. Giving into it is. Objectifying people is wrong in any context.

I don't think sexual attraction is a sin, though. I think it is a gift from God. It gives us pleasure and it helps perpetuate the species.

We all have things that appeal to us in any number of areas. I don't think who we're attracted to is all that more spiritually significant than what foods or colors we like, to be honest. It's not what you feel that determines whether or not you are doing the right thing. It's the decisions you make and the actions you take.

And God will definitely send to us who we need, if anyone. And, yes, I 'am assuming he gets involved in this sort of thing'--I'm sure he is involved in everything, everyday whether we are aware of him or not, and most certainly he'd be involved in our love partners? Anyway, I like this segway. The point I am trying to put to the forum in this matter is that the less we proscribe our life and what we think we need, the more we give God the leeway to give us what we need. Good?

Maybe. I agonized a lot over that kind of thing as a young person. I'm not sure there aren't areas in which he expects us to use our brains in combination with wisdom from his written word. I think he cares about everything, but maybe doesn't direct everything. I'm also not sure it's not possible that each of us have several potential mates and the one we get is the one we find because of the path we take our lives on. Maybe like a choose your own adventure book. There are a lot of ways to look at something like this. I haven't decided on an absolute opinion about it.

That is all I mean. I suggest having a consciousness about not being so quick to assign ourselves a sexual orientation, a gender orientation, or X-orientation because then we have decided what we think we need. And once we decide what we think we need, we close off opportunities that might be Divine. Sure, we CAN do this, and we do it.

I just really advocate letting go and letting God. I'm hardcore like that. I would like to see others do the same.

I think not being particularly invested in the gender of a potential partner is something you're okay with because you are okay with either gender as a partner. You have historically had relationships with both. A lot of people have a strong gender preference. I don't think it's because they are less hardcore about their faith or less open to the Divine or less anything. I think it's because they aren't bisexual.

To me, you are making a value judgement about something that is value neutral. Something that none of us can really help very much. It'd be like me giving people a hard time for not liking some of the foods I like, when I, due to genetics that are completely out of my control, am physically unable to taste certain unpleasant flavors. I *know* I can't actually taste certain things so I accept what other people say when they say it tastes bad to them.

You're bi. That's okay. Good for you. Some of us aren't. Saying we're wrong for that is about the same level of judgmental as saying people are sinners for being gay. It's kind of a sucky thing to do, IMO.

 

[Sniffles]

I think I might understand the basic point being argued in the OP. It seems to be an attempt to articulate the meaning behind Christ's words of "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind....Love your neighbor as yourself." So our love for God is to be the foundation for our love for not only ourselves but also our neighbor, which in many ways transcends and probes much deeper than mere sexual attraction. This in particular runs contrary to categories of sexual orientation which are more modern in origins. And so on.

Is this fairly close?

 

[WALMART]

I understand the premise of your thoughts. Good on you. I, unfortunately, will be required to remain sitting in my unenlightened corner of the universe.


Also, I believe the increasingly popular term 'pansexual' describes your feelings on love.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I understand the premise of your thoughts. Good on you. I, unfortunately, will be required to remain sitting in my unenlightened corner of the universe.


Also, I believe the increasingly popular term 'pansexual' describes your feelings on love.

Does that mean I could love a pan?

Srsly, I doubt I fall into any sexual categories.

I'm sorta like a nun now.

 

[WALMART]

Sure. It means you are open to the concept of love applied to anything in the universe, from beginning to end and top to bottom.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Then no.


And zero points for trying.