Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_CSA
_Emeritus
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _CSA »

just me wrote:Many of the men and women I know (who, by the way, are in hetero monogamous relationships, not that that matters) claim to feel more at ease, happier, more affectionate and are easier to get along with when they are having frequent sex with their partner. Frequent sex with your partner helps strengthen the relationship. It releases certain chemicals responsible for pair bonding. There are lots of studies that show having sex 3x a week or more makes a person healthier than those who have sex less than 3x a week. Actually, I think that for optimal prostate health men are supposed to release 6x a week (yikes).

I have never met a man who denies feeling more content, happy and easier to get along with when their sexual needs are being met.


And what about those couples who by some accident or medical condition are unable to have sex? Is their love for each other less than that of a sexually active couple? And what about the sexually active couple who do-it for recreation and without love?
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _just me »

CSA wrote:And what about those couples who by some accident or medical condition are unable to have sex?


They aren't able to enjoy the health benefits that come from sex. Although, many couples can still enjoy some type of sexual contact. The case where one is in a coma or bedridden or whatnot would be an exception. But, for example, if one partner cannot receive they can still give.

In a great number of sexless marriages, the partner who does not wish for it to be sexless ends up fulfilling their sexual needs outside the marriage or masturbates to porn. Many, many people in sexless marriages are not happy or fulfilled in their marriage. It is a common theme you will see on marriage forums.

I also feel really, really bad for couples where one get injured or sick and cannot really function anymore. It breaks my heart. Honestly. I am sure there would be a mourning of the loss of the previous relationship, I've seen a few people go through it. It is without a doubt a very difficult thing.

Is their love for each other less than that of a sexually active couple?


This would probably vary on a case by case basis. Plus, there are different types of love. We do have data that shows that sexual contact with someone releases certain hormones and chemicals that aid in pair bonding.
I have read a couple articles based on a study that shows that females can become bonded to someone after deep kissing.

A celibate relationship is going to be different than a sexual one. They can both have a certain type of deep love but the one with all the sexual hormones will have romantic love in addition. Who is to say more or less? It is just different.

And what about the sexually active couple who do-it for recreation and without love?


They will still derive the health benefits of a sexual relationship. Long term relationships, though, have some benefits that uncommitted relationships don't. And, the pair-bonding chemicals are still going to be released regardless of what the couple feels beyong the sexual attraction.

I am sure there are many married couples who do not love eachother but continue to engage in sexual activity anyway. Unless the love and respect is worked on the marriage will not last or one/both partners will begin seeking to fill needs with people outside the marriage.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Buffalo »

CSA wrote:
And what about those couples who by some accident or medical condition are unable to have sex? Is their love for each other less than that of a sexually active couple? And what about the sexually active couple who do-it for recreation and without love?


Sex is key to a healthy relationship. Sure, people can find ways to make do without, but that's less than ideal.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Droopy »

This is really silly. You could similarly characterize heterosexual behavior in dogs as mere "masturbation."


No, I would characterize it as mating behavior intended to ensure the survival of the species.

Unluckily for your position, dogs humping is not the sum and substance of the evidence for homosexuality in animals. Our closest relatives, the bonobo, are fully bisexual -- it's actually rare to see an individual that doesn't exhibit at least some same-sex behavior. Moreover, sexuality is an important component of bonobo socialization -- contrary to your assertion, same-sex behavior in this animal is not just the reduction of an indiscriminate biological drive. Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas have all been observed in same-sex acts, though with lesser frequency than bonobos.


As even posting in the Celestial room here is no proof against having to deal with the intellectual Lollypop Guild when it makes its unfortunate appearance, I suppose I will have to field this inanity before we can move back toward the ever elusive real world (its no accident, none at all, that the same people who believe in one kind of ideologically driven psuedoscience (homosexual animals) also believe in others forms (AGW, "tipping points" in the climate, Ozone depletion from hairspray cans and refrigerators, eugenics, ethnic supremacy (multiculturalism, "ebonics" etc.) evolutionary psychology, dialectical materialism etc.).

The Bonobo example is as inane as the examples of sheep and penguins. There is not a shred of evidence that these animals are doing anything more than using sexual behavior as a proxy for other emotions and drives, including general affection or bonding between individuals, dominance, aggression, and competitive territoriality. All homosexual-like behavior in nature has been linked in nature to displaced aggression, dominance, or bonding behavior in which sexual mannerisms and behavior are used as proxies for other intense feelings or drives, including mating drives which can become so intense for animals that masturbatory behavior ensues.

Saliently, the vast majority of such SS behavior has been observed in captivity, where numerous examples of dysfunctional or aberrant behavior are well known among intelligent animals, including homosexual behavior, and not in natural environments

There is no evidence at all that Bonobo behavior is anything else than homosexual-like. There is no reason to think that Bonobo's are homosexual (or bi-sexual) in some intrinsic way and is not being done as either a displaced expression of other feelings or for pure entertainment purposes.

Secondly (and why this even has to be mentioned is astonishing), we should not be looking to the animal world for cues to our own conduct. There are no ethics or morality in the animal world. There are in ours, without which there would be no tolerable civilization at all. Even if every Bonobo in a family of them ran around with Queer Nation T-shirts shouting "Gay rights now!), it would change nothing about this point. Animals do a great many things to each other and with each other that we do not, and should not, under any circumstances do.

As it stands, however, ascribing actual homosexual orientation to animals of any kind is the desperate imposition of an ideology upon a universe that otherwise, will not comply with your desires.

A substantial percentage of male sheep will only copulate with other male sheep. When you say there's no such thing as "gay" behavior in animals, you're contradicting the consensus of ethologists -- you're putting yourself above the true experts.


The very fact that the logical fallacy of "consensus" now arrives to circumvent debate is as telling as it needs to get. We've seen this, of course, in another area of pseudoscientific head gaming, so no need to point any of that out here.

In any case, ethnologists are not wildlife biologists, so why does their opinion matter? Why are anthropologists competent to judge what motives animals have for certain kinds of behavior (and, indeed, wildlife biologists aren't. External behavior, instincts and drives, yes, but motives?).

The evidence that homosexuality in humans is not a choice is overwhelming. The brains of male homosexuals are measurably different than heterosexuals (specifically, the hypothalamus is shaped differently), and this difference is consistent throughout development. Biologists have stimulated homosexuality in rats by giving them treatment that changes the hypothalamus. How could any of this be true if homosexuality were a choice?


Every statement you've made above is utterly and unambiguously bogus and long ago debunked. This is almost hilariously uninformed. I might suggest doing some serious reading on this subject and avoid taking talking points from ACT-UP fund raising literature.
No. Gay rights activists wouldn't have had a reason to bring up animal behavior if social conservatives weren't constantly bashing them as "unnatural."


At perhaps three percent of the population and given its very odd and ritualized sub-behaviors sub-identities, as well as its well documented hyperpromiscuity and disproportionate psychological problems associated with its lifestyle, that appears rather obvious


You are wrong as a matter of science.


There is no science regarding the origins of homosexuality at all, except that there is probably some genetic component or variable in at least some percent of the homosexual population.

There is no "gay gene" That is mainstream media and gay rights lobby junk science. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone is "born" homosexual, as to core orientation. Homosexuality is no more inborn than bisexuality, or a desire to engage in BDSM or any number of other sexual fetishes. Homosexuality found a political voice within the cultural Marxist/postmodern moment of the last forty years, and that's all that's ever happened to give homosexuality its halo of ideological importance and the doting over it engaged in by social leftists.

We no more about the "cause" of homosexuality in any given individual than we knew before you or I were born.

Kinsey is dead JST, long live science!
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Droopy »

Many of the men and women I know (who, by the way, are in hetero monogamous relationships, not that that matters) claim to feel more at ease, happier, more affectionate and are easier to get along with when they are having frequent sex with their partner.


Yes, but this has nothing to do with the question at hand, and sexual appetites are different for different people, there is no "one size fits all" quantity.

Frequent sex with your partner helps strengthen the relationship.


Yes, and?

I have never met a man who denies feeling more content, happy and easier to get along with when their sexual needs are being met.


Well, that opens another can of worms, suffice it to say you are yet a long, long way from world peace.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Droopy »

This would probably vary on a case by case basis. Plus, there are different types of love. We do have data that shows that sexual contact with someone releases certain hormones and chemicals that aid in pair bonding.


Yes, and that happens between a prostitute and her John as much as between anyone else.

You appear to believe, as with most liberals, following the old BTO song, that "any love is good love," so take what you can get.

Its all just chemicals anyway.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Droopy »

"If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with," right Toronto?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _just me »

Droopy wrote:
This would probably vary on a case by case basis. Plus, there are different types of love. We do have data that shows that sexual contact with someone releases certain hormones and chemicals that aid in pair bonding.


Yes, and that happens between a prostitute and her John as much as between anyone else.

You appear to believe, as with most liberals, following the old BTO song, that "any love is good love," so take what you can get.

Its all just chemicals anyway.


Mmm, no not exactly. I do believe we are capable of weighing the pros and cons of a relationship. I think that based on the benefits of a sexual realtionship that there is no reason to deny them to homosexuals except to be cruel.
I believe that the best thing to do is encourage homosexuals the same way we do heterosexuals. To practice safe sex and to consider the benefits of long term relationships. To strive for healthy partnerships that bring joy and happiness into their lives.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _Buffalo »

One of the great things about being an atheist is you get to stop pretending that humans are not, at the core, physical beings.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

Post by _LDSToronto »

Droopy wrote:"If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with," right Toronto?


The LDS church seems to put marriage above the married, so sure, I suppose it's true.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
Post Reply