Anyway, I was reading the other thread and a question popped up for me. For people who think that homosexuals getting married is a bad idea - whether or not they actually think that it should actively be prevented - do you believe that true love (however you define the term) is possible between two members of the same sex in an equivilent manner to two members of the opposite sex?
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I have been blessed with some really wonderful friends. These are friends I can say with certainty that I love and they love me as well. Now saying that, never in a million years could I ever see myself sharing with those friends what I share with my wife. becoming one in body spirit and mind with the purpose of perpetuating the human race, in my mind, is what true love and commitment is. Sure, there are men whom I love and I love my wife, but these are very different and in my opinion, as little as it matters, Homosexual love can not be as complete, fullfilling or satisfying as a committed marriage between a man and a woman.
Of course I also believe that every man and woman is free to choose how to live his or her life. and if that choice is to love a person of the same sex spirtually, mentally and phsically than, hey it's your choice to make. My beliefs and opinions just make it difficlut for me to believe that it could compare to a traditional relationship.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Said with much pain on behalf of friends I have who are homosexual.
How can it be the same?
Men and women are different. I can argue this point, but that belongs in a different thread, so for the sake of this argument, that is one of my givens.
The dynamics of love between two people who think and act different are different to the dynamics of love between two people who are more similar. The dynamics of love where the puzzle pieces fit in the biologically intended way, is different than where sex must always involve either supplemental devices or parts of the body not primarily used for those purposes. Sex acts that homosexuals can do, hetereosexuals can do. But there are things heterosexuals can do that homosexuals can't.
So no, it isn't the same.
I kind of liken it to yin/yang. Yin/Yin make a pretty pattern, and there is balance and symetry, but the interplay, connection, touching is not as complete.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Why? You seem to be basing your conclusions off of the fact what you experience with your wife is very different from what you experience with your male friends. Obviously, though, homosexual men wouldn't feel the same way about a woman as you do about your wife... they'd feel it for a man. In fact, I know men and women who DO feel stronger about their current partner who happens to be of the same sex, then they did for their spouse before divorcing.
Edit: This was addreesed to beatnix. Amka posted same time as I did.
[ November 06, 2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
What I experience with my wife is very different from what i experience with my friends. I based what I said on MY beliefs, MY opinions, and MY perspective. I also have homosexual friends and I respect their right to lead their lives as they will. But for me it is difficult to see how it could be the same. Nature/God/whoever or whatever you believe created man and womam for a reason.
but as I said I base this off of my experience and beliefs. I have never had a homosexual experience so I can not with certainty say it isn't possible they are the same I can only tell you that I find it hard to believe it can be the same.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Love has too many meanings. It is a word to big and too small for the definitions we seek.
I have never had a homosexual experience, nor do I seek one. However, to say that the sex act defines the heart seems a bit limiting to me.
It is arguable that the sex act between a man and a woman is more pleasurable, more instinctual, or more basic than that between two people of the same sex. I may not agree, but I can see how the argument can be made.
But does that meant that I love my wife because the sex is good? What if the sex is not? What if due to an illness or accident a man is incapable of performing the act of sex with his wife without the use of foreign objects or unusual arrangements? Does the love end?
Is the only reason a man should stay with a wife he can't sleep with is because of guilt or duty or legal/religious vows? Should the wife turn to the impotent husband and say, "I don't love you anymore since we can't rut like wild pigs. I hope you understand. We can still be friends."
Basic math says if A+B=C, then A must have that part of C that B is missing.
Love and Sex together are great and heavenly. Sex without Love is cheap and degrading. Hence it is the Love, without the sex, that is the divine and wonderful element.
So if a man and a woman can be in love without having sex, how can we say that a man and a man can not be in love because the sex is different?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Every individual is different. I think I can say with pretty much everyone's agreements that not all heterosexual marriages are the same. Some are very bad relationships, and some are very good. I think I can say the same thing about homosexual relationships.
If a person has same sex attraction, but is with someone of the opposite gender, that is going to make the relationship more difficult so of course, once they switch to someone they feel attraction to it will feel much better. I don't think this necessarily means that a good monogamous homosexual relationship is the same as a good monogamous heterosexual relationship.
So the real question is, is the best homosexual relationship as deep, good, wonderful, fulfilling, satisfying as the best heterosexual relationship?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
In marriage, Dan, I don't think the two can be separated so easily, though I agree that it is the love factor that is important.
I spoke mainly biologically, but men and women are different psychologically too. In some cases, this leads to difficulty, especially when there is intolerance for the way the partner thinks, communicates, and acts. But working so hard to understand someone who often thinks and communicates in a fundamentally different way than you do leads to a relationship that is deeper and more fulfilling than one in which the parties are psychologically more similar.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: The dynamics of love between two people who think and act different are different to the dynamics of love between two people who are more similar. . .
So no, it isn't the same.
Well, I can't argue about sameness because that would imply a knowledge of the straight experience that I don't have. At the same time I wonder where some straight people find the hubris to claim to understand the gay experience well enough to so quickly declare it inferior.
This discussion crops up on this forum from time to time and I have to say it seems to strike the same cord with me as listening to someone expound on why his Porsche is so much better than his neighbor's Lexus or listening to a city dweller denigrate the sub-urbs.
quote: The dynamics of love where the puzzle pieces fit in the biologically intended way, is different than where sex must always involve either supplemental devices or parts of the body not primarily used for those purposes. Sex acts that homosexuals can do, hetereosexuals can do. But there are things heterosexuals can do that homosexuals can't.
Trust me. There are quite a few sexual pleasures I can get from a man that I cannot get from a woman so I'll have to challenge your notion that heterosexuals can do all the things that homosexuals can but not vice versa. I realize that the parts in each union are different, but I doubt either side finds that an inconvenience.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Flip the argument a bit.
If the sexual dynamic of the relationship is what helps define Love as True Love then should premarital sex be condoned? Mandatory?
If not, we are vowing to God to develop an eternal, monogomous bond to someone we may not love?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: So the real question is, is the best homosexual relationship as deep, good, wonderful, fulfilling, satisfying as the best heterosexual relationship?
But is this "real question" a worthwhile one? Let's get a top of the line Mac and a top of the line PC and let's settle once and for all which is the superior platform. Or let's take the brightest black guy on the planet and the brightest white guy and settle once and for all which race is the superior one.
Why the competition? What is to be proved? What is to be gained? My current relationship fits me well and is satisfying to me. How can one that could not fulfill me be better no matter how well it may fulfill you?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
People don't have to have sex to know they are attracted to each other. The 'test drive' concept is at it's core far more false than the keep yourself sacred for your spouse concept. One is, at its core, selfish (Not gonna marry you if the sex isn't good) and the other is, at its core, based on the idea that even though they don't yet know their spouse they love them enough to sacrifice temporary pleasures in order to establish a singular and unique relationship with them. Which do you think a foundation for a better relationship?
Obviously, sex alone doesn't make a good foundation for a marriage. Sex is not love, but marital love doesn't exist without sex at some point in the relationship.
Here is a question though. Do you think that the homosexual relationship is more or less focused on sex than the heterosexual relationship? Why? What percentage of homosexual couplings lead to monogamous, stable relationships compared to heterosexual couplings? And here is another question: why is abstinance until marriage not a part of the homosexual lifestyle?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" And here is another question: why is abstinance until marriage not a part of the homosexual lifestyle?"
Two reasons: 1) Most people who engage in a "homosexual lifestyle" are going to be less religious, on average, then the average american. A good religious person would repress their sexual feelings towards members of the same sex, regardless of the consequence.
2) Gay's get can't married so the point is moot.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Karl, that was part the question of the thread.
I asked that question, but I didn't leave it unanswered because I thought the answer was obvious.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Karl, can I just tell you how much I appreciate how you always conduct yourself in these discussions? If everyone were as willing to be calm and rational as you are, we'd have a lot more productive non-fluff threads.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You know, for all these allegations that gays CAN'T get married, I find that the two couples I know actually DID get married. It may not be recognized by the state, but they had a religious wedding in a church setting with vows and everything.
For me, the important part is the vows. For richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, whether the sex is good or not.
In a lot of ways, because my own moral actions in life have proven to be so beneficial, I don't see it as a religious belief so much as a better and happier lifestyle.
Will making gay marriage recognized by the state make homosexuals actually happier in their everyday living? Will they become more moral as a group, and therefore happier?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Of all the married people I know in our peer group, there are two couples who have anything like the marriage Ron and I have. All the others are miserable, some are even adulterous (don't want to get into the cause/effect of THAT one).
We know this because the miserable bastards are always griping at us about how miserable they are. One guy even told Ron that he agreed to have another child with his wife because he knew he couldn't get custody of his daughter if he divorced her. Therefore he would never divorce her, and he wanted more kids, so why not?
Oy, that's depressing.
Anyway you slice it, true love is a rare thing, even for people with "compatible parts"
Edit for clarity
[ November 06, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I think the biggest problem with these discussions is arguments tend to rest on "This made me as happy as I can be, so it's the right thing." The problem is, of course, that it wouldn't necessarily make everyone that happy, or even happy at all.
Marriages, indeed all relationships, are about more than just love. A successful marriage needs compatibility in addition to love. A sizeable proportion of divorces stem from sexual incompatibility. It may be shallow, but it's true.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:A sizeable proportion of divorces stem from sexual incompatibility. It may be shallow, but it's true.
Hunh? Can you support that, please? I've never heard of sexual incompatibility as a primary reason for divorce. *wants to understand*
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Depending on the depth and seriousness of that incompatibility, it may not be so shallow.
It could be more of a symptom of other deeper problems. If the only sexual organs were what was between our legs, there would be no homosexuality. The part of the body that has the most influence over our sexual drive is our brain. So, a woman may be deeply turned off by her man not because he is ugly or is not good in bed, but because he is unsupportive in some way, neglectful of her, or otherwise not meeting her non-sexual needs. Then, no matter what he does in bed, it isn't good for her. If their relationship is great outside of the bed, then the sex won't matter, really. And yes, I know exactly what I said and it applies to homosexual relationships as well. My argument, while at first was very focused on sex, it has never soley been about the sex.
The things is, that the actions that work for me and make my life good are reproducible. Everyone I know who has actually lived this way with sincerity has experienced the same benefit.
We could even make an actual study. Are marriages that begin with chastity before marriage more successful than other marriages? A lot of things need to be factored in like age and income level.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I think some people are answering the question, "Is a homosexual relationship identical to a heterosexual relationship?" Thus, the talk about sex and biological differences. I would say probably not, but I don't feel like this question is important.
The real question, as posed earlier, is can the love be as strong. I would argue that, in fact, it can be stronger because people who tend to think the same tend to have better connections.
I've always found this debate amusing, of the "angels sitting on pinheads" variety. It's an interesting philosophical exercise, but really nobody knows. You could collect data and anecdotes until you turned blue, and you still wouldn't know.
I feel like many people who say that gay relationships are in some way inferior are struggling to find a justification for a religious belief. Religions pick and choose how to interpret their holy documents. The passages that would be most difficult for people to accept are demphasized, this is how a religion survives. The Torah/Old Testament tells about vicious battles, Israelites performing abortions, breaking teeth etc. These parts are rarely talked about. Catholics are now allowed to eat meat on Fridays. Other things of that sort. The relgion reshapes itself to become more acceptable to followers and potential converts.
However, for some reason homosexuality endures as a belief supported by many off-shoots of Judiasm (including most of Christianity). There is no cause given in the Bible, and recent tolerance has allowed many people to view strong, loving same-sex couples. Arguments based on breeding/sex fall apart when infertile/handicapped couples are talked about.
And so the supporters, searching desperately say, "Ok, well it can't be as good." for lack of any kind of reasoned proof.
So sad. So many families torn apart by one verse that needs to follow rules about sacrificing animals into irrelevance.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Actually, GradStudent, in my religion there is a far less nebulous reason for saying that homosexuality is a sin.
Basically, we believe marriage is eternal and that male/female are two parts of a whole that will grow into the eternities and have children. Our spirits were always one half of yin/yang (though yin/yang is not a mormon concept) and our gender has been eternal. However, we do recognize this world as a mortal and imperfect place where that gender may not be properly expressed in the body. There are, on this earth, many diseases of the mind and body that affect us in the spirit. The question is, do we control our body or does our body control us?
See, to us, it isn't what actually happens on earth that is important (except that we exercise our free agency and faith such that we can understand our true selves). It may very well be that the best, most wonderful relationship ever was a homosexual one. But such a relationship would be doomed to tragedy, because our bodies will be made perfect and all will be put to right as it eternally has been, not necessarily as it was during our very short experience on this earth. Love should be eternal, but these people would not be able to have that. Not by God's decree, but by the very nature of the universe. In their case, it is better abstain and recieve their eternal partner after this life than to be torn apart from the one they had in this life.
[ November 06, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Amka, I followed you through everything except the last line. I would argue, "Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all."
[ November 06, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I was going to ask where it was exactly that God revealed to us that our spirits have genders and that those genders are eternal, but from what I know of Mormonism I'm sure there is a scripture that explains it. Mormons usually have an answer for everything. I definitely admire their logical consistency.
That said, I believe that the human spirit trandscends gender; especially because I think most of society's ideas about gender are pretty obsolete.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Except that the person wouldn't have never loved at all. It would be only on this earth that they would miss out. Much like a person with something like cerebral palsy, or severe retardation, or some other disability has missed out on love simply because the circumstances of their life made it impossible.
In the next life, should they have otherwise been such a spirit as to be able to progress, they would recieve an eternal companion and all the joy physical and otherwise that those who gained their companion on earth enjoy. There will be many individuals who will find their spouse at that time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dan, not if you consider eternity as a perspective. Since this life is only a second compared to eternity, there's no pain or hardship that warrants giving up eternity.
quote:where it was exactly that God revealed to us that our spirits have genders and that those genders are eternal
[ November 06, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Then, no matter what he does in bed, it isn't good for her. If their relationship is great outside of the bed, then the sex won't matter, really.
I venture to say that you will find a lot more women with this opinion than men. I would also speculate that the complete opposite may very well be true; that if the rest of the marriage is great, and the sex is lacking or horrible, then that will carry over to other parts of the marriage, corrupting those parts and making the rest of the marriage bad.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Just something to say about the differences question : I know a lot of heterosexual couple who are less different from each other than some homosexual couples.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I think they call those "metrosexuals", now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Jeniwren, I don't know your religious background but there was an LDS prophet, I think it was Kimball, who said he thought the "money and childrearing" arguments causing divorce were just a cover for sexual problems in many cases. Not that the other problems didn't exist, but a lack of sexual compatibility may have reduced the incentive to solve the other problems.
I think the mental construct of romantic love is a fairly modern invention that services homosexuals as well as it does heterosexuals.
While were on Chinese philosophy, there is the epigram: When the unreal is taken for the real, the real becomes unreal . So when sex became acceptable outside of marriage, it follows that unacceptable sex will soon enter into marriage (for the society as a whole). Of course, like all opposing principles it exists in a dynamic tension. I don't hold the fatalist view that things will keep getting worse. At the same time, I have come to realize I can't always ever be yin- accepting everything without resistance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think the mental construct of romantic love is a fairly modern invention that services homosexuals as well as it does heterosexuals.
I think the ideal of romantic love is, perhaps, *the* defining trait of 'the west' that makes us what we are. I realize there is a book out there on this subject, but I've never gotten around to reading it. So, it's just my opinion.
In any case, I'm not quite following what you're getting at with this statement, and would love to hear more of what you have to say on it.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
jeniwren, at this point I don't have any concrete statistical data supporting my statement. It's an idea that I've heard many times via popular media (don't remember specific sources right now), but I suppose it falls under hearsay or anecdote right now in terms of supportability.
There has been at least one study done indicating that breakups are more tightly correlated with satisfaction than love.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Everyone I know who has actually lived this way with sincerity has experienced the same benefit.
I don't like this caveat, because that means the people who were not happy living that way, you can blame it on them. They weren't trying hard enough. It's a self-selecting pool. "Everyone who acts this way is happy." is easy to fulfill when you disqualify the unhappy people as not having acted that way.
Not that I disagree with the concept.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
Does this idea of eternity apply to everyone, or just LDS?
<small>I would know the answer to this question if the missionaries hadn't not shown up twice, and cancelled at the last minute once. Maybe because I'm Jewish...</small>
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"I would also speculate that the complete opposite may very well be true; that if the rest of the marriage is great, and the sex is lacking or horrible, then that will carry over to other parts of the marriage, corrupting those parts and making the rest of the marriage bad." -Storm Saxon
As long as we're into specultion, then based on little experience I'll speculate that if there is true love, than then and only then will the sex be really hot .
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I like oscultation, myself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: would know the answer to this question if the missionaries hadn't not shown up twice, and cancelled at the last minute once.
Oh, you've got to be kidding. I don't know what to say, except you might have some flaky missionaries. I was going to e-mail, but yours is kept private. If you want me to look something or maybe call someone, please e-mail me.
Added: *laugh* In answer to the question, eternity applies to everyone - everyone is resurrected, gets their body back, and lives forever. The "brass ring" - what TomD termed the super-duper heaven - is what we strive for. That is living forever with God.
[ November 06, 2003, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sure, homosexual partners can experience 'true love,' as defined in the popular terminology.
That still doesn't make their union eternally viable (from an entirely Mormon perspective).
Of course, I'm one of those whackos who believes that understanding God and His teachings, and following them, is far more important than 'true' love, so there you go. . .
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I don't know if the love is the same, but I tell you the lovin' is a little different. All jokes aside since I don't think a homosexual relationship is one that glorifies God, I do not think God is part of it. If God is not part of the relationship I don't think it can be all it could be.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, Ryan, I know what you mean. I just can't have the hot monkey lovin' without a deity there. It just wouldn't be the same.
*Installs new eyebolts in her bedroom ceiling*
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh, and I also meant to say that (though I have no support for this other than my parents' marriages) BAD marriages can also last a lot longer than they otherwise would if the sex is good. Like, if it's semi-abusive/controlling type of thing, but the person is a really tender, skilled lover. I know it happens, though I can't speak to statistics.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Katharina,
If by happy, you think I mean everything is peachy king hunky dory wonderful, you'd be wrong. Because there is a lot of crap that happens in life, no matter how good you are.
The happiness is seperate from environmental factors.
And yes, I believe and have since I was a teenager that I'm the only one responsible for my happiness. I can choose to be happy whether life is good or not. The thing is, when I choose to be happy I'm more able to logically deal with and make decisions that affect the outcome of the crap that so regularly occurs in life, so that it has a neutral or positive outcome rather than a negative one. So life is better than it otherwise could be.
But there ARE actions I take that I think diminishes possibilities of crap. For instance, I've never had to deal with a drug or alcohol addiction in either myself or my family members (word of wisdom), bad credit rating (live within your means and have honest dealings with your fellow man, though I recognize that medical stuff could change that or a job loss where we couldn't pay the mortgage) or creditors, being a single parent (chastity, choosing a good spouse, communication and continuing to work on marriage), having friends do stuff to me behind my back (don't gossip, think of the other person's feelings, don't stab other people in the back, and don't push other people down to become popular or powerful or whatever)...
The list could go on. Having a moral life makes a happier life, but I also say that one can choose how to react to whatever bad comes their way. By sincerity, I meant that one embraces the ideals rather than thinks of them as shackles. If one does not live by their ideals with sincerity, they will soon abandon them.
[ November 07, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was thinking about this subject last night. I'm taking the religious aspect completely out of the equation, for the moment. I understand and respect your (generic you) religious arguments but that is not the issue I wish to focus on and I'm not addressing that in this post.
My question to myself was, "Would I still be in love with Steve if he was a woman?" I view gender stereotypes and the acual sex of a person as two different things. I have a much more "masculine" persona in many ways than an average female. I started trying to figure out what would change in personality if Steve was female and my answer was, probably nothing.
I realized that he and Mackillian are a lot alike in the smart-aleck department, despite Steve being male and Mack being female. This is a specific example but one where I was clearly able to isolate personality and attitude separate from gender. Also, of the two of us, Steve is the more nurturing (a feminine stereotype) in a lot of ways.
I am a person who has been equally attracted to males and females in the past. I never acted on my feelings for female friends because by the time I identified my own feelings of attraction I knew the other person was straight and I wouldn't intrude on their boundaries. Plus at that time I hadn't resolved whether the aforementioned feelings were morally wrong in my own mind.
When I realized that I was genuinely attracted to females as well as males(after having been in a relationship with Steve for years) I then had a choice to make. Did I wish to terminate a wonderful relationship (on both the sexual and intellectual levels) on the chance that there is a female companion for me out there? Or did I realize that finding an awesome relationship like Steve and I have is a rare find indeed, regardless of the gender of the person.
I genuinely think I fell in love with the person, not the gender.
One of the ironies I find in all of this, is that my parents have regular hissy fits over Steve and I being unmarried and buying a house together. But if I did have a girlfriend that I bought a house with, they are so sheltered, they would never dream it was a lesbian relationship. It wouldn't even cross their minds and they would consider it a good economic investment.
AJ
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Having a moral life makes a happier life
And here I've been deluding myself this whole time thinking I was enjoying my life.
If you believe that you need to be righteous in order to please a God, of course you'll be happy when you do so.
If your happiness doesn't depend on keeping commandments, I don't think that unintentionally doing so is going to give you much more joy.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
MrSquicky loves to bring up hard topics, doesn't he?
quote:do you believe that true love (however you define the term) is possible between two members of the same sex in an equivilent manner to two members of the opposite sex?
I don't think I can truthfully answer this because I have no idea what a homosexual person feels for his/her partner. I have never experienced that.
That said, I do have a cousin who is gay, and was very very torn up when his roommate of several years left him. It was all the same emotions I have seen people go through in divorce.
In my own life, my love for my husband (although I don't have one now -- I'm divorced) was a very different love than the love I had/have for my children. They were both complete and intense, but different. So I wonder if the love between same-sex partners would also be somewhat different (but not LESS) than the love felt between opposite sex partners.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There is a difference between having loads of fun and having lasting joy that stays with you even when life is definately not fun.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That was a very moving and honest post, AJ. Thanks.
This has been a better-than-average thread on homosexuality overall. <--metrosexual smilie, haha
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:We could even make an actual study. Are marriages that begin with chastity before marriage more successful than other marriages? A lot of things need to be factored in like age and income level.
Amka. There have been studies done comparing marriages/divorce rates of couples who cohabitate before marriages with couples who have not. I'm not sure about more general chastity studies , but I think so. I cannot recall the results of any of these studies, sorry. Bob Scopatz or Mr. Squicky or someone else here might recall results or could quickly find a link to the studies.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:There is a difference between having loads of fun and having lasting joy that stays with you even when life is definately not fun.
How do you know?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
/rant/ Unfortunatly the Christian community I grew up in were some of the most miserable people I have ever had a chance to witness. Genuinely unhappy people going around pretending and believing that their current misery was really happiness or joy, when all you had to do was talk to them for 5 minutes to realize how little joy or happiness there was in their lives because of their self imposed prisons.
Once I was no longer in that environment, I became amazed at how many people both religious and non-religious out in the world are genuinely happy, despite difficult lives. I feel sorry for the people who have accepted a counterfeit believing that it is God's Will.
(the problem I have is that now because I am so skeptical I can't figure out which religion has the least amount of counterfeiting going on)
/endrant/
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Interestingly enough (quite surprising to me), there's apparently rather a lot of research that shows a strong correlation between pre-marital cohabitation and divorce.
However, I disagree with the conclusions many people are drawing from this correlation. The problem with research like this--in fact, with quite a lot of research in the social sciences--is that it only demonstrates correlation, not causation.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I unfortunately couldn't get the full text of this study, but apparently there's some evidence that religion isn't necessarily much of a help for overcoming divorce.
quote:What is even more surprising is the discovery that those who are more religious and attend church regularly are more likely to divorce when they are less satisfied with their marriage. It is possible that a belief in a greater being, as well as a supportive church network, provide a security and an added insurance when faced with an unhappy relationship.
quote:Genuinely unhappy people going around pretending and believing that their current misery was really happiness or joy, when all you had to do was talk to them for 5 minutes to realize how little joy or happiness there was in their lives because of their self imposed prisons.
There are some people who feel the same way about San Francisco. . .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Genuinely unhappy people going around pretending and believing that their current misery was really happiness or joy, when all you had to do was talk to them for 5 minutes to realize how little joy or happiness there was in their lives because of their self imposed prisons.
AJ, I know what you mean. I believe that happens, too.
Admitting you're unhappy in some areas is like... admitting a failure. Or, alternately, like saying you've lost your testimony. Obviously, since the gospel makes people happy, if you're unhappy, you're not keeping the gospel.
I believe deeply and completely that keeping commandments will make you happy, but sometimes its an average. It doesn't mean you'll be happy at every moment. I think the myth that you will be happy at every moment stops people from admitting when they are not, because saying they are unhappy and they want something to change would be tantamount to announcing yourself as having lost your testimony and/or not keeping the commandments. In that case, it's like announcing you're a failure. That's a horrible cycle.
Sometimes (often) unhappiness is caused by not keeping commandments, and sometimes it is a matter of will. Not all the time, though, and creating an environment you're not allowed to admit you're unhappy and hence not allowed to ask for help makes a lot of secretly miserable people.
-----
Having said all that, hands-down the happiest people I know are my dad and stepmom, who say all of the above. It's incredibly annoying.
[ November 07, 2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Going to church regularly makes you a church goer, but not necessarily spiritual.
How do I know, saxon? Well, I haven't, but my husband has experienced both sides of the coin. He owned a dance club in Moscow before he moved here and converted (before he met me.) He says he is happier and better off. He says life is more 'real' now.
Why, at a Christmas party I attended, could the non-drinkers get up and dance and have a great time making fools of themselves way before the drinkers, who needed a couple of drinks (or more)before they could make a fool of themselves?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So, based on your life experiences and those of the people around you, this is true for you. No disputing that. Are you stating this as an opinion, or as a universal truth?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My browser blocks your second link on marriage statistics. But most of the Focus on the Family studies are incredibly biased and deliberately skewed by income levels to give the results they quote. Also they quote single sentences of studies so out of context you really don't know what the study was actually saying. I don't put a lot of stock in anything Focus on the Family says because it is so biased and been known to cough up bogus or horribly skewed data in the past.
Some of those "Journals" the are quoting from are far more biased than your ordinary scientific peer review journals, even if they are peer reviewed. If there is any data indicating the opposite direction do you think Focus on the Family is going to mention it or convienently ignore it like they do with so much else? (I was raised in a family that hung onto Dr. Dobson's every word so I've had probably 20 years of experience dealing with this organization.)
I have yet to see a study where they removed the unmarried inner city demographic from the equation and looked at the situation by income level. Also at the age of persons when they get married or begin cohabitating and the breakup rate.
Also dkw gave a statistic recently where the percentages of relationships lasting longer than 5 years were equal in disolution rate for both married and non-married couples.
Often long term cohabiting couples are very happy with their arrangements and see no real reason to get married. They may get married if they decide to have children because of legal issues but that is often the only reason. So a cohabitation that doesn't lead to the "end all be all" of marriage, may not be because of a breakup at all, but because the couple is happy with their current status.
AJ
(Also if you tally up the references only 7 out of the 15 are less than 10 years old, and some of their most definitive statments come from the most outdated research.)
Edited for incoherency.
[ November 07, 2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: Why, at a Christmas party I attended, could the non-drinkers get up and dance and have a great time making fools of themselves way before the drinkers, who needed a couple of drinks (or more)before they could make a fool of themselves?
Why do people have to be fools to be happy?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote: I believe deeply and completely that keeping commandments will make you unhappy
Haha
The myth is that we will always enjoy our life. That happiness and/or joy means we can smile and mean it. That we will never get burnt out, or crash, or get depressed or angry. That we will never have bad things happen to us.
This is not true. And I think a very, very important thing that people miss is that they may actually feel good about what they did in the past, even though the event at the time was so hard they nearly broke. That is part of happiness, even though it wasn't fun at the time.
And again, I think it is possible and important to _decide_, to _choose_ to be happy even though that person stole your wallet (to use a general example of something we might have no control over). It doesn't affect who we are. Deal with the inconveniences and live. Accept, do what is necessary, and live. Nothing affects who weare, except what we do, and everything we do is our choice including how we emotionally react to what life gives us.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I agree. I just don't see the part where God is required.
See, now we've gone and ruined a perfectly good thread on homosexuality.
[ November 07, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Heres an example of the lovely logic used by Glenn T. Stanton the writer of the first little peice from Focus on the family on homosexual marriages. I don't care whether you are pro- or anti, any self-respecting Jatraquero should have a problem with the faulty inductive reasoning displayed here.
quote: Q: But isn’t it better for a child to grow up with two loving same-sex parents than to live in an abusive home or be bounced around in foster care?
A: You’re comparing the worst of one situation (abusive heterosexual parenting) with the best of another (loving same-sex parenting). That’s apples and oranges.
Actually, research reveals that child abuse is at its lowest when children live with both biological parents compared with higher rates for children who live with at least one nonbiological parent or caregiver.(1) Same-sex parenting situations make it impossible for a child to live with both biological parents, thus increasing their risk of abuse.
Those who want homosexual marriage are not asking to take the children living in the most difficult situations, so it’s intellectually dishonest to preface the argument with that claim. They are asking for the same thing all parents desire: healthy, happy children they can call their own. So let us dispense with the idea that same-sex couples will serve some high social good by only taking children in the most difficult situations. They have never asked for this.
He takes what he calls uncomparable apples and oranges and then promptly compares them. Not to mention all of the gay couples who DO ask to take in special needs children!
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ami:
I think I'm objecting terribly to your posts because it isn't actually helpful to anyone who is unhappy. It's part of a larger theory, but it doesn't help. It's like telling someone who is drowning to "Swim, just swim. You're not swimming." What if they don't know how to swim? Or they're caught in a current. Or their arm is broken and they need to learn a different stroke.
The solution may be to swim, but telling someone that is only the first step. It's like a giant HowTo on the beach in Hawaii: "When caught in a current, the Maine people say to swim."
The appeal of a different life may be that the people with that life are showing you how to hang on to a passing dolphin. It's not a long-term solution, but if you're about to drown and only being given a commandment instead of a hand, it's better than drowning. And if swimming was so great, wouldn't someone who knew how to swim give a hand instead of letting you drown?
[ November 07, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
saxon,
Let us say that I state this as a hypothesis. I've come across some indications that it is true. In order to prove it, I would have to conduct a well designed and thorough study. To get the best results, it should probably follow people from childhood to death.
Oooh, good story idea brewing....
BTW, while I used to use those studies about cohabitation, I now realize that they were designed poorly and didn't take such factors as income level and emotional stability into account. There may be some correlation, but probably not causality.
Frisco,
What we were doing was throwing off our adult selves and having fun as children would do, without any thought to what others thought of us. That is what I called 'making a fool of themselves'. There is all kinds of fun, and dancing around and doing silly stuff is one of them. Personally, I just found it sad that people needed a few drinks before they could loosen up and have that kind of fun.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: Actually, research reveals that child abuse is at its lowest when children live with both biological parents compared with higher rates for children who live with at least one nonbiological parent or caregiver.(1) Same-sex parenting situations make it impossible for a child to live with both biological parents, thus increasing their risk of abuse.
1. There isn't a big enough for all the flaws in that argument.
2. Just wait 'til we start cloning!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
AJ:
Just so you know, I wasn't really trying to prove a point with those links. I just thought the information was interesting, for what it was.
Amka:
Fair enough. So your hypothesis is that living a moral life is the only way to live a truly happy life. Or maybe just the best way. Does that mean "living within whatever moral code you happen to truly subscribe to" or does it mean "living within the moral code that I subscribe to?" Or something else?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
As someone who didn't swallow a drop of alcohol until after I dropped out of college, I've been on both sides of the fence.
I realized that it wasn't as much about needing a drink as wanting a drink. Some people are self-conscious. That's one thing I enjoyed about growing up in the LDS church...you learn not to be. But self-conscious != unhappy.
I was once the guy bragging about not needing booze to have a good time. I've since become less self-righteous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You grew up LDS?
How did I not know this?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah saxy, I know, the organization Focus on the Family is a hot-button topic for me, because so much of their research is lousy.
Back in the mid-early 80s they did some good when they decided that homeschoolers were actually acceptable in "christian" society. Before that point my mother was often persecuted in the church for homeschooling my brothers and I. However many of the people who then jumped on the Christian fundamentalist homeschooling bandwagon, decided that since they were raising their daughters to be wives and mothers, they really didn't need higher education like the boys did. This has led to some terrible travesties. I know of both personal and general examples. My mother has run several independent study programs to aid homeschoolers and in the last 10 years she has become increasingly fed up with the anti-academic culture that many homeschoolers have embraced. I'm not saying that Focus on the Family started this but they were definitely a catalyst towards this trend.
(note: none of this applies to LDS or non-fundamentalist homeschoolers who seem to have sucessfully avoided this pitfall)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and I apologize for going so far off topic!
AJ
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Damn. You're not putting my name on a list or anything, are you, Kat?
[ November 07, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
More like crossing off. Sorry. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Excommunicated! By a chick! Oh, the shame!
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Swimming is a bad analogy for me, since I was never afraid of water and swimming (at least to the point where I didn't drown) was more or less instinctual.
But I think I get what you are saying.
How do you simply choose to be happy? Let us take the stolen wallet as the example.
What has the man taken from you? Your credit cards. Cancel them. Your driver's license. Get a new one. Some cash. It might make things tighter this month, but in a year or two it won't make much difference to your financial situation. So, there are physical consequences to his actions on you. Take care of them. A little stressful, but you've done harder things.
Now, what else has he done to you? Nothing, really. He cannot change who you are or take anything of real importance from you. Let it flow over you like water off a duck's back. What other good things do you have in your life that he did not touch? Friends, work, church, etc. Pull on the positive and realize that it outweights this particular bad experience. Think of what you might have learned from this bad experience to prevent it from happening again. Okay, so now you are smarter and your new debit card can actually scan well. And your new driver's license picture looks better.
Now, compare your life to what kind of life the person who stole your wallet is probably leading. Your wallet may have improved his life far more than it took away from your life. Or not. He may be on drugs and homeless. So who is better off? Be grateful for what you have. Count your blessings.
Attitudes that may detract from happiness:
Comparing yourself to the Joneses (I would only be happy if I had what they have).
Being a martyr. (I do so much for everyone at such sacrifice to myself, I'm so good and I get so little recognition for it, but "sigh" I'll keep on.)
Living in the past (It was so wonderful back then, if only it could still be that way OR My life sucked and because of what happened, I will have problems the rest of my life because of it.)
Living in the future (Things will be great when X happens) The future is always uncertain. X may never happen. Take what you have now and make good out of it.
Make a list of the good in your life. Be grateful. Think of what it COULD have been, and thank whoever you need to thank for it. I'm getting more and more convinced as I grow older that gratitude is a very important part of being happy.
[ November 07, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the unspoken martyr thing was definitely going on in the community where I grew up. However, they thought that was what they were SUPPOSED to do to make themselves happy.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ami, I'm not sure if we're having a discussion or I'm getting preached at. Is your post a statement? Who are the second-person imperatives addressed to?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I do think there are circumstances worth grieving over, to stick with behavior and not puffy "moods" like happiness. So when my son died, I think God understood me feeling sad. If such a thing were not to make us sad, why would God mind that so many of his children were lost to Him (the one who went after Lucifer and were never born). Likewise, a lot of people who don't marry or have children have a serious gripe in that they are experiencing the state of those same spirits- stopped in their progress without increase. The up side is, I know this life will be over relatively soon, and we will go on to new and even more interesting challenges. So unless I learn to deal with challenges, I'm going to wind up riding around on a cloud playing a harp instead of learning how to do Outside travel. And if that doesn't scare you straight, I don't know what will.
P.S. As to Romantic Love being the defining characteristic of Western Civilization, I think followers of the LDS church have pretty well established that we are barbarians and not members/admirers of western civ.
[ November 07, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: 2. Just wait 'til we start cloning!
I've been toying with a story idea about a gay couple who do have a biological child. They are able to do this because the (future) fertility clinic they go to is able to extract the DNA from one partner's sperm and insert it into an artificial egg, then fertilize it with the sperm of the other partner. (This could work for lesbians by putting the DNA from one partner's egg into an artificial spermatazoa, though lesbians could only have female children).
I was running the premise for this story idea by a doctor friend of mine just to see if the concept was ludicrous and he said that as far as he can see the theory here is sound, though the technology isn't available yet. Once it is, though, many of these issues will be moot because they will have biological children and those arguing the "gay marriages are inferior because they can't have kids" will have to find some other excuse.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
that would be a cool story! AJ
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:They are able to do this because the (future) fertility clinic they go to is able to extract the DNA from one partner's sperm and insert it into an artificial egg, then fertilize it with the sperm of the other partner. (This could work for lesbians by putting the DNA from one partner's egg into an artificial spermatazoa, though lesbians could only have female children).
You'd have to guard against the possibility of a YY pairing, but presumably such a futuristic clinic would be able to discriminate chromosomes pretty well. Interesting idea.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
The simple answer, is that I thought we were having a discussion. You, Katharina, questioned me, and I clarified. You, Katharina, asked a question about that, I answered. Do you think I should have witheld information I knew simply because I was worried that you, Katharina, might think I was preaching at you, Katharina?
When I wrote that, I knew you, Katharina, would read it, but I was writing it to everyone.
Just so you know (and now I think you realize that the the "you" is directed at specifically at Katharina) I was very concious about changing all my second-person imperitives to "we" in the rest of my posts because I was worried about that you would take it personally and be offended. I figured with the wallet story, you would realize I was using an example, since I assume that you haven't had your wallet stolen (an admittedly non-logical assumption) so you would take it as the story I meant it to be. Another clue that I was making up something that I knew didn't apply specifically to you, is that I preceded my story with "Let us take the stolen wallet as the example." Then I forgot to switch back. But you notice I made an entire list, and I did not think that any of those necessarily applied to you. I simply listed the things I was taught that lead to our inablity to choose happiness. I had forgotten those specific things, and I should have thanked you, Katharina, for reminding me to go back to the basics.
When I write, I am hoping everyone is reading. You are the only person that I've come across that takes personal offense of my use of the second person imperitive when there is a discussion.
And so, I will address you, personally, in the second person imperitive and say that another key to choosing to be happy is to choose to believe that people have good intentions in whatever they've done (since you know my penchant for using second person imperitive and we've had this discussion before) and to not take things as a personal affront when they slip into old habits that are writing technicalities.
[ November 07, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: You'd have to guard against the possibility of a YY pairing, but presumably such a futuristic clinic would be able to discriminate chromosomes pretty well. Interesting idea.
Yes, I've thought of that. I believe I've also read somewhere about some advances in producing an artificial egg for use in cloning, so I don't really think the possibility of two men having a biological son together is all that remote. I kinda hope someone somewhere is secretly researching techniques to bring this about. The need to keep such research secret, though, should be obvious.
I bet the financial rewards for perfecting this technology would be enormous as all those gay couples with above-average disposable incomes take advantage of the opportunity to become biological parents. I'd jump at the chance (though I'd probably be just as happy raising a child that was a genetic clone).
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
A mini-Karl???
I want one!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And so, I will address you, personally, in the second person imperitive and say that another key to choosing to be happy is to choose to believe that people have good intentions in whatever they've done (since you know my penchant for using second person imperitive and we've had this discussion before) and to not take things as a personal affront when they slip into old habits that are writing technicalities.
This is an old discussion. It goes back to the other thread (I think - they are all mushing together.)
I figured you weren't talking to me because we HAVE had the discussion where I mentioned the second person imperatives do not sound like a discussion. I never did find out what you thought about me mentioning that, though.
It's like when Olivet called me on giving up for the night on the debate and just calling it a sin - I was shutting down my part in the discussion because I stopped using the language my intended recipient could relate to. We don't require investigators to learn the language of their missionaries, but the other way around. I'm not talking about watering down gospel concepts to make them palatable, but instead not, oh I don't know, not using acronyms for everything and the familar tu when vous is more appropriate.
Added: I'm not unhappy because you used small sentences and second person imperatives. I am less receptive, however.
[ November 07, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Oddly enough, I really try to avoid "you" in these types of discussions but when I use the less confrontational "one" I start feeling like I'm coming across as a pedant.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: A mini-Karl???
While I don't think scientific curiousity is sufficient justification for having a child, I do think it would be a fringe benefit to see how a biological clone might grow up differently than I did. (And what if he grew up straight? Boy wouldn't that be an embarrassment to some of the "gay-gene" crowd?)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I never held the "cannot reproduce" card because there are many heterosexual couples that are infertile, and many of those are only infertile in combination with each other, not necessarily individually. Or put more accurately, in combination with someone else. I have a friend who will probably never have kids, and I think it's sad that she is much less likely to get married for this reason. But I think it's right for her to keep informing serious boyfriends of her condition, and I can understand why they have all split.
It's funny that "U" mention that gay couples tend to have more disposable income, since that would only last until they do have children. Unless U meant to imply that the gay lifestyle is more prevalent among the well to do. Do ya'll think gay parents would be more or less likely to do the stay at home parent thing? I am sure the technology will be pursued. Though by the time we get to that level of technology, if there is a gay gene, it would be possible to select for it. However, if homosexuality is caused by standing too near the microwave or watching Brad Pitt movies while pregnant...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As to Romantic Love being the defining characteristic of Western Civilization, I think followers of the LDS church have pretty well established that we are barbarians and not members/admirers of western civ.
Given the number of Mormon women on this site, and others that I've heard them speak about, who are remaining chaste until they meet their 'true love', rather than settling for mr. right now; and given the Mormon belief that people remain married forever, I do not see how the above could be at all true and, in fact, I think Mormons are probably the biggest proponents of romantic, courtly love on the planet. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:It's funny that "U" mention that gay couples tend to have more disposable income, since that would only last until they do have children.
I don't think anyone said that gay couples tend to have more disposable income in general. I think what Karl said was that any gay couples who did have more income would be all over such technology, which is different.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Stormy, that's sweet. I think, though, if you're judging by Hatrack women, your sample pool is undoubtedly skewed.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Give me Raw, Unbridled Monkey Love™ any day.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
See, now about the Monkey Love... Ron is the only lover I have ever had. Today is our 11th Wedding Anniversary, actually.
And he can still make me lose the capacity for rational thought with a touch of his sweet, soft lips. *sigh*
So the Hot Monkey Love and Lifelong Monogamy do NOT have to be mutually exclusive, I promise.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Oh, I never meant to imply that they were mutually exclusive. I merely prefer it to "romantic, courtly love". Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know in re-reading this thread, I wish I could delete all of my posts except the my first post on the first page. That was the one that I had actually thought out the most and was saying what I really feel.
AJ
(I mean I know I can actually physically delete the rest of the posts but I think it would cause too many gaps in the thread and I'm not a post deletion advocate anyway)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I bet the financial rewards for perfecting this technology would be enormous as all those gay couples with above-average disposable incomes take advantage of the opportunity to become biological parents.
I guess where you have two men together, assuming there is still a gender gap for income in America, they would tend to be better off.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Well, factor in a more expensive wardrobe and more hygiene products than most men, and it probably evens itself out. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Stormy, that's sweet. I think, though, if you're judging by Hatrack women, your sample pool is undoubtedly skewed.
Unless your church elders tell you who to marry, the woman still gets to have final say in who she marries. Now, I'm not saying the woman doesn't marry the first guy she meets, but it's still her choice.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Not sure about the definition of romantic, courtly love. To me, romantic = emotional = changeable. Courtly love is the idea that you carry on a relationship with some kind of ideal person who is not your mate. So I don't see either applying to the ideal of eternal marriage.
There is a bit of "destined for each other" but soulmates have been declared heresy by at least one Prophet of the LDS church. when I don't know who it is, my memory always makes it Kimball. Though I'm going to go out on a limb here and say McKay. But then, Mormons have an easily misunderstood view on destiny. In one sense, the only people who will fulfill their destiny are those who do not go with the flow. Maybe sometimes. I don't understand it fully myself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:the only people who will fulfill their destiny are those who do not go with the flow.
I'm not sure which flow you're referring to. *asks for clarification* Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The flow I'm referring to includes The Natural Man, Society, Culture, the road paved with Good Intentions.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Since I don't have a clue what true love feels like, Mr. Squicky, I honestly don't know. I have yet to have a lasting romantic relationship with anyone, and have no prospects at the moment.
Perhaps it's sour grapes, but I'm not even sure how much true love matters anyway.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
pooka- no soulmates?! Now I feel terrible for Elder Kestler! You mean he lost Julie for no reason?!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I realize there is a book out there on this subject, but I've never gotten around to reading it. So, it's just my opinion.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't know what to say, except you might have some flaky missionaries. I was going to e-mail, but yours is kept private. If you want me to look something or maybe call someone, please e-mail me. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
All jokes aside since I don't think a homosexual relationship is one that glorifies God, I do not think God is part of it. If God is not part of the relationship I don't think it can be all it could be.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
<--metrosexual smilie, haha
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Bob Scopatz or Mr. Squicky or someone else here might recall results or could quickly find a link to the studies.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)