I like discussing things with you Cancer, you're really cool to talk to.
Archsage wrote:Our minds are neither male nor female, they are what we make them to be.
That's exactly what the chart is showing though. You can be either or, or neither nor. It's really a decision you make for yourself and no one can tell you otherwise, because it's none of their business what you label yourself as- if you even decide to label yourself as anything. A close friend of mine, who is genderqueer, described it as, "Sometimes I'm a man in fierce heels. Other days I'm a woman in a suit and tie. It's really a day-to-day, wake-up-and-feel-what-you-are, sort of deal for me."
I think you misunderstood me. I'm literally saying that our minds are neither male nor female. You are equivocating my point to mean that "you can be either or, or neither nor". But that equivocation is, quite plainly, logically erroneous. Which is why I'm saying that chart is not showing my point.
Also, your friend's quote doesn't make any sense, in light of my point. Because there is no male nor female, as far as the mind is concerned. We are all equal in regards to our volition. Volition is neither male nor female, and neither is our minds. And your friend talking about what he "feels" betrays your point. Because "feeling" is just hormonal imbalance within the body. Feeling is not your volition. Feeling is not your mind.
If your friend is referring to 'gender roles', then that is something completely different entirely. For gender roles are constructs of the human imagination for the structure of society. For example, some cultures hold that cooking is the female's domain while others that it is the male's. Some that flowers and rainbows are for females while murder and killing for males. But that is based on culture and society. That has nothing to do with anything, really.
CancerianFireLordess wrote:I'm not sure if you're implying that we should "save ourselves" for one person, but if you are, allow me to respond to that. If you aren't, disregard the next essay: Your religion has steered you in that direction of thinking. Virginity as a social construct is sexist, heteronormative, it commodifies sex, commodifies young cis-het white women, contributes to rape culture, contributes to slut shaming, erases queer folk, erases tranks folk, and frames a woman's worth as inversely proportional to the number of dicks that have been inside her. Now, if it's someone's personal choice to not have sex and find one person and share that with them- fine. The point of the matter is, it shouldn't be a book filled with interpreted-by-white-men laws that we bash onto people's heads. If we want to have sex, awesome. If we don't, awesome. It's really no one else's business what we do with our bodies but our own, and I'm sure God simply wants us to be happy.
You're point here is riddled with a lot of strange red-herring remarks that couldn't be possibly addressed swiftly. So I'll ignore the bulk of it and try to get to your main point. I'm not implying that we should "save ourselves" for one person. I'm implying that we should not forsake the person that we chose. There is a difference in the mindset, as you can note.
This may sound as an aside but hear me out for a moment. I don't believe in a soul-mate. That's nonsense. There are so many people in this world, and to say that you can only connect with one is just plain stupid. Once you truly get to know someone, you can connect with literally anyone. So my point isn't at all to save yourself for one person. My point is, when you chose somebody, don't forsake them for someone else
. That's all my point is. If you really love them, and you get together, then stay together. For what reason would you just use them and then drop them, searching never-endingly for more and more and more?
If you can at least see the virtue in that ideal, then I've made my case well, I think.
CancerianFireLordess wrote:And yet homosexuality, bisexuality, and all-other-types-of-sexualities are rampant in animals (throwing humans in there aswell). Monogamy is hardly present in any other mammal, reptile, or bird-- and yes, we are human, but if we're going to bring in the "survival" of our kind into this (as if we were part of the mammals, reptiles, birds etc) monogamy and heterosexuality are hardly needed. You can be a lesbian and have intercourse with a man (obviously the woman wouldn't enjoy it, being as she isn't attracted to the man she is having sex with, but it is possible if the "survival of our kind" were in danger, my good sir. Dolphins do that all the time actually. They have their homosexual mates, then they pair up with the opposite gender for sexual intercourse in hopes of procreation, return to their homosexual partner, and resume swimming merrily down the sea of gay).
Oh, no... This part is very disappointing to hear you say, Cancer. And I'm appalled to even think about what your point is. Maybe, I'm just confused as to what you're saying but I hearing you say something along the lines of:
"Some animals are homosexual so....
" and "Some animals are polygamous/polyandrous so...
Well my response to you is; so what? I might as well start saying, "Some animals eat their own young so...
". Remember our point? About being more than just animals? Animals are beasts. They live and die and that's all there is to them. If that's all humanity is then they'll join the same fate. But we aren't particularly concerned with our bestial nature, now are we? Aren't we much more concerned with things beyond that? As in, we don't look to the beasts for our Morality. We always look to something greater
I mean, my little brother could try and say, "well I should've have to stay clean! Look at that pig, he rolls around in the mud all day!". But that would raise the question, "'lil bro, are you a pig? Or do you want to be a pig? Or do you want to be something... better?"
Besides that, I really like how you phrased your last paragraph. "Sea of gay" had me literally lol'ing for a few minutes!
Like I said, it's fun talking to you, because we can have a serious discussion without getting all emotionally bothered.