If the meaning of life is to produce off-spring.
If a homosexual couple, knowing the meaning of life is to produce off-spring. Yet they still stick together by virtue of their love.
In that case, wouldn’t you say their love, or any love that does not involve reproduction is more refined than heterosexual love that results in reproduction of off-spring?
This is obviously a refreshing… post.
Their love, our love, as long as it’s love, no need to talk about superiority or lucidity, only how much devotion showed as lovers.
I think love is love. whatever causes the whole process in the brain to begin, once it has it is pretty undeniable, in my opinion.
There are countless cases of male/female relationships loaded with as much or more adversity as any gay couple yet sticking with it. Thats love for ya, king of all chemicals.
it would have to be, yes.
do you agree that couples that are heterosexual but sterile are more refined than fertile couples ?
do you think that people who have decided to never have [any more] kids are also more refined ?
is fucking a goat, or masturbation more refined ? is abstinence more refined ?
i suppose it all depends on what you call refined, now doesnt it ?
can you weigh or measure love? how can one be better than another?
and zeno most of what you asked was about sex not love, I do hope you know the difference.
By this are you also suggesting that couples who adopt live meaningless lives? If not, then why can’t a gay couple adopt?–or if they are a lesbian couple have artificial insimination?
zeno
You have been refuted by Chetery, good to see a fresh mind at work. Anyway, yes, I would say the love of older couples are more refined than younger couples.
Chetery
I’m using this equation. People stick together for many purposes.
Stick together = Financial + Reproduction + Love
If the degree of stick togetherness is the same. For example, two couples (one hetero, one homo) willing to stick together even in life threatening situations. And assuming financial cirumstances is the same. Wouldn’t the strength of love of the homosexual couple be greater than the hetero couple?
Turn about is fair play, heh PoR.
I disagree with you, but then I don’t necessarily understand what reasons have brought you to, or why you have come to this conclusion. Love is love as Dr. S. said, and whether that love is shared in a homo, or hetrosexual relationship is beside the point.
Love is the depth of feeling, and the ideal of dedication shared between two people whether or not they are capable of reproducing. In a love that produces children that dedication is not as focused upon the other or ones beloved, and maybe in that context you are right to say that love is more refined when children are not created. But the constrictions that you seem to be pointing out within the biological inertia that is present in homosexuality does not make a relationship of that kind more refined than a hetrosexual counterpart, nor is a homosexual relationship necessarily a sacrifce of that biological need by or for the virtue of love. There are more ways to procreate than the physical act of copulation.
Refinement comes from somewhere else, and is something else, I believe.
I do realize however that your original post was structured around a logical format. And if I was to simply take what you wrote, and not add my personal opinions I would be inclined to agree with what you said, because as you say:
“If a homosexual couple, knowing the meaning of life is to produce off-spring, still stick together by virtue of their love, wouldn’t you say their love, or any love that does not involve reproduction is more refined than heterosexual love that results in reproduction of off-spring?”
But in that case what do you mean by refined? Is it the sacrifice, maybe in a Greek sense, of their “meaning of life” in order to love? They have chosen to refuse the meaning of life in order to love. Is that what you mean by refinement?
There are I think 2 apsects to the question of producing offspring.
gah so you refuse to read text as it would make sense unless i force it upon you. fiat. here goes :
it would have to be, yes.
do you agree that couples [ie pair of people that are in a relationship] that are heterosexual but sterile are more refined than fertile couples ?
do you think that people who [as part of a relationship] have decided to never have [any more] kids are also more refined ?
is fucking a goat [as part of a relationship. ie living in a house with a goat, that you treat as people would treat their spousse], or masturbation [as the visible part of a relationship with yourself that you consider exclusive and sufficient. laugh all you want, but i know people that are not commited and live like that] more refined ? is abstinence more refined ?
i suppose it all depends on what you call refined, now doesnt it ?
thanks for the clarification Zeno, but really you are still stuck on the sex, what about a couple that either can’t (disability maybe) or simply chooses not to have sex as part of the relationship?
sex is not needed for love and love is not needed for sex.
As for the offspring, well see my previous post. I suppose your guy and goat could always adopt.
Chetery
Zeno is all yours.
concordant
Homosexuals ‘sacrifice’ their meaning of life, by virtue of their love. The argument goes like this, a heterosexual couple stick together because of physical attraction, financial reasons, reproduction of off-spring… if the most important aspect of life is to reproduce off-spring. Would they still stick together if they found the other partner is sterile or barren? If yes, then what’s binding them together must be their love. Which must be greater for couples who wouldn’t stick together when the other party is sick or barren.
What about a hetrosexual couple that is never forced to make the decision of whether to stay together or not, because they are capable of having children. Is their love automatically disqualified from being as “refined” simply because they never suffer through that possibly trying, and tragic situation. It sounds like you are saying that a couples love becomes more refined if they have to live through or with that circumstance, that there is an element to that strife, and to the subsequent decision they will need to make, that causes their love to ascend in meaning, value, and/or worth. I mean some people just don’t want children. They do not feel obliged by duty to have any. Also there are homosexuals that are naturally gay, that is they do not choose to be gay, they just are. In cases like that it is not a conscious decision that is made, or a preference which occurs through volition. I have encountered children under the age of ten that had homosexual tendencies, and at that age no psychologist could ever convince me that there is a choice involved. Are these people destined, by the make up of their sexual preference, to experience a greater or a more refined love, because for whatever reason there sexual desires go against the natural order of the reproduction of life?
I don’t know PoR, your argument just hasn’t convinced me. Don’t get me wrong, because I do think there is some truth to what you’re saying, and I am glad you brought this up, but I just think there are too many exceptions for it to be a rule.
Also, in my opinion your argument would work better if you said “biological meaning of life”, instead of just meaning of life. There is more to life than just having children, and from the way you have worded your argument I believe you realize that.
Hmm, I remember a thread you started some time ago that dealt with… I think you called it something like ownership in relationships and you were talking about why promiscuity was bad, and monagamy was good. I apologize but I don’t remember the exact argument you posed. What would the difference be between a biological child with hetrosexual parents, and an adopted child with gay or lesbian parents? Would the homosexual partners, from your point of view, still fail to achieve this “biological meaning of life,” because they are not genetic “owners” of their child? And I am trying to use the word ownership in a way that is similiar to the way you used it in the thread I reference above. Also, my last question is almost exactly the same as The Underground Man’s comment.
Only if the couple actually desires children. I agree with the “might perhaps” you added in before “be considered as a greater love”, and that might perhaps is the problem I am having with the argument as a whole. I mean a might perhaps will usually mean in some instance that it is true, but it also means that it will not be true in every instance. So when is it true, and when does the argument fail, and for what reasons? And what, or to what degree is the love umm, transcendant, for lack of a better word? Does the strength, vitality, or potency of love have anything to do with having children? My answer to that question is no, but then I am really beginning to confuse myself.
Ah, but sometimes it is more difficult to stay together when children enter in to the equation. Wouldn’t love become just as refined, if the love in a relationship with children either remained at the same level of adoration, and dedication, or increased?
how about love in heterosexual couples over the age 40?
they aren’t having children…
-Imp
Why create a hierarchy of love at all? Why must one expression of love get evaluated as higher or lower than another?
I agree with concordant completely on this:
“Also, in my opinion your argument would work better if you said “biological meaning of life”, instead of just meaning of life. There is more to life than just having children, and from the way you have worded your argument I believe you realize that.”
I’ve been in love with both men and women and I can tell you that the feeling of love I had in both instances was the same. I never considered having children in either case. As a female, I feel that because I can bear children that my life would be somewhat incomplete if I didn’t. When I consider a mate for life, I guess I would choose a male over a female just for this purpose. If I were commited to a female for life and had no way to produce a child that would truly be a biological union of both her and I, I would feel a sense of dispair. I don’t know if my devotion to her, in light of the unfulfilled desire to reproduce, would make my love for her anymore refined.
It seems vortical’s personal experience has definately punched a hole in my theory. Be fair everyone, I’ve never had the benefit of her experience.
concordant
in that promiscuity post, I said. I think said that “Love is derived from the principles of ownership.”
From a non-religious point of view, I’ve always thought the meaning of life was biological. Thanks for the clarification though.
In my first post, I implied that if the (biological) meaning of life is to have kids, meaning they want to have kids, but can’t by any means. And the fact they can stand such a “meaning of life” type strain on their relationship, their love must be more refined to stand up to that test. It is similar to the situation where one sacrifice his/her life for the other, so the other can live in happiness. A lot of us can not do that. So I am guessing, that lovers willing to “sacrifice” meaning of life is more refined in their love.
If someone is born gay, doesn’t mean his love will neccessarily be more refined. Just if he knows his meaning of life to have kids, but he sacrifice it for love. So i guess, his love is more refined.
That’s disgusting!!! You have just put me off my food.