A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Al-Fatihah]

What you gave was some adolescent, 1950s warped views on gender roles and declared it as proof - followed by a personal opinion on what love is. What you can't do is scientifically explain why you are sexually attracted to a woman other then they're small and soft like a puppy that you want to take care of....Oh I forgot about your personal experience and recorded data with 2 homosexuals you see at work. I'm trying really hard not to laugh here.

So I'll just leave it at this, your opinions (emphasis on opinions) on why homosexuals can only lust after one another is adorable and child-like but unfortunately can't be taken as factual.

Response: Yet you failed to refute anything stated or answer the question as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex. You failed to disprove the fact joy comes from either giving or receiving, thus failing to disprove my argument for love. Thus your own failed rebuttal makes my point that homosexual sex is based on lust and not love. Otherwise, you would be able to answer the question. Thanks for the assistance.

So I'll leave you with your utterly failed response which only helped to make my point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thus your own failed rebuttal makes my point that homosexual sex is based on lust and not love.

In the UK many gay couples have expressed their commitment by civil partnership and marriage ceremonies. So again you are just plain wrong.
If you got to know some gay people you might begin to understand that they are just the same as heterosexual people or bisexual people. They fall in love and want to make long-term commitments.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Hi. I'm bisexual. I have sexual attractions to both men and women. And I they are not "different" feelings to me. They are the same. Just as a woman can find a man attractive so can a man. Why do you have heterosexual feelings? Its not something you can simply explain.

Response: I explained my reasoning in post 89. To summarize it, love is a feeling of a appreciation for caring and protecting for someone, or being cared for and protected by someone. For example, we love our parents because they care and protect us. But why does a parent naturally love a new born child? The child never did anything for them. The reason is due to the appreciation the parent gets for caring and protecting the child. Therefore, since love is either a feeling of appreciation for protecting and caring for someone or being cared for and protected, then to love someone SEXUALLY comes from either:

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

Now when a homosexual claims to love the same sex sexually, but not the opposite, then even they are admitting that there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. Yet if their is only two genders, and only two forms of loving someone sexually, then that means that either form belongs to either or gender.

Form A must obviously be the sexual nature of attraction of men, not women, because Form A derives from the nature of a protector and in comparison to women, man's nature is in more accordance to being a protector than a woman's. For men are physically bigger and stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to engage in physical combat when there is danger than women. This means that a woman's nature to love someone sexually derives from Form B. Since a man's desire to love someone sexually derives from his desire to be the caregiver and protector of someone, then that means that he can only love another woman sexually, not a man, for there is nothing in a man's nature which makes another man love him sexually. Why? Well what makes a person want to protect someone naturally? It's someone who is sensitive, delicate, weaker, smaller, pretty, adorable, etc. Think of why we see a kitten and want to love and care for it, pet it, etc. It is because of its adorable and cuddly appearance which makes us naturally want to love and care for the kitten. For by nature, someone which is adorable and sensitive draws out one's desire to love and protect them. This is a natural reaction. This is why we feel the natural need to love and protect a child, because of their adorable appearance and sensitive nature. However, a man's appearance is not cute and cuddly. His voice is not soft and light. Thus a man cannot possibly love another man sexually, especially in preference over a woman. For a man does not possess the physical appearance necessary to draw another man to love him sexually. And since a woman's desire to love someone sexually comes from protection, then it's not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually. Why? Well what makes one see someone as a protector naturally? It's size, aggression, bigger, stronger, muscle, deeper voice box, etc. However, a woman's body does not resemble power and strength. These are attributes of men, not women. A woman's body is soft and curvy, with no muscle build. Thus it is not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually, especially in preference over men. For a woman does not possess the physical build or appearance necessary to draw another woman to love her sexually.

In conclusion, my attraction to women stems from the natural inclination in all men to take joy in protecting. An act of love. Not lust. A woman's attraction to men derives from her natural inclination to be protected. That is why I am a heterosexual.

Now I would like to have a constructive conversation. I did not get this from a religious book, but from what homosexuals themselves tell me. So if you feel offended, that is not my intentions. If you disagree, that you are entitled too. All I ask that if you think I am in error, then please do not break up my argument from the end or middle and make strawman. It is a deductive argument, meaning that one must show the premise is invalid first in order to discredit the argument. Therefore, start from the premise first. That is:

Love comes in two forms, thus loving someone sexually is derived from these two forms.

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

Please address the premise first because it is here where I draw my conclusions on homosexuality. Hope to have a constructive discussion with you.

 

[YmirGF]

Love comes in two forms, thus loving someone sexually is derived from these two forms.

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

Please address the premise first because it is here where I draw my conclusions on homosexuality. Hope to have a constructive discussion with you.

This is perhaps one of the most primitive explanations of love that I have ever seen. To address this seriously simply adds to the idea that indeed there are only two forms of love at play. It's not so black and white.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

In the UK many gay couples have expressed their commitment by civil partnership and marriage ceremonies. So again you are just plain wrong.
If you got to know some gay people you might begin to understand that they are just the same as heterosexual people or bisexual people. They fall in love and want to make long-term commitments.

Response: Not at all I know several, and not one has disagreed with me. They all admit I made a point and honestly cannot understand why they feel the way they do, but admit my position is rational.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: Not at all I know several, and not one has disagreed with me. They all admit I made a point and honestly cannot understand why they feel the way they do, but admit my position is rational.

Perhaps they just didn't want to get into a long winded argument with a person they deemed could not understand what they were saying.

 

[Koldo]

Response: I explained my reasoning in post 89. To summarize it, love is a feeling of a appreciation for caring and protecting for someone, or being cared for and protected by someone. For example, we love our parents because they care and protect us. But why does a parent naturally love a new born child? The child never did anything for them. The reason is due to the appreciation the parent gets for caring and protecting the child. Therefore, since love is either a feeling of appreciation for protecting and caring for someone or being cared for and protected, then to love someone SEXUALLY comes from either:

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

What...?
This is so messed up.

To love someone sexually has nothing to do with either of these forms. I don't know how you came up with that, but this is terribly wrong.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Response: I explained my reasoning in post 89. To summarize it, love is a feeling of a appreciation for caring and protecting for someone, or being cared for and protected by someone. For example, we love our parents because they care and protect us. But why does a parent naturally love a new born child? The child never did anything for them. The reason is due to the appreciation the parent gets for caring and protecting the child. Therefore, since love is either a feeling of appreciation for protecting and caring for someone or being cared for and protected, then to love someone SEXUALLY comes from either:

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

Now when a homosexual claims to love the same sex sexually, but not the opposite, then even they are admitting that there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. Yet if their is only two genders, and only two forms of loving someone sexually, then that means that either form belongs to either or gender.

To start I reject the premise in which you base this.

There is a sexually charged love that is often referred to as romantic love and then there is love commonly called familiar love. If you are a C.S. Lewis fan then you will know that there is a four love model. Affection love, Friendship love, Romantic love and Unconditional love. Though this model itself is flawed but it starts to show that there is far more to love than what you are showing.

Which of the 7 Types of Love Relationships Fits Yours? | Psychology Today
That is a link to psychology today on some differnet kinds of love but it further breaks it down into three main components that in different proportions create the effect of at least seven different kinds of love.
1. Companionate Love

2. Infatuation

3. Empty Love

4. Consummate Love

5. Liking

6. Romantic Love

7. Fatuous Love

At this point your whole argument has been debased. There is no innate need for a women to feel "protected" to love a man or a woman for that matter. And if that were the case then men who did not have qualities like that would be unlovable. However we know that isn't true. And men don't necessarily feel the need to protect women. There are innate psychological factors dealing with the identification and interpretation of both gender roles and the way we inherently view different sexes based on their qualities. However this is not love and your simple cut and dry definitions of them are inaccurate at best.

Form A must obviously be the sexual nature of attraction of men, not women, because Form A derives from the nature of a protector and in comparison to women, man's nature is in more accordance to being a protector than a woman's. For men are physically bigger and stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to engage in physical combat when there is danger than women. This means that a woman's nature to love someone sexually derives from Form B. Since a man's desire to love someone sexually derives from his desire to be the caregiver and protector of someone, then that means that he can only love another woman sexually, not a man, for there is nothing in a man's nature which makes another man love him sexually. Why? Well what makes a person want to protect someone naturally? It's someone who is sensitive, delicate, weaker, smaller, pretty, adorable, etc. Think of why we see a kitten and want to love and care for it, pet it, etc. It is because of its adorable and cuddly appearance which makes us naturally want to love and care for the kitten. For by nature, someone which is adorable and sensitive draws out one's desire to love and protect them. This is a natural reaction. This is why we feel the natural need to love and protect a child, because of their adorable appearance and sensitive nature. However, a man's appearance is not cute and cuddly. His voice is not soft and light. Thus a man cannot possibly love another man sexually, especially in preference over a woman. For a man does not possess the physical appearance necessary to draw another man to love him sexually. And since a woman's desire to love someone sexually comes from protection, then it's not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually. Why? Well what makes one see someone as a protector naturally? It's size, aggression, bigger, stronger, muscle, deeper voice box, etc. However, a woman's body does not resemble power and strength. These are attributes of men, not women. A woman's body is soft and curvy, with no muscle build. Thus it is not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually, especially in preference over men. For a woman does not possess the physical build or appearance necessary to draw another woman to love her sexually.

In conclusion, my attraction to women stems from the natural inclination in all men to take joy in protecting. An act of love. Not lust. A woman's attraction to men derives from her natural inclination to be protected. That is why I am a heterosexual.

Now I would like to have a constructive conversation. I did not get this from a religious book, but from what homosexuals themselves tell me. So if you feel offended, that is not my intentions. If you disagree, that you are entitled too. All I ask that if you think I am in error, then please do not break up my argument from the end or middle and make strawman. It is a deductive argument, meaning that one must show the premise is invalid first in order to discredit the argument. Therefore, start from the premise first. That is:

Love comes in two forms, thus loving someone sexually is derived from these two forms.

Form A- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one's desire to show feelings of appreciation as a care giver and protector"

Form B- "Loving someone sexually, which derives from one’s desire to show feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected"

Please address the premise first because it is here where I draw my conclusions on homosexuality. Hope to have a constructive discussion with you.

Okay. You are wrong. And we have psychology to back up my position that you are simply wrong. I can love a woman (and do) in the same way I would love a man. And for some homosexuals they would feel the way I do about the same sex but simply lack that feeling for the opposite sex and vice versa for heterosexuality.

As a proposed thought experiment would you be able to love a woman stronger than you? That doesn't mean specifically physically stronger than you but it can. What if your wife was as tall as you, made more money, was higher ranked in the pecking order of whatever industry you were at, had a higher I.Q. than you or perhaps was stronger than you physically?

Would any of those qualities (or all) stop you from loving her?

 

[Draka]

What I'm finding amusing is the assertion that men do not feel appreciation for being cared for or women do not care for their partners. In many, if not most couples, there is caring for and protection from and to both sides. A woman can protect and a man can be protected, a man can be cared for and a woman do the caring. In fact, most people usually consider a woman to be a "caregiver" in the home. These absurd and strange gender-role assignments are ridiculous to say the least.

 

[Draka]

Response: Yet you failed to refute anything stated or answer the question as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex. You failed to disprove the fact joy comes from either giving or receiving, thus failing to disprove my argument for love. Thus your own failed rebuttal makes my point that homosexual sex is based on lust and not love. Otherwise, you would be able to answer the question. Thanks for the assistance.

So I'll leave you with your utterly failed response which only helped to make my point.

You claiming that others have failed to refute anything when, in fact, they have, over and over, just shows your unwillingness to accept anything that proves you wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

You claiming that others have failed to refute anything when, in fact, they have, over and over, just shows your unwillingness to accept anything that proves you wrong.

And he wonders why the gay folks he has chatted to couldn't explain themselves. I'm leaning towards the idea that they all rightly concluded they were talking to a fence-post, so it wasn't worth the effort to help him understand.

One trick that I have employed now for over a year when confronted by an idea/person I don't wish to challenge, for whatever reason, is to say, "Oh that is a great point. I've never thought of it that way before. How terribly interesting." THAT shuts down the conversation. LOL. I am not stroking their tiny egos, I'm nullifying their effort to entrap me into an uninteresting dialogue with what I have deemed to be an intellectual hamster.

 

[Draka]

And he wonders why the gay folks he has chatted to couldn't explain themselves. I'm leaning towards the idea that they all rightly concluded they were talking to a fence-post, so it wasn't worth the effort to help him understand.

One trick that I have employed now for over a year when confronted by an idea/person I don't wish to challenge, for whatever reason, is to say, "Oh that is a great point. I've never thought of it that way before. How terribly interesting." THAT shuts down the conversation. LOL. I am not stroking their tiny egos, I'm nullifying their effort to entrap me into an uninteresting dialogue with what I have deemed to be an intellectual hamster.

Deeming them to be a hamster implies there's something actually purposely turning the wheel. Often times I think the hamster died and is just now flipping around in the wheel. thump thump thump

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Talking of dead pets.....

 

[Uberpod]

When you say that homosexuality is natural, then what is the natural way that homosexuals have sex?

I would never say that whether homosexuality is natural or not is in any way relevant to whether it is moral. I only ever say that it is natural , when someone claims it is unnatural, only because given that it occurs in nature apart from the influence of humans, it seems to meet the requirement of the term. This is a practice I will now stop. Going forward, I will just state that it is irrelevant as humans engage in many behaviors that would clearly be termed unnatural that are not ever thought of as immoral because of it. Typing right now is far from natural, but I would content completely moral.

In other words, explain how sex between those of the same gender is in accordance to nature. Also, if homosexuality is natural, then is it not also an abnormality or a dysfunction? After all, if a person is born with more than 10 fingers, two eyes or less, a tail or wings, etc. we call this an abnormality. Yet a male who is born with the natural ability to produce sperm and make a baby with a female, but has no sexual attraction to a female, why is this not considered an abnormality, rather than natural? The same applies to a female who is created by nature to have a baby by a male, but has no sexual attraction to them.

Homosexuals by and large have exact same physical ability to reproduce the same as any heterosexual. They have no disability. Their sexual preference does nothing except provide an excellent means to stop unwanted pregnancy. Virtually, every child of a homosexual was planned and wanted. That sounds pretty good to me.

When you say there is no harm in homosexuality because two people love each other and are happy, then why would it be wrong to sell drugs to someone, as long as they are consenting adults and they are happy?

I am not sure. Pharmacies seem to do just that. And, I will go on record that I think that is a good thing.

If homosexual sex is truly based on love,

It is based on love or lust or a combination just like heteros. So what?

then what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex?

I do not understand this question.

None of these questions are stated to argue that homosexuality is unnatural or wrong. Rather, I only raise this discussion to highlight the problem with the answer that homosexuality is okay because it is harmless and natural. If this is the reasoning for some, then let's not stop there. If this is your reasoning, then it is essential to justify such reasoning if you expect someone to accept that homosexuality is okay because it is natural and based on love and happiness, without answering the following questions presented above.

If people are to be free, then we must honor their pursuit of happiness as far as it does not interfere with other's pursuit of happiness. We know the risks of particular drugs, so society makes them more difficult to obtain. Do you think homosexuals who pursue their heart's desire is comparable to abusing meth?

Let's have a dialogue.

You presentation is more like a monologue because you have assumed the opposing sides foundations for them.

 

[Koldo]

What I'm finding amusing is the assertion that men do not feel appreciation for being cared for or women do not care for their partners. In many, if not most couples, there is caring for and protection from and to both sides. A woman can protect and a man can be protected, a man can be cared for and a woman do the caring. In fact, most people usually consider a woman to be a "caregiver" in the home. These absurd and strange gender-role assignments are ridiculous to say the least.

This is one of the things that made me scratch my head while reading his post.
Traditionally, women are the ones considered the "caregivers" in a household.
Sometimes they are even expected to abandon their jobs to work full-time as an unpaid "caregiver".

 

[Uberpod]

Response: Heterosexuals have sex naturally by a male placing his penis in a woman's vagina. Something two men and two women cannot do. So homosexuals do not have sex naturally the same way as heterosexuals.

Gay men have the opportunity to be entirely reciprocal in their sexual roles. This fact can mean more equality in the bedroom, and greater prowess because both roles can by envisioned and experienced by each person thus cause and effect anticipated with greater accurate empathy.

 

[Draka]

Yeah, I gotta love the inference that women only want to be protected. That they have that "need". Utter bull. One, women protect their children more fiercely than many can imagine them capable of. Second, to think that women need protection and that is what they desire is to basically say we are helpless little creatures that cannot survive on our own, that without men we are helpless. Again, bull. I have received more harm from my former partners than they ever protected me. I had to protect myself. I know how. Women are in the military, women can be strong, adept, capable of standing on their own. On the flip side, men can be vulnerable, they can need help, reassurance, care, and protection as well.

We are not stereotypes. We are not just one thing or the other. Feminine and masculine are not just definitions of bodies, they are stereotyped definitions of aspects of personalities. And both men and women have both aspects. Regardless if certain stubborn people think that otherwise.

 

[Norman]

Way more advanced? I don't think so, since quite a few animals have life-long mates, sophisticated courting rituals, and so on.
Lets not forget that we are basically animals.







i

Norman: Hi Spiny Norman, I like our names . In my opinion I do not believe we are animals. I notice a lot of post's
comparing humans to animals as in one of the same. All this in my opinion falls under Darwinism. I think we can say
we are animals in a metaphoric way of which I do sometimes myself. Anyway, good post.

 

[1robin]

Before the 50's, huh?
Built on 'Wholesome' Christian values..... you forgot 'wholesome'. Oh dear..... the evil things that folks did by twisting their faith to fit their actions. Slavery was ok because the slaves bore the mark of Cain, and all that?

What percentage of Christians ever claimed any black man that ever lived had the mark of Cain exactly? How is something said by a handful of nuts and indictment of billions or have anything to do with the faith? That is simply nuts.

1. Every religion and every atheistic utopia has commuted horrific crimes. The difference is that we have a faith that judges those who do them even if they mistakenly think they are doing them for faith. Atheists do not. That must be why that the greatest bloodletting in recent memory have been atheistic utopic tyrants like Stalin, Pol Pot. Mao, Ceausescu, even Hitler (go ahead and challenge that last one and see what happens). You can add up the hundreds of years of crusades, add in the entire 400 years of the inquisition, throw in the hundred years war (which was actually about land), and Ireland's entire history and you would have all combined what just a single minor league atheist tyrant did in the 20th century alone. And you can't find a single NT verse (you know the covenant that actually applies today) that authorizes violence in anyway. So how about a little perspective here?
2. Slaves were held by almost every culture in history but what has only one occurrence is this Christian nation which self determined to end it.
3. While Christians did own slaves there is not a single verse that allows it and so it is not faith's fault and it was mostly confined to the minority who owned plantations, even in the south most Christians never owned a single slave and 300,000 Christians died to free slaves they had never met. How many times has that happened in any other nation especially an atheistic one?

So the reality of history and faith completely demolishes your misstated and cherry picked claims.

Well, before these times your society's hypocrisy could hide from prying eyes. Today it just gets exposed, often by accident.

Oh I see so forget that the mountain of facts are against secular morality it is Christian morality (which created the public education system, built hospitals around the world, leads most private relief efforts even in secular nations, and is the most generous demographic on earth) that is the real problem in spite of the data. My Lord that was one horrific argument.

As US Christians the time has come for you to live the life of Christians, in love, understanding, care, thought and kindness.

Most do (in spite of the hypothetical handful you mention who have not) but were are not perfect. However only we have an actual objective foundation for the existence of morality in the first place. That is correct, atheism has no explanation for the existence of morality what so ever. As illustrated by when asked Jefferson (not a Christian) said God was the only foundation for rights, MLK's promissory note for freedom was written by our Christian for fathers not humanists, and the philosopher of science said that without God morally is an illusion.

Same sex love and devotion is not going away now. Many homosexuals are dedicated Christians, and I know one who is a minister. The Church of England recogniuses homosexual marriage......... Christ message is arriving, maybe?

Immorality is not going away and has always been here with people who tried to rationalize it as well. What is the point?

It is funny how you use the tiny handful to justify the church if they agree or the tiny handful to condemn it if they do not. Nice work here, not.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Midnight Rain]

What percentage of Christians ever claimed any black man that ever lived had the mark of Cain exactly? How is something said by a handful of nuts and indictment of billions or have anything to do with the faith? That is simply nuts.

1. Every religion and every atheistic utopia has commuted horrific crimes. The difference is that we have a faith that judges those who do them even if they mistakenly think they are doing them for faith. Atheists do not. That must be why that the greatest bloodletting in recent memory have been atheistic utopic tyrants like Stalin, Pol Pot. Mao, Ceausescu, even Hitler (go ahead and challenge that last one and see what happens). You can add up the hundreds of years of crusades, add in the entire 400 years of the inquisition, throw in the hundred years war (which was actually about land), and Ireland's entire history and you would have all combined what just a single minor league atheist tyrant did in the 20th century alone. And you can't find a single NT verse (you know the covenant that actually applies today) that authorizes violence in anyway. So how about a little perspective here?
2. Slaves were held by almost every culture in history but what has only one occurrence is this Christian nation which self determined to end it.
3. While Christians did own slaves there is not a single verse that allows it and so it is not faith's fault and it was mostly confined to the minority who owned plantations, even in the south most Christians never owned a single slave and 300,000 Christians died to free slaves they had never met. How many times has that happened in any other nation especially an atheistic one?

To be fair there has never been an atheist utopia. If Communist Russia is anyone's idea of a utopia then there is something wrong with them.

Though also to be fair if you want to take Stalin who was a dictator and psychopath who didn't act in the name of Atheism then it would only be fair if we added the 24.7 million people in Africa Suffering from AIDS in no small part because of the Christian influence against condoms in that region. If we're gonna make lots of indirect stretches then lets go for it on both sides.

And no. Hitler was a Christian. By your ideology he wasn't a "True Christian" but he claimed to be a Christian and used Christianity to sway people the way he wanted as part of his toolkit for WWII and especially the extermination of the Jews (that was almost a purely Christian ideology). But by the same stretch if you remove Hitler from your counts could't Atheists remove Stalin? Then where do the number add up?