A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[SkepticThinker]

I went to a civil partnership ceremony a few years back, a gay couple who had been together for 40 years. Sounds like a bit more than lust, doesn't it?
( civil partnership was what gay people had in the UK prior to the introduction of gay marriage )

There's a couple in my office that have been married since it was legalized about 10 years ago, here in Canada. They're the sweetest most caring couple I've ever seen together - gay or straight.

But apparently we're not supposed to talk about individual cases like this ... people are more comfortable generalizing and demonizing people as a group.

 

[Uberpod]

I have already posted stats in every category I listed including that one and will get around to piling on more soon but first I wanted to see what they said to what I did. If you want them in the meantime search my posts in other homosexual threads where I really piled up mountains of stats. I just can't repeat that whole process for every new poster.

You might want to have a handy summary in Notepad or something?

I did not say it was cheating but it in fact is cheating.

I guess I was safe in assuming!! Cheating is breaking the rules -- they were not playing by your rules! You can't call it cheating because others are not playing your game.

Infidelity is never fidelity.

Fidelity is about truthfulness, not sexual behavior. Take out the corrosive deception and it works for some to share intimacy with others.

What vows do homosexual marry under for pity sake?

Some are quite traditional in the 'not hetero but everything else sense'. Other couples' vows do not mention or imply monogamy. The rules of the couple themselves are established privately.

I said it was adultery and it is that also.

What you say does not matter to someone else's marriage.

Your actually proving my original argument. Btw have you went back and looked at my main contention yet. What your responding to was really just an off ramp and had nothing to do with it but proves it anyway. Promiscuity is the problem and what produces the damages I listed in my original claims. Admitting it is certainly no defense. Welcome, but I am burned out in this thread, and I have to go for today. Have a good one.

We are not saying the same things. You are a member of the crowd who wants to exaggerate the promiscuity of homosexuals and pretend it is across the board. The study alluded to in your quote 1) only included gay men 2) only included 13 % married couples and 1/3 who had any kind of public semi-official establishment of the relationship. Some of the couples in the study were only together 3 months 3) included San Francisco residents only. Soooo - that half had an open arrangement tells us nothing about the typical married homosexual couple.

Hope you got some rest!!

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

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?

Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on the two descriptions above. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am confused. I know exactly what your trying to get to but I have no idea how this is a step in that direction. I just don't get it.

Well it’s a step in that direction because creating a family … creates a family! I’m really confused with your assertion that creating a family unit leads to the breakup of the family unit. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Maybe, what I am saying is that immorality has destroyed empires and homosexuality was among those they committed. I don't know if homosexuality alone can destroy an empire (actually strict homosexuality would destroy the human race) but it is not hard to see that it would be a contributing factor but my statement was more general. Many times a new nation or empire has tore of from an older corrupt one and for a time tried to stay away from the evils that led them to leave. However as Taylor's cultural lifecycles predicted they eventually grow in their moral integrity until they are complacent and eventually start slipping into the same habits they broke from. If you look it up democracy's particular steps include leaving tyranny, establishing faith, growing strong, becoming complacent and fat, slipping into mediocrity with the loss of faith, then moral insanity and finally either collapse or being marginalized. You can see that occur in many nations pasts.

Which empires are you talking about? It is hard for me to see how the existence of homosexuality would be a contributing factor to the downfall of an empire.

Nope, as Nietzsche said since philosophers killed God in the 19th century the 20th would be the bloodiest in history and general madness would prevail. There has never been anything like this and I don't mean only the technological ability to kill more but the willingness to use it and do so. There is no longer anywhere for a morally indignant population to escape to. The US was the last great light on the hill and it is quickly being extinguished. There has never been anything like this.

I don’t care what Nietzsche said about it – you just described the state of human civilization since the dawn of mankind.

If you think the twentieth century is the bloodiest 100 years in human history I really have to wonder what on earth you are talking about.

The stuff about the US being the only “great light on a hill” is merely subjective opinion from a person who lives there. I’d much rather live in Canada than the US. So what?

It isn't. At best there are only a handful of homosexual family groups in nature proper and not one strictly homosexual species.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say. So what if there are no strictly homosexual species? Humans aren’t a strictly homosexual species either.

On what basis can anyone justify claiming that homosexual couples who adopt are legitimate and natural family groups. I am trying to keep my theological hand behind my back but it is hard to do so. Why must I argue from half of reality (and the worst half).

Umm, on the basis that two parents and a child can constitute a family. Who cares if it’s “natural?” Two grandparents raising a child isn’t exactly natural in the sense that you’re talking about but I wouldn’t say that doesn’t amount to a family unit. Would you?
What half of reality do you think is being omitted here?

You must do far more before you can even suggest what I said is theoretically bad.

I have done much more in past discussions with you, and you know it. In fact, I’ve gone through most of the links you have posted in the past (but have not posted here lately) one by one to point out where the errors lie.

I do not know how good I am but I have never ever personally restricted a homosexual from doing anything but despite that almost half of them I have known have destroyed themselves.

I know plenty of heterosexuals who have destroyed themselves. Should I attribute that to their heterosexuality, or is there more to it than that? Come on.

I judge a behavior not a person or try to.

Except the behavior of expressing love which you don’t even seem to consider in homosexual couples. Only the sex is what seems to concern you so much. Of course, that assumes that all there is to homosexual relationships is sex and nothing more. Which I’d say is demonstrably false.

I am sure telling thief he is acting unjustifiably is demeaning but it is also true. I try and never personally impose on anyone but if something which I say is true and just so happens to be inconvenient for someone who is voluntarily listening and I have justification for saying it I really don't care to much. I am not, will never be, and resent the suppression of truth gained by the enforcement of political correctness. It is evil. BTW I take my own medicine, if I do evil and that evil is called evil, I never contend with the one saying it. I agree and repent and try to do better. I never act as if the one saying so was wrong because they are not.

Well, I don’t see stealing as anywhere in the same camp as being attracted to a person of the same sex.

I guess what I’m waiting for is for you to demonstrate that same-sex love is evil in any way.

Like I said, I find your cost-benefit analysis to be one-sided, erroneous and just plain bizarre. Why don’t you try putting one together for heterosexuals? I think you may surprise yourself.

 

[Koldo]

Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on them. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.

1) Honestly, have you never felt horny after looking at someone without wanting to protect her? If not, I need you to understand that a lot of people have.

2) These two forms can't be sufficient in themselves to create sexual love. Otherwise, most daughters would feel sexual love towards their fathers. There is something missing from this explanation. Now, what is it?

 

[Draka]

Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on the two descriptions above. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.

Your entire "point" is ridiculous because you try to attribute "giving" and "receiving" to just one gender or the other. As if men only give and women only receive, which is utter bull. As I pointed out before, men receive caring and protection from their women just as women are capable of giving those things. A true and honest equal relationship consists of both parties caring for and protecting each other. Since both genders are capable of doing that then what genders are in a relationship doesn't matter. The commitment matters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have never ever seen a stat that did not show that homosexual relationships do not produce higher rates of adultery, lower span of marriages, higher rates of intimate violence, even lower general relationship commitment.

You just did.

Actually lets start with this bizarre article I just happen to run across first.
Homosexuality:Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage?
By Nicole M. King
www.MercatorNet.com
June 4, 2014
While progressives and liberals argue that homosexual “marriages” or unions are no less stable than heterosexual marriages, even if they are right, the monogamy of such relationships might nonetheless differ. Recent research indicates that homosexual couples are more likely to be permissive of infidelity and open relationships.
An article in The New York Times explains that recent research “reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians…The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years – about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."
What is peculiar in these cases is not just frequency of outside sexual activity, but that partners are aware of, and consent to, such infidelity. In fact, the article cites a previous study which “concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer [than monogamous gay relationships].” Because monogamy is often not expected, and infidelity is consented to, by the other partner, outside sexual activity is typically not a likely reason for terminating a homosexual relationship.
In contrast with the expectations among “gay marriages,” recent research indicates that adultery is likely the greatest factor in causing divorce among heterosexual marriages. Thus, the expectations and norms regarding fidelity seem to differ greatly between heterosexual and homosexual couple. Perhaps defining stability in terms of the mere duration of the relationship is not enough to capture what ought to be the relevant factors when considering a “stable marriage.”
Homosexuality: Infidelity is the key to a stable marriage? | Virtueonline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism
Take that first line as evidence of calling right wrong that I had mentioned. Gays have to cheat to now save the marriage. What planet are we on?

I will respond with something Draka said:
“Um, how is an open relationship cheating if both agree that that is the relationship they want to be in? And really, those of any orientation may have those types of relationships as well. Certainly not something blanket for one sexuality or another. Also, would it be considered that polygamous marriages are inherently cheating within their relationship? Relationships are complex creatures in and unto themselves. Having the legal classification of "married" does not make a relationship, nor define for everyone what their relationship must be. It is merely a legal commitment, the actual agreed upon personal commitment is what makes a relationship. Like, a couple could be together for many years, decades even, and not legally marry, yet some would foolishly judge that relationship negatively just because it doesn't have the title of "marriage" upon it. Even though it may be longer than most "marriages" and the people may be more "faithful" and even more content.”

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on the two descriptions above. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.

That's a beautiful, adorable opinion that holds no factual truth. Now, I'd like to see you address my previous post on what each orientation finds sexually attractive and how that potentially develops into a loving relationship not based on your primitive notions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh come off it. You should know very well is not even close to being an established truth. I have seen just as many scholastic papers suggesting it isn't as say it is. However that is boring let me ask you and interesting question.

Some homosexual causes are neither choice nor natural. What do you think about the research that shows genetic mistakes produce chemical imbalances in women who have multiple children in a short time frame that may produce a homosexual child. I am not going to bother arguing whether that is true. At this point no one knows the facts here. But if it is not a choice nor is genetically normal what do you do then. That is an interesting dilemma. If you say that make sit a valid practice then you must say psychopathy is also a justified practice.

Please tell us then, when you chose to be heterosexual.

Without having the time to check your facts on this claim (which I think is slightly off), doesn't that reinforce the argument that homosexuality is not a choice?

Also, psychopathy is not a practice.

 

[McBell]

Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on the two descriptions above. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.

One wonders why you keep claiming it is on everyone else to prove your claims false?
You have not shown your claims to be true.
Thus there is no reason to take them seriously.

One also wonders why you ask for other to provide you with something you just flat out ignore?

Candid discussion my ***.
You even lie in the thread title.

 

[YmirGF]

One wonders why you keep claiming it is on everyone else to prove your claims false?
You have not shown your claims to be true.
Thus there is no reason to take them seriously.

One also wonders why you ask for other to provide you with something you just flat out ignore?

Candid discussion my ***.
You even lie in the thread title.

Go figure, eh?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Sexual attraction to a person may actually come after personality and emotional attraction. Plenty of people meet over the internet, often times without seeing a pic of each other first and are drawn to who they are as a person. They fall for the person without ever having met them in person. In fact, as is often noted, one can fall in love with a person and the sexual attraction grows from there. That is, one can fall in love with a person they don't immediately find attractive physically, but as the emotional bonds grow, so does the physical attraction.

Now, given that both heterosexuals and homosexuals (and bis of course) fall in love over the internet, or phone, or what-have-you, (hello, blind people fall in love sight unseen all the time) then it would also make sense that, since homosexuals aren't obviously able to judge looks or attraction before having seen someone, that there cannot be just lust there. Lust requires "oh, I just wanna bang that cause it's so hot". If a person falls for another they haven't seen, or over time grows to love someone they initially didn't find their physical "type", then obviously there is certainly more than "lust" involved.

Response: Lustful relations as defined in my premise is when your desire to receive affection supersedes the desire to show affection or make others happy. Not just something physical. So your position is invalid. Furthermore, it only continues to make my point as usual that it is lust, by claiming tto in love over the Internet with someone you never saw or has done nothing for you. That shows that it is your own desire to receive affection that draws you to the person, which is lust. Not love.

 

[McBell]

Response: Lustful relations as defined in my premise is when your desire to receive affection supersedes the desire to show affection or make others happy. Not just something physical. So your position is invalid. Furthermore, it only continues to make my point as usual that it is lust, by claiming tto in love over the Internet with someone you never saw or has done nothing for you. That shows that it is your own desire to receive affection that draws you to the person, which is lust. Not love.

Your inability to see anything other than what your beliefs dictate to you is the problem here.
You also seem to not know the definition of "invalid".

 

[McBell]

Go figure, eh?

His ignoring me is another indication that he had no intention of having a "candid" discussion.

I suspect he has no idea what the word "candid" means.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Now that others have shown you just how ridiculous it is to only define love within a romantic and sexual relationship as you say - we can move on from those stone age notions since we know your opinions on what love is holds no factual truths.

So let's once again answer for you why a homosexual is sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite and why a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex, but not the same sex.

When a gay man looks at another man he may be attracted to his face, voice, eyes, lips, hands, arms, chest, build, frame, behind, skin tone, his haircut, hair color, his confidence, personality, his style, and later potentially his private parts.

When a straight man looks at a woman he may be attracted to her face, voice, eyes, lips, breasts, legs, frame, hair style, hair color, behind, skin tone, her confidence, her personality, her style, and later potentially her private parts.

Now obviously this is just a rough picture of what a heterosexual and homosexual man finds attractive but it answers what these two orientations are looking for. A gay man looks for masculine features while a straight man looks for feminine features. Why you ask? Because we're all wired differently.

But what we do know is what starts as a sexual attraction can later develop into a romantic loving relationship for both sides, depending on what kind of chemistry you both have and if you both click. Your personal definition on what love is doesn't refute that.

Response: Words are defined by a dictionary, not you. So since my definition is supported by a dictionary, which is to care and protect someone, it is valid. Your logic fails.

Then you answer the question as to why the same sex love each other sexually but not the oopposite is because they are wired differently, which makes my point. As the difference Iis lust. So such an answer is not a disproof of lust.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

Response: I never said men do not feel appreciation for being cared for. Another strawman. This is your problem. You read my response, then interpolate your own words to try to justify your position. If my argument was so invalid, you would not have to keep building up strawman arguments.

 

[Draka]

Response: Lustful relations as defined in my premise is when your desire to receive affection supersedes the desire to show affection or make others happy. Not just something physical. So your position is invalid. Furthermore, it only continues to make my point as usual that it is lust, by claiming tto in love over the Internet with someone you never saw or has done nothing for you. That shows that it is your own desire to receive affection that draws you to the person, which is lust. Not love.

Go ahead, keeping talking, with every post you just continue to prove just how much you don't know and are completely making up.

My guy and I fell in love over the internet. We met in a chatroom 10 years ago. Neither one of us had webcams. We just chatted online for a few months, progressed to phone calls as well after that. It was actually quite a way in before either of us actually posted pics of ourselves. Not that it mattered anyway, we were already hooked. We were telling each other we loved the other over the phone...before ever having met in person. We were concerned for the other, always asking how the other was doing, complimenting each other, laughing together. When we could finally not take not meeting anymore we arranged a mutual vacation and met up in a town sort of in the middle between us...causing each of us to drive roughly 12 hrs to get there. When we met it was wonderful. We knew everything about each other, we fell into sync. Truth of the matter is, that neither one of us were what the other typically went for physically. We both admitted that if we had met in person first, that neither of us would probably have thought to approach the other. However, since the emotions grew first...our attraction to each other physically was there...because we loved each other. Saying goodbye at the end of the vacation was hard. A couple months afterward he quit his job, packed up his car with everything he could fit in it, and drove halfway across the country to live with me. You don't do that for lust. You can fulfill lust locally. You don't give up the life you have and trek across the country to a place you've never been before and have to start all over for lust.

This sort of thing happens all the time. With an extreme variety of people. Differing sexualities. I know what I was feeling in those chats I had with him, and it wasn't lust. It's love...and has been for ten years now.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Go ahead, keeping talking, with every post you just continue to prove just how much you don't know and are completely making up.

My guy and I fell in love over the internet. We met in a chatroom 10 years ago. Neither one of us had webcams. We just chatted online for a few months, progressed to phone calls as well after that. It was actually quite a way in before either of us actually posted pics of ourselves. Not that it mattered anyway, we were already hooked. We were telling each other we loved the other over the phone...before ever having met in person. We were concerned for the other, always asking how the other was doing, complimenting each other, laughing together. When we could finally not take not meeting anymore we arranged a mutual vacation and met up in a town sort of in the middle between us...causing each of us to drive roughly 12 hrs to get there. When we met it was wonderful. We knew everything about each other, we fell into sync. Truth of the matter is, that neither one of us were what the other typically went for physically. We both admitted that if we had met in person first, that neither of us would probably have thought to approach the other. However, since the emotions grew first...our attraction to each other physically was there...because we loved each other. Saying goodbye at the end of the vacation was hard. A couple months afterward he quit his job, packed up his car with everything he could fit in it, and drove halfway across the country to live with me. You don't do that for lust. You can fulfill lust locally. You don't give up the life you have and trek across the country to a place you've never been before and have to start all over for lust.

This sort of thing happens all the time. With an extreme variety of people. Differing sexualities. I know what I was feeling in those chats I had with him, and it wasn't lust. It's love...and has been for ten years now.

Response: Okay. Since you are yourself a homosexual, then you are the best person to talk to on this subject by far. So I would like to ask you some questions and for you to answer honestly, for my position as I stated before is based on what homosexuals themselves tell me and since you are one, then I would like to show you exactly what I mean. May I ask you some questions that you can honestly answer too? Nothing serious.

 

[Draka]

Response: I never said men do not feel appreciation for being cared for. Another strawman. This is your problem. You read my response, then interpolate your own words to try to justify your position. If my argument was so invalid, you would not have to keep building up strawman arguments.

Oh bull. That's exactly what you said. It was your "argument" as to why men couldn't love men. Your stupid argument of two "types" of love ONLY. Let me refresh the memories here:A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality | Page 17 | ReligiousForums.com

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"

You declared A to be a man's love and B to be a woman's. Utter nonsense. your whole argument hinged on that men have one type of love and women another. You placed men in the "strong club wielding provider/protector" role and women in the "help I need a man to take of weak little delicate me" role. You argued that two men couldn't actually love each other because two As couldn't function together and vice versa. I already addressed this as well, but you didn't quote that post did you? You didn't address how men and women have both abilities and that a relationship is based upon equal caregiving and protection from both sides.

 

[Draka]

Response: Okay. Since you are yourself a homosexual, then you are the best person to talk to on this subject by far. So I would like to ask you some questions and for you to answer honestly, for my position as I stated before is based on what homosexuals themselves tell me and since you are one, then I would like to show you exactly what I mean. May I ask you some questions that you can honestly answer too? Nothing serious.

Yeah right. You really are clueless aren't you? And like anyone would want you twisting their words around and telling them how they "really" feel as if you know better than they do.