• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

Al-Fatihah

Muslim
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

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.

Response: That's a blatant lie. I never said that, supported by the fact that you cannot quote from anywhere where the words "men do not feel appreciation for being cared for". No where. You are falsely twisting my words because that is the best you can do to defend your severely flawed argument.

So your lying and strawman tactics expose you and make my argument. Another homosexual proves that homosexual sex is based on lust, not love, therefore homosexuality is wrong. As lust involves the idea of using a person sexually for your own pleasure, the same root evil of rape and molestation and since homosexual sex is based on lust, it is wrong and just as perverted and damaging as them. Thanks for the assistance and making my point.

Good day.
 
Last edited:

Draka

Wonder Woman
Response: That's a blatant lie. I never said that, supported by the fact that you cannot quote from anywhere where the words "men do not feel appreciation for being cared for". No where.

So your lying and strawman tactics expose you and make my argument. Thanks for the assistance.
You can backtrack all you like, but your words speak for themselves. And boy, you sure do like the term "strawman" don't you? :rolleyes:

You defined two "Forms" of love. You defined them, not I. Your argument as to why two men couldn't love each other is because 2 "Form As" couldn't work together. You defined women as the ones appreciative of being cared for and men as the caregivers. In order for men to be appreciative of being cared for then...they must experience "Form B" of love. But no...according to you that can't be. For that is a woman's form of love right? It's the whole reason you say homosexuals can't really love each other because there is a certain definition of love for a man and and a certain one for a woman. Don't get mad at me for being able to deconstruct your entire ridiculous argument with your own warped rules.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Response: That's a blatant lie. I never said that, supported by the fact that you cannot quote from anywhere where the words "men do not feel appreciation for being cared for". No where. You are falsely twisting my words because that is the best you can do to defend your severely flawed argument.

So your lying and strawman tactics expose you and make my argument. Another homosexual proves that homosexual sex is based on lust, not love, therefore homosexuality is wrong. As lust involves the idea of using a person sexually for your own pleasure, the same root evil of rape and molestation and since homosexual sex is based on lust, it is wrong and just as perverted and damaging as them. Thanks for the assistance and making my point.

Good day.

"Another homosexual"? You do know that the person you're talking to is strictly heterosexual, right?

Rape and molestation are non-consensual, so it doesn't make sense to compare them to fully consensual homosexual relationships between adults. There's also scientific evidence showing that expressing love is just as healthy for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals, so that demonstrates another problem with your argument.

By the way, Fatihah, you've mentioned that you live in the United States, where same-sex relationships aren't criminalized anymore. If you believe that to be an issue that affects you so severely, why haven't you moved to one of the Middle Eastern or African countries that have very strict laws against homosexual acts? In my opinion, that is an implicit acknowledgement from you that homosexual relationships either don't really affect you at all or just don't personally affect you as much as other things like general quality of life, health care, education, and other practical aspects of life. Otherwise you would have just moved to Iran or Saudi Arabia or some place where people who think like you are the vast majority.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Another homosexual proves that homosexual sex is based on lust, not love, therefore homosexuality is wrong. As lust involves the idea of using a person sexually for your own pleasure, the same root evil of rape and molestation and since homosexual sex is based on lust, it is wrong and just as perverted and damaging as them. Thanks for the assistance and making my point.
Nice add on after I already responded.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong about what you are claiming. You're just mad I tore apart your silly little excuse of an "argument". Also, appears you can't be more offensive either.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
"Another homosexual"? You do know that the person you're talking to is strictly heterosexual, right?
No hun, I simply MUST be a gay man in a woman's body. I can't be heterosexual, Al-Fatihah has declared me homosexual and we all know he speaks nothing but the TRUTH. :rolleyes: So just ignore the children I have had and that I am female...it must all be wrong. I would hate to go against the all-knowing Al-Fatihah.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
"Another homosexual"? You do know that the person you're talking to is strictly heterosexual, right?
Oh, hush, you you. It's so much more delicious with Fatihah going off his nut in the wrong direction. :)
I haven't enjoyed a thread this much since a Muslim tried to school me with his deep understanding of homosexuality.
===> Eselam & Ymir: Homosexuality <===
That thread became an instant RF Classic.

No hun, I simply MUST be a gay man in a woman's body. I can't be heterosexual, Al-Fatihah has declared me homosexual and we all know he speaks nothing but the TRUTH. :rolleyes: So just ignore the children I have had and that I am female...it must all be wrong. I would hate to go against the all-knowing Al-Fatihah.
A woman? Who knew? *falls off chair laughing*

Exit question: Why do some Muslims insist on shooting their own toes off?
I don't get it.
 

HekaMa'atRa

Member
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.

Dictionaries are not law or ethics books. I can also get a definition online that invalidates the stone age opinion/philosophy you created from your found definition. I'd love to know where you got yours from. Here's mine,

Love: Love - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1 a (1) :strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) :attraction based on sexual desire :affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3):affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates>
b :an assurance of affection <give her my love>
2:warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

Homosexuals are capable of all the above with the same sex.

Now back to what I said, I showed you how both orientations are initially sexually attracted to one another. There is no difference between the two except for the features they seek out. The love you develop comes later. Both orientations start out with a sexual attraction, both relationships that result from that attraction can develop into a romantic love. What is so hard to understand about that?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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.
Haven't we been here before? That is not a proper dichotomy here. However I will give you a true paradox in response at the end.

1. There exists no reason what so ever to suggest that whatever is true of heterosexuality goes for homosexuality.
2. It may very well be that we are all born heterosexuals but for many reasons (including possible spiritual ones) a few deviate off course and reinforce the synaptic pathways in their brains with repetitive gratification until the end result was a compulsion to do what is unnatural. I have some experience with addiction but my particular issue had no physical component but it was purely mental. I had done something for so long I had rewired my brain to think it was not only normal but necessary and it was all I could do to break it. My few physical addictions pretty much evaporated when I was born again but that mental one was a nightmare to escape.
3. Another reason would be that both may be choices where one is natural (maybe I could have chose to have homosexual desires) and one in contradiction to it but still with a similar path of actualizing.
4. Another is the relative strength of those desires. Maybe homosexuality and heterosexuality are both choices but unequal at least when young. I'm being perhaps to candid here but I had many urges as a child I finally decided were ridiculous and did not gratify. Maybe I trained myself out of all kinds of adorations that others do not.


Now let me throw my paradox at you. The positions commonly stated are perfectly natural and perfectly unnatural. But what about the very good evidence at least some of homosexuality is both not a choice and unnatural (meaning not normal). Studies I have read are al over the place but a few give great evidence that women who have many kids close together suffer chemical imbalances that produce a high rate of homosexuality. So in that case it would be non-choice and genetic abnormality like you mentioning Psychopathy above. They would not be right but be natural (in a sense). What do you do in the case that this is the same for homosexuality in general?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
You just did.


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.”

1. How in the world is in institution based on monogamy being sustained by violating it?
2. Marriage is primary practiced and lawful for two reasons. A. Because it provides the best environment for the traditional family unit. B. As a divine institution based in God's nature and commands to provide the most benefit to man. Both assume monogamy and are based on it. That does not mean it has not been screwed up by people along the way usually to horrific results but that is it's traditional basis. Before I have to deal with it even biblical cases of multiple wives God never sanctioned them, they routinely caused disaster (Islam being one), and God routinely punished them for it.
3. What is true of a relationship is not inherent to marriage. I can have relationships with friends, drugs, shoes, my appendages but marriage is unique and assumes monogamy.
4. I am not debating anything that would make open relationships a defense of. Simply having an open relationship just adds one more level of destruction to a destructive behavior. Breakdowns in the traditional family unit (and even two men or two women would be better that multiple partners) have always caused additional and massive problems to both relationships and to children so discussing them just adds fuel to the fire and is not really relevant to my primary claims.


Btw what is wrong that you won't defend? Traditional morality is out, homosexuality, abortion (I think), and open relationships are in. My point about the defense of moral insanity in secular cultures just keeps gaining traction. Is there anything right that needs to be preserved in your debating efforts? Or is whatever goes and gratifies a desire the definition of whatever is right?
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
2. Marriage is primary practiced and lawful for two reasons. A. Because it provides the best environment for the traditional family unit. B. As a divine institution based in God's nature and commands to provide the most benefit to man.
Marriage is primarily practiced and lawful for reasons alright, but not the ones you mentioned. It is practiced for security in partnership. For legal protections. For recognized companionship. There is nothing inherent about marriage that makes married people better parents nor guarantee that they will have a good environment for their family. As for your B reason...that is merely your belief, no basis in actual fact.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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. [/quotes] That is like saying homicide is ok because two homicidal maniacs can adopt a child. Not everything that has one adult or two and a child is a legitimate family. And nature is one poor justifying excuse to claim homosexuals who do so are doing so in any natural way. The vast mountain of species is never strictly homosexual and almost never has homosexual family units. Not that what penguins might do is an excuse for anything man does anyway.

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.
Rome and Greece but knowing how loath you are to consent to any idea contrary to your own these will be far too complex to be resolvable.

I don’t care what Nietzsche said about it – you just described the state of human civilization since the dawn of mankind.
I care that is why I posted it and most of academic mankind cares which is why Nietzsche is so popular and in so many libraries. Not caring may say more about you than me or Nietzsche. And not even in a single way is what I said the same in modern times as in history.

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 20th century is what I am talking about. If you deny what I said then I think no words ever spoken would make the slightest difference. Might as well say "How can I claim the sun is hot?".

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?
Nope, the US was attacked by Mexico won the war gave much of it back and forgave it's entire debt, is the only major nation to self condemn slavery plus go on to lose 300,000 men who died to free others they had never met, was attacked by Britain and defeated them, defended the freedom of others in Europe then left without keeping anything, was attacked by Japan and Germany defeating both giving back their nations plus rebuilding and protecting them for years, defended South Korea when invaded by the communist North and won but still gave back the North (that was benevolent but a mistake), defended South Vietnam for the same thing until you secularists took over but we still won (yes one) and left without keeping anything, freed Kuwait from Iraq and refused to invade Iraq or keep anything, freed Iraq and Afghanistan from homicidal terrorist lunatics then rebuilt both and at most kept a base or two. We have also been the only force capable of keeping Nazism, Communism, and Islam from conquering the whole earth. Invented countless modern marvels, first to the moon, constantly lead the world in many of the main categories of generosity and are one of the first on the scene of even our enemies when disaster strikes, introduced by far the most successful model of wealth creation in history, Actually I have to go but this list would have just kept on and on and no nation in 5000 years can match half of it.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I think my brain just had a little explosion. Did I just see a sort of comparison between "homicidal maniacs" adopting children and homosexuals adopting children? As if homosexuals are as dangerous as "homicidal maniacs" and their "family units" would be comparable? Somehow endangering children? Tell me that I didn't just read such a thing. Please.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Marriage is primarily practiced and lawful for reasons alright, but not the ones you mentioned. It is practiced for security in partnership. For legal protections. For recognized companionship. There is nothing inherent about marriage that makes married people better parents nor guarantee that they will have a good environment for their family. As for your B reason...that is merely your belief, no basis in actual fact.
I was going to just trash your claims because that is generally what I must do in general but I am going to be a little more accepting here.

I was talking about how marriage came to be an institution and your response does not affect what I said. However that institution became more complex in more modern times so it eventually came to include those things but marriage was not adopted to preserve those things. For example civil unions would do what you mention and the sanctity and majesty of traditional marriage is unnecessary for what you mention.

There are all kinds of things that in general make marriage more beneficial for the benefit of the family that civil union might or might not include. A huge one was the idea that marriage is a God ordained and not easily broken covenant made before God. A civil union laced with prenuptial agreements is more of a arrangement for convenience and far more easily broken.

I intended to just keep rattling these off but am distracted at the moment so I will wait for your response.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I was going to just trash your claims because that is generally what I must do in general but I am going to be a little more accepting here.

I was talking about how marriage came to be an institution and your response does not affect what I said. However that institution became more complex in more modern times so it eventually came to include those things but marriage was not adopted to preserve those things. For example civil unions would do what you mention and the sanctity and majesty of traditional marriage is unnecessary for what you mention.

There are all kinds of things that in general make marriage more beneficial for the benefit of the family that civil union might or might not include. A huge one was the idea that marriage is a God ordained and not easily broken covenant made before God. A civil union laced with prenuptial agreements is more of a arrangement for convenience and far more easily broken.

I intended to just keep rattling these off but am distracted at the moment so I will wait for your response.
But your belief as to how marriage came about is faulty. There has been marriage, in any different forms, throughout the world and long before Christianity sprouted its head. The practice has been held by different religions long before yours came to be. It's not that marriage has been changed or corrupted from what you believe it to be, it has always been in many different forms.

As for your belief that marriage somehow makes a better family unit or environment, there is no real basis for that. Not statistically, not in reality. A commitment to being a good parent and/or partner (there are single parents mind you) is what matters. Not whether the parents have a piece of paper declaring them "married". Again, you are basing your assumptions on religious belief, not reality.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
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.
You're lying again.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
You might want to have a handy summary in Notepad or something?
I never anticipated the issue to require it and it is too late now but your right. Actually I have been meaning of having things I constantly have to repeat ready in polished word files but have yet to pull the trigger and do so.

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.
Cheating is not part of my original claim nor even a meaningful category in any discussion. This is a sidebar of a sidebar and I am not being as careful and posting faster because I really don't care because it is irrelevant. Homosexuality is a small minority, homosexual marriage is a smaller category, and adultery smaller still, open gay marriage is almost to small to be on any map. My claims did use adultery not cheating.


Fidelity is about truthfulness, not sexual behavior. Take out the corrosive deception and it works for some to share intimacy with others.
Not in marriages. Marriages assume monogamy. In the word used for any cheating in any marriage is infidelity. Open marriages are shams and make a mockery of the institution. Just out of curiosity what vows do homosexuals even take?

Marriage had two traditional purposes until modern times (not that even that makes valid). 1. A divine covenant before God. 2. Unions meant primarily to preserve the integrity of the family unit and further it's purposes.

I have to go and am out of time.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
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?
Probably. He clearly doesn't see women as fully human, having been created for the sole purpose of making men feel powerful and virile.

He just as clearly doesn't recognize this as a personal failing, instead resorting to all the stubborn irrationality of a 3 year old to insist that his personal failure of humanity MUST be definitive of humanity. It must it must IT MUST!!!!!!!
 
Top