I know, right? It seems to me that the linked list could almost appropriately be renamed, "79 Cesspools That Actually Belong in the Middle Ages."
-
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
- Thread starter Al-Fatihah
- Start date
I know, right? It seems to me that the linked list could almost appropriately be renamed, "79 Cesspools That Actually Belong in the Middle Ages."
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No, that was not what I was saying. Do not presuppose I have any PC tendencies. I don't know if stigmatize is the right word but I consider homosexuality wrong in general. However that is primarily a theological and semi-practical view. My arguments have only been about the secular issues of homosexual sex acts. Since non one could invent a reason why that argument was actually wrong the discussion has taken several off ramps into all kinds of issues which I don't have any "official" claims about. I have been commenting on them at times and my original argument has been lost.
I did suggest any remedy or law. I am afraid you saw a post I made that was of a subcategory which was a remotely related subcategory to my original argument. At this point I gave up on anyone doing anything to dent my primary point and have just kept busy commenting on sidebars but I did not say anything like what you claim I did. I have no solution, I have no laws anyone should pass, I do not care what secular medical establishments suggest should be our response, and I am not judging a single person. I am judging a sexual practice which is a component which I consider wrong but have not been arguing was.
Now if you want to make posts to me about these sidebars and peripheral issues that really don't impact my original argument I can comment of them once you understand that is what I am doing and realize what I am not doing. So read this, re-calibrate, and then fire away.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I'm telling you, the homophobia in this thread is really really making my gif favoring self want to start doing nothing but post gifs of gays kissing. See if it makes them uncomfortable enough to show their true bigotry and homophobia to just leave the thread once and for all.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thank you for the thorough reply. I think if I took people as their are, I'd probably not be on a religious debate site because sometimes debating is another form of not just saying your views are right which is fine, but it's saying the other is wrong.
Other than that, the points you make. I don't really want to have a full discussion on it since you have with other people already. Since I think you are focusing on the actions, yes, I can see why it would be wrong maybe in a Christian perspective. Whether homosexuals add to human misery, that's open to debate only because it doesn't matter what their orientation is, people add to human misery anyway. Let me see, I would have to know what type of expenses that add to heterosexuals' misery. I mean, even that statement makes me cringe.
Anyway, I have a hard time accepting what to me seems completely, no insult intended, ridiculous. However, people have their views and its knowing that the majority vote makes the minority feel less human. -shrugs-
Other than that, the points you make. I don't really want to have a full discussion on it since you have with other people already. Since I think you are focusing on the actions, yes, I can see why it would be wrong maybe in a Christian perspective. Whether homosexuals add to human misery, that's open to debate only because it doesn't matter what their orientation is, people add to human misery anyway. Let me see, I would have to know what type of expenses that add to heterosexuals' misery. I mean, even that statement makes me cringe.
Anyway, I have a hard time accepting what to me seems completely, no insult intended, ridiculous. However, people have their views and its knowing that the majority vote makes the minority feel less human. -shrugs-
As long as the gif posts have comments posting relevance to the thread, it won't be spam.
*nods and winks*
You know you want to.
Heck, I don't like to be in front of anyone kissing: I don't care if it is opposite sex or same sex. Watching someone smooch (my word for passionate kissing) when I can't get any of the action is kind of depressing.
Al-Fatihah
Muslim
Homosexuality is natural because lust is natural. This however makes homosexuality wrong because sex based on lust and not love is wrong. The issue is that homosexuals and even heterosexuals fail to determine or distinguish the difference between love and lust. That is why in the entire thread, when asked to state what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite, not one person could state in one word the reason. When the reason is clearly given that it is lust, everyone lives in denial. Even a gay member on this thread stated that he is in a relationship with someone he found on the internet, he never met or saw him, and claims to be in love. That is not love. That is lust. Of course, the denial to this prevents people from seeing it.
No homosexual can honestly say that love is the reason behind having sex, which has been demonstrated throughout this thread. Loving someone is to care and protect them, and no man ever born can honestly say that they have a natural desire to protect another man so much that it causes arousal. It's a lie. Your arousal does not come from protecting, it comes from lust. Similarly, no woman can say the same for another woman. It is lust. Clearly.
Yet with all of this talk about homosexuality is fine because it is harmless and people should love and be with whomever they like, I wonder, what about beastiality? There are people who have sex with animals. Are we to now say that this despicable act derives from love as well and not lust? That people should be able to marry even animals? It is crazy to see how a human society demoralizes itself by calling lustful,sexual acts like homosexuality as something that is fine and acceptable. Yet I bet they become hypocrites if their child or friend or relative wants the same rights if they wanted to have sex with animals or incest.
Another example of the critical issue of homosexuality and its displacement and demoralization on human society.
No homosexual can honestly say that love is the reason behind having sex, which has been demonstrated throughout this thread. Loving someone is to care and protect them, and no man ever born can honestly say that they have a natural desire to protect another man so much that it causes arousal. It's a lie. Your arousal does not come from protecting, it comes from lust. Similarly, no woman can say the same for another woman. It is lust. Clearly.
Yet with all of this talk about homosexuality is fine because it is harmless and people should love and be with whomever they like, I wonder, what about beastiality? There are people who have sex with animals. Are we to now say that this despicable act derives from love as well and not lust? That people should be able to marry even animals? It is crazy to see how a human society demoralizes itself by calling lustful,sexual acts like homosexuality as something that is fine and acceptable. Yet I bet they become hypocrites if their child or friend or relative wants the same rights if they wanted to have sex with animals or incest.
Another example of the critical issue of homosexuality and its displacement and demoralization on human society.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There's been 3 bisexuals in this thread alone who have shared how loving romantically and sexually male and female is not only possible, but has been applied.
False and insulting equivocation. Look up informed consent and how important that is to sexual ethics as opposed to outdated gender roles. It will help to understand how we have progressed into a better understanding of same sex relationships.
Replace "homosexuality" with "homophobia/transphobia/sexism", and I will agree with you.
Oh my goodness, you're right. He was talking about YOU! That's hilarious! LOL
Draka
Wonder Woman
Yeah, your previous post...You could have just left it at he doesn't pay attention. That explains the whole thread. lol
I have waited 24 pages t reply to this thread, but I have been following it off an on. This entire thing is irritating and uninformed though.
You have absolutely no context on what "love" or "lust" constitutes, to everyone, because you cannot speak for the whole of society or people. Straight, gay, and bisexual people all lust, and they all love.
I, as a bisexual man, have loved another man, it is completely possible. And no, it was not "lust". Although I don't see what the issue is with lust either? Both are necessary in a relationship, as in lust = sexual attraction.
Incest is wrong because it cause irreversible genetic damage to the offspring conceived.
Bestiality is wrong because an animal cannot give consent, and then there is the entire slew of cross-species diseases that can occur. Take the origin of HIV for example (This was obtained by eating monkey meat tainted with SIV).
Pedophilia is wrong because regardless of whether a child "consents" (I use consent really really lightly) to sex or not, the experience is traumatizing and detrimental to them because their brain is not developed enough to comprehend the sexual act.
Homosexuality is not wrong because it takes place between 2 consenting adults, in love or lust (either is ok in my opinion).
Draka
Wonder Woman
Unfortunately @The Hammer , he will only tell you that what you feel you don't actually feel. He's just that narcissistic and deluded to think he knows better what other people feel than they do. He NEEDS to believe things a certain way to maintain his delicate religious house of cards. Remove one and it all comes tumbling down.
Watch, he's already denied me being in love even though I said I was because, for some reason, he thinks I'm a gay guy. If he ever pulls his head out long enough to realize I'm a heterosexual woman I'm betting he'll change his tune. Suddenly I won't be a gay guy "in lust" with my hubby, no...then it'll miraculously be "love" because we're straight.
Watch, he's already denied me being in love even though I said I was because, for some reason, he thinks I'm a gay guy. If he ever pulls his head out long enough to realize I'm a heterosexual woman I'm betting he'll change his tune. Suddenly I won't be a gay guy "in lust" with my hubby, no...then it'll miraculously be "love" because we're straight.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Hi...my name is dgirl1986 and I am a lesbian....*cough*
Look, seriously, it is not just about lust. It is not just about physical attraction. It is so much more than that and more complex that that.
Imagine marrying a woman with the personality of man. How would that go for you? I imagine that I lot of men who expect women to be feminine would have a hard time with a dominent and very masculine partner.
A bad example but it gets the point across. On top of liking the way they look are connections of different kinds like intellectual attraction. How they speak. How they walk. How they deal with things.
Normal heterosexual men do not get arousals from protecting women. That is just absurd. Love lasts longer than any lust.
Unfortunately @The Hammer , he will only tell you that what you feel you don't actually feel. He's just that narcissistic and deluded to think he knows better what other people feel than they do. He NEEDS to believe things a certain way to maintain his delicate religious house of cards. Remove one and it all comes tumbling down.
Watch, he's already denied me being in love even though I said I was because, for some reason, he thinks I'm a gay guy. If he ever pulls his head out long enough to realize I'm a heterosexual woman I'm betting he'll change his tune. Suddenly I won't be a gay guy "in lust" with my hubby, no...then it'll miraculously be "love" because we're straight.
I expect him to deny my feelings, it's whatever. It's why I added the caveat as he cannot possibly know whether someone is feeling love or lust, because he does not feel what another person feels. His entire argument is illogical fallacy piled upon illogical fallacy, if that is truly what is keeping his "house of cards" together, then I don't want to debate him on more important topics, might be traumatizing to him.
What would really blow this guys mind is that I loved a man, but I am currently in love with a woman
. (This is going to cause some sort of backlash from him, I can smell it coming, oh well).
HekaMa'atRa
Member
These "arguments" don't stand no matter how much data you have to support them.
For your first argument, replace the word "homosexuality" with the more appropriate term "sexual carelessness" and then you have the beginnings of an actual argument. Putting the entire blame of sexual carelessness on homosexuality would be both foolish and inaccurate - as female-homosexuality stats for STD transmission are much lower than both male/male data and male/female data - almost to the point where it's a non factor. Secondly, there are more heterosexuals with STDs than homosexuals. The fact that male homosexuls have higher transmission rates only proves men are more careless and have a stronger sex drive.
Furthermore, those stats will always be off since we really have no idea how many gay people are in the U.S./world. Add in that they're getting closer and closer to finding a cure for these diseases and this argument of yours is thrown out the window.
Your second argument is completely subjective and so pretty much irrelevant. To most people, allowing homosexuals to live their lives in happiness with the people that they love without being demonized is justification enough.
Al-Fatihah
Muslim
Response: And each bisexual that claimed to love a male and female sexually also failed to answer what makes the same sex love each other sexually but not the opposite. Thus their own testimony supports the fact that their feelings are based on lust and not love. And when you can show yourself to not being a hypocrite by declaring that it's okay to have incest and sex with animals as well, then your own hypocrisy shows that the logic to accept homosexuality is invalid and has no place in a civil society.
Do you think that a homosexual or bisexual knows how to tell the difference between lustful feelings and loving feelings? Why shouldn't they be able to? I have had both feelings before, and I can tell the difference easily. Why wouldn't homosexuals or bisexuals be able to tell as well? What about asexuals (who cannot experience sexual lust for others) who have homoromantic feelings?
Al-Fatihah
Muslim
Response: If incest is wrong because of genetic damage then according to your logic, even heterosexual relations is wrong since there are genetic disorders from them as well, and doing that would cause an end to the human race. Another example of the faulty logic in condoning homosexuality. And even humans pass diseases, thereby refuting your logic for condemning bestiality. So your hypocrisy is invalid.
Homosexuality is wrong because homosexual sex is based on lust, not love. And lust involves the idea of using a person sexually for your own pleasure, which is wrong. You do not use a person for their most intimate emotions. It is immoral and destructive. So is bisexuality.
You are lusting and there is absolutely nothing about love in what you do. You do it to please you. Lust.