A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Al-Fatihah]

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?

Response: People who agree with homosexuality and bisexuality absolutely cannot tell the difference between love and lust. That is why it is considered right by some and a sin or immoral by others. If everyone agreed or knew the difference, then this discussion would never take place nor would there be an issue. That is why I have stressed the question as to everyone as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite. Amazingly, not a single person was able to state in one word the reason other than lust. Not one. That alone supports the fact that it is lust, and society fails to distinguish the difference and live in denial.

It is an issue of nature vs. Nurture. Some emotions and interests are nurtured in us, even when we are young. The problem with homosexuality and bisexuality is that such feelings are nurtured, and they do not realize it.

 

[Parsimony]

Response: People who agree with homosexuality and bisexuality absolutely cannot tell the difference between love and lust. That is why it is considered right by some and a sin or immoral by others. If everyone agreed or knew the difference, then this discussion would never take place nor would there be an issue. That is why I have stressed the question as to everyone as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite. Amazingly, not a single person was able to state in one word the reason other than lust. Not one. That alone supports the fact that it is lust, and society fails to distinguish the difference and live in denial.

How do you know what a homosexual can or cannot feel?

Okay, let's forget about homosexual activity for a moment and speak of homoromantic activity. I know someone who is an asexual but has had a crush on a member of her same sex. Given that she is an asexual, sexual lust cannot be in play there. So if lust is not involved in that, why would homoromantic feelings be bad in that scenario?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

How do you know what a homosexual can or cannot feel?

Okay, let's forget about homosexual activity for a moment and speak of homoromantic activity. I know someone who is an asexual but has had a crush on a member of her same sex. Given that she is an asexual, sexual lust cannot be in play there. So why would homoromantic feelings be bad?

Response: How do you know a fish does not fly? You are not a fish. You know a fish cannot do so because you know the nature of a fish. Similarly, I am a human so I know human nature. I do not have to be you to know human nature, just like you do not have to be a fish.

As for the rest, you know a person to be asexual how? Because she said so. That means you do not know. You know what they told you.

Yet I do not say that romantic feelings is wrong. I'm only referring to sex itself. Just like if I had a thought or feeling to steal, it is not the same as actually stealing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I have once read that the biggest favor certain people could ever do to atheism and secularism was to show what their religions really taught.

I just want to thank you, Fatihah, for doing atheism and non-belief a huge favor in this thread, especially when one reads your posts, looks at your avatar, and then starts making connections between the two. Keep it up.

 

[pearl]

Homosexuality is natural because lust is natural. This however makes homosexuality wrong because sex based on lust and not love is wrong.

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

It is you my friend who 'lives in denial' You have nothing to base this mistaken view on but your own opinion. From my experience
in the health care field I can tell you just how wrong you are. I have witnessed homosexuals who love each other so deeply that, in
order to be in communion with the church, they live a celibate life. Homosexual couples who have been faithful to each other for
20, 30, 40, years and more, long before it was possible to express a relationship publically. The same love and faithfulness that
sustain each other through suffering and death as between heterosexual partners. You simply do not know anything concerning
homosexuality.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

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.

There have been homosexuals in this thread telling you their relationship is based on love and yet you claim it false because of your made up definitions on love and gender roles. Love goes beyond the desire to care and protect someone, if you can't see this which is one of the most basic concepts possible, than this "dialogue" will never go anywhere.

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.

Incest is borderline proven damage to the offspring's genetics. When offspring doesn't have diverse genes they're more susceptible to diseases and illness. Not to mention, most cases of incest are that of a parent taking advantage of their children or an older sibling taking advantage of a younger one. The psychological issues at play here are far too great to condone incest. And as for beastiality, you forgot the part about consent so no his logic was not refuted. Learn to look at the entire argument before you spew out your nonsense.

That is why I have stressed the question as to everyone as to what makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite. Amazingly, not a single person was able to state in one word the reason other than lust. Not one. That alone supports the fact that it is lust, and society fails to distinguish the difference and live in denial.

I have stated over and over but you are blinded by ignorance. Most relationships begin with a sexual attraction and desire to have sex with someone you find appealing - or as you call it, "lust." Most to all heterosexual and homosexual relationships begin this way. A homosexual cannot love a member of the opposite sex romantically because they're not sexually attracted to that sex's features. Just as a heterosexual cannot love a member of the same sex romantically because they are not sexually attracted to that sex's features. What. Don't. You. Understand. About. This?

Response: How do you know a fish does not fly? You are not a fish. You know a fish cannot do so because you know the nature of a fish. Similarly, I am a human so I know human nature. I do not have to be you to know human nature, just like you do not have to be a fish

Human nature is far too complex and multifaceted for a single individual to just "grasp" and be all knowing. "I am human so I know human nature," - you sound like a troll at this point. How ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. We're dealing with the emotions and minds of people. You don't know what emotions they are feeling nor are you in their mind. Just like you couldn't possibly know what its like to be in the mind of a savant, or a person of the opposite sex, or those people with special abilities like seeing color with numbers.

 

[Draka]

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.

Oh would you stop asking that stupid question over and over as if it means anything. It has been answered time and time again. You just refuse to acknowledge it so you can hold on to your erroneous beliefs and not have your little belief bubble popped.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

Where's that facepalm smilie when you need one?

Storm deserves an award for calling out your intentions early enough when you were "innocently asking questions." You weren't just asking questions. You had an agenda to demonize anything that doesn't fit the outdated, homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, misogynistic gender role paradigm.

 

[Draka]

Where's that facepalm smilie when you need one?

Storm deserves an award for calling out your intentions early enough when you were "innocently asking questions." You weren't just asking questions. You had an agenda to demonize anything that doesn't fit the outdated, homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, misogynistic gender role paradigm.

That is truly all it is. I tore apart his one idiotic argument where "forms of love" were assigned to genders and he won't dare to address that now. Showed him how his own words trapped him and botched his whole stance, but does he want to recognize that?....of course not.

 

[1robin]

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.

Well heck lets throw out murder, embezzlement, genocide, and theft and call everything morally careless. Trying to defend a behavior that kills millions and costs billions by using a semantic shell game is depressing.

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.

They might be but that won't help them because the stats I used are anything less than the fact. Everyone who has ever had a college level stats class knows personally embarrassing admissions go underreported. How about we declare cancer good because we are hypothetically closer to a cure? It seems nature will punish immorality no matter how many diseases we cure anyway.

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.

No it is not. Pleasure does not justify death. This is just more and in this case even worse than normal attempts to rationalize whatever you prefer.

 

[Draka]

@1robin , would you be hemming and hawing like this against homosexuality were it only women that were homosexual? All your arguments really just boils down to gay men and HIV transmission and such. As lesbians, as shown, have actually the lowest rate of disease transmission, and are rarely ever considered "promiscuous", would you still being fighting this fight were it only women that had same sex attraction?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well heck lets throw out murder, embezzlement, genocide, and theft and call everything morally careless. Trying to defend a behavior that kills millions and costs billions by using a semantic shell game is depressing.

Be careful of making that argument. Your so-called "Holy" Bible has been used as a justification for atrocities throughout history, including the Inquisition, Crusades, and persecution of non-Christians. I think if you're going to argue that any behavior that "kills millions and costs billions" should be forbidden, then we should start by outlawing the publication of the Bible anymore.

 

[Draka]

Be careful of making that argument. Your so-called "Holy" Bible has been used as a justification for atrocities throughout history, including the Inquisition, Crusades, and persecution of non-Christians. I think if you're going to argue that any behavior that "kills millions and costs billions" should be forbidden, then we should start by outlawing the publication of the Bible anymore.

 

[Parsimony]

Response: How do you know a fish does not fly? You are not a fish. You know a fish cannot do so because you know the nature of a fish. Similarly, I am a human so I know human nature. I do not have to be you to know human nature, just like you do not have to be a fish.

Being a human does not automatically make you understand the feelings and experiences of all other humans.

As for the rest, you know a person to be asexual how? Because she said so. That means you do not know. You know what they told you.

You do know that asexual people exist, right? Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet I do not say that romantic feelings is wrong. I'm only referring to sex itself. Just like if I had a thought or feeling to steal, it is not the same as actually stealing.

Ah, so two people involved in a homoromantic relationship where they kiss and hug but do not have sex are in the clear then.

 

[YmirGF]

Where's that facepalm smilie when you need one?

Storm deserves an award for calling out your intentions early enough when you were "innocently asking questions." You weren't just asking questions. You had an agenda to demonize anything that doesn't fit the outdated, homophobic, transphobic, biphobic, misogynistic gender role paradigm.

Fatihah is, if anything, predictable. I think he is doing us an immense favor, showing what the fanatical adherence to a religion can do to the thought process of the individual. Allah must be so very pleased.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: How do you know a fish does not fly? You are not a fish. You know a fish cannot do so because you know the nature of a fish. Similarly, I am a human so I know human nature. I do not have to be you to know human nature, just like you do not have to be a fish.

As for the rest, you know a person to be asexual how? Because she said so. That means you do not know. You know what they told you.

Yet I do not say that romantic feelings is wrong. I'm only referring to sex itself. Just like if I had a thought or feeling to steal, it is not the same as actually stealing.

I know you don't need a lot of help digging the hole you have started, but if you do I still have my handy dandy backhoe available.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I have once read that the biggest favor certain people could ever do to atheism and secularism was to show what their religions really taught.

I just want to thank you, Fatihah, for doing atheism and non-belief a huge favor in this thread, especially when one reads your posts, looks at your avatar, and then starts making connections between the two. Keep it up.

Response: Rather, I should be thanking you. As after reading my post and claiming to be an atheist, the fact that you failed to answer the questions posed or refute anything shows that atheism and secularism is unsound and has no resolution in resolving moral and issues in a civil society. Islam on the other hand does not have this issue. So thank you for your assistance.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Well heck lets throw out murder, embezzlement, genocide, and theft and call everything morally careless. Trying to defend a behavior that kills millions and costs billions by using a semantic shell game is depressing.

We're not talking morals here. We're talking health concerns. Everything you just now mentioned are acts humans commit against one another to cause harm. People who spread disease through sexual carelessness are normally unknowingly doing so. They're not taking their safety into consideration and risking their health. So the things you mentioned (murder, genocide, theft, etc) don't apply.

They might be but that won't help them because the stats I used are anything less than the fact. Everyone who has ever had a college level stats class knows personally embarrassing admissions go underreported. How about we declare cancer good because we are hypothetically closer to a cure? It seems nature will punish immorality no matter how many diseases we cure anyway.

No it is not. Pleasure does not justify death. This is just more and in this case even worse than normal attempts to rationalize whatever you prefer.

You're trying to equate disease from sex as strictly a homosexual issue. All sexual orientations are capable of spreading disease if they're ignorant to the health risks. Your cancer comparison is laughable. But I think I can use your twisted cancer comparison to something that fits.

If anything, cancer is akin to disease from sex and using products/eating foods that are known to increase the risk of getting cancer is akin to sexual carelessness. Should we then declare that all the food and the products we buy as wrong and not justified (as you're doing with homosexuality)? Certainly not all the food and products we buy increases our risks or getting cancer. Instead, we can try and educate ourselves and consume products we know are safe --> practicing safe sex.

Homosexuals who commit to one another and/or hold their personal health in high regard invalidates your arguments. Same goes for heterosexuals.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: Rather, I should be thanking you. As after reading my post and claiming to be an atheist, the fact that you failed to answer the questions posed or refute anything shows that atheism and secularism is unsound and has no resolution in resolving moral and issues in a civil society. Islam on the other hand does not have this issue. So thank you for your assistance.

Gee, if we take you thinking to heart there is a chance that we will become as intellectually challenged as you are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Islam on the other hand does not have this issue.

I hope your views aren't representative of Islam. That would be quite worrying.