A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[The Hammer]

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.

My hypocrisy is as valid as your lack of empathy towards those that are different then you.

And again, please tell me how do you know how I feel? Your entire argument is invalid on the basis of it, because you don't and can't.

I am leaving this argument, because arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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


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


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

Response: If being a human allows you to determine that a fish cannot fly, then it's also enough to determine what is human nature.Since you have no evidence to the contrary, then the logic remains valid.

As for the rest, any display of affection where the intent is to do so to please yourself and not th other is wrong. Whether a hug or kiss or sex, and whether it is done by a bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual. You do not show affection to someone with the intent to be stimulated in return.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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

Response: Only in the eyes of the unsound.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

My hypocrisy is as valid as your lack of empathy towards those that are different then you.

And again, please tell me how do you know how I feel? Your entire argument is invalid on the basis of it, because you don't and can't.

I am leaving this argument, because arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Response: Again, how do you know a fish cannot fly when you are not a fish? How do you know they do or do not feel pain? Exactly. Do not be a hypocrite. If you know those answers despite not being a fish, then according to your own logic, it's logical to understand human nature and how other humans feel.

 

[YmirGF]

My hypocrisy is as valid as your lack of empathy towards those that are different then you.

And again, please tell me how do you know how I feel? Your entire argument is invalid on the basis of it, because you don't and can't.

I am leaving this argument, because arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You see, The Hammer, it is when people give up talking to Fatihah that he turns around and claims victory.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Response: Some fish do fly.

 

[The Hammer]

You see, The Hammer, it is when people give up talking to Fatihah that he turns around and claims victory.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I leave the argument he wins, if I stay and argue with him then his circular logic will make him win. You cannot explain color to a blind man.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Response: Some fish do fly.

Response: And homosexual sex is based on lust.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: Again, how do you know a fish cannot fly when you are not a fish? How do you know they do or do not feel pain? Exactly. Do not be a hypocrite. If you know those answers despite not being a fish, then according to your own logic, it's logical to understand human nature and how other humans feel.

For heavens sake, there's a different between physical and emotional capabilities. A child knows this. You know what a dog is physically capable of doing but are you capable of knowing a dog's emotional capabilities? Does a dog think, feel, love? You don't know because you're not in the mind of one.

And I look forward to your response to my recent post that was addressed to you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And homosexual sex is based on lust.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: Some fish do fly.

PRICELESS!

 

[Al-Fatihah]

For heavens sake, there's a different between physical and emotional capabilities. A child knows this. You know what a dog is physically capable of doing but are you capable of knowing a dog's emotional capabilities? Does a dog think, feel, love? You don't know because you're not in the mind of one.

And I look forward to your response to my recent post that was addressed to you.

Response: No one said that there is not a difference between emotional and physical capabilities. So your point has no relevance. For even you know that a dog feels emotions or not, despite not being a dog.

 

[The Hammer]

Response: And homosexual sex is based on lust.

All sex is based on lust. Including heterosexual sex. Marriage is monogamous lust. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that is not exclusive to heterosexuals, and is also felt by homosexuals.

If you are having sex you are engaging in lust, regardless of genders involved. If you sleep with your wife it is lust, because without lust you cannot have sex, therefore your logic and argument are flawed.

Lust(noun): very strong sexual desire.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Well, as far as I can see, your arguments have been refuted many times in this thread, so I don't think anyone arguing with you here has failed to refute your arguments. It's just that you don't believe or acknowledge that they have been refuted, but that's not the same thing as their actually not having been refuted.

I don't think ancient systems of morality that don't rely on scientific evidence at all and are just mirrors of the cultures they originated in should hold any weight in answering moral or ethical questions in this day and age. The fact that so many people resort to them as moral authorities is both frightening and sad, in my opinion, but it is something that reasonable people can only keep trying to change and fix.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Response: And homosexual sex is based on lust.

I've had all kinds of sex, and let me tell you - it didn't matter who I was with, but there was a lot of lust involved with all of them, male and female. Do you truly think that heterosexual people are so disadvantaged that they can't experienced lust to the same degree? They'd be missing out on half the fun!

 

[Draka]

You see, The Hammer, it is when people give up talking to Fatihah that he turns around and claims victory.

This thread, this very behavior, is what made me change my sig line.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

All sex is based on lust. Including heterosexual sex. Marriage is monogamous lust. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain that is not exclusive to heterosexuals, and is also felt by homosexuals.

If you are having sex you are engaging in lust, regardless of genders involved. If you sleep with your wife it is lust, because without lust you cannot have sex, therefore your logic and argument are flawed.

Lust(noun): very strong sexual desire.

Response: All sex is not based on lust. Having a strong sexual desire is not the same as intending to arouse someone to please your desire. Love is caring and protecting someone. So if one shows sexual desire in a way to comfort and care for someone, then it is love.

 

[Draka]

Response: All sex is not based on lust. Having a strong sexual desire is not the same as intending to arouse someone to please your desire. Love is caring and protecting someone. So if one shows sexual desire in a way to comfort and care for someone, then it is love.

And homosexuals do that. You have not been able to prove, not once, that they don't. You are the one that started this thread, you made a claim, you are then responsible for providing support to back up that claim. You have not ever done so. All you do is repeat the same contrived and convoluted crap over and over and never even try to evidence your claim. You have not shown anything, have not proven anything, and cannot prove anything. Stating things over and over, saying no one has refuted you, is not an argument.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I've had all kinds of sex, and let me tell you - it didn't matter who I was with, but there was a lot of lust involved with all of them, male and female. Do you truly think that heterosexual people are so disadvantaged that they can't experienced lust to the same degree? They'd be missing out on half the fun!

Response: No one stated that lust cannot be experienced. The issue is that showing affection with the intent to receive affection is wrong. While showing affection with the intent to making the other happy is love, and righteous. Homosexual sex is based not on love or the idea of pleasing another, it is based on pleasing yourself. Therefore, it is based on lust and Wrong. No civil person would use someone sexually or or show sexual feelings just so hey can be aroused. That is disgusting and a disgrace, as you should not place the emotional feelings of others secondary to your own.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: No one said that there is not a difference between emotional and physical capabilities. So your point has no relevance. For even you know that a dog feels emotions or not, despite not being a dog.

You're the one that said that because you know a fish cannot fly that you know its nature. No, you only know of its physical capabilities. The nature of something is its very being and essence. So no, I don't think you even know the nature of fish as you certainly haven't given any proof besides....uh....they can't fly!

You said that because you're human you know ALL of human nature. We can study human nature, but we cannot know all of it. You then somehow magically combined the two and said that because of all this you know that homosexuals are incapable of loving each other sexually/romantically. You're not a dog or homosexual and so therefore can't know what they think or feel.