A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Draka]

Homosexual sex is based not on love or the idea of pleasing another, it is based on pleasing yourself.

Saying this repeatedly does not make it so.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Strong sexual desire is required to have sex, that will not change, it is a fact of life. Love is not a requirement only lust. Love is necessary to care about a person though. Which anyone can do; I love my cats, my mom, my Girlfriend, and yes I even loved my boyfriend at one point in time. There are varying degrees of love. Platonic, romantic being the ones from a philosophical standpoint.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

Response: If my argument was refuted, then you should be able to state in one word what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the oppression site. You can't. Even when you respond to this post, you will dodge the question yet again by stating in one word what is the difference. Thus your own repeated failure shows my argument to be valid that the answer is lust.

 

[Draka]

If my argument was refuted, then you should be able to state in one word what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually

Brain

 

[viole]

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.

I don't wish to get too nosy about your sexual life, but may I ask how you know that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[methylatedghosts]

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.

Since when do you know what I feel? My mother doesn't know how I feel, and she's known me for 28 years. How do you imagine you know how I feel better than my mother does? But since you think you do know, maybe you can help me out. I met someone not too long ago, and we get along really really well. I think I'm falling in love, but I'm not sure. Can you tell me how I feel, please, so that I can know for sure? I don't want to try a relationship if it turns out I don't really love this person.

 

[1robin]

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.

I was actually talking about lumping things together under one generalized term then declaring anything true of one member is true of the set. Homosexual sex acts are not identical to heterosexual acts and this can be obviously seen in the fact they produce huge differences in the rates and types of harm they cause. If they were identical they would have no need of two distinct terms to describe them. Now add to that the fact hat homosexuals in general are much more likely to engage in unprotected sex, some even seek out the most dangerous sex acts imaginable because hey are dangerous. Not everything I said concerned harm but it was an analogy anyway and only the dynamic matters not the subject. The things I mentioned do matter because they exhibit the same rationalization you used. Mountains of stats show that homosexual sex is dangerous and everyone knows that so to engage in them is prefer self gratification over the potential harm and death to others it result in and it does not have the benefit of procreation to justify it.

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.

For pity sake if you would just review my posts in this thread alone you will see that not only do my two main arguments account for heterosexual negative results but I have spent many posts explaining away exactly what you said in form after form.

Heterosexuality produces life, is necessary for the continuation of mankind, and binds the only family unit which nature makes overwhelmingly abundant. I can even predict every single reply you will make here, why it is mistaken, and give the reasons it does not work but I am exhausted in having to repeat myself over and over and over so I will leave it here. If you review my posts you will find countless examples of everything you have said and everything you will say and my exhaustive explanations why they do not apply or work. The defense of homosexuality has about 3 claims that do not work stated in about a thousand differing ways. It gets boring seeing the same three ineffective responses repackaged over and over.

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.

No matter how careful you are homosexuality produces massive problems. Unlike cancer however people defend homosexuality.

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

No it does not, I don't care if you have two virgins who are STD free that get married and stay married for life you still have all kinds of problems that can and do occur. I have already listed many of them. However you also have to allow for the FACT that homosexuals even if they are in some hypothetical sterilized situation their behavior almost always continues when that hypothetical situation ends. I am judging a behavior and not any specific person in any specific situation you may invent and which in homosexual circles usually ends pretty quickly anyway.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Response: If my argument was refuted, then you should be able to state in one word what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the oppression site. You can't. Even when you respond to this post, you will dodge the question yet again by stating in one word what is the difference. Thus your own repeated failure shows my argument to be valid that the answer is lust.

The same one word someone just posted: brain.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

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.

Response: You did not see every fish on the planet to determine that a fish cannot fly nor are you a fish.Yet when determining how a human feels, you claim one has to be that human. That's hypocrisy, thus your rationale is invalid.If you can determine the nature of fish, then you can do so for a human.

Does a dog feel emotions? Yes or no.Your own answer will expose your reasoning.

 

[1robin]

I don't wish to get too nosy about your sexual life, but may I ask how you know that?

Ciao

- viole

Hey I wanted to use your post to ask another question. What do you say about the fact that the principle sex acts between homosexuals involves artificially simulating the organs of the sex they say they are not attracted to? Seems contradictory. Warning! that is as far down the graphic rabbit hole I will go on that.

 

[Draka]

Hey I wanted to use your post to ask another question. What do you say about the fact that the principle sex acts between homosexuals involves artificially simulating the organs of the sex they say they are not attracted to? Seems contradictory. Warning! that is as far down the graphic rabbit hole I will go on that.

Whaaaaaaaaaa.......?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Strong sexual desire is required to have sex, that will not change, it is a fact of life. Love is not a requirement only lust. Love is necessary to care about a person though. Which anyone can do; I love my cats, my mom, my Girlfriend, and yes I even loved my boyfriend at one point in time. There are varying degrees of love. Platonic, romantic being the ones from a philosophical standpoint.

Response: And an act of love is one in which is intended to care and protect someone. Therefore, sex can be done out of love if intended to care and comfort someone.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Response: And an act of love is one in which is intended to care and protect someone. Therefore, sex can be done out of love if intended to care and comfort someone.

Yes, and why can't that be the case with homosexuals?

 

[Draka]

Response: You did not see every fish on the planet to determine that a fish cannot fly nor are you a fish.Yet when determining how a human feels, you claim one has to be that human. That's hypocrisy, thus your rationale is invalid.If you can determine the nature of fish, then you can do so for a human.

Does a dog feel emotions? Yes or no.Your own answer will expose your reasoning.

Are you going to tell us exactly what emotions all dogs feels, when they feel them, whom or what they feel them for and why? Because you are claiming to be able to do so for all humans.

 

[viole]

Hey I wanted to use your post to ask another question. What do you say about the fact that the principle sex acts between homosexuals involves artificially simulating the organs of the sex they say they are not attracted to? Seems contradictory. Warning! that is as far down the graphic rabbit hole I will go on that.

Well, I know many heterosexuals, that artificilly stimulate the organs they are not attracted to. Namely, their owns.

So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Draka]

Response: And an act of love is one in which is intended to care and protect someone. Therefore, sex can be done out of love if intended to care and comfort someone.

And as women can and do care and protect as well as you seem to think men can and do, then the caring and protecting is a reciprocated thing. Being so, it doesn't matter what gender is on either side of the caring and protecting.

 

[1robin]

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.

Oh I certainly agree but lets have a little context.

The inquisitions in 400 years killed less than 3000.
The crusades over several hundred killed a few ten thousand.

Aids alone killed 1 million in just 2013.

Another note. All those Christian killing were in defiance of the book you blame them on but even then Christianity offers eternal salvation as the compensating gain. Homosexuality only has self gratification of a physical desire. How much pleasure is a million dead worth?

 

[Draka]

Well, I know many heterosexuals, that artificilly stimulate the organs they are not attracted to. Namely, their owns.

So?

Ciao

- viole

He said "simulate" not stimulate. In other words, he thinks that the anus is a stand in for a vagina and fingers for penis. I'm sorry, but since heterosexuals use the exact same things for different kinds of sex acts, it simply makes no sense. Fingers are not a substitute for a penis nor is an anus for a vagina. The types of sex feel different @1robin . Having anal sex feels different than vaginal. Not the same. I know I don't have anal sex to substitute for vaginal. Duh.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Since when do you know what I feel? My mother doesn't know how I feel, and she's known me for 28 years. How do you imagine you know how I feel better than my mother does? But since you think you do know, maybe you can help me out. I met someone not too long ago, and we get along really really well. I think I'm falling in love, but I'm not sure. Can you tell me how I feel, please, so that I can know for sure? I don't want to try a relationship if it turns out I don't really love this person.

Response: Does a dog feel emotions, yes or no? The fact that you dodge such a question shows the hypocrisy in your question regarding how someone can know how you feel. Again, your logic is invalid.

As for the rest, if your desire or attraction to the person is to put them first and please them, regardless of whether you receive affection in return, then yes that is love.If not, and you are desiring them to show you affection to the point where yo do things in order to receive it, that is lust.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Oh I certainly agree but lets have a little context.

The inquisitions in 400 years killed less than 3000.
The crusades over several hundred killed a few ten thousand.

Aids alone killed 1 million in just 2013.

Another note. All those Christian killing were in defiance of the book you blame them on but even then Christianity offers eternal salvation as the compensating gain. Homosexuality only has self gratification of a physical desire. How much pleasure is a million dead worth?

Oh, you're gay? Surely you must be to be able to know what it is like to be gay, and what motivates sex with someone of the same gender