A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Draka]

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.

And that is regardless of what gender the person you have the feelings for is right?


Why am I beginning to think I have been ignored?

 

[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.

Oh, ok.

My fault. It actually looked weird.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Debater Slayer]

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?

AIDS transmission is mainly due to poor safety measures taken before having sex. That has nothing to do with homosexuality in and of itself, nor does it mean that being attracted to members of the same sex is harmful in any way.

By the way, on this list, the lowest estimated death toll for the Crusades is 1,000,000, so the claim that they resulted in the death of only "a few ten thousand" is both ludicrous and intellectually irresponsible.

As for Christianity's supposed claim to eternal salvation, unless you can show that to be anything more than wishful thinking on the part of the authors of the Bible, then it's as worthless as saying that there's a ring out there that we need to destroy in order to live in peace according to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

 

[methylatedghosts]

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.

You never asked me that. I can't dodge a question I was not asked. But just to humour you, yes a dog has emotions. You should see how happy my parents'dog is when I come to visit. But what that has to do with gay people is way beyond me.

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.

So how do I feel then? You seem to be able to know how other people feel, so surely something as simple as this wouldn't be to hard to do?

 

[The Hammer]

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.

There is nothing protective about sex. Nor is there any comforting reasons to perform a sexual act. If you are comforting someone through sex, you have issues with empathy.

 

[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.

Again, with simulating instead of stimulating.

Do you think that transexuals who performed a sex reassignement are ok?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I keep coming back to feeling pretty sad for all the folks who think the only sex they can have is procreative penetrative sex that has nothing to do with the clitoris or the stimulation of the prostate gland.

Not to mention strict gender roles. All focused on a male ejaculatory bias.

Talk about depressing. It's no wonder their views about sex and sexuality are such a downer.

 

[Draka]

I keep coming back to feeling pretty sad for all the folks who think the only sex they can have is procreative penetrative sex that has nothing to do with the clitoris or the stimulation of the prostate gland.

Not to mention strict gender roles. All focused on a male ejaculatory bias.

Talk about depressing. It's no wonder their views about sex and sexuality are such a downer.

Yep, I know my role now, I'm supposed to be cared for, protected and in appreciation for that, I shall lay down and let my man penetrate me. I know he better not touch me anywhere else but my vagina though...that would be lustful and wrong.

No, wait, sorry, forgot I was a gay guy.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

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.

There you go again grouping female homosexuality with male homosexuality. Female homosexuality disease transmission rates is significantly lower than male/male data and male/female data. Clearly your problem here is male homosexuality - and even then it shows you that homosexuality isn't the issue - the real issue is men, their sexual appetite, and sexual carelessness.

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.

Your stats only show that sexual promiscuity with no contraception is a dangerous act - because again, both heterosexuals and homosexuals spread disease when they don't take disease risks into consideration.

Heterosexuality produces life, is necessary for the continuation of mankind, and binds the only family unit which nature makes overwhelmingly abundant.

There is no difference between a homosexual man being ignorant, sleeping around with any man he likes, and not using protection with a heterosexual man who is sleeping around with as many women as he likes and not using protection. Both are dangerous. Both are harmful. Both can spread disease. The fact that the heterosexual man can potentially knock up these women justifies heterosexuality carelessness but not homosexual carelessness? Absurd.

If anything, with the amount of people on this planet, the last thing we need is more humans. Have you ever considered that homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the populations in check? Just think about it, if all the homosexuals that ever were in the past and will ever be in the future, if their children had children and so on, how big would the human population be right now? - we're already burdened by 7 billion people. Envision 20 billion people here in the year 2014. Economically we wouldn't be able to support that many people. Now that's frightening.

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

Because again, homosexuality isn't the root cause of sexual transmitted disease. Lack of contraception is.

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.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[YmirGF]

Yep, I know my role now, I'm supposed to be cared for, protected and in appreciation for that, I shall lay down and let my man penetrate me. I know he better not touch me anywhere else but my vagina though...that would be lustful and wrong.

No, wait, sorry, forgot I was a gay guy.

The most boggling part of all this is that Fatihah and 1Robin still think they are right and being perfectly reasonable.

 

[viole]

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?

Robin, I am a little confused.

You seem to oscillate between objective morality and some form of utilitarism or health concern. In all honesty, invoking Aids or other health issues seems like a defensive move motivated by the fact of not finding any other objective wrongness with it.

So, Is (male) homosexuality objectively wrong, even if healthy, or is it wrong because it causes Aids? In other words: was it wrong when there was no Aids?

If yes, why don't you concentrate on this alleged wrongness that, I am sure, is more fundamental than a disease we might find a cure for?

If no, was heterosexual sex wrong when it used to decimate people because of diseases that can be cured today with antibiotics? Is, in this case, female homosexuality ok?

Ciao

- viole

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

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.

If anything, this "does a dog feel emotions" topic only proves my theory right and yours invalid. I don't know if a dog feels emotions since I'm not in the mind of one. I can only make a biased declaration like you've done with homosexuals and say yes, I do think dogs and other animals can feel emotions.

But in the end I'm left with no certainty. I cannot put myself in the mind of a dog to know if they think, feel, and love. Nor can a dog tell me if they feel these emotions. You cannot put yourself in the mind of a homosexual to declare they cannot feel sexual love for their partner - lucky for you - a homosexual can express to you exactly what they feel and think.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

@1robin

I mean, just saying the word Africa disproves any argument you have. Africa is being ripped apart by AIDS and HIV because of heterosexual carelessness, lack of any access to contraception whatsoever, and poor sexual education.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

You never asked me that. I can't dodge a question I was not asked. But just to humour you, yes a dog has emotions. You should see how happy my parents'dog is when I come to visit. But what that has to do with gay people is way beyond me.


So how do I feel then? You seem to be able to know how other people feel, so surely something as simple as this wouldn't be to hard to do?

Response: If you can determine a dog has emotions, despite not being a dog or seeing every dog, then it is only hypocrisy to question how another human being can know the emotions of another human. So your reasoning is invalid.

And I already answered how you feel when I described the difference of love and lust. So whichever applies to you is how you feel.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

If anything, this "does a dog feel emotions" topic only proves my theory right and yours invalid. I don't know if a dog feels emotions since I'm not in the mind of one. I can only make a biased declaration like you've done with homosexuals and say yes, I do think dogs and other animals can feel emotions.

But in the end I'm left with no certainty. I cannot put myself in the mind of a dog to know if they think, feel, and love. Nor can a dog tell me if they feel these emotions. You cannot put yourself in the mind of a homosexual to declare they cannot feel sexual love for their partner - lucky for you - a homosexual can express to you exactly what they feel and think.

Response: Then if we can only make a bias declaration of how others feel, that does not change the fact that the best explanation is the most logical. So since you have no better answer as to 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 opposite, then your own argument supports the fact that lust is the best answer. Whether it is certain or not. So you still only make my point.

So take your pick. Either lust is THE answer or the best answer. Either way, it makes me no difference.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

There is nothing protective about sex. Nor is there any comforting reasons to perform a sexual act. If you are comforting someone through sex, you have issues with empathy.

Response: Your inability to find comfort in sex does not mean that sex is not protective. It only means you have a deficiency with empathy.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: If you can determine a dog has emotions, despite not being a dog or seeing every dog, then it is only hypocrisy to question how another human being can know the emotions of another human. So your reasoning is invalid.

And I already answered how you feel when I described the difference of love and lust. So whichever applies to you is how you feel.

He is basing his answer (his opinion) on what he sees. He has visual evidence for him that shows dogs display emotions. He can certainly be wrong as dogs cannot speak. You're basing your opinion on your own definition on love and what you feel men and women are capable of....Your opinions can (and most certainly) are false, as homosexuals can tell you what they think and love.

Response: Then if we can only make a bias declaration of how others feel, that does not change the fact that the best explanation is the most logical. So since you have a better answer as to 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 opposite, then your own argument supports the fact that lust is the best answer. Whether it is certain or not. So you still only make my point.

Sexual attraction is based on lust (lust definition being here: strong sexual desire). Are you married? Are you in a relationship with a woman? What drew you to her? Was it her face, her personality, her body, her sense of humor - something attracted you to her and you now find her sexually attractive. By being with her, getting to know her, seeing how she feels for you, you grow to love each other. Had you not found something about her attractive there would of never been a loving relationship to begin with. When the two of you make love, you're expressing your love for one another, and you're fulfilling each other's sexual needs.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals both do this.

 

[Draka]

And I already answered how you feel when I described the difference of love and lust. So whichever applies to you is how you feel.

So, when homosexuals outright tell you that they feel the way you describe love is, why must you consider them liars? You dictate what love and lust are, then when people tell you they feel love you deny that. Why is it so hard for you to admit when wrong or believe that homosexuals love each other regardless of if you personally understand it or not?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It only means you have a deficiency with empathy.

 

[Draka]

Beginning to feel like certain people in this thread need never worry about a zombie apocalypse.