• 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

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Yes, I do wonder about that.

So deep within denial of their own miserableness, that they don't even know that they are not happy. I liken it to being chronically depressed, you just don't know what it really means to be "happy and free." But I am sure this will get some panties in a knot, so I will leave it at that.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Well that might be true but even if it is it occurs given differing discussions. I have said from the start that I intended to make only a secular case here. That is because bringing up theology to people who intentionally rebel against it is a waste of time. I oscillate as the conversation demands.

I believe it is objectively wrong but that is a theological position. As I said I set out here and other homosexual threads to make a secular argument because those I am talking to simply dismiss the half of reality that I would make the objective case from. Here I made a case it is unjustifiable in a moral sense. I was not debating the nature of morality.

I have to try at least to meet people on common ground. Since God based morality is out with people intentionally defying it, I instead made a secular argument. I do not see the problem here.

I am not sure if you even caught my original claims. They are simplistic and short.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in massive quantities. (It does so across many types of damage and costs).
2. It does not contain any gains THAT COMPENSATE FOR THE COST or even the risks of those costs.

I am meeting people who only grant half of reality and basing them on the governing dynamics behind most laws. The risks and costs far outweigh the gains. I could launch into a complex paper on the nature of morality but since it would be denied a priori and most people do accept the cost benefit foundation for secular law I restricted my claims to that alone.

Well, I don't think you are making a secular case, either. Unless you cherry pick what is not convenient for society while assuming that secular societies discriminate on the basis of costs. Why not include the hopelessly sick or other social cases which are only a burden to society, as you would put it?

If yours is a case, then it is a case also if we abort a fetus with serious genetic and future cognitive problems, and that could live for years with considerable costs for the health system.

You might say that the child had no choice, but that would entail that gays had a choice. And that would entail that heteros had a choice too. But then, when did you choose to be heterosexual?

What about alcohol? This one really seems like avoidable self gratification. Or fat food? The costs deriving from them are huge. Broken homes, accidents involving innocents, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, you name it. Is a beer or hamburger during the Superbowl really worth all this pain and death?

Incidentally, that has nothing to do with homosexuality in general. Wreckless promisquity, or wreckless anything, could be dangerous, gay or not, but if you remain virgin until marriage and faithful after marriage, you run no risks whatsoever. So, since you guys promote such habits for eteros, would you be ready to admit that the same habits for homosexuals would be equally safe?

In other words, do you still have a case if gays would behave in the same way you reccomend for heteros?

If not, why don't you concentrate in promoting faithful habits in general, instead of singling out gays? That would allow you to focus your energy in just one issue instead of two. With the advantage of being more parsimonous and rational.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
If my posts depend on spelling then I am doomed beforehand. I have the weird and rare gift for misspelling the intended word by correctly spelling an unintended word. I went back and checked and to my surprise my spelling was correct.


Ok I can't even wrap my head around that one. It was not a wrong or right question. I was suggesting that since they desire the opposite genetalia that is inconsistent with the idea they are born wanting the same sex. It was just one of several paradoxes that homosexuality makes me think of.


For others making the claim I did not say it was the/a only sexual act, I said it was in general the principle act where gays simulate the opposite sexual organs. It was not an argument just an incongruence. Also I get about a dozen posts an hour in this one thread when I am in a half dozen or so. So I cannot answer everyone posts in this thread.

Well, you should see our (female) cows when they are in the mood. They simulate a lot of things, I tell you. You will see milk with other eyes when you witness that, lol.

I tried to convince them that this is a contradiction, to no avail, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Homosexual sex is the opposite. When aroused, they engage in sexual advances with the intent to receive affection and be more aroused.

And again, how do you know that? How do you know how it feels to be gay?

I can only see two logical alternatives:

1) you can read minds
2) you are homosexual, or bisexual, yourself

Which one is more plausible?

Ciao

- viole
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
@Al-Fatihah Can hermaphrodites love? Are those people even capable of love according to you? Or would you consider all their relationships to be homosexual ones and therefore only lust is possible?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Queer women must find a man who wants to protect them, and queer women must want to be protected by that man?

Coming from this kind of archaic and misogynistic gender role paradigm, that makes me feel distinctly unsafe.
It's the kind of thinking that support these archaic root assumptions about reality that makes it reasonable to kill gays, to throw them off rooftops and to hang them, on public display, from cranes. It's for the public good, after all.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Didn't you know? Gay men need either intensive "corrective" therapy or locked up for the safety of all, and lesbians...they just need a good "roll" by a "real man" to straighten them out. Pun intended.

Sad that there are those who even think that way, but sickos do.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Well, you should see our (female) cows when they are in the mood.

Cows are great. I once did a 2-month solitary retreat on a farm, I stayed in a caravan in the corner of a cow field and got to know the cows really well ( I mean there was nobody else to talk to! )
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Didn't you know? Gay men need either intensive "corrective" therapy or locked up for the safety of all, and lesbians...they just need a good "roll" by a "real man" to straighten them out. Pun intended.

Sad that there are those who even think that way, but sickos do.

What about us poor bisexuals? Are we really just confused by demons? Possessed by a spirit of sexual wickedness? Unable to truly love the homo-gender only lust for them?

EDIT: I apologize, as I cannot take this thread seriously anymore.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
What about us poor bisexuals? Are we really just confused by demons? Possessed by a spirit of sexual wickedness? Unable to truly love the homo-gender only lust for them?

EDIT: I apologize, as I cannot take this thread seriously anymore.

You're fine. As you've noticed, the bi-erasure is strong in this thread. Along with other bigoted comments that thankfully are being called out for what they are.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
You're fine. As you've noticed, the bi-erasure is strong in this thread. Along with other bigoted comments that thankfully are being called out for what they are.

The bi-erasure is always strong -_-. It's quite depressing. *sigh*

But yeah, it's good to see bigoted comments get called out, especially when I am doing it :). I wish there was a quick fix to get these people to hear and see reason. But I would be willing to bet that they think that same thought to themselves. *shrug*
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Response: The fact that you continue to fail to tell us 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 opposite, supports the fact that the answer is lust. Otherwise, you would stop ducking and dodging and answer the question directly. Your logic fails as usual.

There is no "difference" in the nature of attraction, only a difference in what one is attracted to, men - women or both.

EDIT: You are the only one who thinks there is a difference, by claiming "lust" as the only possible motivation for homo/bi behavior.
 
Last edited:

HekaMa'atRa

Member
Response: Once again, no one has disputed that both hetero and homosexuals feel lust. Nor has anyone said that lust or sexual desire is wrong. What I said, and I repeat, is that it is wrong when in order to satisfy your desire, you show affection with the intent to receive affection. Homosexual sex is exactly that. Therefore, it is wrong. For it is wrong because you are placing the most intimate feelings of another as secondary. Whereas love is to show affection with the intent to please the other, thus putting them first.

So do I have sexual desire? Yes. Do I find a woman attractive? Yes. Do I then flirt or arouse a woman with the intent to fulfill my desire? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Rather, my love for her and my appreciation of her makes me desire sex to please her. I don't think of myself.

Homosexual sex is the opposite. When aroused, they engage in sexual advances with the intent to receive affection and be more aroused.

Again, you have no proof that homosexuals can't express love to one another, other than your made up definitions and personal feelings. You are not a human nature expert just because you are human. Everyone's nature is different, complex, and multifaceted.

Response: The fact that you continue to fail to tell us 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 opposite, supports the fact that the answer is lust. Otherwise, you would stop ducking and dodging and answer the question directly. Your logic fails as usual.

Have you never been in a loving relationship with a woman? Before the love, what was there? A sexual attraction that brought you two together. There can be no love in two people if there wasn't some kind of spark/sexual attraction to begin with (that sexual attraction can be either physical or emotional).

No theft ever committed by anyone in he history of is the cause of missing locks but bad behavior.

I wasn't talking about the motives behind why people commit theft. I was talking about why people become the victims of theft (sexual disease) and one of those reasons can be lack of security (contraception).

BTW I have asked you to, can you state the two very simplistic and short statements that compose my argument?

Are you referring to the 1) Homosexuality causes suffering and death and 2) Homosexuality has no gains to justify it? - What about it?

Correlations:
1. So only that which is not molecular ultimately can be moral.
2. Will is not molecular (even if it utilizes molecular mechanisms to express it's self)
3. Will is moral and when used to actualize molecular mechanisms that is called behavior.
4. Unjustifiable behavior is what I have condemned and what is also immune to any claim you have made so far.

It is our brains that tells us who we're attracted to and what we find attractive. That's biology. That's molecular. Just because you don't like the behavior or find it justifiable, doesn't make your claims the ultimate truth.
 

Midnight Rain

Well-Known Member
Well your right about that. There were disastrous atheist attempts to make them of every size but they all failed.
That is exactly what Russia was to be. Stalin was a resentful and failed seminary student hand picked for his intolerance towards faith in general. Entire policies were devoted to eradicating faith.

I will make a deal with you just for the heck of it. If you do not try and lay the acts of men that contradict my faith at the feet of my faith I won't do so with atheist crimes even though they have no doctrines that they violated. That is quite benevolent of me, no?

Fine, then what verse exactly caused that? Stalin acted in many ways which are strictly atheist or secular. If you actually apply social Darwinism as it exists in nature you have the most violent and uncivil society imaginable. Not to mention that even given no condoms (which is not biblical to begin with and which no Christian I know agrees with) if Africans also obeyed the bible's verses on sexual behavior aids would never ever be a significant issue. That was some weird cherry picking. Blaming us for a teaching with no scriptural basis whatever but neglecting the actual verses that do teach about sex.

Ok you asked for it.

1. Hitler was never ever even remotely Christian.
2. At one time he courted the influence of the Catholic church and made a few sympathetic statements but as soon as he learned he would not get their influence he turned of them and Christianity with a vengeance.
3. Read any of his diaries and still say what you did with a straight face.
4. What he actually said once he dropped the pretentions was:

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

(This was what actually drove Hitler. Hitler actually only believed in social Darwinism, Nietzscheism who he personally recommended to Mussolini and Stalin, and Tibetan mysticism, plus he was simply bat crazy)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler was not a Christian:refuting atheist slander

Yeah that guy loved the Lord and the Lord's word. Come off it man. Also notice these are from his later post Christian pretentions era instead of his earlier propaganda seeking church approval.

Not enough. Let's see what he thought about the culture and people of our Lord.

“The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy.
- Rauschning,Hitler Speaks,p. 234
“...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again.”
- Song sung by Hitler youth
“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 87
“Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 222
“The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.”
- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 220
“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.”
- Adolf Hitler (quoted in Burleigh and Wippermann, Racial State, p. 107)
“If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.”
- Robert Wistrich, Hitler's Apocalypse, p. 122; from a conversation with Croatian Foreign Minister General Kvaternik, July 21, 1941
“The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time.”
- Jackel, Hitler's Worldview, p. 52; from a speech at Nuremberg, January 13, 1923
“The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 7
“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51
“.. Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending? Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew.”
- Rauschning,Hitler Speaks
“The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953),
Hitler Quotes from Adolf Hitler

Again that last one is what Hitler actually believed he took a secular look at nature and used social Darwinism to create policy. Euthanizing the old is not in the bible but it is logical for social Darwinism, same with killing anyone who competes for resources with the tribe, exterminating the weak to make mankind strong, killing the infirm who burden society, etc......That is not in the bible anywhere.

And yet he claimed to be a Christian and utilized christianity as a tool to do some of the most horrible things ever done. If Christianity is a tool lets say its a Hammer. Then Atheism would be the lack of a tool which would mean bear hands. You are complaining that Stalin killed people with his bare hands and if only he had a hammer he would have not done so. He would have simply beaten them to death with a hammer. Just as Hitler did.

If Hitler believed or not is mostly irreverent.
 

Midnight Rain

Well-Known Member
Response: My stance is not based on the label or word love, but the definition that is being used. So if you do not want to call it love, that is irrelevant. You can call it unga bunga. The point is that hetero and homosexual love is based on the two descriptions above. Basically, joy comes from giving or receiving. So it is for you to show that it is not, which you have not done. Instead, you only made my point by listing several different types of love, but in the end, one can only feel those emotions from the act of giving or receiving. So your argument still shows that love comes in two forms, thus making my point and the premise stands.
I disagree. Your understanding of love is wrong and not universally accepted. Hell it isn't accepted by the majority even. If you wish to define love in a strange and innaproprate way just to demonize homosexuality then thats fine but you already forfeit the argument.

edit:
Very specifically I stated that it doesn't come in just "two forms" and I would also like to point out that neither of the two "forms" that you promoted were even mentioned nor did it have any correlating laterals to the psychologically defined forms of "love". And lastly even if it did nothing has supported the idea that your definitions of "kinds of love" follow any particular order based upon gender. The "giving" or "protecting" (which I disagree with already on three levels) could originate from either the female or the male counterparts in a heterosexual relationship.
 
Last edited:

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
I disagree. Your understanding of love is wrong and not universally accepted. Hell it isn't accepted by the majority even. If you wish to define love in a strange and innaproprate way just to demonize homosexuality then thats fine but you already forfeit the argument.

edit:
Very specifically I stated that it doesn't come in just "two forms" and I would also like to point out that neither of the two "forms" that you promoted were even mentioned nor did it have any correlating laterals to the psychologically defined forms of "love". And lastly even if it did nothing has supported the idea that your definitions of "kinds of love" follow any particular order based upon gender. The "giving" or "protecting" (which I disagree with already on three levels) could originate from either the female or the male counterparts in a heterosexual relationship.

I am pretty sure @Al-Fatihah has left this conversation permanently. But I could be wrong.
 
Top