A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Al-Fatihah]

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. 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.



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.

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.

 

[Draka]

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

Even though I appear to be being ignored, I will again point out...you have not put out anything to prove such a claim. Nor do you recognize when told otherwise.

 

[YmirGF]

It only means you have a deficiency with empathy.

Tell me, Fatihah, what kind of medications are you on? To be kind, your elevator just not seem to go to the top.

Oddly, if you understood and experienced empathy I would assume you know that homosexuals can be every bit as loving as homosexually-challenged couples.

 

[1robin]

@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.

That is like blaming theft on the careless use of locks. Or falling off a cliff the careless use of gravity.

The only way the line of reasoning your using can even get out the starting gate would be if STD's appears in history yesterday. People do not drink and drive with the intent to kill a bus full on Nuns but they did so knowing that very well could be the result and they had no justification to take the risk

 

[1robin]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Again, with simulating instead of stimulating.

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.

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

Ciao

- viole

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.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

That is like blaming theft on the careless use of locks. Or falling off a cliff the careless use of gravity.

Thanks for using analogies that proves my point. Some theft is caused by not having security (locks) and some deaths off cliffs are caused by reckless behavior. Are these the only reasons for theft and falling off cliffs? No. There are multiple reasons for both issues just like there's multiple reasons why sexual disease is so rampant in Africa, just like there's multiple reasons for the spread of sexual disease in general.

***staff edit***

Fixed that for you. Alcohol and automobiles are not bad or wrong. It's when people are careless and combine the two that issues occur. Homosexuality isn't bad or wrong. It's when people are sexually careless that issues occur.

 

[methylatedghosts]

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.

So if I tell you that if I genuinely just enjoy being around this person and can imagine spending a life together, you would say I was feeling love?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

So if I tell you that if I genuinely just enjoy being around this person and can imagine spending a life together, you would say I was feeling love?

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction is to care for and protect someone with the intent to make them happy, that is love. If your attraction to a person is to show affection with the intent to receive affection in return, it is lust.

 

[Uberpod]

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction is to care for and protect someone with the intent to make them happy, that is love. If your attraction to a person is to show affection with the intent to receive affection in return, it is lust.

What about both, isn't that a thing?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction is to care for and protect someone with the intent to make them happy, that is love. If your attraction to a person is to show affection with the intent to receive affection in return, it is lust.

you mean to say yes?

 

[YmirGF]

you mean to say yes?

I still don't get this insistence on protection. It's almost medieval.

 

[ChristineES]

1. Feeling lust for your gf,bf, spouse, etc is not wrong.
2. Sex can be pleasurable even if the two people engaging in it are in love.(no kidding, right?)
3. Very few people have sex just to procreate. Nearly everyone engages in it because it is pleasurable.
4. I once asked my mother why people like to have sex (I was a child at the time, and wouldn't ask such a stupid question now) and she replied: "Because it feels good"

 

[Parsimony]

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.

That's a non sequitur. Completely different methods are needed to determine whether or not a fish can fly (some can) and what human nature is. Simply being a human is not enough to give you knowledge of either of those things. You need observational evidence to determine both.

Since you have no evidence to the contrary, then the logic remains valid.

"It's right until proven wrong" is called the argument from ignorance fallacy.

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.

So as long as these two homoromantic asexuals are seeking to please their partner more than themselves, they are not in the wrong.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

What about both, isn't that a thing?

Response: Two people of the same gender cannot love each other sexually. Only through lust. Just like a person who practices bestiality cannot love an animal sexually. It derives from lust.

 

[Uberpod]

Response: Two people of the same gender cannot love each other sexually. Only through lust. Just like a person who practices bestiality cannot love an animal sexually. It derives from lust.

Counter Response: Can I still love and pet my kitties with the hope they will purr and head butt me, or is that lust?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

That's a non sequitur. Completely different methods are needed to determine whether or not a fish can fly (some can) and what human nature is. Simply being a human is not enough to give you knowledge of either of those things. You need observational evidence to determine both.


"It's right until proven wrong" is called the argument from ignorance fallacy.


So as long as these two homoromantic asexuals are seeking to please their partner more than themselves, they are not in the wrong.

Response: knowing the nature of both fish and humans require the same method, which is observable and testable evidence. So your logic is invalid. Secondly, it's called right because there is no evidence that shows it to be wrong. That's called common sense and logic.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Can I still love and pet my kitties with the hope they will purr and head butt me, or is that lust?

Response: I am not the police, so what you can and cannot do is not a question for me. I only state what is morally right and wrong. Whether you choose to do it or not is up to you. Yet the better question is why would you pet your cat in an effort to make you happy, instead of the cat?

 

[Uberpod]

Response: I am not the police, so what you can and cannot do is not a question for me. I only state what is morally right and wrong. Whether you choose to do it or not is up to you. Yet the better question is why would you pet your cat in an effort to make you happy, instead of the cat?

Rejoinder: I like two-for-one deals.

 

[Parsimony]

Response: knowing the nature of both fish and humans require the same method, which is observable and testable evidence. So your logic is invalid.

So then you do need observable and testable evidence beyond simply "being" a human in order to determine human nature. You might know your own nature that way, but you can't know the nature of other humans that way. Different humans have different natures. Sure, many things are similar between us, but not everything is. A person without Tourette's doesn't automatically know what it's like to have Tourette's just because both they and a person with Tourette's are human.

Secondly, it's called right because there is no evidence that shows it to be wrong.

That is the exact definition of the argument from ignorance: Argument from ignorance - RationalWiki

That's called common sense and logic.

It's called a logical fallacy.