A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[1robin]

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.

No theft ever committed by anyone in he history of is the cause of missing locks but bad behavior. The reasons why a person acts on his gay impulses is not the issue. I don't care if he does it to gratify a deviant sexual appetite or because he claims he loved the person) my argument is independent of motive.

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

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.

I can grant what you said and it won't change anything. It is engaging in risky behavior without cause that is the problem and what my argument states.


This brings up another of the many paradoxes defenders of homosexuality cough up in the effort to rationalize a preference. Lets follow some logical and deductive steps.

1. Alcohol is not evil. That is concluded from the fact that the alcohol molecules that make it up have no moral properties.
2. Cliffs are not evil because the molecules that make up a cliff have no moral properties.
3. Conclusion nothing composed of molecules is moral because no molecule has moral properties.
4. Deduction your not moral because your composed of molecules that lack moral properties.

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.

 

[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.

Since you didn't reply before, I'm going to take it that you are saying I feel love. What if I also said I'd like to **** her brains out? Would I not be feeling lust as well as love? They are two completely different things that can, believe it or not, exist in a person at the same time

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Sex is a fun activity that is used for bonding two individuals. That is not "comfort" that is bonding. You can't turn my claim around as it makes no sense. "Comforting" someone by having sex with them is childish, immature, and unrealistic.

Your archaic views on sex and women, gender roles, and your disregard for others only proves your own ignorance. You can keep talking all you want, I am merely watching you prove your own deficiencies. The more you speak, the worse you sound.

Try a different approach if you want people to actually take you seriously.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Writing in bold does not prove anything. Refrain from yelling please.

 

[The Hammer]

Since you didn't reply before, I'm going to take it that you are saying I feel love. What if I also said I'd like to **** her brains out? Would I not be feeling lust as well as love? They are two completely different things that can, believe it or not, exist in a person at the same time

It can't be lust because you are with a woman, lust doesn't exist between to committed heterosexual partners. *sarcasm*

 

[methylatedghosts]

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

Almost?

My ex gf certainly didn't need my protection. She could do that very well all by herself

 

[The Hammer]

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

Response: Bull-Shiite... You have no proof of this claim.

What if two loving homosexuals, never slept with one another, and were only in a committed non-sexual relationship? Loving, supporting, caring for and protecting one another. while cohabitating?

 

[methylatedghosts]

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.

You need to go back to school to learn a thing or two about logic and how it works

 

[Uberpod]

What if two loving homosexuals, never slept with one another, and were only in a committed non-sexual relationship? Loving, supporting, caring for and protecting one another. while cohabitating?

Sounds gay!

 

[ChristineES]

As a human being, I can truly say that I never consciously decided who I was and was not attracted to. It is a normal human reaction.

 

[The Hammer]

Sounds gay!

Duh, lol . It is gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. I have a gay friend who is in a non-sexual relationship with someone *shrug* it's why I brought up the opinion.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Since you didn't reply before, I'm going to take it that you are saying I feel love. What if I also said I'd like to **** her brains out? Would I not be feeling lust as well as love? They are two completely different things that can, believe it or not, exist in a person at the same time

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction to someone is to show affection with the intent to please them and make them happy, it is love. If you show affection with the intent to receive affection, it is lust.

 

[Uberpod]

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction to someone is to show affection with the intent to please them and make them happy, it is love. If you show affection with the intent to receive affection, it is lust.

Pleading: When will you let us in on why you think it is not possible for a wish to give and receive to occur simultaneously? I volunteered at the Gay Pride festival to both support the community AND to get a free t-shirt!! Am I evil?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Sex is a fun activity that is used for bonding two individuals. That is not "comfort" that is bonding. You can't turn my claim around as it makes no sense. "Comforting" someone by having sex with them is childish, immature, and unrealistic.

Your archaic views on sex and women, gender roles, and your disregard for others only proves your own ignorance. You can keep talking all you want, I am merely watching you prove your own deficiencies. The more you speak, the worse you sound.

Try a different approach if you want people to actually take you seriously.

Response: Once again, your mental deficiency to be able to find comfort in sex is your problem Not mine or someone else. So the more you speak, the more you make my point, which is you have none.Thanks.

 

[ChristineES]

Response: As I stated before, if your attraction to someone is to show affection with the intent to please them and make them happy, it is love. If you show affection with the intent to receive affection, it is lust.

Then we're all guilty of lust.

 

[Nada]

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Response: Bull-Shiite... You have no proof of this claim.

What if two loving homosexuals, never slept with one another, and were only in a committed non-sexual relationship? Loving, supporting, caring for and protecting one another. while cohabitating?

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.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

You need to go back to school to learn a thing or two about logic and how it works

Response: Likewise.

 

[ChristineES]

Let me clarify (I've been using that word a lot lately). Sometimes, when my husband and I have relations, it is because it feels good, not just because of love.

 

[Nada]

Let me clarify (I've been using that word a lot lately). Sometimes, when my husband and I have relations, it is because it feels good, not just because of love.

Lol... I appreciate your honesty.