islam and homosexuality

Quote:

you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between romantic love and sexual attraction.

What is the difference Beth?

I don't focus on homosexuality, but that's the topic of the thread.

Furthermore, the proof that homosexuality is based on lust is quite obvious. Again, Homosexuals themselves state that they are able to love the same sex sexually, but not the opposite. By doing so, they are also acknowledging that there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. Yet, if you were to ask a homosexual what is that difference, even they wouldn't be able to answer. Nor can you answer. So what is the difference? Let's further analyze.

Love is a feeling of appreciation. A feeling of appreciation you get for being the caregiver and protector to someone, or for being cared for and protected by someone. For example, why does a child love their parent? It is because of the feeling of appreciation they get because the parent cares and provides and protects the child. Yet, why does the parent love the child? The newborn child does not care or provide anything. No. A parents love to their newborn is due to the feeling of appreciation they get for caring and providing and protectiong someone.

But since we are talking about loving someone sexually and we know that love comes from a feeling of appreciation for being the caregiver and protector or from being cared for or protected, then that means that loving someone SEXUALLY either comes from one's feeling of appreciation to care and protect someone or to show appreciation for being cared for and protected by someone. For the convenience of this discussion, we will call:

"Loving someone sexually which derives from one's feeling of appreciation to caregive and protect" as form A.

"Loving someone sexually which derives from showing feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected" as form B.

Now let us remember what homosexuals themselves say. Remember, not even homosexuals themselves can tell you specifically what is in their nature which makes them allegedly love the same sex sexually but not the opposite. However, such a claim means that they themselves are acknowledging that male and female sexual attraction is different. Yet since we know that loving someone sexually derives in only two forms as explained above, then that again means that homosexuals acknowledge that either gender can only have one or the other form. Thus the question is which form belongs to which gender? Again, the answer is obvious.

Form A must obviously be the sexual nature of attraction of men, not women, because Form A derives from the nature of a protector and in comparison to women, man's nature is in more accordance to being a protector than woman's. For men are physically bigger and stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to engage in physical combat when there is danger than women. This means that a woman's nature to love someone sexually derives from Form B. Since a man's desire to love someone sexually derives from his desire to be the caregiver and protector of someone, then that means that he can only love another woman sexually, not a man, for there is nothing in a man's nature which makes another man love him sexually. Why? Well what makes a person want to protect someone naturally? It's someone who is sensitive, delicate, weaker, smaller, pretty, adorable,etc. Think of why we see a kitten and want to love and care for it, pet it, etc. It is because of its adorable and cuddly appearance which makes us naturally want to love and care for the kitten. For by nature, someone which is adorable and sensitive draws out one's desire to love and protect them. This is a natural reaction. This is why we feel the natural need to love and protect a child, because of their adorable appearance and sensitive nature. However, a man's appearance is not cute and cuddly. His voice is not soft and light. Thus a man can not possibly love another man sexually, especially in preference over a woman. For a man does not posses the physical appearance necessary to draw another man to love him sexually. And since a woman's desire to love someone sexually comes from protection, then it's not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually. Why? Well what makes one see someone as a protector naturally? It's size, aggression, bigger, stronger, muscle, deeper voice box, etc. However, a woman's body does not resemble power and strength. These are attributes of men, not women. A woman's body is soft and curvy, with no muscle build. Thus it is not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually, especially in preference over men. For a woman does not posses the physical build or appearance necessary to draw another woman to love her sexually.

In conclusion, we see that, in accordance to nature itself, it is not humanly possible for the same sex to love each other sexually. Surely, they can love each other. Surely, they can engage in sexual activities. But these sexual activities do not come from love, but from lust, as demonstrated. As such, homosexuality is wrong, because it is based on lust, which is the idea of using one sexually to fulfill ones own sexual desires. This kind of mindstate is horrific, as it is the same mindstate of rapists and pedophiles. Using someone is already wrong. But to use someone sexually is one of the most terrible things someone can do. This is what sex based on lust is, which is wrong. And since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well.

What I've stated is that homosexual sex is based on lust, not love. That does not change the fact that two people of the same sex cannot love each other. However, if those two people decide to have sex, it is not humanly possible for them to do so out of love. It can only derive from lust. People of the same sex cannot love each other sexually, because it is not within human nature to do so.

People have answered the question.

You refuse to listen to the responses.

That is your choice.

That doesn't even make sense as an English sentence. "Not to the opposite?" What does that mean? Whose "opposite?"

If two men could love each other, would it be acceptable for them to have sex?

To begin with, the statement that love also derives from "loving someone for whom they are and not necessarily wanting to protect them or be protected by them" makes no sense. For you're saying that love derives from love, since you include "loving" in your definition of where love comes from. Something can't derive from itself. So this argument fails.

Secondly, the other instances of love mentioned in your example are acts of love, and not where the feeling of love comes from. In other words, you stated what a person does when they feel love, such as loving someone for whom they are and not necessarily wanting to protect, but that does not address why they are loving to begin with, and where the emotion comes from. So it does not refute the argument presented as to where the feeling of love derives from.

Lastly, my argument also included the fact that homosexuals themselves claim to be able to love the same sex sexually but not the opposite, thus stating that there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. Yet when asked to name that difference, you presented nothing. Thus your argument completely fails throughout and does not disprove the fact that homosexual sex is based on lust, and not love.

Quote:

That doesn't even make sense as an English sentence. "Not to the opposite?" What does that mean? Whose "opposite?"

Response: It makes perfect sense. The sentence clearly implies to the opposite as the opposite sex.

"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 to the opposite?

I was unclear, but I was referring to circumstances other than the protector/protected dichotomy that you assert. There are other circumstances such as the feeling of appreciation for whom someone is and not necessarily wanting to protect them or be protected by them.

Here you are begging the question by attempting to differentiate the other instances of love that I've presented as "acts of love" and not "where the feelings of love come from," when your own dichotomy itself can be described as "acts of love" and not describe "where the feelings of love come from."

I do not present a difference between the sexual nature of attraction between men and women because I do not believe there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. You assert that you know that there is a difference, but that assertion is based on your petitio principii arguments and nothing else.

OK, so your question:

Quote: Al-Fatihah


"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 to the opposite?

really means: "why don't homosexuals love each other the same way that heterosexuals love each other." Right?

Homosexuals themselves state that they are able to love the same sex sexually, but not the opposite.

Yet, if you were to ask a homosexual what is that difference, even they wouldn't be able to answer.

Love is a feeling of appreciation.

But since we are talking about loving someone sexually and we know that love comes from a feeling of appreciation for being the caregiver and protector or from being cared for or protected

Remember, not even homosexuals themselves can tell you specifically what is in their nature which makes them allegedly love the same sex sexually but not the opposite.

However, such a claim means that they themselves are acknowledging that male and female sexual attraction is different.

Form A must obviously be the sexual nature of attraction of men, not women, because Form A derives from the nature of a protector and in comparison to women, man's nature is in more accordance to being a protector than woman's.

This means that a woman's nature to love someone sexually derives from Form B.

Since a man's desire to love someone sexually derives from his desire to be the caregiver and protector of someone, then that means that he can only love another woman sexually, not a man, for there is nothing in a man's nature which makes another man love him sexually.

Well what makes a person want to protect someone naturally? It's someone who is sensitive, delicate, weaker, smaller, pretty, adorable,etc.

However, a man's appearance is not cute and cuddly. His voice is not soft and light.

For a man does not posses the physical appearance necessary to draw another man to love him sexually.

And since a woman's desire to love someone sexually comes from protection, then it's not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually.

Well what makes one see someone as a protector naturally? It's size, aggression, bigger, stronger, muscle, deeper voice box, etc.

However, a woman's body does not resemble power and strength.

A woman's body is soft and curvy, with no muscle build.

Using someone is already wrong.