They're not obvious to me, and I'm not just asking in context to the homosexual debate. Assuming we are only discussing heterosexuals, what's the difference?
Love for a friend is ok and natural if you love someone with the same gender. Romantic love with the same gender isnot ok. There are other idfferences...most of which are pretty obvious.
They're not obvious to me, and I'm not just asking in context to the homosexual debate. Assuming we are only discussing heterosexuals, what's the difference?
Mostly it's the sexual aspect...(kissing, sex, groping, etc. physically and lusting emotionally) that goes with the romantic part. Friends do not do those things, at least not in my experience.
What's the difference between romantic love and love for a friend?
So physical interaction and lust is love?
No. Lust was a bad word to use. I think physical attraction is a better word.l. er, phrase. Lust is bad. Love is good.
Romantic love has physical attraction and love for a friend does not.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 21, 2005 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Tra ]</font>
If God thought that homosexuality was O.K. he wouldn't have destroyed the wiked city of Sodom and Gamorah(sp??)which was FULL of it. another point I always think about is this-why can't two homosexual men or women together produce life and offspring? Instead they have to go out of their way to adopt,etc, etc. this shows that homosexuality is NOT natural and NOT something God intended, because if he wanted us to be having a romantic and sexual relationship with the same sex he would have made the reproductive systems a little differently so you could maybe to be homosexual or hetrosexual) we all forget to that sex is a bilogical function to ensure continuence of the human race. Male and Female are the only ones that have ever created another life together and always will- not Male and Male or Female and Female. Thats a fact and something we all must face.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh...actually, sex between human beings is about far more than just procreation. It's also a powerful social bond to do with intimacy, love, and--oh no!--enjoyment.Originally posted by Dancin'4'AG:
sex is a bilogical function to ensure continuence of the human race. Male and Female are the only ones that have ever created another life together...Thats a fact and something we all must face.
Even though we've been through a sexual revolution or two and have lightened up somewhat and mostly accepted this, it seems to me a lot of people still have trouble admitting that sex for reasons other than procreation is "okay." Must be those good old Puritanical roots of American society. (And I believe it was H.L. Mencken who defined modern Puritanism as: the overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time, LOL)
This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why some people have such a problem with the "sin" of homosexual relationships. I think, deep down, the anti-gay faction figures that if heterosexual partners have sex for (oh no!) pleasure, there's at least a *chance* their birth control will fail and they'll have to PAY for the act. With homosexuals, on the other hand, there is *no* chance an unwanted, unplanned child is going to be conceived as a result of pleasurable (oh no!)relations.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 21, 2005 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Voice-of-Reason ]</font>
I know sex is pleasurable. I don't have a problem with that. That's not why I think being gay is wrong. Romans 1:18-32 is why I think being gay is wrong along with the aforementioned Sodomn and Gomorrah. So pleasure (oh no!) is not the problem here.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks