Quran Ethics: Homosexuality.

Dear audience, Though I respect my opponent's civilized approach and humble manner as he presents his argument, his rebuttal however happens to be....a complete, entire strawman. Let's analyze. As I stated in my opening argument, homosexuality is wrong because sex between the same sex is based on lust, not love, and sex based on lust is wrong. For sex based on lust is the idea of using another sexually to please your own sexual desires. To use someone is already wrong, but to use someone sexually is the most heinous of acts, because sex is the most intimate of embraces. To use someone for what is most intimate to them like sex causes heavy devastation and leaves one severely dramatized. That is why those who are raped and molested feel the way they do. This is why sex based on lust is wrong and since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well. Thus my opponent would have to prove that homosexual sex is not based on lust but love, to disprove my claim. So what does he do? He begins by saying: "My opponent can not deny that a Marriage is an act of love and thus when Homosexuals marry; they do not do so out of an act of "Lust". What exactly is my opponent talking about? This is a strawman. For I have never stated that homosexuals do not marry out of love, nor have I said that they can not love. In fact, I concluded my argument by saying that the same sex can in fact love each other. So his whole rebuttal is a strawman and not relevant, thus disproving nothing. For I specifically stated throughout my argument that the same sex can not love each other sexually, not that they can not love each other, as my opponent says. Again I repeat, homosexuality is wrong because sex is based on lust, not love, and sex based on lust is wrong. Yet the whole beginning of my opponent's argument is not even a refutation of my argument, thus proving nothing. He has to prove in fact that sexual activity between the same sex is not based on lust, but love, to prove my argument wrong. Instead, he aimed to prove that homosexuals can love each other, which is a strawman. And as any reasonable person can see, a strawman argument is used due to the fact that the actual argument presented can't be disproven. Thus my opponent is already acknowledging that my argument is flawless, and proven to be true. Since he hasn't even addressed my argument, he has not proven anything. He then says: "Furthermore new science has found that Homosexual male brain structure has a makeup that is near on equal to that of a heterosexual female, and a homosexual female that of a heterosexual male,[4] this whilst not only furthering my original evidence, refutes the claim of Homosexuals not being able to love, they just love in an opposite way". Does this disprove that homosexual sex is based on lust? Not at all. What does the brain of a homosexual matching a heterosexual have to do with proof that homosexual sex is based on love? Nothing. Brain structure does not prove that someone is having sex out of love. This is an absurd argument. Brain structure and love are not synonymous, so they can't mean the same thing as love, nor relate or be the cause of love.Once again, this is a flawed argument which proves nothing. He then says: "My opponent claims that a women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is, and thus a man can not love her as a protector, and he also claims that a female can not love the male as a cuddly cute thing that can protect him. This is utterly absurd and I will show you why. First off let me show you a few pictures : -" Another strawman from my opponent. For at no time have I stated that a man can not love a woman as a protector, nor can he quote otherwise. Nor have I stated that a female can not love a male as a cuddly cute thing that can protect him, nor can he quote otherwise. Thus my opponent again has stooped to using a strawman, which one clearly does when the argument they're faced with can't be refuted. As I explained in my first statement, love comes in two forms, form A and form B as explained in my opening statement. Notice, that nothing of his rebuttal disagrees that love comes in these two forms. As explained, love is: "either the feeling of appreciation you get for being the caregiver and protector of someone" form A. or " the feeling of appreciation you get for being cared for and protected by someone." form B. The examples given was the relationship between parent and child. Whereas the parent would feel "form A." towards their newborn while the newborn will fill "form B." Again, we notice above that my opponent doesn't contest this nor disagrees either. Thus far, he is actually agreeing to my argument, not disproving it. I go on to demonstrate that since this is the nature of love, that sex out of love has to derive from this nature, form A or form B. I remind my opponent that the claim of homosexuality itself acknowledges that men and women have different sexual natures of attraction, because the claim to sexually attract to the same sex but not the opposite means that there is something which is DIFFERENT in the sexual nature of the opposite sex which makes one choose the same sex. To this we also notice, my opponent never contested. Again showing that he must be in agreeance. So since the desire to love someone sexually only comes in two forms and homosexuals themselves acknowledge that both genders have a DIFFERENT sexual nature, then that means each form can not go to the same gender, but either or. The question remains as to which form belongs to which gender. I go on to demonstrate that since the nature of love in form A clearly derives from the concept of being the protector, then form A must be the nature of males, for in comparison to women, men would be considered protectors, because men are physically stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to fight when there is danger. Now pay attention. For this is where my opponent tries to twist the words of my argument. After demonstrating that the sexual nature of males derives from the concept of a protector, that sexual acts between two males can not come from love, for the natural appearance of a male does not draw someone to protect them. What makes one protect someone naturally? It's sensitivity, weaker, smaller,adorable, pretty,. Since there is nothing adorable or sensitive about the appearance or nature of a Man, it is not possible for another man to love another man sexually, especially over a woman, for there is nothing in the appearance of a man which draws another man to love him sexually. These are attributes of women. This is what I stated. But what does my opponent do. He states that I said: "a women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is". What? No where is there such a statement above. A complete strawman. A complete twist of words. I never mentioned such a statement, as anyone can see. I never stated women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is. This is a complete fabrication. So I'm asking the audience, why? Why would someone twist the words or refute a statement which was never stated? The reason is obvious. It's clear that my opponent can't refute my argument. It's an act of desperation. In fact, he's never shown disagreement to my whole argument this whole time, but rather used a strawman argument and refuted that whole argument. The only logical reason for doing so is because he himself agrees to my argument and can't find fault in it, which is why he has obviously taken the approach to not refute my arguments, but to refute a strawman's argument. Dear audience, my opponent has admittedly failed. The evidence is clear. I have unfortunately ran out of character space to further disprove my opponent and his claims. Yet I've presented enough to show that my argument remains valid. His has failed. Thank you.