/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality



جوري
01-23-2010, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I hate to meddle in the discussion but I would love to hear your logical explanation of why homosexuality is wrong.
.
It isn't in conformity with the 'norm' what is decreed by religion or 'Nature' if we were strict naturalists.

in fact up to the 1970's this was classified in the DSM-II as an act of deviance. And it really is no different than other deviant and 'abnormal' sexual acts. I won't get into the trail of other problems that concern homosexuals exclusively (for instance their highest rate of anal cancer) or kaposi's sarcoma etc. but strictly from a religious/ or naturalistic point of view, it is actually worthless to be homosexual. If we are to ignore religion and think of what good homosexuality brings, it brings nothing.. futile cycles aren't inspired by 'nature' but by a sick psychology, and that is in fact what it is-- a psychological rather than a biological aberrancy!
I can't believe we are even discussing this like it is normal status quo!

all the best
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Lynx
01-23-2010, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It isn't in conformity with the 'norm' what is decreed by religion or 'Nature' if we were strict naturalists.

in fact up to the 1970's this was classified in the DSM-II as an act of deviance. And it really is no different than other deviant and 'abnormal' sexual acts. I won't get into the trail of other problems that concern homosexuals exclusively (for instance their highest rate of anal cancer) or kaposi's sarcoma etc. but strictly from a religious/ or naturalistic point of view, it is actually worthless to be homosexual. If we are to ignore religion and think of what good homosexuality brings, it brings nothing.. futile cycles aren't inspired by 'nature' but by a sick psychology, and that is in fact what it is-- a psychological rather than a biological aberrancy!
I can't believe we are even discussing this like it is normal status quo!

all the best
Just because something is not natural does not imply that is wrong. No one would hold such a weak ethical theory! Even if it is an abnormal sexuality it still doesn't follow that it is wrong. And there are many homosexual couples that don't suffer from any medical problems...but irresponsible sex is bad in both hetero/homosexual couples. As for not bringing any good..well I am sure homosexuals find some good in being able to be with the people they love/attracted to. So yes, there is a good.

Ethical judgments are inherently contractual between people. That is why labeling things like homosexuality that don't violate any social contract is going to be extraordinarily difficult.
Reply

جوري
01-23-2010, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Just because something is not natural does not imply that is wrong.
Says who?
No one would hold such a weak ethical theory!
Many in fact do!

Even if it is an abnormal sexuality it still doesn't follow that it is wrong.
And you are yet to prove why it isn't wrong!
and give us the definition of wrong while working on your logic!

And there are many homosexual couples that don't suffer from any medical problems
There are many people with many psychological conditions, like bestiality who also don't suffer any medical problems, it doesn't make it anymore OK!

...but irresponsible sex is bad in both hetero/homosexual couples.
It has nothing to do with the term 'irresponsible'
does committing a perfect crime and being responsibly careful, make it OK?

As for not bringing any good..well I am sure homosexuals find some good in being able to be with the people they love/attracted to. So yes, there is a good.
That makes no sense whatsoever.. those who practice bestiality for instance bring pleasure to themselves and to the animals they fondle, pleasure and hedonism doesn't equal to goodness!

Ethical judgments are inherently contractual between people. That is why labeling things like homosexuality that don't violate any social contract is going to be extraordinarily difficult.
It violates many social and moral contracts.
It isn't a union that is recognized by God and from the lowest common denominator sex outside of marriage is a sin!

all the best!
Reply

جوري
01-23-2010, 07:59 PM
Certainly 'health reasons' aren't the conly factors contributing to the social and moral significance of the negative consequences of homosexuality. They certainly need to be mentioned!

THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL June 27, 2005
www.frc.org
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.
Homosexual activists attempt to portray their lifestyle as normal and
healthy, and insist that homosexual relationships are the equivalent in
every way to their heterosexual counterparts. Hollywood and the media
relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted
homosexual. The reality is quite opposite to this caricature which was
recently conceded by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases
indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most
serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of
sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in
risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is
no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships.
These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable STDs. In
addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a
variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:
Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two
decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other STDs, the incidence
of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the
rise.
· According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had
anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the
percentage of those reporting "always" using condoms declined from
69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]
· The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men
reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex
increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this
category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals
twenty-five years old or younger.[3]
Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
· A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids
Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of
homosexual and bisexual men with HIV "continue to engage in
unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting
HIV."[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco
found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected
oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to
casual sex partners.[5]
· A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals
reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous
six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners.
Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected
anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV
serostatus of their partners.[6]
Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the
generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are
engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.
· A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of threehundred-
sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged
fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants
reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they
had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used
a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one
percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their
last same-sex encounter.[7]
· A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to
twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men
and women. Another CDC study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men
with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected
anal sex--the riskiest sexual behavior--in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent
increase from the previous two years.[8]
Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male
homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female
homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex
with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex
partners.[9]
· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals
published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that
only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most
common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of
having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24
percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred
sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several
respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than
a thousand sexual partners.[11]
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and
Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual
relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting
hundreds of lifetime partners."[12]
Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual
relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a
committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means
something radically different from marriage.
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M.
Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in
homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these
men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all
couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated
some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that
the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and
three years.[14]
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those
homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not
necessarily result in healthier behavior.
· The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged
in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than
those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a
host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including
AIDS.
· The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of
unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An
English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred,
finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady
relationships.[16]
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy
types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the
body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the
genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or
asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital
warts.
· HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the
homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of
Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal
among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men
carried HPV."[17]
· HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS
Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew
Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a
cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV
infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIVnegative
gay men, according to a number of recent studies."[18]
· The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr.
Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in
Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that "HPV is
believed to cause cervical cancer in women."[19]
Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver
cancer.
· Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by
the CDC reports: "Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with
men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized
world."[20]
· Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the
liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong
infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and
death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all
ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by
AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.[21]
· Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver
failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to
thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and
B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk
for contracting hepatitis C.[22]
Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. Gonorrhea
traditionally occurs on the genitals, but has recently appeared in the rectal
region and in the throat. Although easily treated by antibiotics, according to
the CDC only "about 50 percent of men have some signs or symptoms, and
"many women who are infected have no symptoms of infection."[23]
Untreated gonorrhea can have serious and permanent health consequences,
including infertility damage to the prostate and urethra.
· A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in
rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices
may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In
1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is
increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national
gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger
percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
· The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with
homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found
that "gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and
homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among
heterosexuals)."[26] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology
found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal
(throat) gonorrhea--15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for
heterosexual men.[27]
Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout
the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders,
blindness, and death. The initial symptoms of syphilis are often mild and
painless, leading some individuals to avoid seeking treatment. According to
the National Institutes of Health, the disease may be mistaken for other
common illnesses: "syphilis has sometimes been called 'the great imitator'
because its early symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases."
Early symptoms include rashes, moist warts in the groin area, slimy white
patches in the mouth, or pus-filled bumps resembling chicken pox.[28]
· According to the CDC, "transmission of the organism occurs during
vaginal, anal, or oral sex."[29] In addition, the Archives of Internal
Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times
that of heterosexuals.[30]
· The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly
health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by
syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV
infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring
hiv infection when syphilis is present."[31]
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[32] The Journal of the American Medical
Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and
enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes."[33] Many of
the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause GBS are found in feces and
transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text
Anal Pleasure and Health, "[s]exual activities provide many opportunities
for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a
sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact."[34]
· Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon
that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is
associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis
that are widespread among homosexuals.[35] The Sexually Transmitted
Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical
Association reports that "[p]roctitis occurs predominantly among persons
who participate in anal intercourse."
· Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the
Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the
American Medical Association, "enteritis occurs among those whose
sexual practices include oral-fecal contact."[36] Enteritis can cause
abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption
of nutrients, weight loss.[37] According to a report in The Health
Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health,
some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below]
"appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with
men."[38]
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
· Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that
homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more
than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December
1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men
and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative
total of male AIDS cases.[39]
· Women risk contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual relations with
infected MSM. According to the CDC, "HIV infection among U.S. women
has increased significantly over the last decade, especially in
communities of color. cdc estimates that, in the United States, between
120,000 and 160,000 adult and adolescent females are living with HIV
infection, including those with AIDS." In 1999, for example, most of the
women (40 percent) reported with AIDS were infected through
heterosexual exposure to HIV.[40] That number is actually higher, as
"historically, more than two-thirds of AIDS cases among women initially
reported without identified risk were later reclassified as heterosexual
transmission."[41]
· Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other lifethreatening
diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS
Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that
homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-
fold increase in Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold
increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip
cancer."[42]
HIV/AIDS Among Young People
· AIDS incidence is on the rise among teens and young adults. The CDC
reports that, "even though AIDS incidence (the number of new cases
diagnosed during a given time period, usually a year) is declining, there
has not been a comparable decline in the number of newly diagnosed HIV
cases among youth.[43]
· Young homosexual men are at particular risk. The CDC estimates that
"at least half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among
people under twenty-five, and the majority of young people are infected
sexually."[44] By the end of 1999, 29,629 young people aged thirteen to
twenty-four were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States. MSM were
the single largest risk category: in 1999, for example, 50 percent of all
new AIDS cases were reported among young homosexuals.[45]
· Sexually active young women are also at risk. The CDC reports: "In
1999, among young women the same age, 47 percent of all AIDS cases
reported were acquired heterosexually and 11 percent were acquired
through injection drug use."
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies
of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent
in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having
high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and
chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who
have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and
extensive transmission of STDs."[47] The CDC report concluded: "Persons
with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a
twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."[48]
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer,
which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other
bodily organs.
· Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports
that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only
0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That
rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to
Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical
cancer."[49]
· At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National
Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the
incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-
fold compared with the general population."[50]
Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM
· Many Lesbians also have had sex with men. The homosexual newspaper
The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious
Diseases, reported that "the study's data confirmed previous scientific
observations that most women who have sex with women also have had
sex with men."[51] The study added that "sex with men in the prior year
was common, as were sexual practices between female partners that
possibly could transmit HPV."[52]
· Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual
counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians
reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also
demonstrates that a woman's sexual identity is not an accurate predictor
of behavior, with a large proportion of 'lesbian' women reporting sex
with (often high risk) men."[53] The study found that "the median
number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for
WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners
versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty
lifetime male sexual partners."[54]
· A study in the American Journal of Public Health concurs that bisexual
women are at increased risk for contracting sexually transmitted
diseases: "Our findings corroborate the finding that wsmw (women who
have sex with men and women) are more likely than WSMO (women who
have sex with men only) to engage in various high-risk behaviors" and
also "to engage in a greater number of risk-related behaviors."[55] The
study suggested that the willingness to engage in risky sexual practices
"could be tied to a pattern of sensation-seeking behavior."[56]
· MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492
homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had
sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter "said
they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women." Nearly 7
percent of the men in the study were HIV positive."[57] "The study
confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to
women," said the CDC.[58]
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk. The assumption that lesbians
involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual
disease is false. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes:
"The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW was similar to all WSW."[59]
One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to
report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual
contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."[60]
Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians. Citing a 1999 report released by the
Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the
homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade notes that "various studies
on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater
frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking,
alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight."[61] Elsewhere the Blade also
reports: "Some experts believe Lesbians might be more likely than women
in general to develop breast or cervical cancer because a disproportionate
number of them fall into high-risk categories."[62]
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Lesbians
· In a study of the medical records of 1,408 lesbians, the journal Sexually
Transmitted Infections found that women who have sexual relations with
womenare at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted
diseases: "We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV (bacterial
vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with
controls."[63]
Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians. A study published in Nursing
Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol
and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors: "Like most problem
drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well
as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34
percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6
percent)." In addition, "Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with
frequent drunkenness."[64]
Alcohol Abuse Among Homosexuals and Lesbians
· The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian
women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than
heterosexual women.[65] Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than
heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to
11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7
percent).[66]
· Although the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists article
found no significant connection between male homosexuals and alcohol
abuse, a study in Family Planning Perspective concluded that male
homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men,
by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and
bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual
men to have a history of problem drinking."[67] The study noted that
problem drinking may contribute to the "significantly higher STD rates
among gay and bisexual men."[68]
Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.
· A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and
violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent
of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of
verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to
this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical
abuse.[69]
· In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research
found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they
had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently
indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and
combined physical-psychological abuse."[70]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay
Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population."[71]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are
traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports
that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of
violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
· A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate
between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these
distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least
intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating
relationships.[73]
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and
Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000
respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for
treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of
life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven
percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or
sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous
relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily
basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent
drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month.
Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or
often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than
half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time
during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[74]
Greater Risk for Suicide.
· A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality
and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that
homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall
mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins
to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental
health or substance abuse disorders.[75]
· Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General
Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as
"gay," lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had
mental health problems.[76] Significantly, in his comments on the studies
in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various
speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that
"widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be
unhappy or worse, mentally ill."[77]
Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of
Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they
have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and
bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same
pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay
and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixtyfifth
birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual
men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to
that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]
In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other STDs became
widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals
of her fellow activists: "We have an agenda to create a society in which
homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the
most important agenda item."[79] Debilitating illness, chronic disease,
psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the
legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an
"agenda" above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to
represent.
Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to
downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious,
life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical
information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in
an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in
particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health
effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are
put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an
obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its
citizens. --
END NOTES
1. Bill Roundy, "STD Rates on the Rise," New York Blade News, December 15, 2000, p.
1.
2. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with
Men--San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.
3. Ibid.
4. Ulysses Torassa, "Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's
1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner
(July 15, 2000).
5. Jon Garbo, "Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," Ga yHealth
News (July 18, 2000). Available at:
www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136.
6. Ibid.
7. Jon Garbo, "Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers," Gay Health News
(January 3, 2001). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/97863827496203.../
index.html?record=35.
8. "Bisexuals Serve as 'Bridge' Infecting Women With HIV," Reuters News Service
(July 30, 2000). Available at: www.mb.com/ph/scty/2000%2D07/sc073004.asp.
9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and
Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg
and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older
Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de
Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on
September 7, 2000.
11. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,"
Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.
12. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in
Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph
Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason
Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.
13. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships
Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.
14. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and
Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian
Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited
by J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
15. A.P.M. Coxon et al., "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS,
July 1993, pp. 877-882.
16. G. J. Hart et al., "Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in
Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992," AIDS, July 1993, pp.
863-869, cited in "Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand," Position Analysis paper
by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
17. Bill Roundy, "STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV
Misperceptions," The Washington Blade (December 8, 2000). Available at:
www.washblade.com/health/a.
18. Richard A. Zmuda, "Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men," Cancer News
(August 17, 2000). Available at: cancerlinksusa.com/cancernews_sm/Aug2000
/081700analcancer.
19. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer," The Washington Blade (June 2,
2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000602hm.
20. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) September 4, 1998, p. 708.
21. "Viral Hepatitus B--Frequently Asked Questions," National Center for Infectious
Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)September 29, 2000. Available
at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/faqb.
22. "Hepatitus C: Epidemiology: Transmission Modes" Mortality and Morbidity Weekly
Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1998.Available at:
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis /c/edu/1/default.htm.
23. "Gonorrhea," Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers For Disease
Control and Prevention) September, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/
Fact_Sheets/FactsGonorrhea.htm.
24. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea."
25. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) January 29, 1999, p. 48.
26. J. Vincelette et al., "Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among
Patients Seen by Private Practitioners," Canadian Medical Association Journal 144
(1995): 713-721.
27. SPR Jebakumar et al., "Value of Screeningfor Oropharyngeal Chlamydia
Trachomatis Infection," Journal of Clinical Pathology 48 (1995): 658-661.
28. "Some Facts about Syphilis," Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/ Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.
29. "Syphilis Elimination: History in the Making," Division of Sexually Transmitted
Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_...Syphilis_Facts.
30. C. M. Hutchinson et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending
Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516.
31. "Syphilis Elimination."
32. Homosexual advocates object to the use of this term (Gay Bowel Syndrome),
which they say unfairly stigmatizes homosexual behavior. Health Implications
Associated with Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health,
1999), p. 55.
33. "STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis," (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention) 1993. Available at: /www.ama-assn.org/special/std
/treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm.
34. Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women (San Francisco:
Down There Press, 1998), p. 220.
35. Health Implications, p. 56.
36. "STD Treatment Guidelines."
37. Health Implications; See Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health, p. 220, 1.
38. Health Implications.
39. "Table 9. Male Adult/Adolescent AIDS Cases by Exposure Category and
Race/Ethnicity, Reported through December 1999, United States," Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention: Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention: available at:
www/cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102/table9.
40. "HIV/AIDS Among US Women: Minority and Young Women at Continuing Risk,"
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000.
Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.
41. Ibid.
42. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer."
43. "Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS among America's Youth," Divisions of HIV/AIDS
Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. "Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men,"
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000.
Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.
47. "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease among Men Who Have Sex with
Men--King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report:
Centers for Disease Control, September 10, 1999, pp. 773-777. Available at:
www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm4835a1.
48. "Need for Sustained HIV Prevention."
49. Bob Roehr, "Anal Cancer and You," Between the Lines News (November 16, 2000).
Available at: http://www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/a...rticle=3835560.
50. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer."
51. Rhonda Smith, "HPV Can be Transmitted between Women," The Washington Blade
(December 4, 1998). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/9901011h.
52. Ibid.
53. Katherine Fethers et al., "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in
Women Who Have Sex with Women," Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000):348.
54. Ibid., p. 347.
55. V. Gonzales, et al., "Sexual and Drug-Use Risk Factors for hiv and STDs: A
Comparison of Women with and without Bisexual Experiences," American Journal of
Public Health 89 (December 1999): 1846.
56. Ibid.
57. "Bisexuals Serve as 'Bridge' Infecting Women with HIV," Reuters News Service
(July 30, 2000).
58. Ibid.
59. "Sexually Transmitted Infections," p. 347.
60. Ibid.
61. Rhonda Smith, "Childbirth Linked with Smaller Breast Tumor Size," The
Washington Blade (December 17, 1999). Available at:
www.washblade.com/health/000114lh.
62. "HPV can be Transmitted between Women."
63. Katherine Fethers et al., "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in
Women Who Have Sex with Women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000, p.
345.
64. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic
Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
65. Peter Freiberg, "Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians," The Washington
Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.
66. Ibid.
67. Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, "Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted
Diseases: A National Survey," Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994): 261.
68. Ibid.
69. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian
Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (December 1994): 469-492.
70. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian
Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of
Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
71. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay
Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
72. "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings,
November 1994, p. 2.
73. Health Implications, p. 79.
74. J. Bradford, et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental
Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in
Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
75. R. Herrell, et al., "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry
56 (1999): 867-874.
76. D. Fergusson, et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and
Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p.
876-884.
77. Ibid.
78. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and
Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
79. Quoted in Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New
York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 286.

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML...tiveEffect.pdf
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Lynx
01-23-2010, 08:10 PM
Skye:

And you are yet to prove why it isn't wrong!
and give us the definition of wrong while working on your logic!
Lol. Are you kidding? Prove why it isn't wrong? Do you know what Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy is? And you talk about logic, how ironic !

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

And yes I agree with your study; if you don't use condoms when having sex and if you don't tell your partner that you are HIV positive and then have sex with them...you're going to start health problems :)
Reply

Lynx
01-23-2010, 08:20 PM
Oh I forgot about the rest of your posts.

There are many people with many psychological conditions, like bestiality who also don't suffer any medical problems, it doesn't make it anymore OK!
Assumption: that bestiality is wrong. It's certainly disgusting. But I think the problem with bestiality is that it causes harm to the animal or at least it's an abuse of an animal. But anyway, you'd have to start a whole new thread on why bestiality is wrong. Good luck...and then show why it's similar to homosexuality.

It has nothing to do with the term 'irresponsible'
does committing a perfect crime and being responsibly careful, make it OK?
Question-Begging Fallacy. I agree if a crime was committed perfectly then it is still a crime but we are arguing whether homosexuality is bad, so you can't assume it is bad as a premise in your argument !

That makes no sense whatsoever.. those who practice bestiality for instance bring pleasure to themselves and to the animals they fondle, pleasure and hedonism doesn't equal to goodness!
OH OKAY. I figured being able to marry/love the person you want was something of profound goodness. Maybe you can elaborate on what Good means?

It violates many social and moral contracts.
Such as?
Reply

جوري
01-23-2010, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Skye:



Lol. Are you kidding? Prove why it isn't wrong? Do you know what Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy is? And you talk about logic, how ironic !

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

And yes I agree with your study; if you don't use condoms when having sex and if you don't tell your partner that you are HIV positive and then have sex with them...you're going to start health problems :)

I am not kidding at all, in fact, you are the one who claimed it is normal (sharing a minority vision and a minority act) leaves the burden of proof on you, whatever the case, I don't wish to spend my time on fallacies as it detracts away from the topic at hand which in and of itself has been discussed here ad nauseam.

I have raised my objections in the two previous posts and believe that they suffice to elucidate my point of view.

all the best!
Reply

Lynx
01-24-2010, 07:45 AM
I didn't claim it was normal. It's not normal. I simply asked you why homosexuality is wrong and your reasons are logical fallacies. There's nothing wrong with that though. Even the smartest ethicist would have trouble demonstrating why homosexuality is wrong.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-24-2010, 07:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I didn't claim it was normal. It's not normal. I simply asked you why homosexuality is wrong and your reasons are logical fallacies. There's nothing wrong with that though. Even the smartest ethicist would have trouble demonstrating why homosexuality is wrong.
The inability of ethicists to define what is wrong and right, in ANY scenario, not only homosexuality, highlights the futile nature of subjective morality. There is no absolute standard for ethicists to to work on, compared to lets say scientists ...
Reply

Muslim Woman
01-24-2010, 04:30 PM
Salaam/Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
..why homosexuality is wrong .
If all men become homo , then how our sisters will get married ? There will be no next generations :hmm:

If there is no hereafter , then homosexuals will be safe ; but what if God really exists ? These people are gonna be roasted in fire yak ...imagine thier pain . Is not it safer for them to stay away from the evil ?
Reply

bewildred
01-24-2010, 04:51 PM
In a religious/Islamic view point, It's about what is halal or haram. It's defined with Charia, Sunna, Hadith or Quran. Saying if something is 'right' or 'wrong' is highly submitted to subjectivity.

Concerning homosexuality, it's sodomy that's haram. When a man feels an attraction to another man is not haram unless
he does the deed.
Reply

glo
01-24-2010, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman
Salaam/Peace



If all men become homo , then how our sisters will get married ? There will be no next generations :hmm:
What makes you think that all men will become homosexuals?

Statistics suggest that no more of 10% of the UK population are gays or lesbians, and that that figure has been fairly constant (as best as people can tell - obviously in the past people would have been much more reluctant to admit to being homosexual than they would be nowadays).

There is no suggestion that homosexuality will 'infect' the whole population.
Reply

sister herb
01-24-2010, 05:07 PM
What christianity says about homosexuality? Is it ok or is it sin?
Reply

جوري
01-24-2010, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I didn't claim it was normal. It's not normal. I simply asked you why homosexuality is wrong and your reasons are logical fallacies. There's nothing wrong with that though. Even the smartest ethicist would have trouble demonstrating why homosexuality is wrong.

when religion guides your morality it isn't difficult ti see where and how it is wrong, the same way you know that sex outside of marriage or abortion as birth control is wrong (yet people do it anyway).. the fact of the matter if you'll have a hard time proving anything is wrong depending very well in your baseline. If you have nothing to define right from wrong for you, your views are bound to be askew, and you are bound to ask ridiculous questions of people.

Religion defines the finite details of morality the way pathology defines specimen and frozen sections for the surgeons.

Personally I think they only humiliate themselves by their acts, I don't care what they do in their private time, I don't want it in my face around the clock!

all the best!
Reply

deepfreeze66
01-24-2010, 05:09 PM
lmao gossamer skye, perhaps you should paraphrase that looooong thing you pasted there. Like anybody will read all of that ;D
Reply

جوري
01-24-2010, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
What christianity says about homosexuality? Is it ok or is it sin?
Everything is allowed in Christianity, worshiping men and getting bent!
Reply

aamirsaab
01-24-2010, 05:10 PM
:sl:
The issue is more psychological than anything else (men behaving like women and vice versa which contradicts the main role of either party when placed in a family structure). It also flies in the face of evolution and thus science as a whole but oh well.
Reply

Alpha Dude
01-24-2010, 05:14 PM
Without getting into the 'ethics' of it (let's face it, muslims and non-muslims will always have a different idea on what is to be considered morally correct), nature itself has a lot to say on the purpose of homosexuals.

Men and women have different but complementary genitalia and are able to advance the human race via procreational intercourse.

Humans do not have the natural ability to procreate in a homo setting. Homosexuals cannot procreate and cannot advance the human race by themselves.

A homosexually inclined person is about as useful to advancing the human race as somebody who has intercourse with a fair-ground ride (does happen).

Ultimately, such acts can be done, but the practitioners have deviated from what is to be considered natural.

Humans only have one option if they want to survive and that is hetero. This implies homosexuality is a flaw or disease.

Usually, effort is spent curing diseases. Homosexuality should be treated no different.
Reply

deepfreeze66
01-24-2010, 05:18 PM
You know, I lived in Taiwan for years (born there), and in some districts, if someone is gay, they get fingers chopped off +o(

Homosexuality is corrupt and IMMORAL and it should be banned with maximum offenses if caught...
Reply

czgibson
01-24-2010, 05:38 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
A homosexually inclined person is about as useful to advancing the human race as somebody who has intercourse with a fair-ground ride (does happen).
So is someone who is celibate. Should celibacy be banned too?

Peace
Reply

Alpha Dude
01-24-2010, 05:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

So is someone who is celibate. Should celibacy be banned too?

Peace
Actually, celibacy is discouraged in Islam. Marriage is always favoured.
Reply

deepfreeze66
01-24-2010, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


So is someone who is celibate. Should celibacy be banned too?

Peace
That is two completely different things.

Homosexuality is corrupt and perverse. Remaining celibate is fine, as long as you can support yourself.

Homosexuality devolves us as humans and the entire practice should be outlawed.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-24-2010, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
What makes you think that all men will become homosexuals?

Statistics suggest that no more of 10% of the UK population are gays or lesbians, and that that figure has been fairly constant (as best as people can tell - obviously in the past people would have been much more reluctant to admit to being homosexual than they would be nowadays).

There is no suggestion that homosexuality will 'infect' the whole population.
There is also no suggestion that it will not spread. But if it does have genetic basis, it would be interesting to see how genes, which do not have any morality, spread down vertically and control the ratios of these sexual phenotypes. And if something is to be learned from the behavior of genes, humans might have to give away their morality and do with homosexuality what genes do: restrict it and probably take it one step further by eliminating it.
Reply

Lynx
01-24-2010, 09:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
when religion guides your morality it isn't difficult ti see where and how it is wrong, the same way you know that sex outside of marriage or abortion as birth control is wrong (yet people do it anyway).. the fact of the matter if you'll have a hard time proving anything is wrong depending very well in your baseline. If you have nothing to define right from wrong for you, your views are bound to be askew, and you are bound to ask ridiculous questions of people.

Religion defines the finite details of morality the way pathology defines specimen and frozen sections for the surgeons.

Personally I think they only humiliate themselves by their acts, I don't care what they do in their private time, I don't want it in my face around the clock!

all the best!

Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.

The inability of ethicists to define what is wrong and right, in ANY scenario, not only homosexuality, highlights the futile nature of subjective morality. There is no absolute standard for ethicists to to work on, compared to lets say scientists ..
Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.
Reply

Lynx
01-24-2010, 09:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
Without getting into the 'ethics' of it (let's face it, muslims and non-muslims will always have a different idea on what is to be considered morally correct), nature itself has a lot to say on the purpose of homosexuals.

Men and women have different but complementary genitalia and are able to advance the human race via procreational intercourse.

Humans do not have the natural ability to procreate in a homo setting. Homosexuals cannot procreate and cannot advance the human race by themselves.

A homosexually inclined person is about as useful to advancing the human race as somebody who has intercourse with a fair-ground ride (does happen).

Ultimately, such acts can be done, but the practitioners have deviated from what is to be considered natural.

Humans only have one option if they want to survive and that is hetero. This implies homosexuality is a flaw or disease.

Usually, effort is spent curing diseases. Homosexuality should be treated no different.
You should consider a few things: 1) it is the right of people to have kids if they want or don't want it. 2) 'advancing' the human race does not necessarily mean pro-create i.e., scientific advacement. 3) there are conditions where people should probably not have kids i.e., if they are living in slums in Africa and are HIV positive and 4) if someone is 'sick' but their sickness is not harming anyone or effecting their standard of living then why would you treat them any different?
Reply

The Ruler
01-24-2010, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
'advancing' the human race does not necessarily mean pro-create i.e., scientific advacement.
Actually, you'll find that it does. Scientific advancement did not occur over the course of one generation, but many.
Reply

Lynx
01-24-2010, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The Ruler
Actually, you'll find that it does. Scientific advancement did not occur over the course of one generation, but many.
Key word was 'necessarily'. We could have an infinite amount of human generations and all live in jungles doing the same thing over and over. So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'
Reply

جوري
01-24-2010, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.
No, I don't in fact, the rather large article give you here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1282268

should address all that is wrong with the homosexual picture, if you'd bother read it, should take care of the 'logic'!



all the best
Reply

Alpha Dude
01-24-2010, 09:50 PM
You should consider a few things: 1) it is the right of people to have kids if they want or don't want it. 2) 'advancing' the human race does not necessarily mean pro-create i.e., scientific advacement. 3) there are conditions where people should probably not have kids i.e., if they are living in slums in Africa and are HIV positive and 4) if someone is 'sick' but their sickness is not harming anyone or effecting their standard of living then why would you treat them any different?
1. I did not deny that. However, choosing not to have children is not a 'disease'. People aren't born predisposed into wanting to not have children (or remain celibate for that matter). However, apparently humans can be born homosexual. That is remarkable because now we have something nature produces that wants to challenge nature's very future existence. Why wouldn't that be a cause for investigation and sufficient grounds for assuming it as an illness?

2. Irrelevant. I'm talking about advancement in the specific sense of human population growth. Homosexuals can potentially extinct all humans. The issue is of how the disease of homosexuality can affect population growth.

3. Again, irrelevant. See answer 1.

4. If somebody is sick, it is the duty of the medical and/or psychological community to investigate. That is the whole purpose of their field.
Reply

Alpha Dude
01-24-2010, 09:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'
Just to make it clear: by 'human advancement', I meant the future continuation of the human population. Survival. Sorry for the confusion, I should have worded it better.
Reply

Dagless
01-24-2010, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It isn't in conformity with the 'norm' what is decreed by religion or 'Nature' if we were strict naturalists.

in fact up to the 1970's this was classified in the DSM-II as an act of deviance. And it really is no different than other deviant and 'abnormal' sexual acts. I won't get into the trail of other problems that concern homosexuals exclusively (for instance their highest rate of anal cancer) or kaposi's sarcoma etc. but strictly from a religious/ or naturalistic point of view, it is actually worthless to be homosexual. If we are to ignore religion and think of what good homosexuality brings, it brings nothing.. futile cycles aren't inspired by 'nature' but by a sick psychology, and that is in fact what it is-- a psychological rather than a biological aberrancy!
I can't believe we are even discussing this like it is normal status quo!

all the best
Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.
Reply

The Ruler
01-24-2010, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Key word was 'necessarily'. We could have an infinite amount of human generations and all live in jungles doing the same thing over and over. So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'



Pum pa-pum.
Reply

cat eyes
01-24-2010, 11:20 PM
:sl:
I strongly believe anybody can give up there desires.. all they need is taqwa and Allah can give this to anybody. i have heard of many people who have completely turned there life around subhanAllah its hard i am not saying it isent hard but once we get knowledge and Allah swt blesses knowledge on whom he wills. opportunities come for him to seek more knowledge and meet others who went through the same things but left all these worldly desires purely for the love of Allah. :cry: subhanAllah
Reply

جوري
01-24-2010, 11:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.
Natural denotes in concordance with nature.. nature dictates survival, propagation, extensions, genesis and a property practiced by most of what is in creation.
Now, I don't know how animals come into the picture, we are not animals, but if we were, monogamy is also an aberration in 'nature' and amongst animals:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...sh22-2009nov22

so I question by that logic, why homosexuality which leads to certain psychosocial problems and a halt to genesis is 'OK' and not particularly at odds with today's social mores but bigamy isn't?

also, why pederasty is a crime while homosexuality isn't? do we not have 13 year olds fathering children? we even have birth control pills passed to 11 year olds
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=140910

so in your mind what makes it a crime if under a certain age but legal and encouraged and even paraded and applauded otherwise when the standards aren't practiced all throughout.. i.e defending an 11 year old against a sexual act, but by the same token handing her hormones to halt pregnancies?

We really need to question the measuring stick that makes people incongruously appalled but at the same time very allowing of the same acts.


:w:
Reply

Lynx
01-25-2010, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
No, I don't in fact, the rather large article give you here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1282268

should address all that is wrong with the homosexual picture, if you'd bother read it, should take care of the 'logic'!



all the best
Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how homosexuals practice unsafe sex. It says nothing about homosexuality in of itself. No one would disagree that unsafe sex = bad. It's a red herring fallacy.


Alpha Male:
1. I did not deny that. However, choosing not to have children is not a 'disease'. People aren't born predisposed into wanting to not have children (or remain celibate for that matter). However, apparently humans can be born homosexual. That is remarkable because now we have something nature produces that wants to challenge nature's very future existence. Why wouldn't that be a cause for investigation and sufficient grounds for assuming it as an illness?
I don't get why you think homosexuality is an illness. Homosexual couples can still have children; lesbians for instance can have artificial insemination and other various methods. Even if they didn't want to have children why would that matter? Just because we are naturally disposed to continuing the survival of our genes, does not mean we ought to. But your real mistake is your definition of an illness. I guess this isn't your fault since illnesses in psychology are somewhat subjective. I mean there is no REAL reason why OCD is an illness. but as far as I can tell from psychology something is an illness if it stops a person from living a functioning life or if it harms others. Can you think of a psychological illness that does not cause harm to the person or others?

2. Irrelevant. I'm talking about advancement in the specific sense of human population growth. Homosexuals can potentially extinct all humans. The issue is of how the disease of homosexuality can affect population growth.
Slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality isn't contagious and there is no potential to do what you think will happen. Homosexuality has been around for a very very long time and in many different species.


4. If somebody is sick, it is the duty of the medical and/or psychological community to investigate. That is the whole purpose of their field.
[/quote]

Agreed.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
01-25-2010, 12:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Everything is allowed in Christianity, worshiping men and getting bent!
Hardly. Catholicism certainly opposes homosexuality. Look at the recent prop 8 battle in California. The mormons, catholics and other christian groups all banded together to raise millions to fund the initiative. Evangelical christians are also very opposed to homosexuality.
The more conservative christian sects along with the catholics, continue to oppose it.

:wa:
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 12:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how homosexuals practice unsafe sex. It says nothing about homosexuality in of itself. No one would disagree that unsafe sex = bad. It's a red herring fallacy.

.
Question is did you?

that at least a quarter of all homosexuals had over 100 partners?
that few of their relationships last over two years, that the exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. That HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the
homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of
Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal
among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men
carried HPV."[17] and that Kaposi's sarcoma is almost exclusive to homosexuals? In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research
found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they
had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently
indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and
combined physical-psychological abuse."[70]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay
Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population."[71]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are
traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports
that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of
violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]

etc. etc. etc.


I rather think you didn't get past two lines and made up your mind that sticking a condom on is all that is needed and then you are good to go.

Pls. don't waste my time if you wish to waste yours with platitudes and selective reading!
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 12:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
Hardly. Catholicism certainly opposes homosexuality. Look at the recent prop 8 battle in California. The mormons, catholics and other christian groups all banded together to raise millions to fund the initiative. Evangelical christians are also very opposed to homosexuality.
The more conservative christian sects along with the catholics, continue to oppose it.

:wa:
Question is why the majority of Christians on board are very allowing, are they afraid that the religion will become even less attractive if it stood for any principles that all they want now are sodomites to tally up the number? Yes, homosexuality was punishable by law even in the west not a few decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

peace
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-25-2010, 12:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.
some animals also kill their partner after mating with them. Black widow spider comes to my mind. Dont stoop humans to the lower degradations of animalism.
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 01:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Natural denotes in concordance with nature.. nature dictates survival, propagation, extensions, genesis and a property practiced by most of what is in creation.
Being gay does not inhibit any of those things. Gay people can survive, and they can propagate.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Now, I don't know how animals come into the picture, we are not animals, but if we were, monogamy is also an aberration in 'nature' and amongst animals:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...sh22-2009nov22


so I question by that logic, why homosexuality which leads to certain psychosocial problems and a halt to genesis is 'OK' and not particularly at odds with today's social mores but bigamy isn't?
We are part of nature. Animals come into the picture because they are also part of nature. A bigger part than us.

I don't know why you keep calling these things aberrations in nature. Gay people exist and make up a percentage of the population, straight people exist and make up a percentage of the population, some animals stick to 1 mate, other animals don't. You cannot say one is correct and the other is wrong; only that both types exist in nature.

Psychosocial problems are created due to attitudes of society at the time. In 50 years there may not be, in 100 years there maybe more; it doesn't make something wrong or right.

I also don't know about a 'halt to genesis'. There are many answers to this.
1) People who are gay sometimes still have sex early in life and so do procreate.
2) People may be married but still have gay tendencies (bisexual?). In this case they still procreate.
3) Bottom line is that we are a smart race. We know we need to continue. If the percentage of gay people suddenly shot up I'm sure women would still get pregnant... just by other means.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
also, why pederasty is a crime while homosexuality isn't? do we not have 13 year olds fathering children? we even have birth control pills passed to 11 year olds
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=140910

so in your mind what makes it a crime if under a certain age but legal and encouraged and even paraded and applauded otherwise when the standards aren't practiced all throughout.. i.e defending an 11 year old against a sexual act, but by the same token handing her hormones to halt pregnancies?

We really need to question the measuring stick that makes people incongruously appalled but at the same time very allowing of the same acts.


:w:
You don't need me to tell you why kids shouldn't have sex. I'm not even sure what this cultural issue has to do with the gay argument.
Animal cruelty was down in the UK in 2007 but I'm not going to use it as a key point to support my argument... or maybe I am... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6924818.stm ;)
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 01:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
some animals also kill their partner after mating with them. Black widow spider comes to my mind. Dont stoop humans to the lower degradations of animalism.
Killing after mating - In every example in nature I've seen it is to serve some purpose without which mating would not be successful. In humans no such need exists and so killing someone would be abusing their human rights/a crime.

2 people partaking in a mutually wanted relationship - Acceptable because, although it accomplishes no end, it is done for pleasure. The pleasure is not at the expense of anyone.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-25-2010, 02:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Killing after mating - In every example in nature I've seen it is to serve some purpose without which mating would not be successful. In humans no such need exists and so killing someone would be abusing their human rights/a crime.

2 people partaking in a mutually wanted relationship - Acceptable because although it accomplishes no end, it is done for pleasure. The pleasure is not at the expense of anyone.
Mind telling me of such benefits which actually enhance mating?!!
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 02:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
Mind telling me of such benefits which actually enhance mating?!!
I'm not a biologist but I think it is to make the male move about more, and also provide a tasty snack for after? :D
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 02:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Being gay does not inhibit any of those things. Gay people can survive, and they can propagate.
Not without third party means.. two eggs and two sperms don't make babies!

We are part of nature. Animals come into the picture because they are also part of nature. A bigger part than us.
How is this related to the topic? Animals are indeed a part of nature, I am questioning why not take the whole package but the selective parts?
I don't know why you keep calling these things aberrations in nature. Gay people exist and make up a percentage of the population, straight people exist and make upl a percentage of the population, some animals stick to 1 mate, other animals don't. You cannot say one is correct and the other is wrong; only that both types exist in nature.
Because anything that doesn't fall within the folds of the norm is an aberration.. the majority of animals aren't monogamous, pigs also allow for other males to mate with their partners, and they also don't mate for pleasure, rather for propagation, so if you want to contrast humans with animals and you are having a difficult time defining the borders, you should then take the whole package not that parts that enable you to make your non-points!

Psychosocial problems are created due to attitudes of society at the time. In 50 years there may not be, in 100 years there maybe more; it doesn't make something wrong or right.
No, psychological problems have nothing to do with attitudes of society anymore toward homos anymore than abuse which is rampant amongst homosexuals has anything to do with heterosexuals.

I also don't know about a 'halt to genesis'. There are many answers to this.
1) People who are gay sometimes still have sex early in life and so do procreate.
So if they are capable of heterosexual sex, why do they commit homosexual acts? surely someone who is 'born a certain way' by their very nature can't fathom heterosexual acts.. what is your point exactly?
That they are able to do both things? we are also able to murder with justification and rob with justification and sleep with animals with justification, if all there is to it is your animal inclinations, then you may as well shed your clothes and go copulate like donkeys on the streets!

2) People may be married but still have gay tendencies (bisexual?). In this case they still procreate.
having feelings and acting upon them are two different things.
3) Bottom line is that we are a smart race. We know we need to continue. If the percentage of gay people suddenly shot up I'm sure women would still get pregnant... just by other means.
'Other means' doesn't justify homosexual acts or the 'other means' themselves, people who frequent sperm banks where the identity of the donor is anonymous not only run the risk of having their ******* children marrying later down the line, for no one knows who the father is, but also undo the sanctity of a family unit. Homosexuals are a deviant minority and should respect majority opinion, from the lowest common denominator by keeping their acts to their bedrooms and out of people's faces or through indoctrinations of young children.





You don't need me to tell you why kids shouldn't have sex. I'm not even sure what this cultural issue has to do with the gay argument.
Animal cruelty was down in the UK in 2007 but I'm not going to use it as a key point to support my argument... or maybe I am... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6924818.stm ;)
I would like you to define why being a pederast is a crime while being gay isn't. showing you at the same time that the 'age' factor isn't not a deterrent in young people having or consenting to sex, just so we aren't coming across as complete hypocrites.


by the way, what is your creed?
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 02:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not without third party means.. two eggs and two sperms don't make babies!


How is this related to the topic? Animals are indeed a part of nature, I am questioning why not take the whole package but the selective parts?

Because anything that doesn't fall within the folds of the norm is an aberration.. the majority of animals aren't monogamous, pigs also allow for other males to mate with their partners, and they also don't mate for pleasure, rather for propagation, so if you want to contrast humans with animals and you are having a difficult time defining the borders, you should then take the whole package not that parts that enable you to make your non-points!
As mentioned, some people may have sex with both men and women so no third party means required.

Hmmm ok if we dismiss animals as an example we cannot say being gay is natural and we cannot say being gay is unnatural. I brought animals in because you used the term 'natural'.
If you are saying natural means what is normal, then I do not agree. You may say having 4 fingers is normal, but saying liking women, or marmite, etc. is "normal" is a grey area. If there was 1 person in a million I might agree its abnormal, but when you get to 1 in 10 people its no more of an abnormality than being Buddhist.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
No, psychological problems have nothing to do with attitudes of society anymore toward homos anymore than abuse which is rampant amongst homosexuals has anything to do with heterosexuals.
Can you name a psychological problem which affects only homosexuals?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
So if they are capable of heterosexual sex, why do they commit homosexual acts? surely someone who is 'born a certain way' by their very nature can't fathom heterosexual acts.. what is your point exactly?
You cannot say ALL are capable of heterosexual acts, but we know SOME are. Why? Well why do you like men? (that's an assumption :p), Why do some middle aged men take up golf? Personal preference/pleasure.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
That they are able to do both things? we are also able to murder with justification and rob with justification and sleep with animals with justification, if all there is to it is your animal inclinations, then you may as well shed your clothes and go copulate like donkeys on the streets! having feelings and acting upon them are two different things.
No, you see murdering and robbing would hurt others, sleeping with animals would hurt the animals. Even without religion we can see we would not want something like murder happening to us and so can relate to how others want to be treated.
I think the copulating in the streets thing is meant to come to pass... one of the signs I believe.



format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
'Other means' doesn't justify homosexual acts or the 'other means' themselves, people who frequent sperm banks where the identity of the donor is anonymous not only run the risk of having their ******* children marrying later down the line, for no one knows who the father is, but also undo the sanctity of a family unit. Homosexuals are a deviant minority and should respect majority opinion, from the lowest common denominator by keeping their acts to their bedrooms and out of people's faces or through indoctrinations of young children.
And if they keep behind closed doors is it ok?



format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I would like you to define why being a pederast is a crime while being gay isn't. showing you at the same time that the 'age' factor isn't not a deterrent in young people having or consenting to sex, just so we aren't coming across as complete hypocrites.
Simply because a child is too young to be able to make decisions like that. They are easily led and 'consent' is not a term you can take seriously with anyone who can barely write their own name. This is for all children, not just boys.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
by the way, what is your creed?
<-----
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
As mentioned, some people may have sex with both men and women so no third party means required.
And I am asking you of the justification of experimenting around when you are capable physically and psychologically to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, if there were more to it than mere perversion?

Hmmm ok if we dismiss animals as an example we cannot say being gay is natural and we cannot say being gay is unnatural. I brought animals in because you used the term 'natural'.
And what is 'Natural' to animals, isn't 'natural' to us, else you'd be passing your wife around, you'd kill your husband after mating and a host of other things.


Can you name a psychological problem which affects only homosexuals?
you may refer to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1282268

which deals of a host of problems affecting homosexuals!

You cannot say ALL are capable of heterosexual acts, but we know SOME are. Why? Well why do you like men? (that's an assumption :p), Why do some middle aged men take up golf? Personal preference/pleasure.
liking men or women doesn't equate with jumping either of them merely for the sheer pleasure of it. We are certainly given reason and grounds to distinguish between correct and incorrect. If you are not sure, then check with someone who does.
many things are pleasurable, question is, can you curb your inclinations for lowly desires and rise above them for the love of Allah swt?

[Pickthal 79:40] But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust,
فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى {41}
[Pickthal 79:41] Lo! the Garden will be his home.




No, you see murdering and robbing would hurt others, sleeping with animals would hurt the animals. Even without religion we can see we would not want something like robbery happening to us and so can relate to how others want to be treated.
I think the copulating in the streets thing is meant to come to pass... one of the signs I believe.
Who knows, everything can have a perfectly legitimate justification, you killed your neighbor because you believed that he murders and buries people in the backyard and even found human remains there.
you steal because you are a kleptomaniac and really can't help your whim and the dept. store you have robbed has been known to raise the prices inappropriately and what you have stolen was of little value anyway.
you have slept with your cat because she was in heat and you found that it was the humanitarian thing to do to stop her from rubbing against your guests.. when you really think about it, you can rationalize your way out of any abominable act!

And if they keep behind closed doors is it ok?
Not at all, but if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, then I'd certainly prefer to have it this way, than have them parading in front of my four year old niece's school which is exactly what a group of them has done about two months ago!





Simply because a child is too young to be able to make decisions like that. They are easily led and 'consent' is not a term you can take seriously with anyone who can barely write their own name. This is for all children, not just boys.
And I have shown you, that 'young children' do consent to sex, and have children of their own out of wedlock that has made some states (see previous link) pass birth control pills targeting 11-13 year olds to curb on the pregnancies. So I am asking you again, why one act is a crime and the other is applauded? It is the same thing and 'little boys' and 'little girls' do have sex and become parents!



<----
How is this a reply to what your creed is? I am finding your ideology completely outside of the folds of Islam, even if you were merely playing devil's advocate!
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-25-2010, 03:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
As mentioned, some people may have sex with both men and women so no third party means required.

Hmmm ok if we dismiss animals as an example we cannot say being gay is natural and we cannot say being gay is unnatural. I brought animals in because you used the term 'natural'.
If you are saying natural means what is normal, then I do not agree. You may say having 4 fingers is normal, but saying liking women, or marmite, etc. is "normal" is a grey area. If there was 1 person in a million I might agree its abnormal, but when you get to 1 in 10 people its no more of an abnormality than being Buddhist.




Can you name a psychological problem which affects only homosexuals?



You cannot say ALL are capable of heterosexual acts, but we know SOME are. Why? Well why do you like men? (that's an assumption :p), Why do some middle aged men take up golf? Personal preference/pleasure.



No, you see murdering and robbing would hurt others, sleeping with animals would hurt the animals. Even without religion we can see we would not want something like murder happening to us and so can relate to how others want to be treated.
I think the copulating in the streets thing is meant to come to pass... one of the signs I believe.





And if they keep behind closed doors is it ok?





Simply because a child is too young to be able to make decisions like that. They are easily led and 'consent' is not a term you can take seriously with anyone who can barely write their own name. This is for all children, not just boys.



<-----
You have to first establish how can we perceive whether an animal is in pain or not. Logically speaking, when you breathe, you are killing many bacteria, potentially "hurting" them. Should you be punished for this?

So only those things which hurt are harmful or wrong? Just because anal sex does not hurt intially, which it actually does, but does increase the likelihood of STDs, does it make it not wrong?

If a child steals a candy from a shop, what punishment should he be given? Does the shopkeeper have any right to punish him? Or he has to inform the authorities?
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 03:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And I am asking you of the justification of experimenting around when you are capable physically and psychologically to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, if there were more to it than mere perversion?
Who are you to say they are psychologically capable? Perhaps being doing it with the opposite sex is as repulsive to them as doing it with the same sex is to you or I.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And what is 'Natural' to animals, isn't 'natural' to us, else you'd be passing your wife around, you'd kill your husband after mating and a host of other things.
As has been mentioned, killing someone would be hurting them and so not acceptable. Passing wives around is already done and falls within the realms of personal preference.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
you may refer to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1282268

which deals of a host of problems affecting homosexuals!
These are a result of unprotected sex and would affect heterosexual people just the same. As to why homosexuals seem to have more partners I don't know. That would take a whole study, not just one article. But I would say sweeping it under the carpet isn't helping matters.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
liking men or women doesn't equate with jumping either of them merely for the sheer pleasure of it. We are certainly given reason and grounds to distinguish between correct and incorrect. If you are not sure, then check with someone who does.
many things are pleasurable, question is, can you curb your inclinations for lowly desires and rise above them for the love of Allah swt?

[Pickthal 79:40] But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust,
فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى {41}
[Pickthal 79:41] Lo! the Garden will be his home.

The first post I wrote said that homosexuality was wrong from a religious point of view full stop. We are discussing this outside of religion.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Who knows, everything can have a perfectly legitimate justification, you killed your neighbor because you believed that he murders and buries people in the backyard and even found human remains there.
you steal because you are a kleptomaniac and really can't help your whim and the dept. store you have robbed has been known to raise the prices inappropriately and what you have stolen was of little value anyway.
you have slept with your cat because she was in heat and you found that it was the humanitarian thing to do to stop her from rubbing against your guests.. when you really think about it, you can rationalize your way out of any abominable act!
Again it has been mentioned that killing, robbing, etc. hurts others and so is not acceptable. No amount of shouting about killing will change that fact :)



format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And I have shown you, that 'young children' do consent to sex, and have children of their own out of wedlock that has made some states (see previous link) pass birth control pills targeting 11-13 year olds to curb on the pregnancies. So I am asking you again, why one act is a crime and the other is applauded? It is the same thing and 'little boys' and 'little girls' do have sex and become parents!
Their consent is not valid by law (and reason).
They are both crimes. You cannot seriously be saying its legal for 11-13 year olds to have sex in the US. Come on!


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
How is this a reply to what your creed is? I am finding your ideology completely outside of the folds of Islam, even if you were merely playing devil's advocate!
It points to where my creed is located. What we are discussing is not religious - some of the people in this thread are not Muslim and so saying "because God says so" would not help convince them. Even if it were religious; discussion is not outside the folds of Islam.
Reply

Lynx
01-25-2010, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Question is did you?

that at least a quarter of all homosexuals had over 100 partners?
that few of their relationships last over two years, that the exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. That HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the
homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of
Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal
among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men
carried HPV."[17] and that Kaposi's sarcoma is almost exclusive to homosexuals? In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research
found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they
had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently
indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and
combined physical-psychological abuse."[70]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay
Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population."[71]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are
traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports
that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of
violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]

etc. etc. etc.


I rather think you didn't get past two lines and made up your mind that sticking a condom on is all that is needed and then you are good to go.

Pls. don't waste my time if you wish to waste yours with platitudes and selective reading!

do you think that unsafe sex only means not using a condom? Having 100 sexual partners sounds pretty unsafe to me. Can you please show the part in the article that says homosexuality is harmful in of itself? You know, the sole act of doing a homosexual act with safeguards, responsible consenting adults who are healthy and don't abuse each other. Etc. If you can't address that example then you are chasing a red herring argument.
Reply

IslamicRevival
01-25-2010, 03:31 AM
I hate Homosexuals, they are perverted pigs who go against the very essence of human nature. They are disgusting, filthy, vile and satanic creatures.

Half of the people you see on the TV are perverted sex mad, vulgar homosexuals. Its pathetic we have a law in the UK that states its a crime to dislike these perverted pigs. Freedom of speech thrown right out of the window
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 03:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
You have to first establish how can we perceive whether an animal is in pain or not.
This is a consent issue. You cannot get consent and so it would be considered a violation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
So only those things which hurt are harmful or wrong? Just because anal sex does not hurt intially, which it actually does, but does increase the likelihood of STDs, does it make it not wrong?
Things which are done out of consent. Sex in general increases the likelihood of STD's, does that make it wrong?

format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
If a child steals a candy from a shop, what punishment should he be given? Does the shopkeeper have any right to punish him? Or he has to inform the authorities?
This is a different topic.
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 03:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Who are you to say they are psychologically capable? Perhaps being doing it with the opposite sex is as repulsive to them as doing it with the same sex is to you or i.
In fact I am working with what you have written which is that they can have sexual relations without resorting to third party means to reproduce!




As has been mentioned, killing someone would be hurting them and so not acceptable. Passing wives around is already done and falls within the realms of personal preference.
It is a question of morality not capabilities. Do you understand the difference?



These are a result of unprotected sex and would affect heterosexual people just the same. As to why homosexuals seem to have more partners I don't know. That would take a whole study, not just one article. But I would say brushing it under the carpet isn't helping matters.
You make the same mistake of the other fellow, which is reading two lines and dismissing the entire article as the result of unprotected sex, in fact it delves quite deeply into problems physical and psychological arising outside of protected sex. If you don't want to read, then don't waste my time asking questions that are answered and properly referenced!




The first post I wrote said that homosexuality was wrong from a religious point of view full stop. We are discussing this outside of religion.
The problem is if you have no baseline for moral grounds, then you'll spend a life time doctoring, neutering and amending problems that will constantly rise for not taking proper preventative measures.




Again it has been mentioned that killing, robbing, etc. hurts others and so is not acceptable. No amount of shouting about killing will change that fact :)
and I have demonstrated how it can be perfectly non-hurtful, you might even say down right helpful in a certain frame of mind!




Their consent is not valid by law (and reason).
They are both crimes. You cannot seriously be saying its legal for 11-13 year olds to have sex in the US. Come on!
You can, and in some states you can even be emancipated while pregnant.

http://www.larcc.org/pamphlets/child...ancipation.htm

and they do consent and have sex, hence state law enables certain schools to pass BCP's to that age group, see previous link!




It points to where my creed is located. What we are discussing is not religious - some of the people in this thread are not Muslim and so saying "because God says so" would not help convince them. Even if it were religious; discussion is not outside the folds of Islam.
see reply number four!
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-25-2010, 03:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
This is a consent issue. You cannot get consent and so it would be considered a violation.



Things which are done out of consent. Sex in general increases the likelihood of STD's, does that make it wrong?



This is a different topic.
But heterosexual mating is necessary for survival! Not doing it would be more harmful to the species than increasing the rates of contracting STDs. While homosexuality has no purpose at all. In fact, the benefits of mating outweigh the loss of life caused by STDs. The evidence? We and you are talking because our ancestors have been doing it for thousands of years and it is due to that we exist.
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 04:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
In fact I am working with what you have written which is that they can have sexual relations without resorting to third party means to reproduce!
Nope, lets be clear... SOME are bisexual, SOME are confused, SOME are 100% gay from the start.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It is a question of morality not capabilities. Do you understand the difference?
Yes I do, do you? Read above though, some people may not be capable. Also, we are talking about morality outside of religion.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You make the same mistake of the other fellow, which is reading two lines and dismissing the entire article as the result of unprotected sex, in fact it delves quite deeply into problems physical and psychological arising outside of protected sex. If you don't want to read, then don't waste my time asking questions that are answered and properly referenced!
Have you considered its not a mistake since 2 of us have read it and come to the same conclusion? What would you say is a reasonable number before you agree?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The problem is if you have no baseline for moral grounds, then you'll spend a life time doctoring, neutering and amending problems that will constantly rise for not taking proper preventative measures.
We have a baseline. The baseline was set at consensual, and without hurting others. Very basic.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
and I have demonstrated how it can be perfectly non-hurtful, you might even say down right helpful in a certain frame of mind!
Killing someone is not non-hurtful. If you ask the person who is being killed I'm sure they will disagree with you. The person who does the killing/robbing/questionable act is not the one to decide if its hurtful. They need to understand how others will feel.


format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You can, and in some states you can even be emancipated while pregnant.

http://www.larcc.org/pamphlets/child...ancipation.htm

and they do consent and have sex, hence state law enables certain schools to pass BCP's to that age group, see previous link!
This is going to turn into a long conversation. Almost all US states say 16, I think I saw one which was 14. I don't know, its still young but then we have to go into what you consider mature. Sexual maturity or mental maturity? etc. This isn't the thread for it.



format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
But heterosexual mating is necessary for survival! Not doing it would be more harmful to the species than increasing the rates of contracting STDs. While homosexuality has no purpose at all.
Agreed, but it carries pleasure for some people. Playing on a PS3 serves no purpose either but Sony still sold 3 million units.

Ok time for me to stop arguing, and sleep... I hope I didn't offend too much.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
01-25-2010, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Question is why the majority of Christians on board are very allowing, are they afraid that the religion will become even less attractive if it stood for any principles that all they want now are sodomites to tally up the number? Yes, homosexuality was punishable by law even in the west not a few decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

peace
I think that many Christian sects are rethinking their stand on homosexuality in light of changing societal attitudes and psychological classifications. Also, since it has become more open, many more people know someone personally who is gay and may not think of them as being sinners.

The problem though, is I believe it is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Since it is in the scriptures, it takes some adjusting for a church to adopt something different. The more conservative churches haven't changed at all and still condemn it.

:wa:
Reply

IslamicRevival
01-25-2010, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
It is not a crime to dislike them, you just can't discriminate... for example at work or something.

btw it's ironic that you capitalize the first letter in homosexuals whenever you mention them, since this is usually considered a sign of respect.
Last edited by Troubled Soul; 19 Minutes Ago at 03:49 AM..

Sentence begun with the word homosexual but I later edited.
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Nope, lets be clear... SOME are bisexual, SOME are confused, SOME are 100% gay from the start.
what does this have to do with anything?
you can't keep creating loopholes when finding yourself in a cul de sac!

Yes I do, do you? Read above though, some people may not be capable. Also, we are talking about morality outside of religion.
capable of what? you speak as if of aliens. They are not some bizarre beings, they are humans who choose a deviant path!

Also, you are yet to define for us, where morality comes from if not from religion!



Have you considered its not a mistake since 2 of us have read it and come to the same conclusion? What would you say is a reasonable number before you agree?
How can it be a mistake when the article clearly starts off with STD's and branches off to other topics, which requires that either of you expend some effort getting past the first paragraph. How hilarious are you?
There is no conclusion here, there is what you have read and what you have ignored to suit your frame of mind!


We have a baseline. The baseline was set at consensual, and without hurting others. Very basic.
There is also consensual murder, where do you draw the line?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide



Killing someone is not non-hurtful. If you ask the person who is being killed I'm sure they will disagree with you. The person who does the killing/robbing/questionable act is not the one to decide if its hurtful. They need to understand how others will feel.
see above!




This is going to turn into a long conversation. Almost all US states say 16, I think I saw one which was 14. I don't know, its still young but then we have to go into what you consider mature. Sexual maturity or mental maturity? etc. This isn't the thread for it.
And I have already linked you to an article where BCP's are passed targeting middle school kids. Yet you refuse to take your blinders off!




Agreed, but it carries pleasure for some people. Playing on a PS3 serves no purpose either but Sony still sold 3 million units.
PS3 doesn't involve getting naked with someone who isn't your spouse. I will ask you to keep this topic to a level, I don't want to descend to word play with you every time you are at a loss for something of substance to impart!

Ok time for me to stop arguing, and sleep... I hope I didn't offend too much.
I am not offended by anything you write, I am astounded that you choose Islam for a way of life and yet are a recruit for the devil!
you are held in pledge by your own deeds and your liege, it doesn't concern me either way!
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 04:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rabimansur
I think that many Christian sects are rethinking their stand on homosexuality in light of changing societal attitudes and psychological classifications. Also, since it has become more open, many more people know someone personally who is gay and may not think of them as being sinners.

The problem though, is I believe it is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Since it is in the scriptures, it takes some adjusting for a church to adopt something different. The more conservative churches haven't changed at all and still condemn it.

:wa:
:sl: rabi
I am actually aware that it is condemned, I was asking a rhetorical questions. Religion is a done deal! If you truly believe that it came from God and not altered and it is the law that he decreed upon the world, then you won't amend his commands, like those who broke the commandment of the sabbath!
Surely as humans we are tried, sometimes our trials is in our sexuality, or even the people we fall in love with who maybe of the opposite gender.. question is can you give up lowly or dangerous desires for God?

peace be upon you!
Reply

Dagless
01-25-2010, 01:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what does this have to do with anything?
you can't keep creating loopholes when finding yourself in a cul de sac!

capable of what? you speak as if of aliens. They are not some bizarre beings, they are humans who choose a deviant path!
Finding myself in a cul de sac? This is something which has been said from the start, not something added just now!

Humans who choose a deviant path? Thats exactly the point, that maybe these things aren't "chosen", they simply are. So many people would not "choose" difficulty.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Also, you are yet to define for us, where morality comes from if not from religion!
There have been whole books written on this so its not really fair to ask such a general question here, but are you saying morality does not exist outside religion? So athiests are not moral? Countries which are secular are not moral? Of course this is not true.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
How can it be a mistake when the article clearly starts off with STD's and branches off to other topics, which requires that either of you expend some effort getting past the first paragraph. How hilarious are you?
There is no conclusion here, there is what you have read and what you have ignored to suit your frame of mind!
Why don't you tell us what you mean rather than keep telling us we haven't read it? I have already stated what I thought about unsafe sex and promiscuity.



format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
There is also consensual murder, where do you draw the line?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide



see above!
Euthanasia is not part of this topic. As for the cases of mental illness in there... well when 10% of the population wants others to kill them you can use this link :)

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
PS3 doesn't involve getting naked with someone who isn't your spouse. I will ask you to keep this topic to a level, I don't want to descend to word play with you every time you are at a loss for something of substance to impart!
It's not word play, they are comparable because both are things done for pleasure without an evolutionary need.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I am not offended by anything you write, I am astounded that you choose Islam for a way of life and yet are a recruit for the devil!
you are held in pledge by your own deeds and your liege, it doesn't concern me either way!
I am astounded that you chose personal insults rather than address the questions in a simple way. You cannot call anyone who has a logical discussion a recruit for the devil :)

By asking these questions and having them answered we are only strengthening our faith.
Reply

جوري
01-25-2010, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ferown
Humans who choose a deviant path? Thats exactly the point, that maybe these things aren't "chosen", they simply are. So many people would not "choose" difficulty.
People make bad choices all the time, don't tell me that you don't choose with whom you share a bed.. what are we animals?


There have been whole books written on this so its not really fair to ask such a general question here, but are you saying morality does not exist outside religion? So athiests are not moral? Countries which are secular are not moral? Of course this is not true.
That isn't what I said at all, I asked you to define where morality came from if not from religion, and I think it is pertinent to points you are trying to establish. Atheists pick and choose the morality they subscribe to and sweep it under the rug of 'empathy' well that is very subjective especially for folks who are so worldly-minded and still doesn't detract that they subscribe to some relic remnants of religion even if they have a non-descript definition for it.
I'll be waiting for your outlines on the matter!


Why don't you tell us what you mean rather than keep telling us we haven't read it? I have already stated what I thought about unsafe sex and promiscuity.
You have asked about the psychological problems affecting homosexuals exclusively. What is the matter with you? selective memory loss. As stated if you don't want to bother with what is written or what you yourself have queried then don't waste my time!



Euthanasia is not part of this topic. As for the cases of mental illness in there... well when 10% of the population wants others to kill them you can use this link :)
It is very much part of the topic, since you haven't defined for us what the baseline for morality is. You threw in the vague term 'consent' even though I have demonstrated that children consent to sex, and people consent to murder-- you have stated that murder is hurtful to the party hurt, and I am showing you that there is such a thing as consensual homicide!
You are yet to define morality outside of religion, and the baseline for acceptable social mores!


It's not word play, they are comparable because both are things done for pleasure without an evolutionary need.
And I have shown you the multitudes of ways people can give and receive pleasure that doesn't fall under the title of 'good'


I am astounded that you chose personal insults rather than address the questions in a simple way. You cannot call anyone who has a logical discussion a recruit for the devil :)
When you show some incentive in replying to the Q's in a lucid manner, or even bother reading articles posted as per your queries or even refresh your own memory as to your own queries, can you come and speak of insults?
I'm leaving it here because someone left me negative feedback lol. Wow since when does having a simple discussion or stating a point of view (even as devils advocate) warrant leaving someone a bad comment like that? I don't recall insulting others. Surely by asking these questions and having them answered we are only strengthening our faith. Ah well.
I haven't personal left you anything, but I really think it is deserved so I applaud whomever did it .. I don't like people who allege to be Muslims just to get the tally up and know nothing of Islam in fact their life style echo nothing but moral degeneracy!

all the best
Reply

Amadeus85
01-25-2010, 03:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
What christianity says about homosexuality? Is it ok or is it sin?
It says same what judaism and islam says on this topic, but christians lately tend not to care what Creator opinion is. They think that their opinion is better. Or Hollywood' opinion.
Reply

Donia
01-25-2010, 07:12 PM
SubhanAllah..

May Allah have mercy on you Ferown. I don't understand why you are arguing if homosexuality is right or wrong when you are a Muslim and you know how Allah destroyed a whole town over this act. I think that is proof enough that it is wrong.
Reply

Lynx
01-26-2010, 02:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Donia
SubhanAllah..

May Allah have mercy on you Ferown. I don't understand why you are arguing if homosexuality is right or wrong when you are a Muslim and you know how Allah destroyed a whole town over this act. I think that is proof enough that it is wrong.
Hi Donia.

To be fair to Ferown I am sure he thinks Islam condemns homosexuality. We are just having a friendly (i hope) discussion about whether homosexuality can be morally condemned without referring to religion. This thread started when someone said that it is possible using logic and reason to develop reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. So far this claim has not been backed up. Maybe you'd like to offer some reasons ! I figure the strongest position that a Muslim can maintain is to say homosexual acts are bad because God said so and He knows best. The contention I guess is when Muslims feel they have to put a reason to everything even though they can't for some things.
Reply

Donia
01-26-2010, 03:06 AM
Hi Lynx,

In my very humble opinion.. I believe homosexuality is wrong because it goes against every natural behavior.

For instance, men and women exist on earth. In order for our species to survive, men and women need to reproduce and that can only be done with a man and woman.

If everybody decided to be homosexual, the species would go extinct. However if all homosexuals decided to be heterosexual.. that would not affect the species reproducing. It wouldn't affect the species in a negative way at all.

That is my very humble opinion and it makes perfect sense to me. :)
Reply

جوري
01-26-2010, 03:10 AM
homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons bestiality, necrophilia, Coprophilia, pedophilia, passing your wife around, sleeping with your neighbor's wife in his absence, having an incestuous relationship with your sister etc. etc. are wrong!

If you can't wrap your mind around that, then no one on board can help you.
Just stop popping in here with the same query. When you find yourself outside the folds of morality the problem then lies with you not the consensus.
Else the lot of you wouldn't be pushing so hard and from a young age to indoctrinate children that such acts of perversity are normal status quo..

Amazing how regular sex ed. isn't taught until at least the fifth grade, yet the homo penguin are made to target four and five year olds...
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-26-2010, 03:15 AM
those penguins are cute! :p
Reply

Lynx
01-26-2010, 03:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Donia
Hi Lynx,

In my very humble opinion.. I believe homosexuality is wrong because it goes against every natural behavior.

For instance, men and women exist on earth. In order for our species to survive, men and women need to reproduce and that can only be done with a man and woman.

If everybody decided to be homosexual, the species would go extinct. However if all homosexuals decided to be heterosexual.. that would not affect the species reproducing. It wouldn't affect the species in a negative way at all.

That is my very humble opinion and it makes perfect sense to me. :)
Well simply put, just because something is outside of nature's norm does not mean it's wrong. That would be the counterargument to your position.

Moreover, not everyone is going to become homosexual.

Skye:
homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons bestiality, necrophilia, Coprophilia, pedophilia, passing your wife around, sleeping with your neighbor's wife in his absence, having an incestuous relationship with your sister etc. etc. are wrong!
Let's see. bestaility traditionally is viewed as 'wrong' because you cannot get the consent of an animal and is thus viewed as animal abuse. So, no not the same reason.

necrophilia is wrong because you are violating a dead body and that person probably would not have wanted his dead body to be violated so the reason is lack of respect for the dead. So, no not the same reason.

Coprophilia (I had to look this one up) is wrong according who? I mean if someone wants to do things in a pile of feces...disgusting as it may be...why would you say its wrong? Because its not the most hygienic thing to do is the only reason I can think of. But anyway, not remotely the same reason.

Sleeping with your neighbours wife is wrong because you are deceiving your neighbour and youre participating in his wife's deception also. So no not the same reason.

incest, well there's a serious health issue involved with incest! btw, some people would say marriage with cousins is incest so where do you draw the line?

pedophilia is wrong for the obvious reason that a child cannot give an informed consent to sex or any sort of relationship like that. So no the reason is totally different. This is an interesting one though. Muhammad married aisha at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at 9 as far as i can remember. Are you of minority opinion that she was much older than that? i ask this because if you are saying pedophilia is wrong yet muhammad seems to fit the definition of pedophile. I personally think there was nothing wrong in his marriage of aisha because pedophilia is a new cultural taboo because the harms are many in this day and age whereas in the time of muhammad it was a norm.

In any case Skye, you're not doing a good job arguing your case. Again, there is nothing wrong with simply saying homosexual behavior is wrong because my religion says so. Just don't drag logic where it does not apply.
Reply

جوري
01-26-2010, 04:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Skye:


Let's see. bestaility traditionally is viewed as 'wrong' because you cannot get the consent of an animal and is thus viewed as animal abuse. So, no not the same reason.

necrophilia is wrong because you are violating a dead body and that person probably would not have wanted his dead body to be violated so the reason is lack of respect for the dead. So, no not the same reason.

Coprophilia (I had to look this one up) is wrong according who? I mean if someone wants to do things in a pile of feces...disgusting as it may be...why would you say its wrong? Because its not the most hygienic thing to do is the only reason I can think of. But anyway, not remotely the same reason.

Sleeping with your neighbours wife is wrong because you are deceiving your neighbour and youre participating in his wife's deception also. So no not the same reason.

incest, well there's a serious health issue involved with incest! btw, some people would say marriage with cousins is incest so where do you draw the line?

pedophilia is wrong for the obvious reason that a child cannot give an informed consent to sex or any sort of relationship like that. So no the reason is totally different. This is an interesting one though. Muhammad married aisha at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at 9 as far as i can remember. Are you of minority opinion that she was much older than that? i ask this because if you are saying pedophilia is wrong yet muhammad seems to fit the definition of pedophile. I personally think there was nothing wrong in his marriage of aisha because pedophilia is a new cultural taboo because the harms are many in this day and age whereas in the time of muhammad it was a norm.

In any case Skye, you're not doing a good job arguing your case. Again, there is nothing wrong with simply saying homosexual behavior is wrong because my religion says so. Just don't drag logic where it does not apply.
I covered the issue of consent quite thoroughly above, and have no cause to repeat myself to every pedant with an opinion.

pedophilia is wrong at any time. in islam you have to be both physiologically and psychologically mature for 'marriage'. Pedophiles have no interest in marriage rather satisfy animal desires. Children by definition have no secondary sexual maturity amongst others things.

Get read before wasting my time!

All the best
Reply

Lynx
01-26-2010, 04:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I covered the issue of consent quite thoroughly above, and have no cause to repeat myself to every pedant with an opinion.

pedophilia is wrong at any time. in islam you have to be both physiologically and psychologically mature for 'marriage'. Pedophiles have no interest in marriage rather satisfy animal desires. Children by definition have no secondary sexual maturity amongst others things.

Get read before wasting my time!

All the best

Half the things I talked about didn't even mention consent. The point was that the reasons the things that were listed are 'wrong' have no relation to homosexuality.

Why do you keep arguing when you've already lost? You are not making a single point. Since the beginning of this thread you've been going in circle. Face it, YOU CANNOT give any reasons why something is immoral. It's impossible so society does what it can to create a system of morality so that it can continue and ensure the happiness of as mayn people as possible.
Reply

جوري
01-26-2010, 04:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Half the things I talked about didn't even mention consent. The point was that the reasons the things that were listed are 'wrong' have no relation to homosexuality.
you have missed half too for instance:
http://www.geneticsexualattraction.c...x.php?pageid=1

except I have already covered everything in my previous posts and don't like repeating myself, because you have nothing better to do at midnight.

everything you ignored or gave us a hearty guffaw of a rationalization is already addressed, again, you choosing to subscribe to moral degeneracy isn't something that the members here will be made to suffer.. there is no point hammering in a topic that is clearly beyond your scope. I don't make a habit or arguing with fools.


as for winning and losing, I must ask, how old are you-- 7?

There is truly a wisdom in the adage: Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience.



if we are done here, I think the topic has reached the end of its value and hope it will be closed by a mod. considering the number of times this topic has been addressed!

:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 11:08 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 05:56 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 12:33 AM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-07-2008, 06:47 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!