Homosexuality

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?!!

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?

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 ), 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?

<-----

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 ), 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!

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 ), 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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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