I have read that gender separation in Islamic countries..

[doorster]

the reason homosexuality was legalised in Britain was not because it was deemed a moral and good deed but to prevent Russian commies from taking over UK due to British Secret service being full of queers was more prone to sell out when blackmailed by commie agents

and there is a lot of truth in the first part of OP, Muslimaat replying in this thread will not know the truth of it but Men here should go overseas and visit a cafe or 2 and observe, look around to see the behaviour of and listen to londay baaz men talking

 

[Zafran]

Yep it is and it's completely possible but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

a lot of people doubted that about Homosexulaity - it still happend.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

a lot of people doubted that about Homosexulaity - it still happend.

You are right however there are still some crucial differences between the two. Homosexuality is a victimless relationship between two loving adults, whereas paedophilia includes children, immature beings not old enough to love or make rational decisions.

 

[Zafran]

You are right however there are still some crucial differences between the two. Homosexuality is a victimless relationship between two loving adults, whereas paedophilia includes children, immature beings not old enough to love or make rational decisions.

Your argumnet is similar to that when people in the past used to say that Homosexulaity is not natural - you use the idea of "victim" and "immature" - Just like Homosexulaity over rided the argumnet of not natural so could paedophilia of "immature" and "victimless" relationship.

 

[alcurad]

pedophillia is quite different though, not to mention this has consequences for society in general, it's not just the parties involved, or rather everyone is involved in some way or other.

I mean the West especially is going to have a major problem in the decades to come due to failing birth rates, not to mention religious observance is coming back, i mean western religious observance, probably as the situation of the world gets worse people will get more and more hostile to gay's, in light of that is promoting/enforcing homosexuality as is done now good or bad? i mean short-medium-long term-wise,,

it will always exist, but the attitude towards it really important, letting live for those who mind their own affairs is all well and good, but a gay community that's over-emboldened and right in everyone's face is not good either-think 'gay marriage'-.

back to topic, gender separation hasn't much to do with it, rather there's more media attention given to them than ever.

also and Jiddah-city quoted in the independent article- is a major port, with all that implies,,

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Your argumnet is similar to that when people in the past used to say that Homosexulaity is not natural - you use the idea of "victim" and "immature" - Just like Homosexulaity over rided the argumnet of not natural so could paedophilia of "immature" and "victimless" relationship.

Yes and I'm saying it could, what's the problem?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

it will always exist, but the attitude towards it really important, letting live for those who mind their own affairs is all well and good, but a gay community that's over-emboldened and right in everyone's face is not good either-think 'gay marriage'-.

what's wrong with seeking equal rights?

 

[alcurad]

marriage isn't a right though, it's an institution for producing/raising children,,
otherwise from the prevalent POV in-Western populations, or those who have the politician's ears at least-nothing is wrong as long as the people support it in a democracy.

my main argument is that is that it's not the presence of homosexuality rather how much it affects a society that is the main reason for banning it openly, those who really want to do it will regardless of restrictions, but then society goes where when we allow for homosexuality to take a niche it usually wouldn't take except for political pressure/lobbying-nothing wrong per se with pressure, but where does it lead to?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

marriage isn't a right though, it's an institution for producing/raising children,,
otherwise from the prevalent POV in-Western populations, or those who have the politician's ears at least-nothing is wrong as long as the people support it in a democracy.

my main argument is that is that it's not the presence of homosexuality rather how much it affects a society that is the main reason for banning it openly, those who really want to do it will regardless of restrictions, but then society goes where when we allow for homosexuality to take a niche it usually wouldn't take except for political pressure/lobbying-nothing wrong per se with pressure, but where does it lead to?

So do you agree with civil unions that proved the same rights as marriage?
It leads to a freer, more open society. And gays will remain the minority no matter what, so there is no harm fr the majority. I think immigration and extreme multiculturalism are far greater threats than homosexuals getting rights.

 

[alcurad]

hmm, civil unions are fine, calling it marriage is over doing it I believe. and I have a different stance on adoption for gay men, women can adopt regardless of 'orientation', but men, not so much. but overall, for Western societies it's not too bad compared to what could be.

immigration is directly related to the birth rate, which is affected by all the 'freedoms', in the end i do believe the hardliner/conservative elements in the West will take over, which is probably not going to be good for many-especially the gays,,

on-topic: the OP should post something, otherwise this was very close to starting a thread for the sake of trolling..I mean if there's no one to argue for the other side, provide anecdotes/evidence/whatever it is that keeps threads alive, then what's the point?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

hmm, civil unions are fine, calling it marriage is over doing it I believe. and I have a different stance on adoption for gay men, women can adopt regardless of 'orientation', but men, not so much. but overall, for Western societies it's not too bad compared to what could be.

immigration is directly related to the birth rate, which is affected by all the 'freedoms', in the end i do believe the hardliner/conservative elements in the West will take over, which is probably not going to be good for many-especially the gays,,

on-topic: the OP should post something, otherwise this was very close to starting a thread for the sake of trolling..I mean if there's no one to argue for the other side, provide anecdotes/evidence/whatever it is that keeps threads alive, then what's the point?

I'm hoping to see the rise of socially liberal parties that oppose immigration. it's funny how conservatives use Muslim attitute towards gays against Muslims, you got Geert condeming Iran, the German federal land of B-W, led by conservatives, asks every new immigrants what they would do if their son told them he was gay etc.

 

[alcurad]

immigration will not be stopped though, not as long as there are not enough births by the 'original' populations.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

immigration will not be stopped though, not as long as there are not enough births by the 'original' populations.

The main problem is natives who refuse to work because they deem it dirty or something. Cutting enomployment benefits could do the job I guess.
Anyway that's not what the thread is about.

 

[aamirsaab]

Thread locked; thread starter has not replied and this thread has degenerated into something weird. So weird, I need to lock it with something even weirder:

Pickachu, I choose you!

Pickachu, use your thundershock to lock this thread!

It's a critical hit!!!