Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
13 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

How can gays have that? I mean in order to reproduce? Might work for lesbians but i can't imagine them ever having taken one. Its still going to come from a man.

Um.... Ok.... I'm not going to explain how artificial insemination works. It does involve a male and a female, but they never have to see or touch each other. Obviously two males or two females can't produce an offspring and males don't have wombs. I'll let you look it up if you're so inclined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right. Even in the article I quoted, it said there were genetic 'factors' to same sex attraction. This is not the same as being 'born gay'. Born gay means you have no choice, and you can only be attra

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 The largest study1 to date on the genetic basis of sexuality has revealed five spots on the human genome that are linked to same-sex sexual beha

سلام We ought to be cautious to not mistreat homosexuals, regardless of the cause behind their homosexuality.  There may not be one gene that makes one gay or not, but there are certainly bi

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

"where the line is when it comes to action"

The simple answer here is that, the line is wherever the action causes a clear harm to others or limits an individual's freedoms.

And some people might say, well pedophilia may not hurt people. But if a child is too young to give consent, then of course it would. And to be fair, some people consider one of the prophets wives to be relatively young. But it comes down to maturity and consent.

And some might say, well people having sex with animals might not hurt anyone. I think it's sad that someone would equate a relationship between two human beings with a relationship between a human and a donkey or an orangutan etc. As if having sex with an animal is morally equal to having sex with another person. But regardless of this, people of course can die and do die, trying to have sex with animals. It just isn't a practical or feasible practice (does this part fit there?). And animals cannot consent. It's not like they can logically talk about the complicated dynamics that come with sex etc. I think it's just unreasonable to equate the two. As if a gay man is equal to a donkey. And that having sex with a human being is similar to with an animal etc. Maybe if the animals were intelligent enough to consent. Otherwise it would just be abuse.

Rape of course harms people, so that would be out of the question etc.

 

 

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
10 hours ago, notme said:

Um.... Ok.... I'm not going to explain how artificial insemination works. It does involve a male and a female, but they never have to see or touch each other. Obviously two males or two females can't produce an offspring and males don't have wombs. I'll let you look it up if you're so inclined. 

Its just that men do not ovulate and women do not produce semen. I can tell without looking it up. They need donors for that. I don't imagine Musk will build an artificial insemination facility, a nursery and a perpetual day care and each with decontamination chambers in the beginning when the pioneers go. In fact Starship will be contaminated with all the pathogens from fecal matter and everyone will get sick on the journey. All I've writing is that its a great inconvenience and detriment for any society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 5/9/2021 at 10:36 PM, The Green Knight said:

The lgtb do their thing on mars, turn men into gays, women into lesbians, while some take sex change surgeries. Voila. Failure

There is absolutely no evidence for this. I'm VERY exhausted of people lile you who bring ideas with zero support and expect us to debate them. No, I'm not debating the idea we have the power to turn straights into gays. There is no record in history of this ever happening. In fact, the only thing that we know for sure that happens because there is actual social research to back it up is the systematic non-scientific and usually oppressive conversion therapies, and their goal is to turn gays into straights. Hope you realize the injustice of the content of your discourse.

On 5/9/2021 at 10:36 PM, The Green Knight said:

Imagine, if you can, this insanity existed when the American continents were discovered. There would be native still living there

I'm doing my best to understand why you lack so much humanity. I can understand the causes of your homophobia, and bear it in a debate. But this is utterly disgusting. WHAT THE ****** HELL IS WRONG WITH NATIVES LIVING IN THEIR LAND? Guys, for real, do you think this is tolerable in a forum where we are in search of the best of morality and manners? Is this even normal?

You don't have to imagine alternative realities to demonstrate a point. You have to live in THIS world. And in this overpopulated world, let me be skeptic about the problems of the existence of queer people. Moreover, if reproduction was your only concern, I'm sure you wouldn't be against cis-gay trans-gay couples that, in fact, can reproduce. You can say "hey, but this is not the norm so it's not a valid point". And you will be right, but your point about Mars is not just not common, but absolutely not real. So if we are going to talk about the reality of things in general, let's work to increase the level of this conversation.

Lastly, forcing people to have kids is against people's individual freedom. If a specific society wants to have more kids, instead of repressing the freedom of their citizens, they should support the circumstances that may make it more attractive. In a world where economy goes worse and worse, many straight couples are avoiding consciously having kids because of the increased life costs. If a society needs more workforce, the system/community shall support it. Putting all the blame on people who naturally lack desire for the opposite sex is nothing but inefficient repression, which can only be explained by one reality, which is why I'm here debating with you: Homophobia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bakir said:

There is absolutely no evidence for this. I'm VERY exhausted of people lile you who bring ideas with zero support and expect us to debate them.

Its common sense. It doesn't require debate.

8 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Guys, for real, do you think this is tolerable in a forum where we are in search of the best of morality and manners? Is this even normal?

Did you even read what I wrote about declining populations, in Japan for instance? And how not reproducing does not help society? Its all well known facts. Would it be good manners to not mention them in order to ease someone's immense ignorance? You are playing your emotional card at the wrong time.

One day you will hope you had listened to reason. Being a humanist I'm trying to save other human beings from that day and that endless remorse.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Being a humanist and by secular standards also, I have written about the problem of the human societies facing declining population. As a humanist, I wouldn't want to see nations spiral down into extinction. That is insanity, not some freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

Being a humanist and by secular standards also, I have written about the problem of the human societies facing declining population. As a humanist, I wouldn't want to see nations spiral down into extinction. That is insanity, not some freedom.

People are having fewer children because we are killing the world and nobody wants to bring children into it to suffer, not because some homosexual people do not reproduce. There are still thousands or millions of orphaned or abandoned children in need of parents. Billions of children are dying in poverty and war. Let's take care of the ones we have, then worry about the future. 

When every child is cared for, your arguments might be worth considering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/9/2021 at 8:11 AM, iCenozoic said:

Homosexuality doesn't result in the birth of children with genetic defects, nor is it a violent act, nor is it even one that harms our society. It is improper to equate these actions.

 

well this is quite flagrant

the number of illnesses propagated by homosexual behaviour is innumerable and has cost the lives of millions of children and adults

HIV/AIDS originated and was at one point virtually exclusive to homosexuals. This is undeniable, and the burden and costs of disease it has resulted in is unfathomable. 

Besides the physical, mental and economic costs to society, the open behaviour damages the structure of society, impairs child development and morality, and most importantly it damages the spirit. But i wouldn't expect people without a spirit to understand the latter point; the former points stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

well this is quite flagrant

the number of illnesses propagated by homosexual behaviour is innumerable and has cost the lives of millions of children and adults

HIV/AIDS originated and was at one point virtually exclusive to homosexuals. This is undeniable, and the burden and costs of disease it has resulted in is unfathomable. 

Besides the physical, mental and economic costs to society, the open behaviour damages the structure of society, impairs child development and morality, and most importantly it damages the spirit. But i wouldn't expect people without a spirit to understand the latter point; the former points stand.

But of course gays never created HIV. And of course straight people transmit HIV just the same. And many gays don't even have HIV. Don't confuse our discovery of HIV in the US with how it originated.

Blaming people for the existence of a virus that God created just doesn't seem reasonable to me. And blaming gays for a virus that is also spread by straight people, also doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Maybe we should ban heterosexual sex because it is well known to transmit HIV too? No, of course not. Maybe we should imprison Chinese people because covid-19 passed through China to the rest of the world? No, of course not.

This is just poor justification for the idea that gays should be treated unequally. It's born out of that same feeling or belief that straights are superior to gays, but when we look a little closer, we see that heterosexual sex spreads viruses just the same.

Damages a child's "spirit". If this is really the best you have, then you're left with essentially nothing practical. Ok, so you have religious, personal beliefs that gays are inferior to you. That's all you really mean when you say this. 

And regarding economic costs, those nations with bans on bans of gay marriage or where public display of gay activities is legal, are largely successful. What economic issues are you suggesting are a product of the public acceptance of homosexuality? For practical purposes, there are none.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, notme said:

not because some homosexual people do not reproduce.

But I never wrote that its the sole reason of population decline on earth. Only that it does weigh in with the other reasons and adds to the problem. Especially from now on its impact will be much more since Gen Z are 20% lgtb so this generation will proportionally reproduce much less than previous ones.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Quote

The ages of consent vary by jurisdiction across Europe. The ages of consent are currently set between 14 and 18. The vast majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only three countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18), do not fit into this pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

[sarcasm] Oh this doesn't harm society. Nothing to see here. Be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

Especially from now on its impact will be much more since Gen Z are 20% lgtb so this generation will proportionally reproduce much less than previous ones.

Some of them are just going through a phase of self-searching and experimentation, and will settle down with a partner of the opposite sex later. 

I'm not really worried about the population being too high or too low. I think we will adapt just fine. I'm more worried about the state of the world that we will be leaving behind us. If we can't grow food, drink water, breathe air, it doesn't matter who we desired or how many children we did or didn't have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

But of course gays never created HIV. And of course straight people transmit HIV just the same. And many gays don't even have HIV. Don't confuse our discovery of HIV in the US with how it originated.

Blaming people for the existence of a virus that God created just doesn't seem reasonable to me. And blaming gays for a virus that is also spread by straight people, also doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Maybe we should ban heterosexual sex because it is well known to transmit HIV too? No, of course not. Maybe we should imprison Chinese people because covid-19 passed through China to the rest of the world? No, of course not.

This is just poor justification for the idea that gays should be treated unequally. It's born out of that same feeling or belief that straights are superior to gays, but when we look a little closer, we see that heterosexual sex spreads viruses just the same.

Damages a child's "spirit". If this is really the best you have, then you're left with essentially nothing practical. Ok, so you have religious, personal beliefs that gays are inferior to you. That's all you really mean when you say this. 

And regarding economic costs, those nations with bans on bans of gay marriage or where public display of gay activities is legal, are largely successful. What economic issues are you suggesting are a product of the public acceptance of homosexuality? For practical purposes, there are none.

 

Sorry but you are repeatedly drawing parallels where none exist.

I said nothing about the character of someone who may have same sex desires nor treating such people differently or "unequally" as you put it.

I specifically called out the behaviour. If a behaviour results in something bad, you avoid the behaviour, simple. Covid is out and about yeah, and it has nothing to do with blaming chinese people but has everything to do with lack of modifiable behaviours such as social distancing and vaccination.

A viral illness resulting in severe immunodeficiency that was once virtually exclusive to a single, modifiable behaviour is a sign to stop said behaviour, this is what I am calling undeniable yet ignored and promoted. The economic benefits you allude to pale in comparison to the healthcare burden but I guess you're on board with big pharma mentality. I further emphasize there are a myriad of illnesses, not just HIV, that is propagated predominantly by homosexual behaviour. It should stop just like how unlawful sex between opposite genders should stop.

What does a medical professional recommend when a heterosexual person wants to avoid STDs? Avoid open relationships or, blatantly, be faithful. Draw that parallel for me.

Quote

The medical cost saved by avoiding one HIV infection is $229,800.

Quote

The economic value of HIV prevention in the US is substantial given the high cost of HIV disease treatment.

Mind you this is only considering preventive measures, this doesn't take into account the various severe medical illnesses which come with inpatient management from medical to surgical treatments and everything in between which easily would end up in millions of dollars rather than hundred thousands.

To put it in perspective, that $230,000 alone can provide for 115 patients with a bed on an in-patient ward for one day. One modifiable behaviour, and 'protection' evidently doesn't cut it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359630/

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, notme said:

Some of them are just going through a phase of self-searching and experimentation, and will settle down with a partner of the opposite sex later. 

I hope so too. However if people turn against rehab efforts and endorse homosexuality and if its propagated through media as it is then chances for those people will be slim to climb out of their condition.

6 hours ago, notme said:

it doesn't matter who we desired

Sorry but it does matter a lot. I'm all for saving these lost souls from a permanent, never ending punishment as well as helping society.

Next they will say pedophilia is also genetic. Are people reading the age of (sexual) consent I have been posting? It is 14 to 16 in their countries. It is insane. A man can sodomize a 14 years old child and get away with it? Or an old lesbian hag initiate a young child into her fold? And they call it okay? Madness. M A D N E S S.

I don't care whose feathers get ruffled, I will speak out against this lunacy and injustice in the very least. If people living in the west have to save their skin by giving silent consent to these monsters I can understand, but well I do not live in the west.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Sorry but you are repeatedly drawing parallels where none exist.

I said nothing about the character of someone who may have same sex desires nor treating such people differently or "unequally" as you put it.

I specifically called out the behaviour. If a behaviour results in something bad, you avoid the behaviour, simple. Covid is out and about yeah, and it has nothing to do with blaming chinese people but has everything to do with lack of modifiable behaviours such as social distancing and vaccination.

A viral illness resulting in severe immunodeficiency that was once virtually exclusive to a single, modifiable behaviour is a sign to stop said behaviour, this is what I am calling undeniable yet ignored and promoted. The economic benefits you allude to pale in comparison to the healthcare burden but I guess you're on board with big pharma mentality. I further emphasize there are a myriad of illnesses, not just HIV, that is propagated predominantly by homosexual behaviour. It should stop just like how unlawful sex between opposite genders should stop.

What does a medical professional recommend when a heterosexual person wants to avoid STDs? Avoid open relationships or, blatantly, be faithful. Draw that parallel for me.

Mind you this is only considering preventive measures, this doesn't take into account the various severe medical illnesses which come with inpatient management from medical to surgical treatments and everything in between which easily would end up in millions of dollars rather than hundred thousands.

To put it in perspective, that $230,000 alone can provide for 115 patients with a bed on an in-patient ward for one day. One modifiable behaviour, and 'protection' evidently doesn't cut it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359630/

So you think that homosexual behaviors cause immunodeficiency?

And you noted that heterosexuals could remain faithful to drive down std cases. Well of course homosexuals could do that too.

You just aren't making a clear case.

And remember, those medical costs extend to heterosexuals too. Your argument just isn't explicit to homosexuality. You could be making a case for monogamy. But this is a separate topic.

"If a behaviour results in something bad, you avoid the behaviour, simple. "

Ok, so a heterosexual couple has sex and they transmit an std. So we should ban heterosexual sex? No.

What you're saying just isn't explicit to homosexuality and doesn't identify an issue with homosexual relationships.

 

If we really want to prevent things like viral outbreaks, we should more reasonably put regulations on consumption of exotic animals, such as on apes in Africa (in which HIV is believed to have originated) as well as on exotic animals in china (the currently believed origin of covid-19).

But none of this has anything to do with homosexuality either. I find it surprising that you hadn't mentioned this in your posts above.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
10 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

However if people turn against rehab efforts and endorse homosexuality and if its propagated through media as it is then chances for those people will be slim to climb out of their condition.

"Rehab" isn't necessary and doesn't work. Biology will kick in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

If we really want to prevent things like viral outbreaks, we should more reasonably put regulations on consumption of exotic animals, such as on apes in Africa (in which HIV is believed to have originated) as well as on exotic animals in china (the currently believed origin of covid-19).

Livestock are a significant disease vector. If we want to reduce the incidence of exotic illnesses, we need to reduce meat consumption in general, not just "bush meat", which is subsistence a lot of the time. 

Edited by notme
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, notme said:

Livestock are a significant disease vector. If we want to reduce the incidence of exotic illnesses, were need to reduce meat consumption in general, not just "bush meat", which is subsistence a lot of the time. 

Yea sure.

I think in an ideal world we would have some kind of plant or artificially manufactured substitutes.

There is something still kind of primitive about slaying animals and consuming them that we haven't quite left behind just yet.

Maybe one day. grabs delicious burger while thinking about it*. Out-dated practices sure do taste good.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Maybe one day. grabs delicious burger while thinking about it*. Out-dated practices sure do taste good.

Once per 40 days is enough. But yes, it does taste good. Someday substitutes or lab grown meat will be as good, but that still won't feed those who barely subsist. We need to lift the entire of humanity out of suffering and poverty, and that will make significant progress possible. 

As long as we are destroying the world through excessive consumption, I can't find fault with anyone choosing to not have children, and if they find homosexuality to be a solution to satisfying their urges without risking producing children, as long as they don't try to claim it is part of Islam, I don't care, it's none of my business. I will treat them the same as anyone else. 

Edited by notme
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, notme said:

"Rehab" isn't necessary and doesn't work. Biology will kick in. 

Then why God sent Lot (عليه السلام) and told his people to mend their ways and when they didn't He destroyed the whole homosexual city. I would rather believe in God than believe in dishonest Zionist corporation funded researches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 minute ago, The Green Knight said:

Then why God sent Lot (عليه السلام) and told his people to mend their ways and when they didn't He destroyed the whole homosexual city. I would rather believe in God than believe in dishonest Zionist corporation funded researches.

People stopping doing gay stuff is possible. "Conversion Therapy" is not effective or humane or necessary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, notme said:

Once per 40 days is enough. But yes, it does taste good. Someday substitutes or lab grown meat will be as good, but that still won't feed those who barely subsist. We need to lift the entire of humanity out of suffering and poverty, and that will make significant progress possible. 

As long as we are destroying the world through excessive consumption, I can't find fault with anyone choosing to not have children, and if they find homosexuality to be a solution to satisfying their urges without risking producing children, as long as they don't try to claim it is part of Islam, I don't care, it's none of my business. I will treat them the same as anyone else. 

Even further, the majority of nations that have less than 2 children per woman as a fertility rate are developed (and successful) nations (or are generally well off). So it's not even really about people having too many children. I don't know why anyone would even associate such things to homosexuality.  People are just grabbing at straws. But yes, I generally agree.

If anything, people having too many children might be an indicator of issues, given the nations known to have higher fertility rates.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
20 minutes ago, notme said:

People stopping doing gay stuff is possible. "Conversion Therapy" is not effective or humane or necessary. 

A little bit of counseling by a professional psychologist rather helps people overcome their bad habits. Its not inhumane. It will even improve other correct functions. A 30 minute sitting on a weekend is not too much. Psychologists treat drug addicts and so many problems that people have. It is sad that a science and profession be considered unnecessary. It works. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

So you think that homosexual behaviors cause immunodeficiency?

 

A very poor re-interpretation or a disingenuous remark regarding what i said, not the first and certainly won't be the last judging from your previous posts with the casual ad hominem covertly slipped here n there

I'm surprised by you, being apparently a man of science yet disregarding facts in favour of emotional responses. Or would you rather have me believe you don't know the difference between causality and risk factor? I fear to ask you to consider the unquantifiable psychological harm various things can bring to a person, might be a little too much.

8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"If a behaviour results in something bad, you avoid the behaviour, simple. "

Ok, so a heterosexual couple has sex and they transmit an std. So we should ban heterosexual sex? No.

What you're saying just isn't explicit to homosexuality and doesn't identify an issue with homosexual relationships.

You continue to ignore the historical fact that HIV/AIDS was virtually exclusive to a certain population practicing a specific behaviour.
You continue to ignore the fact that the risk of transmission of various infectious diseases in heterosexual coupling is incomparable to that of homosexual behaviour, the risk of the latter far exceeds the former all the way to the moon, and as I briefly mentioned already the "preventive" factors you mention as alternative to eliminating the specific behaviour are clearly failing to be sufficient judging from the rising burden of disease despite tireless campaigns.
You continue to ignore the colossal difference in prevalence in one group compared to the other.

And you again fail to acknowledge that a multitude of illnesses are more easily transmissible by a very wide margin with homosexual behaviour vs. unlawful heterosexual behaviour, which I also included unlawful sex under the same umbrella of a modifiable risk factor

Here is a fact sheet for you. I daresay this is additionally a severe underestimation.

image.thumb.png.9c6517e71b534ec5fd8b46e7f65f8d8c.png

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf

648,500? 26400? Could save $149,155,000,000 and $6,072,000,000 respectively, not considering inpatient costs which I am scared to calculate, not considering other illnesses disproportionately affecting homosexuals. A single, modifiable behaviour incomparable to other behaviours. That says something. Behaviour bad. I feel like a recording, having to continuously repeat myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dragonxx said:

A very poor re-interpretation or a disingenuous remark regarding what i said, not the first and certainly won't be the last judging from your previous posts with the casual ad hominem covertly slipped here n there

I'm surprised by you, being apparently a man of science yet disregarding facts in favour of emotional responses. Or would you rather have me believe you don't know the difference between causality and risk factor? I fear to ask you to consider the unquantifiable psychological harm various things can bring to a person, might be a little too much.

You continue to ignore the historical fact that HIV/AIDS was virtually exclusive to a certain population practicing a specific behaviour.
You continue to ignore the fact that the risk of transmission of various infectious diseases in heterosexual coupling is incomparable to that of homosexual behaviour, the risk of the latter far exceeds the former all the way to the moon, and as I briefly mentioned already the "preventive" factors you mention as alternative to eliminating the specific behaviour are clearly failing to be sufficient judging from the rising burden of disease despite tireless campaigns.
You continue to ignore the colossal difference in prevalence in one group compared to the other.

And you again fail to acknowledge that a multitude of illnesses are more easily transmissible by a very wide margin with homosexual behaviour vs. unlawful heterosexual behaviour, which I also included unlawful sex under the same umbrella of a modifiable risk factor

Here is a fact sheet for you. I daresay this is additionally a severe underestimation.

image.thumb.png.9c6517e71b534ec5fd8b46e7f65f8d8c.png

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf

648,500? 26400? Could save $149,155,000,000 and $6,072,000,000 respectively, not considering inpatient costs which I am scared to calculate, not considering other illnesses disproportionately affecting homosexuals. A single, modifiable behaviour incomparable to other behaviours. That says something. Behaviour bad. I feel like a recording, having to continuously repeat myself.

Here's an study which states:

"This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were...less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6893897/

More likely to have some STDs? Sure. But less likely to have others as well.

but the point remains, gays never created HIV, God did. Gays weren't even the first to contract HIV, but rather people eating exotic animals brought the virus into our species. 

if we followed your logic, we might argue that all sex is bad, homosexual and heterosexual, because sex results in the transmission if STDs. This is just poor logic.

should we ban heterosexual sex because it's more likely to transmit genital warts? No. Of course not.

and not only the above, but much if what you're referring to is more associated with gay men than it is gay women (for reasons that I'm sure you're aware of). By your logic we might further still be accepting of gay women relationships.

Further, what you're attempting to make a case against isn't even necessarily things like gays holding hands in public or kissing or getting married or even having sex. But rather you seem hung up on a very specific form of sex which is often also conducted by heterosexuals and is not conducted by all gays.

it's all just inconsistent, and yet you seem to believe that this inconsistent argument ought to be sufficient to remove people's rights, such as rights to marry, rights to display affection in public, rights to have intimate relationships with people they care about etc.

 

and really, as noted before, all this std talk is all just related to polygamy and having multiple sex partners. But we aren't debating monogamy vs pologamy. There are many couples and people who conduct homosexual acts that are monogamous and that don't have STDs. So really this entire std argument can be simply thrown in the trash.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

More pivoting away from the point at hand, with weak re-interpretation and application of what I put forth, an example...

21 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

if we followed your logic, we might argue that all sex is bad, homosexual and heterosexual, because sex results in the transmission if STDs. This is just poor logic.

Poor analysis and extrapolation. Nobody has ever argued such logic in all of history I don't think.

24 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Here's an study which states:

"This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were...less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6893897/

More likely to have some STDs? Sure. But less likely to have others as well.

A study relatively smaller and not as applicable to the point you are trying to raise, with mention of illnesses of less severe implications than that of HIV/AIDS and other more severe STDs that are far more prevalent in those with homosexual behaviour. Needless to say, thanks for providing me additional evidence to support my argument; not only does homosexual behaviour need to stop, so does 'open' relationships, intercourse out of wedlock, etc.

27 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

but the point remains, gays never created HIV, God did. Gays weren't even the first to contract HIV, but rather people eating exotic animals brought the virus into our species. 

Brought into a subset of our species then progressed thereafter, with the most disease burden remaining within that same subset indicating a clear association incomparable to other subsets of the same species.

Plus it's yet to be definitively proven it's from eating exotic animals, there are other theories which are more valid, and imo more plausible given the previous exclusiveness to homosexuals.

30 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Further, what you're attempting to make a case against isn't even necessarily things like gays holding hands in public or kissing or getting married or even having sex. But rather you seem hung up on a very specific form of sex which is often also conducted by heterosexuals and is not conducted by all gays.

As a wise man once said to a transexual man who is in a non-sexual relationship with a woman; what are you doing with this women?
Take sexual intercourse off the table and homosexual behaviour will be non-existent. So no worries; "marriage" between such individuals will cease to exist.
And who said holding hands between two males means a person is gay? Seems you have some pre-conceived notions of your own that you are suppressing. Ahh the beauty of fitra.

33 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

it's all just inconsistent

What is consistent is specific high risk illnesses have the highest rates in homosexual populations, higher suicide rates despite normalization in the West and removal of stigma thus indicating higher rates of mental illness, lack of ability to procreate, perversion of children and subsequent psychological harm, breakdown of the fabric of society along with what has allowed humans to maintain a populace throughout the centuries.

I don't imagine the homosexual population being able to survive in the long-run would they all be living on a paradise-like island with all the money and resources in the world. If they remain faithful to what they claim, procreation will seize.
If they become unfaithful, it will prove they were previously selecting their animalistic instincts over their intellects, as well as leading to widespread illnesses as you have kindly pointed out with the study you quoted =)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

More pivoting away from the point at hand, with weak re-interpretation and application of what I put forth, an example...

Poor analysis and extrapolation. Nobody has ever argued such logic in all of history I don't think.

A study relatively smaller and not as applicable to the point you are trying to raise, with mention of illnesses of less severe implications than that of HIV/AIDS and other more severe STDs that are far more prevalent in those with homosexual behaviour. Needless to say, thanks for providing me additional evidence to support my argument; not only does homosexual behaviour need to stop, so does 'open' relationships, intercourse out of wedlock, etc.

Brought into a subset of our species then progressed thereafter, with the most disease burden remaining within that same subset indicating a clear association incomparable to other subsets of the same species.

Plus it's yet to be definitively proven it's from eating exotic animals, there are other theories which are more valid, and imo more plausible given the previous exclusiveness to homosexuals.

As a wise man once said to a transexual man who is in a non-sexual relationship with a woman; what are you doing with this women?
Take sexual intercourse off the table and homosexual behaviour will be non-existent. So no worries; "marriage" between such individuals will cease to exist.
And who said holding hands between two males means a person is gay? Seems you have some pre-conceived notions of your own that you are suppressing. Ahh the beauty of fitra.

What is consistent is specific high risk illnesses have the highest rates in homosexual populations, higher suicide rates despite normalization in the West and removal of stigma thus indicating higher rates of mental illness, lack of ability to procreate, perversion of children and subsequent psychological harm, breakdown of the fabric of society along with what has allowed humans to maintain a populace throughout the centuries.

I don't imagine the homosexual population being able to survive in the long-run would they all be living on a paradise-like island with all the money and resources in the world. If they remain faithful to what they claim, procreation will seize.
If they become unfaithful, it will prove they were previously selecting their animalistic instincts over their intellects, as well as leading to widespread illnesses as you have kindly pointed out with the study you quoted =)

 

I see nothing but a lack of response here. 

You've made this massive case for why gay relationships are bad based on STDs, but many gay couple are monogamous and don't have STDs. Youve suggested that gays are more susceptible to transmitting some viruses such as HIV, and yet, there are studies which suggest that heterosexual sex transmits other viruses at greater probabilities. And of course heterosexuals transmit HIV as well. Your references to CDC data doesn't even include data on homosexual women, which is to say that it doesn't apply to gay women at all.

 

None of this is anywhere close to sufficient in justifying the idea of limiting or preventing legal equality of gays, such as gay marriage or public displays of affection.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I see nothing but a lack of response here. 

You've made this massive case for why gay relationships are bad based on STDs, but many gay couple are monogamous and don't have STDs. Youve suggested that gays are more susceptible to transmitting some viruses such as HIV, and yet, there are studies which suggest that heterosexual sex transmits other viruses at greater probabilities. And of course heterosexuals transmit HIV as well. Your references to CDC data doesn't even include data on homosexual women, which is to say that it doesn't apply to gay women at all.

 

None of this is anywhere close to sufficient in justifying the idea of limiting or preventing legal equality of gays, such as gay marriage or public displays of affection.

Maybe we can just agree that as noted above, 

"Homosexuality doesn't result in the birth of children with genetic defects, nor is it a violent act, nor is it even one that harms our society. It is improper to equate these actions."

Birth defects? No. Violence? No. Harm to society? No. By and large, nations with gay rights for equality today are quite visibly more successful than nations without and certainly moreso than nations with bans and imprisonment laws.

As I noted before as well, you don't have to take it from me. Just observe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I cannot continue debating about the fictional responsability of gays to bring more kids to an overpopulated world to justify repression under the banner of some type of humanity. These ideological aberrations are not solved in an internet forum.

There are diverse social and historical reasons to explain the relation between the homosexual community and HIV transmission. There is no doubt there is a link, but we cannot make transcendental assumptions out of sociological realities. It's like saying that black people are more ignorant in general without taking into consideration the lack of universities, for example, in the areas and cities where there is higher black population.

Homosexuals have historically lived in highly repressive contexts. After reaching an age where they experience some freedom, there is a "phase" where sexual exploration becomes almost like an addiction. And this has transformed gay culture itself, turning its spaces and entertainment activities all related to sex (and also drugs due to the disinhibition they offer to their users). I think it's very positive to talk against this, to do efforts to change this, instead of criminalizing gays altogether and blaming them for HIV transmission.

To be honest, I fear that this gay culture so related to sex is something that is gradually changing in younger generations that have been educated with more freedom, or at least lacking the fear that others like me have grown with. I feel we need to change gay (sex) culture urgently, but that is not by returning to the culture of taboos, because that has already failed. I believe in a culture where we can talk about these feelings without terrible shame or fear. And I believe that is still compatible with considering the acts a sin. I would have loved to be able to freely say how I felt to my close ones even though I had no plans on acting against Islam (and as I have always said, I didn't leave Islam for this issue).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

By the way, I believe gay Muslims do skip that 'phase' merely because there are many barriers to reach it: alcohol consumption, drugs, gay sex, etc. But the emotional and psychological harm of taboos, criminalization, shame and fear are still there. All of them aren't a good company for any person who want to build a serious life project, especially if they plan to marry someone of the opposite sex. They already start with a significant problem (which is lack of physical desire for them), and adding more to the mix is a pain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/10/2021 at 11:40 AM, notme said:

But first thing: there are technologies that make it possible for homosexual people to reproduce without ever touching the opposite sex. 

Salaam,

...i just recently came across this:

https://medium.com/neodotlife/same-sex-reproduction-artificial-gametes-2739206aa4c0#:~:text=A developing technology known as,into sperm or egg cells.

 A developing technology known as IVG, short for in-vitro gametogenesis, could make it possible for same-sex couples to conceive a baby out of their own genetic material and no one else’s. They’d do this by having cells in their own bodies turned into sperm or egg cells.

The science of IVG has been underway for the last 20 years. But it really took off with research that would later win a Nobel Prize for a Japanese scientist named Shinya Yamanaka. In 2006, he found a way to turn any cell in the human body, even easy-to-harvest ones like skin and blood cells, into cells known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), which can be reprogrammed to become any cell in the body. Until that breakthrough, scientists working in regenerative medicine had to use more limited — and controversial — stem cells derived from frozen human embryos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2021 at 4:55 PM, iCenozoic said:

"where the line is when it comes to action"

The simple answer here is that, the line is wherever the action causes a clear harm to others or limits an individual's freedoms.

 

 

 

 

That line is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

For example, Muslims in the US and Western Countries (and even some Christians) have made the case for many years that the fact that society allows and promotes things like gay marriage and gay propaganda in schools and in the media causes harm to them and limits their freedom. I believe, this is the 'fuel' that fuels the current right wing movement in the US. There is alot of noise and nonsense in this movement, but the only reason it even exists is because of this fact. Behind every movement there is a grain of truth the fuels it. 

We want to live in a community where the laws of God, if they are not followed, at least are not disrespected and mocked. We don't have that freedom. The fact that the laws of God and religion are openly mocked and disrespected harms us and our children and turns them away from religion. For someone to whom religious faith is at the center of their existence, anything that harms this is a great harm, and a limit on their freedom. 

You are talking about physical harm only (biting, kicking, killing, etc) because maybe you don't believe in God, don't believe He(s.w.a) has laws, and believe that existence is only physical (corporal) and there is no such thing as a soul and a spirit. So you define 'harm' and 'individual' freedom based on these premises, which we don't share and the majority of the people on earth don't share. So when you define 'harm' and 'freedom' this way and attempt to impose this on everyone else who doesn't agree with you, then you are, in fact, harming them and limiting their freedom, whether you want to believe it or not. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, PureExistence1 said:

A developing technology known as IVG, short for in-vitro gametogenesis, could make it possible for same-sex couples to conceive a baby out of their own genetic material and no one else’s. They’d do this by having cells in their own bodies turned into sperm or egg cells.

When that technology comes (and if it does emerge) then we'll see. Since decades they have been unable to use cloning and it was drummed much as well. So like they skipped the moon colony project and chose the much distant mars, its all drama most of the time. Gravy for the brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

That line is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

For example, Muslims in the US and Western Countries (and even some Christians) have made the case for many years that the fact that society allows and promotes things like gay marriage and gay propaganda in schools and in the media causes harm to them and limits their freedom. I believe, this is the 'fuel' that fuels the current right wing movement in the US. There is alot of noise and nonsense in this movement, but the only reason it even exists is because of this fact. Behind every movement there is a grain of truth the fuels it. 

We want to live in a community where the laws of God, if they are not followed, at least are not disrespected and mocked. We don't have that freedom. The fact that the laws of God and religion are openly mocked and disrespected harms us and our children and turns them away from religion. For someone to whom religious faith is at the center of their existence, anything that harms this is a great harm, and a limit on their freedom. 

You are talking about physical harm only (biting, kicking, killing, etc) because maybe you don't believe in God, don't believe He(s.w.a) has laws, and believe that existence is only physical (corporal) and there is no such thing as a soul and a spirit. So you define 'harm' and 'individual' freedom based on these premises, which we don't share and the majority of the people on earth don't share. So when you define 'harm' and 'freedom' this way and attempt to impose this on everyone else who doesn't agree with you, then you are, in fact, harming them and limiting their freedom, whether you want to believe it or not. 

Allowing gay marriage does not limit anyone else's rights or freedoms. No more does allowing marriage of any other people. The KKK may have religious concerns about interracial marriages, but interracial marriage doesn't limit the KKKs freedoms in any way.  When a gay couple gets married, they are not mocking God either. Their marriage could very well have nothing to do with their faith.

Drawing pictures or cartoons of prophets is mocking. Letting people get married is not.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...