Homosexuality/other "so called" deviant behavior - Immoral or not? Abnormal, or not?

[Rahul]

There have been many discussions about homosexuality on this web site.

There are many that condemn homosexuality for being "wrong", "immoral" amongst other descriptions that I will not repost here as there are ladies viewing the thread, I am sure. However, to the best of my knowledge none of these accusations have been backed up.

These same people also seem to condemn other forms of deviance, such as S&M, fetishes, etc. . .

My question to the forum is: Is homosexuality/other forms of "deviant" sex immoral? Why, or why not?

Why, for instance, would a couple engaged in foot fetish activities be any more "abnormal" than a couple having sex in the missionary position?

I thought this issue deserved a thread of it's own, so we could mesh the issue out once and for all.

Your input would be appreciated. I am looking for logical and verbose answers, but not name calling and insults as some on here are famous for.

:beer:

Rahul

[Gunny]

There have been many discussions about homosexuality on this web site.

There are many that condemn homosexuality for being "wrong", "immoral" amongst other descriptions that I will not repost here as there are ladies viewing the thread, I am sure. However, to the best of my knowledge none of these accusations have been backed up.

These same people also seem to condemn other forms of deviance, such as S&M, fetishes, etc. . .

My question to the forum is: Is homosexuality/other forms of "deviant" sex immoral? Why, or why not?

Why, for instance, would a couple engaged in foot fetish activities be any more "abnormal" than a couple having sex in the missionary position?

I thought this issue deserved a thread of it's own, so we could mesh the issue out once and for all.

Your input would be appreciated. I am looking for logical and verbose answers, but not name calling and insults as some on here are famous for.

:beer:

Rahul

You mean "famous for" in the same context as this question has been answered for you at least 100 times in this forum; yet, because you don't like the answers you're going to keep asking the same question as if it was never answered until someone gives the answer you want or you drop dead?

[jimnyc]

All of the above would technically be considered "abnormal", but others are a little more extreme than others. Society might accept foot rubbing, sex without childbirth, a little S&M - but doesn't want to recognize queers as normal folks. It's as simple as that. There are literally thousands of people that engage in 'scat' activities all the time. When they start demanding rights, how closely will you listen?

[OCA]

All of the above would technically be considered "abnormal", but others are a little more extreme than others. Society might accept foot rubbing, sex without childbirth, a little S&M - but doesn't want to recognize queers as normal folks. It's as simple as that. There are literally thousands of people that engage in 'scat' activities all the time. When they start demanding rights, how closely will you listen?

Exactly, in India where this gomer is from pedophilia is considered normal, tell you anything?

Its all about man and woman......man and woman.

[diuretic]

What if it's about two women and a man or two men and a woman? Is that acceptable?

[Gunny]

What if it's about two women and a man or two men and a woman? Is that acceptable?

Let's see ... two men and a woman ... man even accidentally touches me and gets killed.

Uuummmm..... no?:slap:

[OCA]

What if it's about two women and a man or two men and a woman? Is that acceptable?

I've always said that I don't have the attention span for two women so for me no but I guess as long as the chicks attention is focused squarely on the guy and not on snacking on each other then thats ok.

Two guys and a chick vice-versa, but for me never, do not want swords crossing.

[Abbey Marie]

Let's see ... two men and a woman ... man even accidentally touches me and gets killed.

Uuummmm..... no?:slap:

:lmao:

[Gunny]

I've always said that I don't have the attention span for two women so for me no but I guess as long as the chicks attention is focused squarely on the guy and not on snacking on each other then thats ok.

Two guys and a chick vice-versa, but for me never, do not want swords crossing.

It's simpler than that to me ... I don't share.

[82Marine89]

My question to the forum is: Is homosexuality/other forms of "deviant" sex immoral? Why, or why not?


Rahul

Deviant? Two men sticking their dicks in each others asses? That is sick. That is immoral and it is not natural.

[diuretic]

Deviant? Two men sticking their dicks in each others asses? That is sick. That is immoral and it is not natural.

How about anal sex between a man and a woman?

[diuretic]

It's simpler than that to me ... I don't share.

Some do. Is that unnatural?

[OCA]

How about anal sex between a man and a woman?


Kinky..............not deviant because its between a man and a woman.

[OCA]

Some do. Is that unnatural?

For the most part...yes.

[diuretic]

Let's see ... two men and a woman ... man even accidentally touches me and gets killed.

Uuummmm..... no?:slap:

:laugh2:

But is it unnatural?

[diuretic]

For the most part...yes.

Why?

[diuretic]

Kinky..............not deviant because its between a man and a woman.

What's the difference between "kinky" and "deviant" ?

[OCA]

What's the difference between "kinky" and "deviant" ?


Deviant is behavior which you know is harmful but you continue it anyway.....like homosexuality.

Kinky is trying some new shit, like when a chick swallows her man's load, thats kinky because it isn't harmful to anyone...that is unless you got some evidence that load swallowing is harmful?

And yes homosexuality has harmed society.

[Gunny]

:laugh2:

But is it unnatural?

From the perspective of "nature," can you tell me which species besides Man engages in such behavior?

[OCA]

Why?

Tell me, were you put on earth to be with two chicks at the same time? Do you have two schlongs?

[82Marine89]

How about anal sex between a man and a woman?

How about it? It's still a man and a woman.

[diuretic]

Deviant is behavior which you know is harmful but you continue it anyway.....like homosexuality.

Kinky is trying some new shit, like when a chick swallows her man's load, thats kinky because it isn't harmful to anyone...that is unless you got some evidence that load swallowing is harmful?

And yes homosexuality has harmed society.

I didn't ask if homosexuality has harmed society but it's noted.

So fellatio is kinky. You know some people would argue it should be criminal offence, even between one man and one woman? Do you think it should be criminalised?

[diuretic]

From the perspective of "nature," can you tell me which species besides Man engages in such behavior?

If other species do it does it validate the behaviour?

[diuretic]

Tell me, were you put on earth to be with two chicks at the same time? Do you have two schlongs?

I can't tell you why I was put on earth but I just checked on the schlong. I only have the one.

[diuretic]

How about it? It's still a man and a woman.

Fair comment. Anal sex is okay between a man and a woman. But - I don't want to be crude here so I'm going to be a bit circumspect, this isn't about prurient interest. The act itself is not conducive to reproduction. Should a sexual act that isn't conducive to reproduction be considered "normal"?

[82Marine89]

I didn't ask if homosexuality has harmed society but it's noted.

So fellatio is kinky. You know some people would argue it should be criminal offence, even between one man and one woman? Do you think it should be criminalised?

Instead of attacking heterosexual sex, why don't you start defending homosexual sex? Tell us why you feel it is not immoral and deviant.

[Gunny]

I didn't ask if homosexuality has harmed society but it's noted.

So fellatio is kinky. You know some people would argue it should be criminal offence, even between one man and one woman? Do you think it should be criminalised?

You're arguing opinions. If you want to use strict, biological definitions, sexual intercourse for anything other than procreation and any other acts for sexual pleasure are "unnatural."

[82Marine89]

Fair comment. Anal sex is okay between a man and a woman. But - I don't want to be crude here so I'm going to be a bit circumspect, this isn't about prurient interest. The act itself is not conducive to reproduction. Should a sexual act that isn't conducive to reproduction be considered "normal"?

Anal sex is not normal. If it were, then all heterosexuals would partake in it.

[diuretic]

Instead of attacking heterosexual sex, why don't you start defending homosexual sex? Tell us why you feel it is not immoral and deviant.

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just asking questions.

[diuretic]

You're arguing opinions. If you want to use strict, biological definitions, sexual intercourse for anything other than procreation and any other acts for sexual pleasure are "unnatural."

Why do you think they're "unnatural"?

[diuretic]

Anal sex is not normal. If it were, then all heterosexuals would partake in it.

How many should partake in it for it be normal? Of course you'll have to divide your sum by two for it to be valid.

[Rahul]

You mean "famous for" in the same context as this question has been answered for you at least 100 times in this forum;

No. I mean certain members are famous for indulging in personal insults, name calling, and character assasinations. Ring a bell as yet? :)



yet, because you don't like the answers you're going to keep asking the same question as if it was never answered until someone gives the answer you want or you drop dead?

You haven't answered the question at all.


All of the above would technically be considered "abnormal", but others are a little more extreme than others. Society might accept foot rubbing, sex without childbirth, a little S&M - but doesn't want to recognize queers as normal folks. It's as simple as that. There are literally thousands of people that engage in 'scat' activities all the time. When they start demanding rights, how closely will you listen?

This debate isn't about demanding rights. What I am asking is, why is sex without childbirth, or a little S&M recognized, but homosexuality is made out to be something horrible, and dangerous to society? There hasn't yet been a a conclusive answer to that question. Furthermore, the question of how rubbing against a foot is "normal" (or acceptable, for that matter), but rubbing up against another man isn't, still begs to be answered.


Exactly, in India where this gomer is from pedophilia is considered normal, tell you anything?

Pedophilia is not considered to be normal anywehre. Where is your source?


Its all about man and woman......man and woman.

What is all about man and woman? Could you possibly try and be precise for once?



From the perspective of "nature," can you tell me which species besides Man engages in such behavior?

There have been documented cases of animals indulging in homosexual activity.




http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n735/ai_20164884

Monkey love - homosexual behavior in primates

People who work with primates are used to apes' planting affectionate pecks on their lips. But imagine the surprise of a San Diego zookeeper, unfamiliar with a newly arrived species known as the bonobo, when the animal gently slid its tongue into the zookeeper's mouth. The only thing more surprising than the French kiss was that the bonobo, like the zookeeper, was male.

After studying the primates for his new book Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, primatologist Frans de Waal, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, says that such expressions of intimacy are consistent with the homosexual behavior of what he terms "the erotic champions of the world." "Same-sex, opposite-sex--bonobos just love sex play," de Waal said in an interview. "They have so much sex, it gets boring."

Researchers have long known that same-sex erotic contact is common among apes. But de Waal's bonobo research as well as that recently presented by other authors suggest a more provocative conclusion: that homosexuality is consonant with the survival of the species. "Humans have created the myth that sexuality can be justified only by reproduction, which by definition limits it to hetero sex," says Michael Bronski, author of The Pleasure Principle: Culture, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom. "But here is an animal society that uses homosexuality to improve its social life."

Bonobos, in fact, who live in the equatorial rain forests of Zaire, have a sex life that would exhaust even the randiest humans, engaging in sexual activity, on average, every 1 1/2 hours, day and night. Females rub their genitalia together in a ritual graphically described as "GG-rubbing"; adolescent males swing from trees to practice what de Waal calls "penis fencing" and "rump-rump rubbing." Masturbation, French-kissing, and oral sex, all generally thought to be the province of humans, are the norm. Ejaculation, however, is generally reserved for conventional opposite-sex intercourse.

Nonetheless, de Waal warns against viewing bonobo life as one long Roman orgy. Sex is used not simply for pleasure, he says, but also to encourage peaceful interactions between competing bonobo groups and to quell the violent urges of males. Infanticide, common among apes, is virtually unheard of among bonobos. "Sex for the bonobo is as much affectional as it is genital," he says. "They have adapted sexual relations to soothe tensions, encourage cooperation, and ensure their survival as a species."

This sexual utopia apparently is made possible by the prominence of females in bonobo society. Because females camouflage their reproductive cycle, they are able to keep males off-balance and have a larger say in their choice of sex partners than females of other ape species. Males have learned to moderate their behavior to curry favor among females, who can just as easily turn to other females for companionship and erotic gratification. In a section of de Waal's book titled "Make Love, Not War," the author describes observing a female bonobo defuse a potentially dangerous standoff between two camps by rubbing her clitoris on an aggressive male. Shortly thereafter the animals were resting together peacefully.

That model of social interaction does not necessarily apply to humans, admits de Waal. "We have other ways of reducing aggression, including verbally and through nonsexual bodily contact. The reason we have sexual moral restraints--not all of them good--is that our society is based on the nuclear family, with males invested in just their own offspring. To increase paternity certainty among humans, we require monogamy. Bonobo females have successfully countered the danger of males' attacking the infants of other male bonobos by making it difficult for males to determine their own offspring."

De Waal is not the only expert on primate behavior to present evidence of pervasive homosexuality in bonobos--nor is he the only one to warn against anthropomorphic interpretations of the data. "We have to be careful to remember that homosexuality means different things in animals," says Richard Wrangham, coauthor of Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. One fundamental difference between apes and humans when it comes to the "meaning" of homosexual behavior is reflected in its distribution. "All wild primates we have seen within a particular species are equally homosexual," says Wrangham. "If you lined up ten female bonobos, it's not like one would be a 6 on the Kinsey scale and another a 2. They would all be the same number. It's only humans who adopt identities."

Despite such warnings, the temptation to draw analogies is apparently irresistible. Since bonobos and chimpanzees share 98% of their genetic makeup with humans, researchers pay close attention to their behavior--and its relevance to humans. "From homophobic people saying there is no such thing as homosexuality in animals to Konrad Lorenz's famous research into territorial aggression, animal behavior has been used to show the limits of human sexual behavior and liberation," Bronski says. "The message has always been, `We are related to animals. Look at the behavior we are saddled with.' What's interesting is that we now have a model superior to our own to strive for."

... ...


So, how is homosexuality any less or more "normal" or "abnormal" than a man or woman having sex in the missionary position?

[Gunny]

No. I mean certain members are famous for indulging in personal insults, name calling, and character assasinations. Ring a bell as yet? :)



You haven't answered the question at all.



This debate isn't about demanding rights. What I am asking is, why is sex without childbirth, or a little S&M recognized, but homosexuality is made out to be something horrible, and dangerous to society? There hasn't yet been a a conclusive answer to that question. Furthermore, the question of how rubbing against a foot is "normal" (or acceptable, for that matter), but rubbing up against another man isn't, still begs to be answered.



Pedophilia is not considered to be normal anywehre. Where is your source?



What is all about man and woman? Could you possibly try and be precise for once?




There have been documented cases of animals indulging in homosexual activity.


So, how is homosexuality any less or more "normal" or "abnormal" than a man or woman having sex in the missionary position?

Oh well. So much for intelligent discussion in THIS thread.:rolleyes:

[OCA]

Lol Rajiv needs "man and woman" explained to him!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The intelligence level just went down about 6 notches upon his entry.

[gabosaurus]

This reminds me of seeing TV footage of the Reno Pride parade. I am pretty sure I saw Pale and Nevada sharing one of the floats.

[jimnyc]

This reminds me of seeing TV footage of the Reno Pride parade. I am pretty sure I saw Pale and Nevada sharing one of the floats.

Is that a fruit loop parade? I make sure I'm not even around NYC when they allow those events.

[gabosaurus]

Last time I saw a fruit loop parade, it was the second Bush inauguration.

[jimnyc]

Last time I saw a fruit loop parade, it was the second Bush inauguration.

Missed that, I was still too busy laughing from the delusional who proclaimed GWB was going to be a one term president.

[gabosaurus]

I really don't mind now. The GOP won't be in power for the next 10 years or so.

[Guernicaa]

Oh well. So much for intelligent discussion in THIS thread.:rolleyes:
Nice of you to dodge his questions...

[Guernicaa]

Lol Rajiv needs "man and woman" explained to him!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The intelligence level just went down about 6 notches upon his entry.
Again, another ignorant dumbass trying to argue with opinion...
Are you going to scientifically justify anything you say or are you just going to continue to spout out your opinions?

[Guernicaa]

Last time I saw a fruit loop parade, it was the second Bush inauguration.
I saw one the other day outside of an abortion clinic.

[Guernicaa]

From the perspective of "nature," can you tell me which species besides Man engages in such behavior?


http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she's no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.


As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University, wants to change that perception. After cataloging the wealth of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom two years ago in her controversial book Evolution's Rainbow—and weathering critiques that, she says, stemmed largely from her being transgendered—Roughgarden has set about replacing Darwinian sexual selection with a new explanation of sex. For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn't only about multiplying. Sometimes, as in the case of all those gay sheep, dolphins and primates, animals have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds. Homosexuality, Roughgarden says, is an essential part of biology, and can no longer be dismissed. By using the queer to untangle the straight, Roughgarden's theories have the potential to usher in a scientific sexual revolution.

Darwin's theory of sex began with an observation about peacocks. For a man who liked to see the world in terms of functional adaptations, the tails of male peacocks seemed like a useless absurdity. Why would nature invest in such a baroque display of feathers? Did male peacocks want to be eaten by predators?

Its documented all over the animal kingdom...yet you morons continuously claim its not "natural" on the basis of A)Not being attracted to actually doing it and B)The bible.

[Guernicaa]

Its time for conservatives to stop ignoring science just because they enjoy reading their 2,000 year old book of stories.

[diuretic]

It's really about taking religion out of politics. I fear in the US it's going to be impossible though.

[Gunny]

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php


Its documented all over the animal kingdom...yet you morons continuously claim its not "natural" on the basis of A)Not being attracted to actually doing it and B)The bible.

LMAO ... impeccable source.

And irrelevant. What is the function of sexual intercourse? To perpetuate the species. Any sexual intercourse that is not between male and female does NOT accomplish that biological function.

[Rahul]

What is the function of sexual intercourse? To perpetuate the species.

So, if this were to be true, then in your opinion, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman that does not result in a pregnancy is immoral and abnormal.

Am I even close? :)

[Guernicaa]

LMAO ... impeccable source.

And irrelevant. What is the function of sexual intercourse? To perpetuate the species. Any sexual intercourse that is not between male and female does NOT accomplish that biological function.
Are you fucking joking? Like I really hope your fucking joking..

Impeccable source? Wow...You truly are a fucking retard.

Seed Magazine is an accredited science journal that differs in no way from National Geographic or any other weekly magazine on science.
It's won awards, and has some of the top scientists in the country write articles for it.

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

[Rahul]

Nice of you to dodge his questions...

Thanks for your support! The conservatives specialize in dodging questions they cannot answer logically and making personal remarks, typical of Gunny and a few others on this Forum.


Lol Rajiv needs "man and woman" explained to him!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The intelligence level just went down about 6 notches upon his entry.

I am not Rajiv.

Why is sex between two men (consenting adults) abnormal, but sex between a man and woman not? How is it that one is acceptable to you, and the other isn't?

[OCA]

Again, another ignorant dumbass trying to argue with opinion...
Are you going to scientifically justify anything you say or are you just going to continue to spout out your opinions?


Everything I say is scientifically backed up as fact in one thread or another. You simply aren't fucking worth me double posting links I posted many moons ago.

Its not my fault you are a mary come lately piece of shit, search for the links on your own gomer.

[OCA]

Why is sex between two men (consenting adults) abnormal, but sex between a man and woman not? How is it that one is acceptable to you, and the other isn't?

Are you serious? Do you really need me to explain dick, vagina, asshole and how a woman has one part and the man another and that they match perfectly whereas dick and asshole don't?

Are you this retarded?:bang3:

[OCA]

Animals also shit on themselves, are humans supposed to engage in that too and say its normal?

Humans=critical thinking
Animals=no critical thinking

Nice try douchebags but I pounded this sorry fucking animal argument years ago, you should be ashamed for scraping the bottom of the barrell for this dead dinosaur.

[Rahul]

Are you serious? Do you really need me to explain dick, vagina, asshole and how a woman has one part and the man another and that they match perfectly whereas dick and asshole don't?


A man has a foot. A woman has one, too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Girl%27s_feet.jpg

Why is it OK for a man and a woman to engage in foot fetish activites, but not two men or two women?

[OCA]

A man has a foot. A woman has one, too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Girl%27s_feet.jpg

Why is it OK for a man and a woman to engage in foot fetish activites, but not two men or two women?

Because its a man and a woman, get it?

Nice deflection though, admireable.

[jimnyc]

Homosexuality is very prominent right now as the queers fight around the nation for additional rights. Too bad they are getting knocked down one by one. Nobody wants deviants to be an accepted part of society.

[82Marine89]

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just asking questions.

Great. Why do you feel homosexual sex is normal and not deviant?

[OCA]

Homosexuality is very prominent right now as the queers fight around the nation for additional rights. Too bad they are getting knocked down one by one. Nobody wants deviants to be an accepted part of society.


I certainly don't. Fucking choice deviants, them people are dangerous. Even more dangerous though are the apologists like Gandhi.

[82Marine89]

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

Its documented all over the animal kingdom...yet you morons continuously claim its not "natural" on the basis of A)Not being attracted to actually doing it and B)The bible.

Opposable thumbs and the ability to reason separate us from the animal kingdom. You can not compare the two.

[Gunny]

Nice of you to dodge his questions...

Try not being such a partisan dumbass and go look at the other damned homo thread where he asks the SAME dumb questions, repeatedly gets answers, refuses to accept them so just repeats his questions.

Stupid game. Almost as stupid as the childish little baiting game you like to play.

[Gunny]

Are you fucking joking? Like I really hope your fucking joking..

Impeccable source? Wow...You truly are a fucking retard.

Seed Magazine is an accredited science journal that differs in no way from National Geographic or any other weekly magazine on science.
It's won awards, and has some of the top scientists in the country write articles for it.

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

What's your point, asshat?

[Gunny]

Everything I say is scientifically backed up as fact in one thread or another. You simply aren't fucking worth me double posting links I posted many moons ago.
Its not my fault you are a mary come lately piece of shit, search for the links on your own gomer.

:clap:

[avatar4321]

Whether its natural or not is quite irrelevant, even though there is nothing natural about homosexuality or any other deviant sexual behavior... which is exactly why it deviant behavior.

For too long we have had people push the idea that if its natural then its perfectly alright. It doesnt matter if its natural or normal. that doesnt make it right.

Violence is natural. that doesnt make it right
Bigotry is natural, that doesnt make it right
hatred is natural, that doesnt make it right.
persecution is natural, that doesnt make it right.
dishonesty is natural, that doesnt make it right.

This we have to look at the purpose of sexual activity. And that purpose is to act as a sealant, a physical welding of a man and a woman who have already given themselves to each other intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally. And thus puts themselves in a position to best raise and care for children and perpetuate the human race.

This is exactly why engaging in sexual relationships prior to marriage can be so damaging. If you engage in these activities designed to unite a man and a woman together without the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual commitment, you screwing up yourself psychologically. In addition, you are screwing up life for any future posterity. And when you screw up one persons life you screwed up the people that screwed up life touches.

This is exactly why this deviant behavior is dangerous, because it doesnt just effect the people involved. it effects generations of people. It can take a family generations to get back what is lost because of one careless person.

Unfortunately, we live in a society that tells people to do whatever they want. It lies to them and tells them there are "no consequences." Its about time people started growing up and accepting responsibility for themselves. Because if they dont, they have not only screwed themselves over but hundreds - thousands of people in the future.

[diuretic]

LMAO ... impeccable source.

And irrelevant. What is the function of sexual intercourse? To perpetuate the species. Any sexual intercourse that is not between male and female does NOT accomplish that biological function.

The physiological function of sexual intercourse is definitely reproduction. What we've done as humans is to build cultural mores around the act.

[diuretic]

Great. Why do you feel homosexual sex is normal and not deviant?

I don't particularly care what it's called. What I do think is that consenting adults should be allowed to express their sexuality without fear of punishment. I'm not trying to make anyone describe homosexuality as "normal" or "not deviant", that's up to the individual and I'm not going to tell anyone how to think or what their attitude should be. But on a scientific level, homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychological disorder some years ago.

[diuretic]

Whether its natural or not is quite irrelevant, even though there is nothing natural about homosexuality or any other deviant sexual behavior... which is exactly why it deviant behavior.

For too long we have had people push the idea that if its natural then its perfectly alright. It doesnt matter if its natural or normal. that doesnt make it right.

Violence is natural. that doesnt make it right
Bigotry is natural, that doesnt make it right
hatred is natural, that doesnt make it right.
persecution is natural, that doesnt make it right.
dishonesty is natural, that doesnt make it right.

This we have to look at the purpose of sexual activity. And that purpose is to act as a sealant, a physical welding of a man and a woman who have already given themselves to each other intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally. And thus puts themselves in a position to best raise and care for children and perpetuate the human race.

This is exactly why engaging in sexual relationships prior to marriage can be so damaging. If you engage in these activities designed to unite a man and a woman together without the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual commitment, you screwing up yourself psychologically. In addition, you are screwing up life for any future posterity. And when you screw up one persons life you screwed up the people that screwed up life touches.

This is exactly why this deviant behavior is dangerous, because it doesnt just effect the people involved. it effects generations of people. It can take a family generations to get back what is lost because of one careless person.

Unfortunately, we live in a society that tells people to do whatever they want. It lies to them and tells them there are "no consequences." Its about time people started growing up and accepting responsibility for themselves. Because if they dont, they have not only screwed themselves over but hundreds - thousands of people in the future.

You're opposed to sexual activity before marriage?

[avatar4321]

You're opposed to sexual activity before marriage?

Yeah. Im opposed to extramarital affairs too.

Im for chastity and fidelity. Because its right.

[Rahul]

I certainly don't. Fucking choice deviants, them people are dangerous.

You haven't articulated how.



Even more dangerous though are the apologists like Gandhi.

I am aware of how dangerous Bush is, but what did Gandhi do?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpg/144px-Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg/260px-GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg


Nobody wants deviants to be an accepted part of society.

I am waiting for you to share your source. :)


Because its a man and a woman, get it?

Perhaps you could explain your logic behind why it is Ok for a man and woman to engage in foot fetish activites, but not two men or two women.

[diuretic]

Yeah. Im opposed to extramarital affairs too.

Im for chastity and fidelity. Because its right.

Okay - personal choice, no problem. Would you sanction someone for having sex before marriage? Out of marriage? For adultery?

I'm not attacking your values. They're your values and you should be free to live according to them. What I'm interested in is your attitude towards others who mightn't share those values. I just want to make it clear this isn't personal.

[avatar4321]

Okay - personal choice, no problem. Would you sanction someone for having sex before marriage? Out of marriage? For adultery?

I'm not attacking your values. They're your values and you should be free to live according to them. What I'm interested in is your attitude towards others who mightn't share those values. I just want to make it clear this isn't personal.

I guess that depends what you mean by sanction.

[Pale Rider]

You haven't articulated how.

I am aware of how dangerous Bush is, but what did Gandhi do?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpg/144px-Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg/260px-GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg

I am waiting for you to share your source. :)

Perhaps you could explain your logic behind why it is Ok for a man and woman to engage in foot fetish activites, but not two men or two women.

Here... here ya go... go here and have your fun... http://www.nambla.org/ .... they all agree with you there... now get the fuck otta here ya worthless piece of dog shit.

[diuretic]

I guess that depends what you mean by sanction.

Punishment by the state. I'm not referring to, say, a church. If a church requires its members to remain chaste before marriage (as an example) and then disciplines a member who transgresses, then that's between the church and its members. But would you like to see the state enforce chastity and criminalise adultery?

[Rahul]

Here... here ya go... go here and have your fun... http://www.nambla.org/ .... they all agree with you there... now get the fuck otta here ya worthless piece of dog shit.

What is your point? Do you ever offer anything except for rude and disparaging remarks coupled with vulgar statements?

What did Gandhi do? Why is it OK for a man and women to indulge in sexual activity, but not for two women, or two men?

[jimnyc]

I am waiting for you to share your source. :)

Do you really need a source to tell you that most of society is dead set against homosexuality? Very sad. Try looking at the voting, polls, newspapers, radio... Face it, you are in the minority, and it's not even close.

[Rahul]

Do you really need a source to tell you that most of society is dead set against homosexuality? Very sad. Try looking at the voting, polls, newspapers, radio... Face it, you are in the minority, and it's not even close.

Actually, I have a source from a Christian-oriented website, no less, that contradicts what you are saying.




http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070529/27674_Poll:_Gay_Tolerance_Reaching_Record_Marks_in _America.htm

Gay Tolerance in U.S. Reaching Record Marks

Pro-gay rights attitudes have reached high points this year, according to a new poll, with more Americans expressing tolerance.

Today, 57 percent of the American public believes homosexuality should be sanctioned as an acceptable alternative lifestyle – the highest the Gallup Poll has recorded since 1982. Also indicating higher tolerance, 59 percent of Americans believe homosexual relations should be legal.

The Gallup Poll has recorded a general increase over the past 20 years of those who believe homosexual relations should be legal. The statistic reached an all-time high in May 2003 at 60 percent but then fell to 50 percent in July of that year and has remained level through 2005. A June 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law banning homosexual sodomy appeared to have produced a backlash of public opposition to gay rights, the Gallup report noted. The leveled trend began rising again last year with 56 percent saying homosexual relations should be legal and today, the statistic is nearly at the record 60 percent mark.

Revealing a long-term increase in pro-gay rights attitudes, 46 percent (up from 27 percent in 1996) believe same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages. And the percentage of those who say they should not be recognized by the law as valid fell from 68 percent in 1996 to 53 percent today.

On the question of morality, Americans were found to be nearly evenly divided. Since 2001, the percentage of those who say homosexual relations are morally acceptable has increased from 40 percent to 47 percent. And for the first time in the 21st century, less than the majority of Americans say homosexual relations are morally wrong (49 percent). Last year, 51 percent said such relations are morally wrong.

At the same time, the majority of Americans say sex between an unmarried man and woman (59 percent), divorce (65 percent), and having a baby outside or marriage (54 percent) is morally acceptable.

As debates continue over the origin or cause of homosexuality, the Gallup Poll found that an increasing percentage of Americans believe homosexuality is something a person is born with. The poll showed 42 percent express such a view compared to 13 percent in 1977. And the percentage of Americans who believe homosexuality is due to factors such as upbringing and environment fell from 56 percent in 1977 to 35 percent today.

Among those who believe homosexuals are born that way, 78 percent say homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. In contrast, among those who believe homosexuality is caused by upbringing or environmental factors, only 30 percent say it should be acceptable.

Gallup's results support other surveys that indicate more open and accepting attitudes among today's young adults. A recent Pew survey found 58 percent of 18-25-year-olds say homosexuality should be accepted.

The Gallup Poll found younger Americans aged 18-34 years old (75 percent) are more likely to express the same view than older Americans aged 55 years and older (45 percent). Women (61 percent) are also more likely than men (53 percent) to say homosexuality should be an acceptable alternative lifestyle, the poll further found. And highly religious Americans who attend church weekly (33 percent) are less likely to say it's an acceptable lifestyle than those who seldom or never attend church (74 percent).

Results from the Gallup Poll are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007.

[jimnyc]

Actually, I have a source from a Christian-oriented website, no less, that contradicts what you are saying.

And yet when a vote pops up they get completely destroyed. I guess a sampling of .003 percent of the population isn't very accurate after all. I'd say counting ALL votes is probably MORE accurate than a handful sampling.

[Rahul]

And yet when a vote pops up they get completely destroyed.

Actually, they don't. Except for the southern states, attitudes towards homosexuality are quite liberal in most of the US, especially the North - which the Southerners sometimes call Communist states! :lol:



I guess a sampling of .003 percent of the population isn't very accurate after all. I'd say counting ALL votes is probably MORE accurate than a handful sampling.

Agreed. And a sampling of just the southern states isn't an accurate depiction either of how the entire United States population feels on the issue.

[jimnyc]

Actually, they don't. Except for the southern states, attitudes towards homosexuality are quite liberal in most of the US, especially the North - which the Southerners sometimes call Communist states! :lol:

They don't? Can you give me the results of the votes in the past 3 years? How many states have now voted against it? How many for?


Agreed. And a sampling of just the southern states isn't an accurate depiction either of how the entire United States population feels on the issue.

Which is why we let the voters themselves decide, and what's happening when we allow that?

[Rahul]

They don't? Can you give me the results of the votes in the past 3 years? How many states have now voted against it? How many for?

No, they do not. Attitudes towards homosexuality/alternative lifestyles are far more liberal up North, and in California. . .

What results are you lookin for, and what do you mean by "it" when you ask how many states have voted against it?



Which is why we let the voters themselves decide, and what's happening when we allow that?

Well, you said homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. That would appear to be whats happening. ;)

Except on the issue of gay marriages, of course. . .

[jimnyc]

No, they do not. Attitudes towards homosexuality/alternative lifestyles are far more liberal up North, and in California. . .

What results are you lookin for, and what do you mean by "it" when you ask how many states have voted against it?



Well, you said homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. That would appear to be whats happening. ;)

Except on the issue of gay marriages, of course. . .

When it's put to a vote (queer marriages) it gets show down. EVERYWHERE. The only places it's different is maybe Mass. and when an activist judge goes against the laws, only to be overturned later.

When left alone, the queers are stuck in a closet. When they come out, they are getting voted away.

[Rahul]

When it's put to a vote (queer marriages) it gets show down. EVERYWHERE. The only places it's different is maybe Mass. and when an activist judge goes against the laws, only to be overturned later.

And that is precisely why I started this thread. Attitudes towards homosexuals and people who live "alternative" lifestyles have got to change.


When left alone, the queers are stuck in a closet. When they come out, they are getting voted away.

These are the type of disparaging remarks that do no good. Why not simply refer to them as homosexuals, instead of "queers"?

[jimnyc]

And that is precisely why I started this thread. Attitudes towards homosexuals and people who live "alternative" lifestyles have got to change.



These are the type of disparaging remarks that do no good. Why not simply refer to them as homosexuals, instead of "queers"?

Why do they have to change? I know my mind won't be changing about them. No matter what is said I will always know that homosexual activity is vile, disgusting and bad for society as a whole.

What the hell are you talking about? They call themselves queers, but it's not ok for me to do so? "Queer eye for the straight guy?" ring any bells? How about the chants of "We're here, we're queer..." Sorry, but they took the name, I didn't give it to them.

[Rahul]

Why do they have to change? I know my mind won't be changing about them. No matter what is said I will always know that homosexual activity is vile, disgusting and bad for society as a whole.


Because, until and unless they do, society will be stuck in a morass of hate when it comes to accepting people with tastes different to their own. Believe it or not, this sort of attitude translates over into other spheres of life as well.

Further, why is homosexuality "bad for society as a whole"? I don't see them FORCING anyone to be homosexual. . . Do you?



What the hell are you talking about? They call themselves queers, but it's not ok for me to do so? "Queer eye for the straight guy?" ring any bells? How about the chants of "We're here, we're queer..." Sorry, but they took the name, I didn't give it to them.

I'd be willing to bet it was heterosexuals who originally came out with the term "queer".

[jimnyc]

Because, until and unless they do, society will be stuck in a morass of hate when it comes to accepting people with tastes different to their own. Believe it or not, this sort of attitude translates over into other spheres of life as well.

Further, why is homosexuality "bad for society as a whole"? I don't see them FORCING anyone to be homosexual. . . Do you?

Drugs, disease, decay of traditional families...


I'd be willing to bet it was heterosexuals who originally came out with the term "queer".

Don't care about the origin, I just know if they want to call themselves that in public today, then I'll refer to them that way too.

[Rahul]

Drugs, disease, decay of traditional families...



Are you saying homosexuality is the cause of all this??

1. Drugs - There are plenty of heterosexual drug users as well.
2. Disease - Applies equally to heterosexuals having unprotected sex.
3. Decay of traditional families - Already done happened a while back, with nuclear families being the norm these days.

You'll have to propound on your points further, I suspect. . .

[Said1]

Are you saying homosexuality is the cause of all this??

1. Drugs - There are plenty of heterosexual drug users as well.
2. Disease - Applies equally to heterosexuals having unprotected sex.
3. Decay of traditional families - Already done happened a while back, with nuclear families being the norm these days.

You'll have to propound on your points further, I suspect. . .

You're saying nuclear families, being the norm today, isn't tradtional?

[Rahul]

You're saying nuclear families, being the norm today, isn't tradtional?

The term "traditional families" generally means joint families, not nuclear. I am saying that these days, the norm is nuclear families, not joint families. It has been this way for a while. Therefore, I am unsure as to how homosexuality actively contributes to the breakup of "traditional" families as those have already been affected.

[82Marine89]

Actually, they don't. Except for the southern states, attitudes towards homosexuality are quite liberal in most of the US, especially the North - which the Southerners sometimes call Communist states! :lol:


Then explain why California passed a law, through a vote of the people, amending our state constitution to read that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[Said1]

The term "traditional families" generally means joint families, not nuclear. I am saying that these days, the norm is nuclear families, not joint families. It has been this way for a while. Therefore, I am unsure as to how homosexuality actively contributes to the breakup of "traditional" families as those have already been affected.


WTF are you talking about. Nuclear famlies are traditional families, with a Mom and a Dad and sometimes Grandma or Grandpa or both. Unless you mean that Grama is now carted off to the home instead of living with their children. EIther way, your point is moot. Traditional means Mom and Dad, not Dad and Dad.

[Rahul]

Then explain why California passed a law, through a vote of the people, amending our state constitution to read that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Such a law is unfair and discriminatory towards homosexual couples.


Traditional means Mom and Dad, not Dad and Dad.

Mom and Dad aren't the issue. We are not referring to adoption by homosexuals here.

So, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

[82Marine89]

Such a law is unfair and discriminatory towards homosexual couples.

Wrong. It also denies heterosexual men from marrying each other and heterosexual women from marrying each other. That is equality at its finest.

[OCA]

Actually, I have a source from a Christian-oriented website, no less, that contradicts what you are saying.

Why do they lose every vote? Hmmm maybe this poll sampling was not randomly picked?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[OCA]

Actually, they don't. Except for the southern states, attitudes towards homosexuality are quite liberal in most of the US, especially the North - which the Southerners sometimes call Communist states! :lol:





OMG! New York is a southern state? Oregon is full of rednecks?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Gandhi you have no idea what you are even talking about and you embarrass yourself further with each new post you put up.

[OCA]

Then explain why California passed a law, through a vote of the people, amending our state constitution to read that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Gandhi...............say uncle quick, everybody is laying an ass whipping on you.:cool:

[diuretic]

WTF are you talking about. Nuclear famlies are traditional families, with a Mom and a Dad and sometimes Grandma or Grandpa or both. Unless you mean that Grama is now carted off to the home instead of living with their children. EIther way, your point is moot. Traditional means Mom and Dad, not Dad and Dad.

Families are social constructs, they change in time and place. The nuclear family as we know it isn't that old. So a "family" can be anything society says it is.

[Gunny]

The physiological function of sexual intercourse is definitely reproduction. What we've done as humans is to build cultural mores around the act.

Yeah, and look at all it's done for us.

[diuretic]

Yeah, and look at all it's done for us.

Yes I long for the old caveman days too :laugh2:

[Gunny]

I don't particularly care what it's called. What I do think is that consenting adults should be allowed to express their sexuality without fear of punishment. I'm not trying to make anyone describe homosexuality as "normal" or "not deviant", that's up to the individual and I'm not going to tell anyone how to think or what their attitude should be. But on a scientific level, homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychological disorder some years ago.

Let's break this down ...

WHO is talking about punishment?

Calling homosexuality abnormal is simply a statement of fact, and carries with it no punishment. As I have said repeatedly, when one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, one WILL BE held personally accountable for that decision. If you are equating the stigma that is the result of that personal accoutnablility, that's too bad, IMO.

I haven't seen even the most argent anti-homosexual member on this board advocate "punishing" homosexuals for what they do in the privacy of their own home.

What I DO see, are those of us that are 100% against a law that caters solely to aberrant sexual behavior, an/or calling aberrant sexual behavior anything more or less than what it is.

I see those of us who will not tolerate flaming frootloop faggots getting in our faces because offending the heterosexual norm is their entire goal.

Homosexuals currently have EVERY right under the law that heterosexuals do. They most assuredly do not deserve to be rewarded with legislation that caters to their inability to think and act correctly.

As in many instances in this Nation, there is no happy medium here. While I do not advocate the tyranny of the majority, if that is the label attached for the majority disallowing the tyranny of the minority, so be it.

[Pale Rider]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Gandhi...............say uncle quick, everybody is laying an ass whipping on you.:cool:

I think he likes it... :cuckoo:

[Gunny]

You haven't articulated how.



I am aware of how dangerous Bush is, but what did Gandhi do?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpg/144px-Bush_Terrorist_Placard_B.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg/260px-GandhiStatueInUnionSquareNYC.jpg



I am waiting for you to share your source. :)




Perhaps you could explain your logic behind why it is Ok for a man and woman to engage in foot fetish activites, but not two men or two women.

YOU are a F-ING RETARD.

[Said1]

Families are social constructs, they change in time and place. The nuclear family as we know it isn't that old. So a "family" can be anything society says it is.

All traditions are social constructs, regardless of how dated they are or aren't. People don't live in tribal, egalitarian little societies anymore, although I would bet that traditionally, they did not raise families with same sex partners, in homosexual relationships. That is, traditionally keeping whatever form of marriage they practice(d) between a man and women. traditionally, marriage, child rearing etc, etc, has been between a man and a women. I will admit that in some cases there are several moms though. :laugh2:

Why you'd be arguing the definition of traditional family is beyond me in the first place given that Dad and Dad is not a tradition and society as whole probably doesn't define a homosexual relationship as such and more then likely never will. While some societies accept two women getting married or co-habituating and raising a family, it's not traditional. Is that tradition coming to end due to larger acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle? I doubt it. I wouldn't' blame gay families for the destruction of traditional families I'd blame irresponsibility, for one.

[Gunny]

Such a law is unfair and discriminatory towards homosexual couples.



Mom and Dad aren't the issue. We are not referring to adoption by homosexuals here.

So, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

I've just gone through a handful of posts by your dumb ass where you have brushed aside every logical argument made and re-asked the same stupid question. The same little game you play in every thread.

Arguing with a 1st grader is more intellectually rewarding.

[avatar4321]

And that is precisely why I started this thread. Attitudes towards homosexuals and people who live "alternative" lifestyles have got to change.



These are the type of disparaging remarks that do no good. Why not simply refer to them as homosexuals, instead of "queers"?

I agree. attitudes have to change. More people need to realize what a threat it is to modern civilization and start supporting the family again.

[Gunny]

Yes I long for the old caveman days too :laugh2:

Hardly my point. Western society nowadays is pretty-much controlled by sex. To the extent one is controlled by addiction/personal pleasure, so is one weakened.

Take HIV for example. The shit KILLS. But how many people go out daily and have unprotected, indiscriminant sex with no regard for that fact? THAT is dying for a piece of ass. Sorry, but I haven't had any THAT good.

[Said1]

Such a law is unfair and discriminatory towards homosexual couples.



Mom and Dad aren't the issue. We are not referring to adoption by homosexuals here.

So, do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Why, or why not?

As long as it stays at city hall and out of the churches that don't want them, I don't care. Civil Union, next best thing. And besides, it's simply self-evident that ancient religious beliefs should automatically trump their perceived rights.

[avatar4321]

Hardly my point. Western society nowadays is pretty-much controlled by sex. To the extent one is controlled by addiction/personal pleasure, so is one weakened.

Take HIV for example. The shit KILLS. But how many people go out daily and have unprotected, indiscriminant sex with no regard for that fact? THAT is dying for a piece of ass. Sorry, but I haven't had any THAT good.

Its not the dying for a "piece of @$$" that is so messed up. Its being willing to spread the diseases knowing you are killing others that is messed up. These people are so selfish they dont care about the fact that they can kill people, just as long as they get their action.

[Gunny]

Its not the dying for a "piece of @$$" that is so messed up. Its being willing to spread the diseases knowing you are killing others that is messed up. These people are so selfish they dont care about the fact that they can kill people, just as long as they get their action.

I agree. I addressed only one side of the issue ... being willing to sacrifice one's life for a piece of ass. Your point is just as valid, and amounts to little more than murder by any other name.

"Self" is what it's all about. As long as I feel good, screw everyone else. It's an ever-increasing stench and product of extreme liberalism that is consuming our society.

[avatar4321]

I agree. I addressed only one side of the issue ... being willing to sacrifice one's life for a piece of ass. Your point is just as valid, and amounts to little more than murder by any other name.

"Self" is what it's all about. As long as I feel good, screw everyone else. It's an ever-increasing stench and product of extreme liberalism that is consuming our society.

What's ironic is it goes compeltely contrary to what they try to claim when they say they are thinking about the "common good"

[Gunny]

What's ironic is it goes compeltely contrary to what they try to claim when they say they are thinking about the "common good"

Their idea of "common good" is more like condemning oneself to life of mediocrity and self-indulgence within the confines of it. The only "common good" they are concerned about is taking away from those that earn more and giving it those that don't earn a damned thing.

[diuretic]

Let's break this down ...

WHO is talking about punishment?{/quote]

I don't know, that's why I asked. I did ask, I wasn't accusing.




Calling homosexuality abnormal is simply a statement of fact, and carries with it no punishment. As I have said repeatedly, when one chooses to live outside the conforms of society, one WILL BE held personally accountable for that decision. If you are equating the stigma that is the result of that personal accoutnablility, that's too bad, IMO.

No it's not a statement of fact. It's a value judgement. There's nothing factual about calling homosexuality "abnormal", it's a statement of values.



I haven't seen even the most argent anti-homosexual member on this board advocate "punishing" homosexuals for what they do in the privacy of their own home.

Me either.




What I DO see, are those of us that are 100% against a law that caters solely to aberrant sexual behavior, an/or calling aberrant sexual behavior anything more or less than what it is.

I don't understand.




I see those of us who will not tolerate flaming frootloop faggots getting in our faces because offending the heterosexual norm is their entire goal.

Yep, extremists annoy me too but today's extremist is tomorrow's conventional thinker.




Homosexuals currently have EVERY right under the law that heterosexuals do. They most assuredly do not deserve to be rewarded with legislation that caters to their inability to think and act correctly.

Again I don't understand your point. Apparently homosexuals don't have equal rights, or so I read,.




As in many instances in this Nation, there is no happy medium here. While I do not advocate the tyranny of the majority, if that is the label attached for the majority disallowing the tyranny of the minority, so be it.

I don't like any form of tyranny, I don't care if it comes from the majority or the minority. I regard the intrusion into someone's rights as being unwarranted unless absolutely necessary.

[diuretic]

All traditions are social constructs, regardless of how dated they are or aren't. People don't live in tribal, egalitarian little societies anymore, although I would bet that traditionally, they did not raise families with same sex partners, in homosexual relationships. That is, traditionally keeping whatever form of marriage they practice(d) between a man and women. traditionally, marriage, child rearing etc, etc, has been between a man and a women. I will admit that in some cases there are several moms though. :laugh2:

Why you'd be arguing the definition of traditional family is beyond me in the first place given that Dad and Dad is not a tradition and society as whole probably doesn't define a homosexual relationship as such and more then likely never will. While some societies accept two women getting married or co-habituating and raising a family, it's not traditional. Is that tradition coming to end due to larger acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle? I doubt it. I wouldn't' blame gay families for the destruction of traditional families I'd blame irresponsibility, for one.

Traditions are destroyed every moment of every day. It's called progress. But decisions have to be made each time a tradition is over-ruled, no problem there. I mean we wouldn't have the concept of liberal democracy if tradition ruled. I'm not arguing for mindless change, I am arguing for considered ideas.

[Gunny]

I don't know, that's why I asked. I did ask, I wasn't accusing.



No it's not a statement of fact. It's a value judgement. There's nothing factual about calling homosexuality "abnormal", it's a statement of values.

From a scientific, biological standpoint, it is factually abnormal.



Me either.



I don't understand.



Yep, extremists annoy me too but today's extremist is tomorrow's conventional thinker.



Again I don't understand your point. Apparently homosexuals don't have equal rights, or so I read,.




I don't like any form of tyranny, I don't care if it comes from the majority or the minority. I regard the intrusion into someone's rights as being unwarranted unless absolutely necessary.

Homosexuals have EVERY right each and every one of us has. They wish to have legislation passed that caters solely to their aberrant sexual behavior.

[diuretic]

Hardly my point. Western society nowadays is pretty-much controlled by sex. To the extent one is controlled by addiction/personal pleasure, so is one weakened.

Take HIV for example. The shit KILLS. But how many people go out daily and have unprotected, indiscriminant sex with no regard for that fact? THAT is dying for a piece of ass. Sorry, but I haven't had any THAT good.

I know it wasn't your point. But human society has always been controlled by sex. It's part of humanity. Frowning at it won't make it go away.

[diuretic]

As long as it stays at city hall and out of the churches that don't want them, I don't care. Civil Union, next best thing. And besides, it's simply self-evident that ancient religious beliefs should automatically trump their perceived rights.

No it's not. What does trump it is the right of churches to refuse to offer the sacrament of marriage. No problems there.

[diuretic]

Gunny, when it comes to sex forget nature - society determines deviant sexual practices, leave biology out of it, the animal kingdom is kinkier than humans.

On rights. I don't think that homosexuals have equal rights. Now, if you think they shouldn't have equal rights then say so, but don't try to assert they have equal rights. They don't.

[glockmail]

....

On rights. I don't think that homosexuals have equal rights. Now, if you think they shouldn't have equal rights then say so, but don't try to assert they have equal rights. They don't.

Murderers and rapists don't have equal rights either, and for a similar reason.

[diuretic]

Murderers and rapists don't have equal rights either, and for a similar reason.

That reason being....?

[glockmail]

That reason being....? I thought that was self-explanitory.

The reason is that their chosen behavior is a potential detriment to society and individuals around them.

[Rahul]

Wrong. It also denies heterosexual men from marrying each other and heterosexual women from marrying each other. That is equality at its finest.

Why would heterosexual men and women want to marry another member of the same sex? Your logic is moot. In the meantime, the law is discriminatory as it discriminates against same sex couples.


YOU are a F-ING RETARD.

Insults are a common debating tactic for those who have nothing more to offer to the argument.


I've just gone through a handful of posts by your dumb ass where you have brushed aside every logical argument made and re-asked the same stupid question. The same little game you play in every thread.

Arguing with a 1st grader is more intellectually rewarding.

So, what exactly did Gandhi do?

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/gandhi.pics/face.jpg


I agree. attitudes have to change. .

People should be more tolerant of homosexuality. I agree.


And besides, it's simply self-evident that ancient religious beliefs should automatically trump their perceived rights.

Nonsense. Religion has got nothing to do with rights.

[Said1]

Nonsense. Religion has got nothing to do with rights.

Why should gay rights trump that of the church's right to practice their religion, according to their doctrine? What right does the state have to change this? To me, this is so obvious, I can't believe there is someone out there who would question it. And besides, Civil Union is the same thing.

[Rahul]

Why should gay rights trump that of the church's right to practice their religion, according to their doctrine?

Because, the church is not the ultimate arbitrer of rights. Not everyone is a Christian, anyway.

What if the mosques demanded that all women cover themelves in a niqab? How would you feel about that?

[glockmail]

Why should gay rights trump that of the church's right to practice their religion, according to their doctrine? What right does the state have to change this? To me, this is so obvious, I can't believe there is someone out there who would question it. And besides, Civil Union is the same thing. The fact that queers and their enablers won't accept CU proves that their real motive is to attack traditional marraige.

[Said1]

No it's not. What does trump it is the right of churches to refuse to offer the sacrament of marriage. No problems there.

No what's not?

Anyway, as I said, the Church's rights trump those of homosexuals, which is the right to keep their weddings out of their churches. I thought I said that?

[Said1]

Because, the church is not the ultimate arbitrer of rights. Not everyone is a Christian, anyway.

What if the mosques demanded that all women cover themelves in a niqab? How would you feel about that?

The Church is the ultimate arbitrator of rights within it's confines. If you don't like their rules according to their doctrine, there are other more liberal churches one can attend. Some churches do perform same sex ceremonies, some don't. The point is, it's the churches' right to chose, not a homosexual couples right to make them change.

[82Marine89]

Why would heterosexual men and women want to marry another member of the same sex? Your logic is moot. In the meantime, the law is discriminatory as it discriminates against same sex couples.




Wrong again. They can marry for tax purposes.

The law has also passed through the court system and was found to be legal. Try again with your argument.

[Rahul]

The Church is the ultimate arbitrator of rights within it's confines.

The state is the one deciding marriage laws not the Church. Furthermore, how about those that aren't Christians?


Wrong again. They can marry for tax purposes.

Not in all states. You are factually incorrect.

[82Marine89]

Not in all states. You are factually incorrect.

So in some states they would want to marry for tax purposes but not others? Explain yourself.

[Rahul]

So in some states they would want to marry for tax purposes but not others? Explain yourself.

Homosexual marriage isn't even legally recognized in most states, for any purpose.

[Said1]

The state is the one deciding marriage laws not the Church. Furthermore, how about those that aren't Christians?

The church can decied what they want to do, within the confines of their walls the government CAN"T interfere with freedom of religion, at least not in my country. Homosexuals have Civil Union, which is essentially the same thing.

Oh, and since you are incapable of inference, apply religious doctrine to all religions. I wrote church to save time. I'm sure most knew I meant church, mosque, synagogue, etc, etc. All clear now?

[diuretic]

I thought that was self-explanitory.

The reason is that their chosen behavior is a potential detriment to society and individuals around them.

Their acts are crimes and crimes are detrimental to society. Being gay is a tendency, it's not criminal behaviour.

[diuretic]

The fact that queers and their enablers won't accept CU proves that their real motive is to attack traditional marraige.

Is it? Or is it that they want to marry. That's not attacking anything. If I were a gay man civil union would be sufficient for me because I'm not religious. But if I were a gay man and wanted my union recognised by my religion, how would I be attacking marriage? I don't see it.

I do think that the various religions should be able to make the decision on gay marriage for themselves though, the state shouldn't force any religion to approve gay marriage. That struggle lies with the members of that religion.

[jimnyc]

Their acts are crimes and crimes are detrimental to society. Being gay is a tendency, it's not criminal behaviour.

Then the solution lies somewhere with medical assistance, not acceptance.

[Pale Rider]

Homosexual marriage isn't even legally recognized in most states, for any purpose.

What are you here for? Why are you so concerned with what goes on in America? Why aren't you on a board for your country?

[Rahul]

What are you here for? Why are you so concerned with what goes on in America? Why aren't you on a board for your country?

That isn't what is being discussed in the OP.

Why do you consider homosexuality to be harmful?

[glockmail]

Their acts are crimes and crimes are detrimental to society. Being gay is a tendency, it's not criminal behaviour. I never said queers were criminals, just that their activities lead to decadence in society, as well as disease.

[glockmail]

Is it? Or is it that they want to marry. That's not attacking anything. If I were a gay man civil union would be sufficient for me because I'm not religious. But if I were a gay man and wanted my union recognised by my religion, how would I be attacking marriage? I don't see it.

..... .

If you are queer and religious then you should realize that your behavior will lead you to hell. Why would you expect your religion to lead you there?

[diuretic]

Then the solution lies somewhere with medical assistance, not acceptance.

Homosexuality was removed from DSM some years ago so medical assistance is irrelevant.

[diuretic]

I never said queers were criminals, just that their activities lead to decadence in society, as well as disease.

Fair enough. And the same can be said for heterosexuals of course.

[diuretic]

If you are queer and religious then you should realize that your behavior will lead you to hell. Why would you expect your religion to lead you there?

Someone who is homosexual and religious obviously needs to work something out with their religious authorities.

[theHawk]

Pedophilia is not considered to be normal anywehre. Where is your source?

A big chunk of the world hails a pedophile as a prophet of a god. You don't think that type of example has an effect on their society?

[glockmail]

Fair enough. And the same can be said for heterosexuals of course. Bullshit. Stable heterosexual relationships form the backbone of civilization.

[glockmail]

Homosexuality was removed from DSM some years ago so medical assistance is irrelevant. That was a political decision, not medical.

[Rahul]

A big chunk of the world hails a pedophile as a prophet of a god. You don't think that type of example has an effect on their society?

So, where is your source showing pedophilia to be "normal" in a "big chunk of the world"?

[OCA]

Homosexuality was removed from DSM some years ago so medical assistance is irrelevant.


After intense presure from the queer lobby, not based on fact.

[OCA]

Being gay is a tendency

Actually that is a baldfaced lie.

[Pale Rider]

That isn't what is being discussed in the OP.

Now you've accused everyone else on this board of "dodging," and now you're doing it yourself.

Answer my question... "why are you here, and why do care so much about what goes on in America?"

[Hagbard Celine]

Actually that is a baldfaced lie.

My question is, how would you know this if you aren't gay? I think it is a tendency. You can spot fruity boys when they are very young. They're the ones braiding girls' hair instead of playing kickball.

[avatar4321]

Homosexuality was removed from DSM some years ago so medical assistance is irrelevant.

so if doctors stop treating malaria, the medical assistance wouldn't be the answer?

Simply because doctors refuse to take up their responsibilities in a certain area doesnt mean they are less responsible.

[avatar4321]

So, where is your source showing pedophilia to be "normal" in a "big chunk of the world"?

I believe he is stating that a large chunk of the world has no problem with pedaphilia because they accept Muhammad as a prophet.

[OCA]

My question is, how would you know this if you aren't gay? I think it is a tendency. You can spot fruity boys when they are very young. They're the ones braiding girls' hair instead of playing kickball.

Logic tells me that after decades and billions spent on finding the genetic smoking gun and having founf nothing close that it is in fact...........a choice.

Many boys have effeminate qualities it in no way means they are queer. In fact we are all born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex......that is an undeniable fact.

[Rahul]

I believe he is stating that a large chunk of the world has no problem with pedaphilia because they accept Muhammad as a prophet.

Mohammad was not a pedophile. This logic is moot.




Answer my question... "why are you here, and why do care so much about what goes on in America?"


I am not answering off topic questions. Ask me a question related to the OP, and I will answer it. Otherwise, not.

[82Marine89]

Mohammad was not a pedophile. This logic is moot.


He had a 6 y/o wife. That is pedophilia at its finest.

[Rahul]

He had a 6 y/o wife. That is pedophilia at its finest.

Where is your source?

:link:

[82Marine89]

Where is your source?

:link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_marriages

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close friend confidant of Muhammad, and controversial figure in the differing depictions in Shia and Sunni historical narratives. Muhammad married Aisha before the Hijra, however Muslim scholars differ on whether Muhammad married Sawda or Aisha first. Muhammad married Sawda one month after the death of his first wife Khadija upon suggestion of one of his companions. Regardless, Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with Aisha until she reached the age of nine, and lived with Sawda during that time.[4]

[Rahul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_marriages

Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close friend confidant of Muhammad, and controversial figure in the differing depictions in Shia and Sunni historical narratives. Muhammad married Aisha before the Hijra, however Muslim scholars differ on whether Muhammad married Sawda or Aisha first. Muhammad married Sawda one month after the death of his first wife Khadija upon suggestion of one of his companions. Regardless, Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with Aisha until she reached the age of nine, and lived with Sawda during that time.[4]

Wikipedia is hardly a credible enough source. I could go in and change the nine to ninety.

Try again. :)

[82Marine89]

Wikipedia is hardly a credible enough source. I could go in and change the nine to ninety.

Try again. :)

It's credible when you libs want to quote it. Why don't you prove me wrong? Show me your boy Mo didn't have sex with a nine year old girl.

[Rahul]

It's credible when you libs want to quote it. Why don't you prove me wrong? Show me your boy Mo didn't have sex with a nine year old girl.

I haven't quoted anything from Wikipedia. Further, you made the assertion, so it is your job to back it up, not mine.

[82Marine89]

I haven't quoted anything from Wikipedia. Further, you made the assertion, so it is your job to back it up, not mine.

I backed it up with a source that is frequently quoted by liberals. Mo was a pedophile, plain and simple.

[Rahul]

Mo was a pedophile, plain and simple.

You haven't backed this assertion up. Will you?

[82Marine89]

You haven't backed this assertion up. Will you?

I quoted a credible liberal source. Why don't you try and prove me wrong? Can't?

[Rahul]

I quoted a credible liberal source.

Sources that can be changed on the fly are not too credible. I disagree.


Why don't you try and prove me wrong?

I don't do your research for you, that's why.

[jimnyc]

Sources that can be changed on the fly are not too credible. I disagree.



I don't do your research for you, that's why.

I'd like to see you simply change it, if it can be done that easy on wikipedia. Furthermore, the information provided there is true. Mohammed had at least 9 marriages and at least one is 100% confirmed to be between 8-9 years old, a marriage setup by the father of the girl, "Aisha" (can't recall the exact spelling). Claims are that he did so to get in closer with other tribes. I don't think anything excuses violating a child, regardless of the times.

[Rahul]

I'd like to see you simply change it, if it can be done that easy on wikipedia.

Sure it can be done, but I am not about to make changes just for the sake of making them. It's very easy to make changes on wikipedia. Anyone can do it. Try it yourself, and see. . .



Furthermore, the information provided there is true. Mohammed had at least 9 marriages and at least one is 100% confirmed to be between 8-9 years old, a marriage setup by the father of the girl, "Aisha" (can't recall the exact spelling). Claims are that he did so to get in closer with other tribes. I don't think anything excuses violating a child, regardless of the times.

I would like to see a source for these claims. As for "violating children", did Christians never marry young in ancient times? :)

[jimnyc]

Sure it can be done, but I am not about to make changes just for the sake of making them. It's very easy to make changes on wikipedia. Anyone can do it. Try it yourself, and see. . .

I'll take your word for it...


I would like to see a source for these claims. As for "violating children", did Christians never marry young in ancient times? :)

Try "mohammed marriages" in any search engine and have fun reading.

Violating children is wrong regardless of whom does it. It's just that some choose to praise one as a prophet...

[glockmail]

Sure it can be done, but I am not about to make changes just for the sake of making them. It's very easy to make changes on wikipedia. Anyone can do it. Try it yourself, and see. . .



I would like to see a source for these claims. As for "violating children", did Christians never marry young in ancient times? :)

This is about the poorest excuse for debate that I have seen in a long time. :pee:

[Rahul]

I'll take your word for it...


Thanks, but you don't have to. Go to any wiki page and click the "edit" link beside the articles and see for yourself. :-)



Try "mohammed marriages" in any search engine and have fun reading.

Please provide your own source. It is unreasonable to expect me to research your claims for you.

[jimnyc]

Please provide your own source. It is unreasonable to expect me to research your claims for you.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. I followed up the statement with my own knowledge from researching in the past. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, but I certainly won't be wasting my time educating you.

[Rahul]

Sorry, but I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. I followed up the statement with my own knowledge from researching in the past. If you choose not to believe it, so be it, but I certainly won't be wasting my time educating you.

This is a debating forum,and one is expected to provide sources to back one's own argument up instead of asking others for it. Informed as your post might be, I still see no reason to believe it without proof. . .

[jimnyc]

This is a debating forum,and one is expected to provide sources to back one's own argument up instead of asking others for it. Informed as your post might be, I still see no reason to believe it without proof. . .

I don't recall asking you for anything.

There are literally thousands of pages on the subject of you took some time to educate yourself. You choose not to. I already know what I read on the subject.

[remie]

http://www.answers.com/topic/muhammad-s-marriages[/URL]
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Silas/childbrides.htmhttp://www.jamaat.org/qa/ayeshara.html[/URL]

[82Marine89]

I would like to see a source for these claims. As for "violating children", did Christians never marry young in ancient times? :)

Thank you for justifying pedophilia.

[remie]

Thank you for justifying pedophilia.

Now he really sounds like a child......."but mom, everybody is doing it"

[Rahul]

Thank you for justifying pedophilia.

Where did I justify it?


I don't recall asking you for anything.

You asked me to research your statement for you instead of providing proof yourself.

[jimnyc]

You asked me to research your statement for you instead of providing proof yourself.

Again, I didn't ask you to do anything. I shared my knowledge - you asked for a source - I told you how to acquire the info if you desire.

[OCA]

Again, I didn't ask you to do anything. I shared my knowledge - you asked for a source - I told you how to acquire the info if you desire.

Its like everytime one of these fucks registers here you gotta repost the same shit for them that is already posted here a dozen times, its up to a newbie to research the board for links already posted not a veteran.

[82Marine89]

Where did I justify it?


Did you ride the short rickshaw to school?

[Rahul]

Again, I didn't ask you to do anything. I shared my knowledge - you asked for a source - I told you how to acquire the info if you desire.

Sure I asked for a source. When making a claim, it is customary to provide a source.


Its like everytime one of these fucks registers here you gotta repost the same shit for them that is already posted here a dozen times, its up to a newbie to research the board for links already posted not a veteran.

I disagree. If you make a claim, it is your job to susbstantiate the claim. Asking me to search through this massive Forum for a relevant quote is like playing "Find Waldo". An utter waste of time.


Did you ride the short rickshaw to school?

Did you?

[nevadamedic]

Sure I asked for a source. When making a claim, it is customary to provide a source.



I disagree. If you make a claim, it is your job to susbstantiate the claim. Asking me to search through this massive Forum for a relevant quote is like playing "Find Waldo". An utter waste of time.



Did you?

I couldn't post this in the thread I wanted to because it was locked. I haven't asked you for anything but don't call Abbey out, she has been nothing but nice to you and probably the only one who has put up with your shit. You have seen me upset, but ride her ass and you will see me PISSED.

[jimnyc]

Sure I asked for a source. When making a claim, it is customary to provide a source.

And I would comply if I cared whether or not you believed the truth.


Was Mohammed a pedophile?
The literature "Sahih Al-Bukhari" comes in nine volumes and contains thousands of Hadiths describing Mohammed's life. It talks about "Aisha" the girl in Volumes 5 and 7. Since taking a child bride was so unusual, it seems Mohammed claimed Allah had spoken to him in order to overcome the strong protests of the child's father. Thus, the marriage ceremony occurred when the girl was 6 and finalized through intercourse when she was nine.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1muhammadca.htm

I'm sure you'll have something to say about the source but I picked out the very first one in the search results. Further searching will show MANY, MANY of the same accounts.

[nevadamedic]

And I would comply if I cared whether or not you believed the truth.



http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1muhammadca.htm

I'm sure you'll have something to say about the source but I picked out the very first one in the search results. Further searching will show MANY, MANY of the same accounts.

Im not questing any decisions here but hasn't he called out every Mod here?

[Rahul]

I couldn't post this in the thread I wanted to because it was locked.

I am sorry.



I haven't asked you for anything

Your comprehension appears to be lacking. The comment wasn't directed at you.



but don't call Abbey out, she has been nothing but nice to you and probably the only one who has put up with your shit.

Maybe you could quote where I "called Abbey out".



You have seen me upset, but ride her ass and you will see me PISSED.

Ooh! I'm so, ya know, sKUred. . .

:petrified!:

[Rahul]

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1muhammadca.htm

I'm sure you'll have something to say about the source but I picked out the very first one in the search results. Further searching will show MANY, MANY of the same accounts.

You are right. That page is mostly like an op-ed, with no real facts provided.

Further, what matters is what Muslims believe Mohammad did. Most Muslims do not believe Mohammad was a paedophile, and Islam does not embrace paedophilia as a result.

[jimnyc]

You are right. That page is mostly like an op-ed, with no real facts provided.

And did you research some more to substantiate or dispute the claims?


Further, what matters is what Muslims believe Mohammad did. Most Muslims do not believe Mohammad was a paedophile, and Islam does not embrace paedophilia as a result.

Islam's treatment of women in general is despicable. And if he did wed a 6 year old, and have sex with her before she was even 10 - he WAS a pedophile.

[Rahul]

And did you research some more to substantiate or dispute the claims?


Yes. I haven't found anything substantiate, though. . .



Islam's treatment of women in general is despicable. And if he did wed a 6 year old, and have sex with her before she was even 10 - he WAS a pedophile.

IF he did, yes, but there isn't any evidence showing he did or he did not.

As for Islam's treatment of women, you are talking about hardline/extremist Islam and not moderate Islam.

[jimnyc]

Yes. I haven't found anything substantiate, though. . .

Apparently you aren't looking very hard then. Go to google and type in "mohammed pedophile", that is if you truly seek the truth.


IF he did, yes, but there isn't any evidence showing he did or he did not.

As for Islam's treatment of women, you are talking about hardline/extremist Islam and not moderate Islam.

Islam in general is despicable to women. They are treated more like possessions than they are humans.

[Rahul]

Apparently you aren't looking very hard then. Go to google and type in "mohammed pedophile", that is if you truly seek the truth.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mohammed+pedophile . . .

Tons of blogs, and debates on the issue is what gets pulled up. And op-eds.

No real source, though. . . Why? Because no-one really knows. :)



Islam in general is despicable to women. They are treated more like possessions than they are humans.

Not true. It's hardline Islam, not moderate Islam. . .

[jimnyc]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mohammed+pedophile . . .

Tons of blogs, and debates on the issue is what gets pulled up. And op-eds.

No real source, though. . . Why? Because no-one really knows.

Well, I imagine you're the type that wouldn't admit he was wrong unless it was posted on the front page of CNN.


<center>'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet http://www.muslim-answers.org/images/saws.gif was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064))

http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm
</center>

Not true. It's hardline Islam, not moderate Islam. . .

Not from what I've seen. I'm just glad I'm not a female living in a Muslim world.

[Rahul]

Well, I imagine you're the type that wouldn't admit he was wrong unless it was posted on the front page of CNN.


<center>'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet http://www.muslim-answers.org/images/saws.gif was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064))

http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm
</center>

And that same source says some Muslims believe the age to be 14 or 15.

Now, let's say Mohammad was a paedophile, and that he did have sex with a 9 year old. Where though, does it say that Islam advocates this? I could not find ANY source saying that. . .

Jesus was apparently never married. Does Christainity then advocate celibacy for Christians?



Not from what I've seen. I'm just glad I'm not a female living in a Muslim world.

I'm glad I'm not a female, period. ;)

[jimnyc]

And that same source says some Muslims believe the age to be 14 or 15.

Now, let's say Mohammad was a paedophile, and that he did have sex with a 9 year old. Where though, does it say that Islam advocates this? I could not find ANY source saying that. . .

That "source" you just referred to was the "Sahih Bukhari". Are you saying the Muslim teachings themselves might not be enough proof for you? I never said anything about advocacy, I simply backed up anothers claim that Mohammed was engaged with young children.


Jesus was apparently never married. Does Christainity then advocate celibacy for Christians?

What does this have to do with what we're dicussing?


I'm glad I'm not a female, period. ;)

That we agree on!

[Rahul]

That "source" you just referred to was the "Sahih Bukhari". Are you saying the Muslim teachings themselves might not be enough proof for you? I never said anything about advocacy, I simply backed up anothers claim that Mohammed was engaged with young children.

Thanks for backing your claims up. I have not found much to refute this, even by the way of op-eds, so I concede the point.




What does this have to do with what we're dicussing?


Plenty. A lot of people who complain about Muhammad's pedophilia go onto to say that Islam advocates it. Not you, maybe, but plenty do. . .

[jimnyc]

Thanks for backing your claims up. I have not found much to refute this, even by the way of op-eds, so I concede the point.

Thank you


Plenty. A lot of people who complain about Muhammad's pedophilia go onto to say that Islam advocates it. Not you, maybe, but plenty do. . .

I don't know enough about that issue to make a comment. I don't hear many complaints about abuse to children, just stories about abuse and deteriorating rights for women.

[Rahul]

Thank you

You are welcome.




I don't know enough about that issue to make a comment. I don't hear many complaints about abuse to children, just stories about abuse and deteriorating rights for women.

I hear those stories too, but mostly in countries where radical Islamic dictatorships exist (Iran, Saudi Arabia etc). . .

[glockmail]

Thanks for backing your claims up. I have not found much to refute this, even by the way of op-eds, so I concede the point.




Plenty. A lot of people who complain about Muhammad's pedophilia go onto to say that Islam advocates it. Not you, maybe, but plenty do. . .

1. Pos rep for admitting defeat. Don't see much of that around here.

2. Such is the inconsistencies and conflicting messages of Islam- again proving that it is a "religion" made up by one man, not an infallible God, and therefore not a religion at all, but a cult.

[Rahul]

1. Pos rep for admitting defeat. Don't see much of that around here.

Hey, I couldn't combat his sources with mine, so for the moment, yes, I concede the point. That is how it works when one is debating. . .



2. Such is the inconsistencies and conflicting messages of Islam- again proving that it is a "religion" made up by one man, not an infallible God, and therefore not a religion at all, but a cult.

That is not true - Islam is certainly a religion. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe THAT.

What about Buddhism? Made up by Buddha, and just a cult by your logic?

[glockmail]

Hey, I couldn't combat his sources with mine, so for the moment, yes, I concede the point. That is how it works when one is debating. . .



That is not true - Islam is certainly a religion. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe THAT.

What about Buddhism? Made up by Buddha, and just a cult by your logic?

1. He had to get you to the edge of the proverbial cliff for you to concede, and as you admitted you were even willing to resort to op-ed pieces, so don't pat yourself on the back too vigorously.
2. As I have not studied Buddhism to the extent I’ve studied Islam (no Buddhist has threatened to kill my countrymen and destroy democracy) I cannot comment on it. I suggest that you study Islam yourself, as I have no allusions of being able to teach a closed-minded individual about the reality of that cult.

[Rahul]

1. He had to get you to the edge of the proverbial cliff for you to concede,

Whoever said debates were supposed to be won easily?



and as you admitted you were even willing to resort to op-ed pieces,
so don't pat yourself on the back too vigorously.


I'd say the one who is positive repping is the one patting me on the back. ;)



2. As I have not studied Buddhism to the extent I’ve studied Islam (no Buddhist has threatened to kill my countrymen and destroy democracy) I cannot comment on it. I suggest that you study Islam yourself, as I have no allusions of being able to teach a closed-minded individual about the reality of that cult.

Key point being that Islamic terrorists attacked the US. If It was Buddhist terrorists you'd have studied Buddhism.

The point is, Islam is not a cult just because one man is featured prominently in Islmaic religious texts.

[glockmail]

Whoever said debates were supposed to be won easily?



I'd say the one who is positive repping is the one patting me on the back. ;)



Key point being that Islamic terrorists attacked the US. If It was Buddhist terrorists you'd have studied Buddhism.

The point is, Islam is not a cult just because one man is featured prominently in Islmaic religious texts.

1. The point you choose to ignore is that you were willing to defend yourself with op-ed.
2. If I could have given you a half-rep, I would. Look forward to a neg in the future to do just that.
3. A cult is a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious. Islam obviously falls within that definition.

[Rahul]

1. The point you choose to ignore is that you were willing to defend yourself with op-ed.

And the one you ignored was that debates aren't supposed to be won easily.


2. If I could have given you a half-rep, I would. Look forward to a neg in the future to do just that.

I don't particularly think much of the rep system, so rep away. It's all good. . .



3. A cult is a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious. Islam obviously falls within that definition.

All religions are probably "unorthodox" when it comes to Christianity. . .

Further, the claim that Islam is "spurious" is just plain meaningless. What is "spurious" about it?

[darin]

And the one you ignored was that debates aren't supposed to be won easily.



I don't particularly think much of the rep system, so rep away. It's all good. . .



All religions are probably "unorthodox" when it comes to Christianity. . .

Further, the claim that Islam is "spurious" is just plain meaningless. What is "spurious" about it?


I think you may want to change your name to Red Herring or Straw Man.

[Rahul]

I think you may want to change your name to Red Herring or Straw Man.

You could probably change yours to Ad Hominem. . .

[darin]

You could probably change yours to Ad Hominem. . .

That's stupid because it doesn't make sense - but your reply to mine is EXACTLY the problem with your style of 'debate'. You ABSOLUTELY refuse to answer questions to the point of the debate; but you answer ppl's questions of your "logic" with OTHER questions. It's like this:

Rahul: I invented the Question Mark.
Other Person: Uh? How do you figure? It was used long before you were alive.
Rahul: But what about the Comma? That PROVES I invented the question mark!
Other Person: Hrm...I like Pie?

[Rahul]

That's stupid because it doesn't make sense

It makes perfect sense considering the last comment.


- but your reply to mine is EXACTLY the problem with your style of 'debate'.

You called me a couple of names, and weren't looking for debate. :)



You ABSOLUTELY refuse to answer questions to the point of the debate; but you answer ppl's questions of your "logic" with OTHER questions.

So, what question haven't I answered? Maybe you could advise.

[glockmail]

And the one you ignored was that debates aren't supposed to be won easily.



I don't particularly think much of the rep system, so rep away. It's all good. . .



All religions are probably "unorthodox" when it comes to Christianity. . .

Further, the claim that Islam is "spurious" is just plain meaningless. What is "spurious" about it?

1. Your 2nd attempt to ignore the issue I raised.
2. Whatever.
3. I've never heard any Christian denounce any major religion that does not promote violence.
4. For the definition of specific words I suggest you use a dictionary.

[darin]

It makes perfect sense considering the last comment.



You called me a couple of names, and weren't looking for debate. :)



So, what question haven't I answered? Maybe you could advise.


Uh - dude? I haven't called you names. Ad hominem is name-calling against the person regardless of what they are saying. I didn't call you a name; I accuse you of simply IGNORING facts and rational argument. You simply divert the topic of discussion when you are out-smarted. Learn a little bit about what you're saying, aight?