# Battling for gay rights, in Allah's name



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

> LOS ANGELES ? Like other aspiring religious reformers before her, Ani Zonneveld takes positions that make her unpopular with America's Islamic leaders.
> 
> Not only does she lead prayers ? a task normally reserved for men ? but she is an outspoken advocate for gay, bisexual and transgender Muslims. Later this year, she plans to officiate at the Islamic wedding of a lesbian couple, which is perfectly acceptable by her reading of the Quran.
> 
> ...



Continued...


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

> Distributing an alternative message
> Zonneveld and Taylor started their own group in 2007, this time focused around 10 guiding principles that they use to define their brand of progressivism, including the equality of genders and sexual orientations.
> 
> Members also were called on to engage in critical discourse over Islamic scriptures and issues of people in the faith.
> ...





Interesting to finally see an American Muslim's take on this, since the standard is usually the LGBT(Q) community vs. the Bible Belt in this country.  And hey, I'm all for the rights, however I'd again be wary publicizing any statement involving that word jihad.  I know it literally means "struggle" and should not be used in the context of the civilian terrorism conducted by the Taliban, AQ, and others, but I hope she knows where to tread with that.

Good thing she's here in the US.  In Iran, she'd be dead already.   But what's ironic about the whole gang rape thing is that it's a fuckton more prevalent in countries who seek to punish homosexuality or accuse the West of rampant deviancy a la homosexuality (Iran, Pakistan, etc.)...oh and pederasty.

And it beats the hell out of Glee when delivering a message.


----------



## mali (Oct 24, 2011)

Complete and utter bullshit.

Islam allows no such thing as same sex ANYTHING, let alone marriage.
Id seriously like to know what holy sctipture shes reading.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

someone has failed to do some research. Homosexual activity is forbidden in Islam, if you want to be gay then go be gay behind closed and please don't make misleading comments on how its allowed in Islam because it isn't.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Mali said:


> Complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Islam allows no such thing as same sex ANYTHING, let alone marriage.
> Id seriously like to know what holy sctipture shes reading.



I still would like some explanation on how pederasty or the whole nubile boy love thing is still prevalent in Afghanistan and Pakistan though.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

Yes, fight to keep that bigotry in your religion.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Yes, fight to keep that bigotry in your religion.



what biggotry homosexual sex has no purpose, its as purposeless as sex with animals. Opposites were created to attract while those similar repel.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> what biggotry homosexual sex has no purpose, its as purposeless as sex with animals. Opposites were created to attract while those similar repel.



Because scientific magnetism = sexuality.


----------



## mali (Oct 24, 2011)

Dude, were talking about homosexuality in Islam...dont start bashing it as a whole.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Because scientific magnetism = sexuality.



No because it's natures way of how things work. It's the same reason why we eat when we're hungry, sleep when we're tired, its instinct. Males are attracted to Females and Females are attracted to Males. it's  meant for survival just like how the fight/flight response or eating is meant for survival.


----------



## mali (Oct 24, 2011)

lol you could also say being attracted to the same sex is instinct as well.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> what biggotry homosexual sex has no purpose, its as purposeless as sex with animals. Opposites were created to attract while those similar repel.


What bigotry? 
The bigotry you espouse in comparing homosexuality to sex with animals. Your bigotry against the existence of homosexuals and their lifestyles. 

That bigotry.


----------



## dr_shadow (Oct 24, 2011)

Not sure why contemporary religious conservatives obsess so much over sex anyway. In the past when family relationships were more important to your success in society it made sense, but today...

Shouldn't we be more worried about what God has to say about global warming, economic policy or world hunger?


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> Not sure why contemporary religious conservatives obsess so much over sex anyway. In the past when family relationships were more important to your success in society it made sense, but today...
> 
> *Shouldn't we be more worried about what God has to say about global warming, economic policy or world hunger?*



1. Global warming doesn't exist to most of these religitards.  It might exist to the everyday Catholic or Buddhist, but not to the evangelical priests or hardcore imams.

2. Economics => money.  God is supposed to be "separate" from money that while a complete crock of shit, they try to train people to think the two are separate.

3. World hunger?  Let the heathens help themselves.


----------



## KidTony (Oct 24, 2011)

she's gonna get behaded.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Mali said:


> lol you could also say being attracted to the same sex is instinct as well.



This would again take you back to my earlier point, Gay sex has no role in ensuring the survival of the human race. There's absolutely no reason that humans would adapt homosexual traits unless it's a genetic disorder, but since a gay gene has yet to be found it leaves me to believe hat it's a subconscious choice due to being influenced by Friends, the Media, early memories and most importantly shaytan.   

Ahmadinejad ones gave an excellent answer regarding Homosexuality in Islam:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Qxoqq8ECo&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

It's around *1:40*


----------



## Karsh (Oct 24, 2011)

Well I for one am glad these moderates have the courage and the energy to speak out and reach out to marginalized groups whom are religious and go against the radical ideas revolving around their religion


@Mael: to be fair, at least for christians, they're supposed to give away their worldly posessions and help the poor in theory and I've known plenty of priests and nuns and religious folk whom do do that.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Wow Sage way to throw what already little credibility you had out the window with that Mahmoud vid.


----------



## dr_shadow (Oct 24, 2011)

Karsh said:


> Well I for one am glad these moderates have the courage and the energy to speak out and reach out to marginalized groups whom are religious and go against the radical ideas revolving around their religion
> 
> 
> @Mael: *to be fair, at least for christians, they're supposed to give away their worldly posessions and help the poor in theory and I've known plenty of priests and nuns and religious folk whom do do that.*



Muslims are supposed to give to charity too. As a matter of fact there is at least one verse in the Qur'an that says you should donate anything that's not needed for your survival to those who need it better.

I think in the default interpretation this is mostly restricted to the charity events during Ramadan, but in my personal interpretations it applies every day of the year.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Wow Sage way to throw what already little credibility you had out the window with that Mahmoud vid.




For two reasons:

*A * Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and his answer sums up why it's illegal.

*B * It explains how homosexuality should be kept out of public, what you do in private is between you and Allah.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> For two reasons:
> 
> *A * Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and his answer sums up why it's illegal.
> 
> *B * It explains how homosexuality should be kept out of public, what you do in private is between you and Allah.



So it's completely justifiable in punishment by hanging?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

Probably will have death threats sent to her, however she should keep up the good fight.

Still don't get why homosexuals want to be in religions whom have been a huge reason for their misery. But to each his own I suppose :/


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> So it's completely justifiable in punishment by hanging?



If they admit it, or are seen by 4 reliable witnesses then the answer would be yes. They should be hanged. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Probably will have death threats sent to her, however she should keep up the good fight.
> 
> Still don't get why homosexuals want to be in religions whom have been a huge reason for their misery. But to each his own I suppose :/



What good work!? Lying to people's faces, is in no shape or form labeled as good work!


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> If they admit it, or are seen by 4 reliable witnesses then the answer would be yes. They should be hanged.



So your head is not only in the clouds with your genocidal fantasies, but also up your ass with your twisted legal justification.

A scientific miracle.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> So your head is not only in the clouds with your genocidal fantasies, but also up your ass with your twisted legal justification.
> 
> A scientific miracle.




What genocidal fantasies??

No, they should be aware of the law of the country. I for example live in the UK, there's a no guns law in the UK so I don't buy guns. It's that simple. According to Shariah law if you are caught by 4 witnesses being homosexually active you'll be sentenced to death. So either refrain from sinning or at the very least do so behind closed doors.


----------



## Vynjira (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> For two reasons:
> 
> *A * Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and his answer sums up why it's illegal.
> 
> *B * It explains how homosexuality should be kept out of public, what you do in private is between you and Allah.


Two reasons it's wrong.
So slavery can be allowed if the majority agree that those enslaved are property.
So you're claiming they have sex in public places? Yea, Bullshit.



SagemodePrinz said:


> According to Shariah law if you are caught by 4 witnesses being homosexually active you'll be sentenced to death. So either refrain from sinning or at the very least do so behind closed doors.


So if we pass a law against Muslims and the penalty is death, then you should refrain from sinning or at the very lead be Muslim behind closed doors.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> What genocidal fantasies??
> 
> No, they should be aware of the law of the country. I for example live in the UK, there's a no guns law in the UK so I don't buy guns. It's that simple. According to Shariah law if you are caught by 4 witnesses being homosexually active you'll be sentenced to death. So either refrain from sinning or at the very least do so behind closed doors.



You're kidding, right?  Your wank to the destruction of Israel that'd make the Turner Diaries collective penis shrink?  You can't recall that?

But does buying a gun in the UK have you punished by death?  Poor comparison.  And you're acting like these homosexuals buttfuck in public.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> For two reasons:
> 
> *A * Homosexuality is illegal in Iran and his answer sums up why it's illegal.
> 
> *B * It explains how homosexuality should be kept out of public, what you do in private is between you and Allah.



How does incorporating discrimination into a the law no longer make it discrimination.


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 24, 2011)

> Zonneveld also faces disapproval from Muslims ? not only by those who hold to traditional views ? but also those who argue that singling out Muslim radicalization from other types of extremist violence fuels bigotry.


Although I consider not contributing to bigotry via an over-emphasis on one group important, in this case I don't think it's as much of a problem because she is an active Muslim who is understandably more concerned with whatever problems she sees within her own religious community. Context, yo.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 24, 2011)

Is it wrong that I think she will have assassination threats/attempts on her life?


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Is it wrong that I think she will have assassination threats/attempts on her life?



She might by one or two fringers but that's about it.  She likely won't make enough headlines to make it a national case.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz is not onto a Nazi, but a homophobe...why am I not surprised about this development?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> Ahmadinejad ones gave an excellent answer regarding Homosexuality in Islam:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Qxoqq8ECo&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> It's around *1:40*



His analogy wasn't good at all.  When you're disrupting traffic, you're directly affecting others on the road whereas in homosexuality all you're doing (in public) is grossing out those who don't support it.  

~off topic

*Spoiler*: __ 



Btw I had to try hard to zone out the annoying lady to hear what he was saying, his comment on Iran being home to the most Jews in the Middle East next to Israel was very interesting.  I hate when any political foreign leader that is disliked by the media gets an annoyingly retarded "translator" that literally does a worser job than I could do while eating a sandwich.


----------



## iander (Oct 24, 2011)

Progressive religious groups unfortunately do not get enough attention.  I sat in on a progressive church in Arizona that fully accepted gay marriage and was part of the Sanctuary Movement.

Religions tend to conform over time to accepted social norms.  As homosexuality becomes more acceptable in society, religions will slowly (some slower than others) begin to reinterpret scripture to accommodate for it.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Oct 24, 2011)

There are a lot of transsexuals in Pakistan, I think there's less stigma there.



mr_shadow said:


> Muslims are supposed to give to charity too. As a matter of fact there is at least one verse in the Qur'an that says you should donate anything that's not needed for your survival to those who need it better.
> 
> I think in the default interpretation this is mostly restricted to the charity events during Ramadan, but in my personal interpretations it applies every day of the year.



Charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, it's 2.5% of your income (I don't know if it's net or gross)


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> What good work!? Lying to people's faces, is in no shape or form labeled as good work!


I was seriously expecting you to reply with something along the lines of "this is a plot by the zionists to weaken islam". 

A shi'a would tell you that what sunnis teach is a lie, same with wahabis on shi'ats and the many other sects of Islam. It's just different interpretations.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

This is not moderation, this is deviation.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> This is not moderation, this is deviation.



It's more understanding that science says hello to figurative beliefs.

But it's finally good to see Islam and homosexuality brought into the forefront instead of the dime-a-dozen Protestant evangelical nonsense spewed on a daily basis.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> It's more understanding that science says hello to figurative beliefs.



Guess schizophrenia and cancer are okay too.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Guess schizophrenia and cancer are okay too.



One's a tried and true (with medical technology) psychological illness and the other the rapid mutation and spreading of malignant tumors.

Not sure where you're going with this, since I'm pretty sure God/Allah has bigger things to worry about than butt horseplay.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> One's a tried and true (with medical technology) psychological illness and the other the rapid mutation and spreading of malignant tumors.
> 
> Not sure where you're going with this, since I'm pretty sure God/Allah has bigger things to worry about than butt horseplay.



Oh right fine. I'm not bothering with this. If human beings want to dehumanize themselves, go ahead.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Oh right fine. I'm not bothering with this. If human beings want to dehumanize themselves, go ahead.



No if humans decided to revert to cannibalism, Holocaust-level purging, and gang-raping, then they'd be dehumanizing.  Two men who love each other or two women who love each other getting intimate is not dehumanizing since the emotions/psychology beg to differ.

Or is that some sorta kuffar behavior?  Following emotion and psychology?

It's a good thing Islam does not rule the world...or any religion for that matter.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> No if humans decided to revert to cannibalism, Holocaust-level purging, and gang-raping, then they'd be dehumanizing.  Two men who love each other or two women who love each other getting intimate is not dehumanizing since the emotions/psychology beg to differ.
> 
> Or is that some sorta kuffar behavior?  Following emotion and psychology?
> 
> It's a good thing Islam does not rule the world...or any religion for that matter.



Sodomy is dehumanizing yourself bro, its completely against our nature and function


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> No if humans decided to revert to cannibalism, Holocaust-level purging, and gang-raping, then they'd be dehumanizing.  Two men who love each other or two women who love each other getting intimate is not dehumanizing since the emotions/psychology beg to differ.
> 
> Or is that some sorta kuffar behavior?  Following emotion and psychology?



but remember Mael - in God's eyes, only a man and a woman can be miserable together. 

@White Tiger: 

if it was against our don't know who you're referring to, really "nature", then it wouldn't exist. 

Homosexuality happens amongst animals too. Penguins and dogs, for instance. 

so saying it goes against any kind of nature is kind of contradictory to how it really is.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Sodomy is dehumanizing yourself bro, its completely against our nature and function


Considering animals do it all the time it is much more natural than the computer your typing on.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

> What good work!? Lying to people's faces, is in no shape or form labeled as good work!



The irony is hurting my eyes.

It's time the Muslims in the West got their heads out of their asses and started to deal with sexuality. How many more families and lives will be fucked up thanks to parents forcing their kids to suppress their sexuality and marry some nice Muslim girl/boy?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Considering animals do it all the time it is much more natural than the computer your typing on.



Give me an example of an animal that does it?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Give me an example of an animal that does it?



Penguins and dogs are two. 

/editedintopreviouspost



> You are the homophobe. Its you who directly assumes that all homosexuals are sodomites which frankly is disgusting. Homosexuality be be naturally occurring, Sodomy isn't (for humans anyway).



this almost made me choke on my pepsi, that's how ironic and contradictory this post is.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Give me an example of an animal that does it?



Yami gave it to you, penguins and dogs.

But I forgot, dogs are unclean in Islam so that doesn't help apparently.

But then again, acknowledging that we are still animals is somehow beneath some groups.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Oh okay then. Instead of calling sodomites vile and disgusting, I'll call them dogs from now on. Guess that'l solve my bigotry.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Give me an example of an animal that does it?





> A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species.


The behavior is very common throughout the animal kingdom.  Actual homosexual orientation is rare, but definitely exists if you look hard enough.



> One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9]


----------



## dr_shadow (Oct 24, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> There are a lot of transsexuals in Pakistan, I think there's less stigma there.
> 
> 
> 
> Charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, it's 2.5% of your income (I don't know if it's net or gross)



According to some Hadith, yes. The Qur'an itself doesn't specify the amount that exactly. It does say thoug:

_[...] And they ask you what they should give to others. Say: that which exceeds your needs.
_
-2:219

Prayer and charity are the most often repeated "pillars" in the Qur'an. If there are five pillars in total, these two are made of silver. The faith itself would be gold.

The tone of the Qur'an is in my opinion that it's always permitted to be nicer than the minimum. If someone kills your brother, you may kill them, but it is better to forgive them.

So if there is a 2.5%, that would be the _minimum_ you should give.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Oh okay then. Instead of calling sodomites vile and disgusting, I'll call them dogs from now on. Guess that'l solve my bigotry.



Nope, try harder.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Nope, try harder.



Pigs, Monkeys?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> You are the homophobe. Its you who directly assumes that all homosexuals are sodomites which frankly is disgusting. Homosexuality be be naturally occurring, Sodomy isn't (for humans anyway).


...what? When did...

God I've never seen such a fail in logic...


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> @White Tiger:
> 
> if it was against our don't know who you're referring to, really "nature", then it wouldn't exist.
> 
> ...



Completely accept homosexuality occurs in nature.

Guess your another homophobe since you can't differentiate between a homosexual and a sodomite. 

I am saying that its not natural for human beings to engage in sodomy. In fact, it can actually be dangerous to health to perform anal sex as it can cause physical injuries.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Pigs, Monkeys?



Still negative connotations.  Honestly can't see how you're trying to say that being gay is ok yet penetration up the poop chute as compared to the mouth (e.g.) is not.  I'm just not getting it...that or I just believe God/Allah is not that anal-retentive ().


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Sodomy is dehumanizing yourself bro, its completely against our nature and function



Why? Having sex for pleasure is perfectly human.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

What's the point of saying Dogs or Penguins do it when Human do and have done before Islam or any religion was around. Sexuality pre-dates religion by millions of years. In the Jurrassic period Dinosaurs buttfucked, you got a problem?


----------



## Stalin (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Sodomy is dehumanizing yourself bro, its completely against our nature and function



Dude, you aren't human yourself.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 24, 2011)

Well people piss on the Christian bible and alter it to fit anything, why not Islamic Qu'ran? Go for it.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Still negative connotations.  Honestly can't see how you're trying to say that being gay is ok yet penetration up the poop chute as compared to the mouth (e.g.) is not.  I'm just not getting it...that or I just believe God/Allah is not that anal-retentive ().



I'm against the mouth as well.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Well people piss on the Christian bible and alter it, why not Islamic Qu'ran? Go for it.



Yes, because using human input, intuition, and evolution of compassion/tolerance is apparently taking a piss on a book or scripture written thousands of years ago that couldn't even fathom what modern life would be like.

Where do you people come from?



White Tiger said:


> I'm against the mouth as well.



Then you're just missing out, even from a hetero's perspective like mine.


----------



## Stalin (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger wasn't born.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Then you're just missing out, even from a hetero's perspective like mine.



Whatever, just think its quite demeaning to women.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Whatever, just think its quite demeaning to women.



If by force, yes, but if they wanna do it?  That's their choice if it's mutually beneficial.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> If by force, yes, but if they wanna do it?  That's their choice if it's mutually beneficial.



Guess its just me then. A woman who never sucks on another man's dick, I'll always consider her a superior human being to one who does.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Give me an example of an animal that does it?




Also

one of our closes animal relative gets it on all the time. 



White Tiger said:


> Oh okay then. Instead of calling sodomites vile and disgusting, I'll call them dogs from now on. Guess that'l solve my bigotry.


Wait, you going to call them dogs, because dogs also have homosexual relationships. 

how does that make any sense, dogs also have heterosexual relationships. 
Does that mean I can call your mother a dog or a pig, because she had sex heterosexual sex!?!?



			
				white tiger said:
			
		

> Guess its just me then. A woman who never sucks on another man's dick, I'll always consider her a superior human being to one who does.


And I will say that the husband of the woman who never sucks another man's dick is unluckier than another man's whose wife does.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> Yes, because using human input, intuition, and evolution of compassion/tolerance is apparently taking a piss on a book or scripture written thousands of years ago that couldn't even fathom what modern life would be like.



No need to get your panties in a bunch Mael. I can understand your point of view but don't be a sarcastic ass because people don't agree. 

Homosexuality is not necessarily relative to time- they have been around for ever- and the bible stated against it. It's just many people of Christianity see a problem with it just changing incidentally as the trends change.

Not saying you have to agree, you have your own brain, but to update and to alter is different.


----------



## Cromer (Oct 24, 2011)

Erm...yeah, right.

I'd heard of Zonneveld before, in regard to women leading the _salat_, and I'm still in a process of critical study of various books before I can say, truthfully, whether I disagree with her interpretation or not. But this? Come on, lady, stop trying to stretch the unstretchable. Homosexuality allowed in Islam? I'm still not seeing it.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Oct 24, 2011)

This is blasphemy. In Islam you don't fuck men, and you don't fuck at all if you're not married.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Wait, you going to call them dogs, because dogs also have homosexual relationships.
> 
> how does that make any sense, dogs also have heterosexual relationships.
> Does that mean I can call your mother a dog or a pig, because she had sex heterosexual sex!?!?



Dogs pigs and monkeys can do whatever they want. Human beings are superior animals and thus we should act in such a way as well. 

I always find it befitting that sodomy is justified by "omg dogz and pigz do it as well so its okay for us as well" ... no it fucking isn't.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Whatever, just think its quite* demeaning to women.*






Aren't you Muslim?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Dogs pigs and monkeys can do whatever they want. Human beings are superior animals and thus we should act in such a way as well.
> 
> I always find it befitting that sodomy is justified by "omg dogz and pigz do it as well so its okay for us as well" ... no it fucking isn't.



You're the one that brought up nature into the discussion! Do you have Alzheimer's?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

How is it natural for men to fuck other men up the ass? Is our function? Were we designed for this?

Please explain how so?

By bringing in a completely different species and using that as an example is quite pathetic.

Lets talk about humans, not pigs or apes or dogs.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Guess its just me then. A woman who never sucks on another man's dick, I'll always consider her a superior human being to one who does.



Are you serious? What's wrong with a woman wanting to make her man feel good?

You know, your prophet probably had his dick sucked by his wives too.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> How is it natural for men to fuck other men up the ass? Is our function? Were we designed for this?
> 
> Please explain how so?
> 
> ...


When you say something is "natural" you're referring to nature which includes other species so by bringing said species as an example it's an acceptable argument. 

Gimme a second i'll bring Toxuroses(mispelt probably) list. 

I hope you don't drive cars or wear clothes that's not natural.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> You know, your prophet probably had his dick sucked by his wives too.





proof


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> When you say something is "natural" you're referring to nature which includes other species so by bringing said species as an example it's an acceptable argument.
> 
> Gimme a second i'll bring Toxuroses(mispelt probably) list.
> 
> I hope you don't drive cars or wear clothes that's not natural.



This is a pathetic argument.

Driving cars and wearing clothes has saves lives,

Buttfucking another man doesn't.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

> By bringing in a completely different species and using that as an example is quite pathetic.



What? You say it's unnatural, it occurs in Animals thus the choice or whatever argument you morons want to use is by default wrong.



> How is it natural for men to fuck other men up the ass? Is our function? Were we designed for this?



Our function? We're not cavemen. You can scream till your face is blue but homosexuality isn't disappearing, it's here to stay. Accept it and fucking get over it.



> Driving cars and wearing clothes has saves lives,





I wonder what your opinion of condoms is?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Our function? We're not cavemen. You can scream till your face is blue but homosexuality isn't disappearing, it's here to stay. Accept it and fucking get over it.



Gosh, another homophobe who assumes sodomy is the same as homosexuality .


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Dogs pigs and monkeys can do whatever they want. Human beings are superior animals and thus we should act in such a way as well.
> 
> I always find it befitting that sodomy is justified by "omg dogz and pigz do it as well so its okay for us as well" ... no it fucking isn't.



What? You are the one that brought up nature. You said it isn't natural, when we clearly showed it that it very much is natural. Now you seem to be running away that we shouldn't be natural. 

You are the one who wanted to compare our sexual habits to what happens in nature, that why you question "what animals do it"
Now you are proven wrong, you decry against your own example of nature.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> proof





> In the second Hadith, Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad PBUH has said, "Don't proceed intercourse with your wife until she attains concupiscence as same as it is developed in you". Hazrat Jabir Bin Abdullah R.A. narrated that Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad PBUH has forbidden intercourse prior to nettling and foreplay (Zaad-ul-Ma'ad).


----------



## Puppetry (Oct 24, 2011)

Of all the arguments against homosexuality, the "design/unnatural" is always the most puzzling to me, because it's utterly irrelevant. Unnatural phenomenon exist everywhere, so why should that decide whether something is acceptable or not? 

Note: This is if we operate under the presumption that homosexuality is abnormal, which I personally don't believe.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> This is a pathetic argument.
> 
> Driving cars and wearing clothes has saves lives,
> 
> Buttfucking another man doesn't.


Who cares if it saves lives? We're talking about natural here. 
Driving cars also kills people buttfucking doesn't. 

Here's the list I was looking for quoted from Toxorus: 

*Spoiler*: __ 




How is homosexuality natural?
-Location of the prostate
-Erogenous nerves around the anus
-Almost every mammal has successful homosexual members.
-Kin Selection Theory
-Birth Order Theory
-Twin Theory
-Homosexuals still reproductively successful.

-Homosexuals not less fit for survival of species than heterosexuals.
--Thus not selected against natural selection.

-Homosexuals have, on average, much different Major Histogram Complex's, making them resistant to diseases that heterosexuals are not.
--That's the Genetic Variance Theory of Natural Selection.
--MHC is controlled by genetic expression and environmental exposure.

-Major Histogram Complex detection and match-making plays the most significant role in mate selection, sexual attraction, and reproductive attraction.
--Chemical desires from MHC-based hetero/homosexual attractions override the Theory of Free-Will.
--Controlled by makeup of MHC, which is genetic and environmentally controlled, and is not currently able to be modified or influenced by conscious intervention or medically-based modifications.
---No one has a choice when it comes to MHC-based attractions.
--Heterosexuals are only attracted to heterosexual MHCs.
--Homosexuals are only attracted to homosexual MHCs.

-Genetic-controlled alterations deviations from heterosexuals:
--Abnormal digit-length ratios.
--Reverse hair-growth patterns.
--Significantly more likely to be left-handed.
--Have longer penises
--~Quicker ocular response to moving objects. Forget the term for this
---All of these are variances in traits under the natural Theories of Natural Selection and Genetic And Trait Variance.

Apart from the first two, which have other explanations as to why, you have to debunk everything else on the list. While these topics have come up, you have yet to actually provide any information that would shake the foundation of a single one.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

> Gosh, another homophobe who assumes sodomy is the same as homosexuality



So you're okay with Lesbianism then?

Let's stick with your cars and clothes do save lives. Wouldn't Homosexuality solve our over population problem?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Don't know whether people here are homophobes or plain idiots unable to comprehend simple english.

You guys do realize that I am talking about Sodomy not homosexuality??

Or are they the same things to you?


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

So WH you're okay with Lesbianism then?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> So WH you're okay with Lesbianism then?



Isn't that the same as homosexuality?


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

1. Imagine there was a woman who never sucked a dick but killed 1 billion people.
2. Imagine there was a woman who sucked a dick but was a nice person.

Who is the better person?


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> 1. Imagine there was a woman who never sucked a dick but killed 1 billion people.
> 2. Imagine there was a woman who sucked a dick but was a nice person.
> 
> Who is the better person?



 ..........

You only humiliate yourself.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> ..........
> 
> You only humiliate yourself.



And you have absolutely no ability for rational argument and logical comprehension.

You said that a person who doesn't suck a dick is ALWAYS better than a person who sucks a dick.

So 1 > 2 in your opinion.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> And you have absolutely no ability for rational argument and logical comprehension.
> 
> You said that a person who doesn't suck a dick is ALWAYS better than a person who sucks a dick.
> 
> So 1 > 2 in your opinion.



Granted all else remains constant 

This forum is full of retards.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Granted all else remains constant
> 
> This forum is full of retards.



Reported for flaming, and congratulations on being nothing more than an immature, incoherent fool with no capability for logic.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

> Isn't that the same as homosexuality?



But you were arguing about Sodomy being wrong and not homosexuality? So which one is it?



> This forum is full of retards.



Perhaps but you're included in that category.


----------



## Syed (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Granted all else remains constant
> 
> *This forum is full of retards.*



Pretty much this LOL.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> But you were arguing about Sodomy being wrong and not homosexuality? So which one is it?



Homosexuality is acceptable. Sodomy isn't.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

> Homosexuality is acceptable. Sodomy isn't.



So you're admitting that Lesbianism is fine in Islam?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm gonna post this again in case it has been conveniently ignored and call it a day as I am half dead from exhaustion.


White Tiger said:


> This is a pathetic argument.
> 
> Driving cars and wearing clothes has saves lives,
> 
> Buttfucking another man doesn't.


Who cares if it saves lives? We're talking about natural here. 
Driving cars also kills people buttfucking doesn't. 

Here's the list I was looking for quoted from Toxorus: 

*Spoiler*: __ 




How is homosexuality natural?
-Location of the prostate
-Erogenous nerves around the anus
-Almost every mammal has successful homosexual members.
-Kin Selection Theory
-Birth Order Theory
-Twin Theory
-Homosexuals still reproductively successful.

-Homosexuals not less fit for survival of species than heterosexuals.
--Thus not selected against natural selection.

-Homosexuals have, on average, much different Major Histogram Complex's, making them resistant to diseases that heterosexuals are not.
--That's the Genetic Variance Theory of Natural Selection.
--MHC is controlled by genetic expression and environmental exposure.

-Major Histogram Complex detection and match-making plays the most significant role in mate selection, sexual attraction, and reproductive attraction.
--Chemical desires from MHC-based hetero/homosexual attractions override the Theory of Free-Will.
--Controlled by makeup of MHC, which is genetic and environmentally controlled, and is not currently able to be modified or influenced by conscious intervention or medically-based modifications.
---No one has a choice when it comes to MHC-based attractions.
--Heterosexuals are only attracted to heterosexual MHCs.
--Homosexuals are only attracted to homosexual MHCs.

-Genetic-controlled alterations deviations from heterosexuals:
--Abnormal digit-length ratios.
--Reverse hair-growth patterns.
--Significantly more likely to be left-handed.
--Have longer penises
--~Quicker ocular response to moving objects. Forget the term for this
---All of these are variances in traits under the natural Theories of Natural Selection and Genetic And Trait Variance.

Apart from the first two, which have other explanations as to why, you have to debunk everything else on the list. While these topics have come up, you have yet to actually provide any information that would shake the foundation of a single one.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Whatever, just think its quite demeaning to women.



You of all people is saying this  ? Really ?



White Tiger said:


> This is a pathetic argument.
> 
> Driving cars and wearing clothes has saves lives,
> 
> Buttfucking another man doesn't.



It could save lives, i.e a lot of your brethren wouldn't strap bombs onto each other to vent frustration for one.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> So you're admitting that Lesbianism is fine in Islam?



Sure, women born with a sexual perversion. Happens.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 24, 2011)

Homosexuality would save the earth from over crowding


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Two reasons it's wrong.
> So slavery can be allowed if the majority agree that those enslaved are property.
> So you're claiming they have sex in public places? Yea, Bullshit.
> So if we pass a law against Muslims and the penalty is death, then you should refrain from sinning or at the very lead be Muslim behind closed doors.



Since when is slavery part of natural law. Slavery is unnatural since it could lead to health problems and stop people from doing what they were created for. 

Islam is a religion, homosexuality is a sin according to Islam which means that in an Islamic country its punishable by death. I live in the UK where banning religion would go against freedom of religion. So no Islam can't and won't be banned where I'm living.



Mael said:


> You're kidding, right?  Your wank to the destruction of Israel that'd make the Turner Diaries collective penis shrink?  You can't recall that?
> 
> But does buying a gun in the UK have you punished by death?  Poor comparison.  And you're acting like these homosexuals buttfuck in public.



Please show me where I stated that I was planning to kill Jews.

Okay lets say that I decide to take a trip to the US, where murder is punished by death in some states. What would happen to me if I decided to kill someone there. yeah....  I'm not assuming anything I'm just telling you what Islamic law states. 





sadated_peon said:


> How does incorporating discrimination into a the law no longer make it discrimination.



It's not discrimination since it's not targeting a group of people, it's targeting individuals who take part in homosexual activities. 



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> SagemodePrinz is not onto a Nazi, but a homophobe...why am I not surprised about this development?



How am I a Nazi, also I'm not scared of homosexuals I just acknowledge the fact that what they're doing is sinful. 



afgpride said:


> His analogy wasn't good at all.  When you're disrupting traffic, you're directly affecting others on the road whereas in homosexuality all you're doing (in public) is grossing out those who don't support it.
> 
> ~off topic
> 
> ...



They're affecting society, it's also why prostitution is illegal and why waling around naked in public is illegal etc. Bad for society/uncivilized.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:


> I still would like some explanation on how pederasty or the whole nubile boy love thing is still prevalent in Afghanistan and Pakistan though.



Boy-Love is pretty much an Afghan tradition as far as I've read, a bit like the sexual abuse of young girls on Pitcairn Island was--until a stop was put to it.  It probably has very little to do with Islam and more to do with power-relationships that develop in a specific setting.

I'm going to view the movement described in the OP as having the same sort of reasoning behind it as the Afghan boy-love.  Based on cultural preferences, individuals are inclined to adapt the tenants of a religion to fit their existing inclinations and tastes.


----------



## WT (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Homosexuality would save the earth from over crowding



That's not just it. Imagine if all the homosexuals on earth came out. That way it would mean homosexuality would be wiped out from our genetic pool within a single generation.


----------



## Syed (Oct 24, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Homosexuality would save the earth from over crowding



I agree it will. Homosexuals don't even breed so no harm to humanity.

Besides more guy homosexuals means more woman for me.


----------



## River Song (Oct 24, 2011)

> *Islam is a religion, homosexuality is a sin according to Islam which means that in an Islamic country its punishable by death. I live in the UK where banning religion would go against freedom of religion. So no Islam can't and won't be banned where I'm living.
> *


I also live in the Uk, and If you wish to see homosexuals killed that violates the Anti Discrimination Act (1977)











> It's not discrimination since it's not targeting a group of people, it's targeting individuals who take part in homosexual activities.



The Act covers the following types of discrimination:
Sex (including breastfeeding, pregnancy and sexual harassment)
Disability (including past, present or future disability and also includes actual or perceived HIV status)
Race (including ethno-religion)
Homosexuality (actual or perceived)
Marital or domestic status
Age (present or future)
Transgender (including transsexuality)
Carer?s responsibilities (but only within employment).




> How am I a Nazi, also I'm not scared of homosexuals I just acknowledge the fact that what they're doing is sinful.



What if you're religion is the wrong one


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Oct 24, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Boy-Love is pretty much an Afghan tradition as far as I've read, a bit like the sexual abuse of young girls on Pitcairn Island was--until a stop was put to it.  It probably has very little to do with Islam and more to do with power-relationships that develop in a specific setting.
> 
> I'm going to view the movement described in the OP as having the same sort of reasoning behind it as the Afghan boy-love.  Based on cultural preferences, individuals are inclined to adapt the tenants of a religion to fit their existing inclinations and tastes.



About as much a "tradition" as pedophilia in the US.  If the US was a third world country I wouldn't be surprised if they threw their own gatherings with jailbait slaves/prostitutes.  The attraction to boys specifically by those most likely stems from them getting abused as a child themselves or just the environment growing up where puberty is reached with minimal social contact with females.

Edit: you probably meant batcha bazi, but I still think "tradition" is a misleading title; it's generally frowned upon just as much as anything else.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 24, 2011)

River Song said:


> I also live in the Uk, and If you wish to see homosexuals killed that violates the Anti Discrimination Act (1977)



I was talking about *Islamic countries,* also it wouldn't be called killed since they get a free & fair trial and a right to a lawyer. 






> The Act covers the following types of discrimination:
> Sex (including breastfeeding, pregnancy and sexual harassment)
> Disability (including past, present or future disability and also includes actual or perceived HIV status)
> Race (including ethno-religion)
> ...



These laws only apply to the UK, in Islamic countries they have shariah law where homosexuality is illegal. 






> What if you're religion is the wrong one



It won't be since I'm a great researcher.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

What will they think of next?


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It won't be since I'm a great researcher.



 If this were true, you would know science leans strongly toward homosexuality being mostly, if not entirely genetic, and if there are environmental factors that lead to it, they are not known.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2011)

afgpride said:


> About as much a "tradition" as pedophilia in the US.  If the US was a third world country I wouldn't be surprised if they threw their own gatherings with jailbait slaves/prostitutes.  The attraction to boys specifically by those most likely stems from them getting abused as a child themselves or just the environment growing up where puberty is reached with minimal social contact with females.
> 
> Edit: you probably meant batcha bazi, but I still think "tradition" is a misleading title; it's generally frowned upon just as much as anything else.



Correct, I was talking about Batcha-Bazi.  It's a very very very odd practice that seems to have a very long cultural history in Afghanistan.  Not all traditions are good ones I suppose, and even if you have a creed from somewhere else, it generally picks up the local flavor--which is why the Califiornians would read the Qu'ran in such a manner.

Environment shapes ethics?


----------



## q9q9q9 (Oct 24, 2011)

^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)?
The filthy swine don't deserve rights.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> If this were true, you would know science leans strongly toward homosexuality being mostly, if not entirely genetic...


This is false and you know it..There is no gay gene, it is not a mental illness [there is no such thing] it is simply a choice to be gay. People just following after there own lusts nothing more.


----------



## Cromer (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Homosexuality is acceptable. Sodomy isn't.


What?


Wait, what?


WTF?


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 24, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not discrimination since it's not targeting a group of people, it's targeting individuals who take part in homosexual activities.



lol wut?
individuals who take part are homosexual are a group of people...

Let me try and rephrase your sentance and see if you still agree. 
A law against being Muslims.
It's not discrimination since it's not targeting a group of people, it's targeting individuals who take part in Islamic activities.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is false and you know it..There is no gay gene, it is not a mental illness [there is no such thing] it is simply a choice to be gay. People just following after there own lusts nothing more.


Do you live under a rock, Superstars, or are just trolling? You keep getting more and more offensive.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 24, 2011)

Normally, I'd charge into here with my list as a weapon of mass destruction.
I see I've already been quoted


----------



## Subarashii (Oct 24, 2011)

*YOU GO GIRL!  GET THOSE GAY RIGHTS!*


----------



## Black Wraith (Oct 24, 2011)

What the hell am I reading?

Islam is clear as day on these issues.

Hadith to the nearest meaning:
It is forbidden to make Halal what is Haram and to make Haram what is Halal.

This is a fundamental law of Islam.

I'm not going to post any more here.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Guess your another homophobe since you can't differentiate between a homosexual and a sodomite.
> 
> I am saying that its not natural for human beings to engage in sodomy. In fact, it can actually be dangerous to health to perform anal sex as it can cause physical injuries.



do you even know what a homophobe is? 

-_phobe_ tends to mean "fear", but in this context it  leans towards the definition of being an anti-[insert here] whether it be moderate or extremist.

Vaginal intercourse can cause physical injuries too, ya know. 

that being said, if you want to split hairs, _every_ form of intercourse holds the possibility of causing physical harm, just like safety scissors can still hurt your speshul snoflaek of a child. so there's really no point in bringing up the argument that "anal intercourse can cause injuries". 



> Completely accept homosexuality occurs in nature.



what is...i dont...

are you saying that even though homosexuality occurs in nature, humans arent a part of nature and therefore shouldn't engage in homosexual acts?

last time i checked, humans are mammals, mammals are a type of animal, and animals are part of nature. henceforth - humans are a part of nature and therefore have just as much of a right to engage in homerosexuero activities as a pair of penguins.


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is false and you know it..There is no gay gene, it is not a mental illness [there is no such thing] it is simply a choice to be gay. People just following after there own lusts nothing more.



I don't know it, actually. Allow me to go all Advanced-Placement-Psychology-student on you and quote myself (and my textbook) from a couple of months ago.



Godaime Hokage said:


> You can choose who you sleep with, but you can't choose who you're attracted to. According to my Advanced Placement Psychology textbook (), if there are environmental factors that lead to homosexuality, they are not known. However, research does indicate that it is at least partly biological, as discovered by Simon LeVay while studying sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased heterosexual and homosexual people. He did the study blind (without knowing which donors were straight and which were gay) to avoid biased results, since he is gay himself.
> 
> According to his research, there was a cell cluster in the hypothalamus that was considerably larger in heterosexual men than it was in homosexual men and women. The book notes that it should not be surprising that brains differ with sexual orientation, as "everything psychological is simultaneously biological."
> 
> ...



You will thus excuse me if I draw my conclusions from experts and my own experiences and feelings as a homosexual man rather than from you, whose only "evidence" comes from blind faith.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 24, 2011)

Religions as we move into a new age, are opening up with people borne from the faiths unsatisfied of the conservative and restrictive(as well as noninclusive and unintelligent) nature of their taught beliefs.

Its merely a symptom of progression in human evolution and thought processes. Nothing particularly special, but needed none the same.

Being born into a catholic family, i am proof of this


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> I don't know it, actually. Allow me to go all Advanced-Placement-Psychology-student on you and quote myself (and my textbook) from a couple of months ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You will thus excuse me if I draw my conclusions from experts and my own experiences and feelings as a homosexual man rather than from you, whose only "evidence" comes from blind faith.


Well thanks for that, pretty interesting. However, as a Christian by grace from God Almighty through Lord Jesus Christ my faith is always with REASON babycakes, never blind! Science has confirmed it that there is no gay gene. And your whole premise is based on so called evidence that people can not choose who they are attracted to? This is false because we got people who stop being gay and go straight we got people who stop being straight and go gay. And I've had a friend who was hurt so bad by his longtime girlfriend [11 years!] and he got hurt so bad that he hated woman so much to the point he went gay. He was attracted by the male and the way they treated each other] It is all a choice darling, following/ led away by our own lusts.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

> However, as a Christian by grace from God Almighty through Lord Jesus Christ my faith is always with REASON babycakes, never blind!



......I think I found my new sig.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

Are you sure you're a Christian, Superstars? You act like a Scientologist.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Well thanks for that, pretty interesting. However, as a Christian by grace from God Almighty through Lord Jesus Christ my faith is always with REASON babycakes, never blind! Science has confirmed it that there is no gay gene. And your whole premise is based on so called evidence that people can not choose who they are attracted to? This is false because we got people who stop being gay and go straight we got people who stop being straight and go gay. And I've had a friend who was hurt so bad by his longtime girlfriend [11 years!] and he got hurt so bad that he hated woman so much to the point he went gay. He was attracted by the male and the way they treated each other] It is all a choice darling, following/ led away by our own lusts.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Well thanks for that, pretty interesting. However, as a Christian by grace from God Almighty through Lord Jesus Christ my faith is always with REASON babycakes, never blind! Science has confirmed it that there is no gay gene. And your whole premise is based on so called evidence that people can not choose who they are attracted to? This is false because we got people who stop being gay and go straight we got people who stop being straight and go gay. And I've had a friend who was hurt so bad by his longtime girlfriend [11 years!] and he got hurt so bad that he hated woman so much to the point he went gay. He was attracted by the male and the way they treated each other] It is all a choice darling, following/ led away by our own lusts.



two instances here made you sound flamboyant.

are you a self-hating gay, perchance?


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Are you sure you're a Christian, Superstars? You act like a Scientologist.


That's my question to you...? 



> some little instances here made you sound flamboyant.
> 
> are you a self-hating gay, perchance?


I love all people, I just want them to be saved and not damned.  That's all.


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

> I love all people, I just want them to be saved and not damned. That's all.



You said atheists worship the devil, and that therefore there's no difference between atheists and the Antichrist.

Do you love atheists? Secondly, do you love the Antichrist?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't think Superstars has even read the Bible. Its surprising he can even type coherently.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> You said atheists worship the devil, and that therefore there's no difference between atheists and the Antichrist.
> 
> Do you love atheists? Secondly, do you love the Antichrist?


If I didn't I would not be telling you about the Gospel. So you can come out from under the snare of Satan.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I don't think Superstars has even read the Bible. Its surprising he can even type coherently.


I have and always read the Bible and believe every word.

I wonder about you though.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> That's my question to you...?
> 
> 
> I love all people, I just want them to be saved and not damned.  That's all.



 let's say God really _is_ real: if he's against homosexuality, why doesn't he erase the notions of it from the minds of the people?

or

why doesn't he eradicate all homosexuals _right now_?

if this bearded man sitting on a cloud is real, i find his constant abscence incredibly odd.

and i love that quote of yours "atheists worship satan" 

last time i checked, atheists don't believe in God(s), and also dont believe in Satan, therefore not worshipping either. why would you worship something you don't believe in?


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> If this were true, you would know science leans strongly toward homosexuality being mostly, if not entirely genetic, and if there are environmental factors that lead to it, they are not known.


Yeah, except no.

Science has yet to identify any "gay gene". So from a scientific standpoint, where homosexuality comes from is yet to be known.

Because if a genuine "gay gene" were discovered the news, media, and pop culture would be all over such a discovery like white on rice.


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I love all people, I just want them to be saved and not damned.  That's all.



You didn't love Bruce Lee enough to keep him as your avatar after we told you he was an atheist, after _years_ of wearing him! 



Basilikos said:


> Yeah, except no.
> 
> Science has yet to identify any "gay gene". So from a scientific standpoint, where homosexuality comes from is yet to be known.
> 
> Because if a genuine "gay gene" were discovered the news, media, and pop culture would be all over such a discovery like white on rice.



Scroll up.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Yeah, except no.
> 
> Science has yet to identify any "gay gene". So from a scientific standpoint, where homosexuality comes from is yet to be known.
> 
> Because if a genuine "gay gene" were discovered the news, media, and pop culture would be all over such a discovery like *white on rice.*



but rice can also be brown.

wrap your mind around that. :ho


----------



## Seph (Oct 24, 2011)

> If I didn't I would not be telling you about the Gospel. So you can come out from under the snare of Satan.



Are you trying to be like Jesus? It's hard to believe that you love everyone.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Are you trying to be like Jesus? It's hard to believe that you love everyone.



the ironic part is that Jesus would be more accepting of a person's sexual orientation.

so whoever Superstars is pretending to be would _not_ be Jesus.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 24, 2011)




----------



## αce (Oct 24, 2011)

> what biggotry homosexual sex has no purpose, its as purposeless as sex with animals. Opposites were created to attract while those similar repel.



Therefore, we should deny them rights.
Good logic bro.

You people disgust me. I'm glad I live in Canada.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> Scroll up.


To what? Posting the link would be easier.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> but rice can also be brown.
> 
> wrap your mind around that. :ho






Yami Munesanzun said:


> the ironic part is that Jesus would be more accepting of a person's sexual orientation.


Jesus accepted the Jewish beliefs regards God's design for marriage and relationships. He would be kind yet would firmly advocate against homosexual sex and relationships. Loving the sinner but not the sin as they say.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> so whoever Superstars is pretending to be would _not_ be Jesus.


Superstars may or may not actually profess Christianity IRL. Regardless, his aim is to merely troll and I am amazed that to this day people have still not yet realized this.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I have and always read the Bible and believe every word.
> 
> I wonder about you though.


The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Tell me, do you take the horribly translated King James version at face value? Or do you try going through the actual greek and roman translations, or even ancient Hebrew? You know, try to understand the SOURCE instead of the bastardized version?


----------



## αce (Oct 24, 2011)

> The Bible isn't meant to be taken seriously.



Fixed


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Fixed


Its not to be taken literally. Its filled with metaphor. Please don't bash dude.


----------



## Kue (Oct 24, 2011)

Buttfucking saved my life.



Basilikos said:


> Yeah, except no.
> 
> Science has yet to identify any "gay gene". So from a scientific standpoint, where homosexuality comes from is yet to be known.
> 
> Because if a genuine "gay gene" were discovered the news, media, and pop culture would be all over such a discovery like white on rice.



We had a debate about this, and obviously you don't seem to read posts.  Homosexuality is not yet proven to be affected by genetics at all, but prenatal environment and hormones are proven to be powerful factors in determining sexual orientation.  And compared to it being nurture.. oh wait.. the nurture side has 0 evidence that homosexuality is a learned trait.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars is upset his lover Perseverance was permed? 

/speculation of sarcasm


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.


That's a misguided approach to take. It's better to read the bible with the intention to understand what the author is trying to convey. Any university hermeneutics class will tell you that.


----------



## αce (Oct 24, 2011)

> Its not to be taken literally. Its filled with metaphor. Please don't bash dude.



And how do you determine what's metaphorical and what isn't?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Jesus accepted the Jewish beliefs regards God's design for marriage and relationships. He would be kind yet would firmly advocate against homosexual sex and relationships. Loving the sinner but not the sin as they say.



but one is capable of _accepting_ where a person stands on a certain issue without agreeing with it. 

for instance, i can accept that several of my friends like yaoi.

do i _like_ agree, if one to word it as such with their preference of sexual material? no, but that's solely because guyxguy doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> That's a misguided approach to take. It's better to read the bible with the intention to understand what the author is trying to convey. Any university hermeneutics class will tell you that.


So we're supposed to take Genesis in the literal context? Instead of figurative and metaphorical? 

I was taught that the Bible isn't something to be taken literally.



♠Ace♠ said:


> And how do you determine what's metaphorical and what isn't?


By reading the context. Take Jesus's message about peace and love, that is supposed to be taken literally. The story of Genesis-which is almost a word for word copy of the Mesopotanian Creation Myth, isn't though due to the metaphor and symbolism used.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> let's say God really _is_ real: if he's against homosexuality, why doesn't he erase the notions of it from the minds of the people?
> 
> or
> 
> ...


As for Satan and atheists worshipping him..


Superstars said:


> The lack of belief is a deceit from Satan and you just fell for it..
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 





Superstars said:


> How come you don't have the logic that the scriptures showed you? One that does not believe in God is of Satan? You seem to try and follow the fallacy that you don't believe in neither God or the Devil so you can't worship satan. Yet that IS what Satan want's you to beleive [Not to believe]. So if you are doing the will of the one who you don't believe in [by not believing in him], let alone not believing in his enemy [God] how is it that you think you are not serving him? You are serving him by being blinded [Of God's existence and will] by him and not even realizing Satan's own will..





Why would God erase gay? He does not want robots he wants peopel to choose him genuinely. That's why he sent his son the Lord Jesus to die on the cross for our sins because he makes us right with God. And the reason why God does not eradicate homosexuals or all sinners right now, It is written...

*2 Peter 3:9*_:"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some 
men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." _

However as it is written here...*Genesis 6:3: *_"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man..."_

God is not going to tolerate us for long he will close the book on us. Jesus himself said in John 8:21, That if people don't believe that he is the son of God we will die in our sins. As it is written in Hebrews those who do not believe are under the wrath of God.

I don't want people to be under the wrath bretheren come out of the darkness into the light!



			
				Godaime hokage said:
			
		

> You didn't love Bruce Lee enough to keep him as your avatar after we told you he was an atheist, after years of wearing him!


Nah, it was time for a change of scenery I still got his movies and watch em!



			
				Basilikos said:
			
		

> Superstars may or may not actually profess Christianity IRL. Regardless, his aim is to merely troll and I am amazed that to this day people have still not yet realized this.


How do I troll? What I post is Biblical and yes I have posted a thousands times I'am a christian a follower of God almighty through the Lord Jesus Christ.



			
				SuperSaiyaMan12 said:
			
		

> The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Tell me, do you take the horribly translated King James version at face value? Or do you try going through the actual greek and roman translations, or even ancient Hebrew? You know, try to understand the SOURCE instead of the bastardized version?


Don't give me that you don't even speak greek or hebrew. The Bible is true history buddy and christianity is a reality and the Lord Jesus himself took everyword of the Bible seriously/literally from geneisis to revelation. Understand what the bible is trying to get across and it means what it sayys as a fact!

You are making it very hard to believe you are a christian.


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> To what? Posting the link would be easier.



. There may or may not be a "gay gene," but scientific research thus far does indicate that homosexuality is more nature than nurture, as indicated by the brain structure of homosexual males. Whatever it is, however, whether it be some sort of mental retardation or chemical imbalance or whatever else, there is one thing homosexuality is not, and that would be a choice, which I don't blame you for not understanding since you are apparently not gay yourself, but to believe the Bible over actual tangible evidence is really something else.


----------



## αce (Oct 24, 2011)

> So we're supposed to take Genesis in the literal context? Instead of figurative and metaphorical?



Genesis had a large number of verses dedicated elaborating on genealogy. 
Am I suppose to assume Exodus is metaphorical as well?
Because the details are so specific in both of these books, it's hard to believe that any of this could be made with the intent of not being taken literally by whoever wrote them.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

You're making it hard to believe that YOU are a Christian, Superstars. You don't act like one. You act like a Zealot who read a few paragraphs of the Bible and then proclaims you know it all.

And yeah, Greek, Roman (Latin), and Hebrew are what the Bible was originally written down/translated as. King James though? Its widely acknowledged by Biblical Scholars to be a bastardized version.



♠Ace♠ said:


> Genesis had a large number of verses dedicated elaborating on genealogy.
> Am I suppose to assume Exodus is metaphorical as well?
> Because the details are so specific in both of these books, it's hard to believe that any of this could be made with the intent of not being taken literally by whoever wrote them.


Exodus has actually been found to have happened in the historical record, so that can be taken literally while understanding the context. 

You have to remember that before written down, everything was oral tradition as well.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 24, 2011)

Superstars said:


> lesnipsnip



I'm an atheist who will believe once he sees unrefuteable evidence of God's existence - ie: the real thing, not a _book_ of _stories_ and _legends_ that was written by _flawed human beings_. 

and we've been over this: quoting the Bible doesn't prove anything unless the argument is about whether or not the bible says something.

i also find it incredibly hard to believe that _a middle-aged man with a walking stick lead a large group of people through a vast desert, climbed to the top of a large mountain without any breathing or climbing equipment, and parted an incredibly large body of water._


----------



## αce (Oct 24, 2011)

> Exodus has actually been found to have happened in the historical record, so that can be taken literally while understanding the context.



Link please.
Because I've read quotes from Israeli rabbi's who conceded the notion that Exodus has no historical credibility, after what Israeli archaelogists failed to find.

Off wikipedia, take it for what you will


> The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22][23] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[24]


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Hey Superstars, we're talking about Islam here, not Christianity.  Get the 2,000 pager out of this.  Being in Catholic school for 10+ years has made me rather sick of that scripture ad infinitum.

Bring something good to the table like scientific *evidence* of the lack of gay gene or get the fuck out and take your Godwad with you.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 24, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Link please.
> Because I've read quotes from Israeli rabbi's who conceded the notion that Exodus has no historical credibility, after what Israeli archaelogists failed to find.
> 
> Off wikipedia, take it for what you will


Ever heard of the _Exodus Decoded_? 

And yeah, lets get back on topic.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> And how do you determine what's metaphorical and what isn't?






SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So we're supposed to take Genesis in the literal context? Instead of figurative and metaphorical?
> 
> I was taught that the Bible isn't something to be taken literally.


Using a blanket standard of either literal or allegorical when it comes to a book containing a mixture of poetry, historical figures, songs, letters, hymns, historical accounts, etc is just asking for trouble.



Superstars said:


> How do I troll? What I post is Biblical and yes I have posted a thousands times I'am a christian a follower of God almighty through the Lord Jesus Christ.


You give off the same troll vibes as Thor, Perserverence, and Admiral Shujin.

The content of your posts, your set, your demeanor,...everything honestly.

Forgive me for not believing you.



Godaime Hokage said:


> . There may or may not be a "gay gene," but scientific research thus far does indicate that homosexuality is more nature than nurture, as indicated by the brain structure of homosexual males.


If it's primarily nature then do tell how it shows up in babies of parents who are both heterosexuals, not to mention their parents and relatives as well who also are heterosexual. Also, that research is from almost 17 years ago. I would prefer something more recent. Preferably within the past five years since it will be more consistent with what the most recent studies say on the matter. So I'll be taking this information with a side dish of rock salt. Third, as I mentioned earlier, if homosexuality were really solidly established to be the result of nature rather than nurture then our pop culture, media, and news would be all over that discovery like crazy. But they haven't. Why? The answer is simple: because no such proof that convinces the scientific community has been found. All we have is conjecture atm; nobody knows.



Godaime Hokage said:


> Whatever it is, however, whether it be some sort of mental retardation or chemical imbalance or whatever else, there is one thing homosexuality is not, and that would be a choice, which I don't blame you for not understanding since you are apparently not gay yourself, but to believe the Bible over actual tangible evidence is really something else.


I hope you aren't this presumptuous and condescending IRL towards people you've met only for the first time.


----------



## Tion (Oct 24, 2011)

Battling for Gay Rights in Allah's name is sort of like saying battling for Jewish Rights in Hitler's name.


----------



## CandleGuy (Oct 24, 2011)

♠Ace♠ said:


> And how do you determine what's metaphorical and what isn't?





> He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
> He shall gather the lambs with his arm,
> who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand.



Seems metaphorical, like poetry most of it. Supposed to offer guidance and nuggets of wisdom. 

Now using it as a tool of power to create hierarchical organizations and systems of government run by men, that's a different story.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 24, 2011)

Not that this is on topic:
Homosexuality is genetic and enhances a species' survival.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Not that this is on topic:
> Homosexuality is genetic and enhances a species' survival.



Seriously this. 

I mean why the fuck are we complaining?  More gays and lesbians means less procreation, and given how some countries and some white trash keep popping babies out like it was going out of style, the more of the former the merrier.  

Oh yeah, religious hardliners don't acknowledge world issues except their own little bubble.


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> If it's primarily nature then do tell how it shows up in babies of parents who are both heterosexuals, not to mention their parents and relatives as well who also are heterosexual. Also, that research is from almost 17 years ago. I would prefer something more recent. Preferably within the past five years since it will be more consistent with what the most recent studies say on the matter. So I'll be taking this information with a side dish of rock salt. Third, as I mentioned earlier, if homosexuality were really solidly established to be the result of nature rather than nurture then our pop culture, media, and news would be all over that discovery like crazy. But they haven't. Why? The answer is simple: because no such proof that convinces the scientific community has been found. All we have is conjecture atm; nobody knows.



Because everyone that says they're straight really is... Because they haven't been forced by society to conform and marry and procreate... And like I said, it doesn't have to be a gene. It could be anything. I don't know what it is; all I know is that it's _not_ a choice. If you want more recent studies, look for them yourself. I've given you what has been approved by the state of Florida to teach to a classroom of high school students in 2011. Most objective scientific studies performed to date favor natural causes, whatever they may be, over environmental factors beyond the womb.



> I hope you aren't this presumptuous and condescending IRL towards people you've met only for the first time.



This coming from someone who thinks he can tell me what I have and haven't chosen for myself based on his religious beliefs. For the record, I didn't mean that to sound condescending. I genuinely understand why you may not believe homosexuality isn't a choice, but don't try to tell me that it is when you have no real basis for your argument.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> Because everyone that says they're straight really is... Because they haven't been forced by society to conform and marry and procreate... And like I said, it doesn't have to be a gene. It could be anything. I don't know what it is; all I know is that it's _not_ a choice. If you want more recent studies, look for them yourself. I've given you what has been approved by the state of Florida to teach to a classroom of high school students in 2011. Most objective scientific studies performed to date favor natural causes, whatever they may be, over environmental factors beyond the womb.


Anything could be anything. It's meaningless until something is actually identified; which hasn't yet happened. Also, it's not my burden to proof to support your stance on the matter. Just saying.



Godaime Hokage said:


> This coming from someone who thinks he can tell me what I have and haven't chosen for myself based on his religious beliefs. For the record, I didn't mean that to sound condescending. I genuinely understand why you may not believe homosexuality isn't a choice, but don't try to tell me that it is when you have no real basis for your argument.


I don't understand why you insist on painting me and my view as the villain here. I'm not out to get or belittle you. Though I'm doubting whether those feelings are mutual here...

Second, it is presumptuous and not exactly open minded to assume from the get go that a different position than yours is lacking any foundation whatsoever.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 24, 2011)

Mael said:
			
		

> Hey Superstars, we're talking about Islam here, not Christianity. Get the 2,000 pager out of this. Being in Catholic school for 10+ years has made me rather sick of that scripture ad infinitum.
> 
> Bring something good to the table like scientific evidence of the lack of gay gene or get the fuck out and take your Godwad with you.






SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You're making it hard to believe that YOU are a Christian, Superstars. You don't act like one. You act like a Zealot who read a few paragraphs of the Bible and then proclaims you know it all.
> 
> And yeah, Greek, Roman (Latin), and Hebrew are what the Bible was originally written down/translated as. King James though? Its widely acknowledged by Biblical Scholars to be a bastardized version..


Doesn't matter no one has disproven KJV. Also, I don't EVER claim to know it all, I never did, not once. I claim that I know that God exists because of his holy word the Bible and I believe every word of the Bible as a true christian should and does. For it is written...

*2 Timothy 3:16:* _"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." _



			
				Yami Munesanzun said:
			
		

> I'm an atheist who will believe once he sees unrefuteable evidence of God's existence - ie: the real thing, not a book of stories and legends that was written by flawed human beings.
> 
> and we've been over this: quoting the Bible doesn't prove anything unless the argument is about whether or not the bible says something.
> 
> i also find it incredibly hard to believe that a middle-aged man with a walking stick lead a large group of people through a vast desert, climbed to the top of a large mountain without any breathing or climbing equipment, and parted an incredibly large body of water.


Yet you believe life started by random accidents you got more faith than I do.



			
				Basilikos said:
			
		

> You give off the same troll vibes as Thor, Perserverence, and Admiral Shujin.
> 
> The content of your posts, your set, your demeanor,...everything honestly.
> 
> Forgive me for not believing you.


"Troll vibes?" "demeanor?" LOL This doesn't prove anything...You got to have an actual REASON instead of labeling somebody just because.


----------



## Maerala (Oct 24, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Anything could be anything. It's meaningless until something is actually identified; which hasn't yet happened. Also, it's not my burden to proof to support your stance on the matter. Just saying.



I wasn't aware that something had to be set in stone for arguments to be made in its favor. Sure, there is no finalizing evidence for the origins of homosexuality, but to discard years of research that strongly support the side you don't sympathize with, just because it's "over 17-years-old" and despite the fact that it's still recognized as legitimate by the U.S. government is dangerously close to ignorance and bigotry.



> I don't understand why you insist on painting me and my view as the villain here. I'm not out to get or belittle you. Though I'm doubting whether those feelings are mutual here...
> 
> Second, it is presumptuous and not exactly open minded to assume from the get go that a different position than yours is lacking any foundation whatsoever.



Insinuating that it's my choice to be discriminated _is_ belittling. And I wouldn't have to adopt the stance that I have if you stopped dancing around my words and told me what this so-called foundation is, not that I don't already know the answer.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 24, 2011)

Godaime Hokage said:


> I wasn't aware that something had to be set in stone for arguments to be made in its favor. Sure, there is no finalizing evidence for the origins of homosexuality, but to discard years of research that strongly support the side you don't sympathize with, just because it's "over 17-years-old" and despite the fact that it's still recognized as legitimate by the U.S. government is dangerously close to ignorance and bigotry.


You have yet to prove that years of research strongly support your position. Rather, you have stated that I be the one to support your position in your stead. But such a thing is not my responsibility. I constantly hear and read of contradictory research results regarding the origin of homosexuality being either from nature of nurture. Which is why until something solid turns up I'll be withholding judgment on the issue.



Godaime Hokage said:


> Insinuating that it's my choice to be discriminated _is_ belittling. And I wouldn't have to adopt the stance that I have if you stopped dancing around my words and telling me what this so-called foundation is, not that I don't already know the answer.


I insinuated no such thing. I just wish you would stop being so dismissive and presumptuous of the other side (ie: Me) being completely baseless and out to get you.

Dancing around what words?  I was merely pointing out to you that you're just assuming a priori that a view different than your own is baseless. I'm just noting that such reasoning is question begging; it is fallacious. Chill out.


----------



## mali (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> This would again take you back to my earlier point, Gay sex has no role in ensuring the survival of the human race. There's absolutely no reason that humans would adapt homosexual traits unless it's a genetic disorder, but since a gay gene has yet to be found it leaves me to believe hat it's a subconscious choice due to being influenced by Friends, the Media, early memories and most importantly shaytan.
> 
> Ahmadinejad ones gave an excellent answer regarding Homosexuality in Islam:
> 
> ...



>Acting as if everyone makes love for the survival of the human race and not just outright pleasure.
>Acting as if homosexuality didnt exist before media
>Acting as if most gay people now what the fuck the shaytan is

Funny how you only need one religitard in a thread with talk of homosexuality to turn it to a "Homosexuality is wrong" jargen.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 25, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> lol wut?
> individuals who take part are homosexual are a group of people...
> 
> Let me try and rephrase your sentance and see if you still agree.
> ...



No, just No

First of all Islamic activities don't go against Shariah law, so tell me how could such law be passed in an Islamic country!?

As for the UK such law would go against the right for religious freedom.



Mali said:


> >Acting as if everyone makes love for the survival of the human race and not just outright pleasure.
> >Acting as if homosexuality didnt exist before media
> >Acting as if most gay people now what the fuck the shaytan is
> 
> Funny how you only need one religitard in a thread with talk of homosexuality to turn it to a "Homosexuality is wrong" jargen.



*Yes since when you eat you eat out of hunger not for the survival of the human race. 
 *The media wasn't created yesterday. Here's the definition of the term media:

The main means of mass communication regarded collectively: "the campaign won media attention".

*They don't need to know who or what he is in order to be influenced by him.


----------



## mali (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> *Yes since when you eat you eat out of hunger not for the survival of the human race.
> *The media wasn't created yesterday. Here's the definition of the term media:
> 
> The main means of mass communication regarded collectively: "the campaign won media attention".
> ...



>Bullshit, comparing eating to having sex 
>Bullshit, not everyone gets so easily influenced and most people are just born gay
>looool, your making way too much of an assupmtion seeing as you act as if islam is the right religion out of all the thousands......biased much

Stop being so narrow minded, most gay people in the world dont even give a shit about religion and so arent held by the rules you are.


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

Mali, you're arguing with the kid who fantasized over Turkey hotwiring US nukes to retaliate against Israel.  Reality is a lost cause.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 25, 2011)

Mali said:


> >Bullshit, comparing eating to having sex
> >Bullshit, not everyone gets so easily influenced and most people are just born gay
> >looool, your making way too much of an assupmtion seeing as you act as if islam is the right religion out of all the thousands......biased much
> 
> Stop being so narrow minded, most gay people in the world dont even give a shit about religion and so arent held by the rules you are.



*We do both out of instinct, the reason for such instinct is to ensure the survival of the human race. Homosexual activities go against Natural law!
*You can't actually prove that people are born gay (genetically), some people may have more affection to the same sex but then again some people are born with genetics that favour alcoholism and never become alcoholics. 
*I was talking about Muslim countries were Islam is generally accepted as the right religion. 

When in Rome do what the Romans do" If they want to live in an Islamic country then they should be mature enough to follow and respect their Laws.


----------



## mali (Oct 25, 2011)

I didnt read through the other pages lol.



Im out.


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 25, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Whatever, just think its quite demeaning to women.


Is it demeaning for men to return the favour? 


Mali said:


> *Im out.*



Congrats! I'm sure you'll be much happier from now on. :33


----------



## Watchman (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> *We do both out of instinct, the reason for such instinct is to ensure the survival of the human race. Homosexual activities go against Natural law!
> *You can't actually prove that people are born gay (genetically), some people may have more affection to the same sex but then again some people are born with genetics that favour alcoholism and never become alcoholics.
> *I was talking about Muslim countries were Islam is generally accepted as the right religion.
> 
> When in Rome do what the Romans do" If they want to live in an Islamic country then they should be mature enough to follow and respect their Laws.



Do you eat candy or snacks just to stave off hunger? Or because they taste good? Not everything humans do is because "OH GOD OUR SPECIES WILL DIE OUT OTHERWISE"

And why are you even talking about Muslim countries? Ani Zonneveld's talking about homosexual Muslims in _America_.


----------



## Karsh (Oct 25, 2011)

This thread is gold
one of the two kinds of threads that is the epitome of the Caf?


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 25, 2011)

Watchman said:


> Do you eat candy or snacks just to stave off hunger? Or because they taste good? Not everything humans do is because "OH GOD OUR SPECIES WILL DIE OUT OTHERWISE"
> 
> And why are you even talking about Muslim countries? Ani Zonneveld's talking about homosexual Muslims in _America_.



yes we do it out of instinct i.e hunger, taste etc. Bu the question remains why do we have those instincts because we want to survive. That's why.

Mael asked me if Homosexuals should be hanged, I've already answered to the main topic. I believe that lying to people's faces is unacceptable. The Quran and Hadith make it very clear that homosexual acts are wrong.


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> yes we do it out of instinct i.e hunger, taste etc. Bu the question remains why do we have those instincts because we want to survive. That's why.
> 
> Mael asked me if Homosexuals should be hanged, I've already answered to the main topic. I believe that lying to people's faces is unacceptable. The Quran and Hadith make it very clear that homosexual acts are wrong.



What makes the Quran right though? Just because it claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so, thus it just creates an illogical circular argument.


----------



## Watchman (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> yes we do it out of instinct i.e hunger, taste etc. Bu the question remains why do we have those instincts because we want to survive. That's why.



But we don't, that's my point. We don't eat snacks just to avoid starving, we eat them because they taste good. We don't have sex just to procreate, we have sex because it feels good. 

Humans are more than just blindly-instinctual creatures bent only on survival - if we were, we'd not have religion, philosophy, entertainment of any sort.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 25, 2011)

Xyloxi said:


> What makes the Quran right though? Just because it claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so, thus it just creates an illogical circular argument.



Whether Islam is the right religion or not can be debated another time. I personally believe that it's the right religion because of the scientific evidence as well as the beauty and sophisticated language that's in the Quran. I've also also looked at the History behind it and what different philosophers think of the Quran, making me come to the conclusion that it will always be the greatest book of all time. 

Anyway I was referring to Islamic countries where the Quran is generally believed to be the truth.


----------



## αce (Oct 25, 2011)

> because of the scientific evidence



oh lawdy lawd


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> Whether Islam is the right religion or not can be debated another time. I personally believe that it's the right religion because of the scientific evidence as well as the beauty and sophisticated language that's in the Quran. I've also also looked at the History behind it and what different philosophers think of the Quran, making me come to the conclusion that it will always be the greatest book of all time.
> 
> Anyway I was referring to Islamic countries where the Quran is generally believed to be the truth.



Scientific evidence...of the religiosity of the Quran?

Does. Not. Compute.

Wow you just keep digging a hole, don't you?  Shakespeare and Wordsworth wrote better than the Quran in terms of beautiful and sophisticated language, for the record.

No, it's not the greatest book of all time.  There is no greatest book of all time.  This just further proves your inability to see anything outside the little narrow box you created that you call pan-Arab Islam.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 25, 2011)

Watchman said:


> But we don't, that's my point. We don't eat snacks just to avoid starving, we eat them because they taste good. We don't have sex just to procreate, we have sex because it feels good.
> 
> Humans are more than just blindly-instinctual creatures bent only on survival - if we were, we'd not have religion, philosophy, entertainment of any sort.



Food only tastes good because we need to continue eating, otherwise we would die. Sex feels good so that we continue having sex, otherwise the human race would die. We are programmed to like things that will ensure our survival.

we created entertainment so that we could find a way around boredom. Boredom is caused by lack of work or lack of progress. If we didn't get bored humans wouldn't have progressed and created new things which would improve our quality of life and increase the chance of our survival.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> No, just No
> 
> First of all Islamic activities don't go against Shariah law, so tell me how could such law be passed in an Islamic country!?


Why would I care about Sharia law(though that is in debate as the OP explains), a country makes it's own laws. The fact that something is Sharia doesn't mean that it is not discrimination. 

I am giving you an example of how claim "because it is law" means absolutely nothing to the distinction of it being discriminatory.


SagemodePrinz said:


> As for the UK such law would go against the right for religious freedom.


And a law against homosexuals would be against anti-discrimination laws in UK, yet this doesn't seem to be much of a concern for you. 

The argument here is to point out what an utter failure you argument is put into another context.


----------



## Watchman (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> Food only tastes good because we need to continue eating, otherwise we would die.



Proof? People are capable of eating things that don't taste good - just take a look at the Ascetics of classical India, who subsisted on things that must have tasted terrible.



> Sex feels good so that we continue having sex, otherwise the human race would die. We are programmed to like things that will ensure our survival.



Proof? - If you were right, then why would there be erogenous zones in the anus and breasts, which obviously cannot be used for procreation? 



> we created entertainment so that we could find a way around boredom. Boredom is caused by lack of work or lack of progress. If we didn't get bored humans wouldn't have progressed and created new things which would improve our quality of life and increase the chance of our survival.



Entertainment's still not necessary to survival now, is it? Nor is Literature, Philosophy, Religion, etc.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 25, 2011)

Sage..oh my god...his tunnel visioned point of view makes me laugh 

/notrelevantatall,butthoughti'dpointitout\


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 25, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> Whether Islam is the right religion or not can be debated another time. I personally believe that it's the right religion because of the scientific evidence as well as the beauty and sophisticated language that's in the Quran. I've also also looked at the History behind it and what different philosophers think of the Quran, making me come to the conclusion that it will always be the greatest book of all time.
> 
> Anyway I was referring to Islamic countries where the Quran is generally believed to be the truth.



I'm bringing that up now because my point is that you're basing your entire argument on the Quran, which is only valid if it is the word of God, which there isn't evidence for. What scientific proof? It isn't a scientific text book, if it wants to use that answer it should word things out in a scientific manner and read like a lab report. Philosophers like Marx or Nietzsche probably didn't hold the Quran highly in regard, so its only philosophers you agree with that you're using then?


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 26, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Why would I care about Sharia law(though that is in debate as the OP explains), a country makes it's own laws. The fact that something is Sharia doesn't mean that it is not discrimination.
> 
> I am giving you an example of how claim "because it is law" means absolutely nothing to the distinction of it being discriminatory.



It's not disputed, unlike christianity in Islam we have the hadith. If we don't understand the Quran we look at the prophet's commentary. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam!

Is making theft illegal discrimination against thieves? What about prostitution, is that discrimination against prostitutes? No one is forcing those people to take part in homosexual acts, and besides if they're that  desperate they could do these things behind closed doors.




> And a law against homosexuals would be against anti-discrimination laws in UK, yet this doesn't seem to be much of a concern for you.
> 
> The argument here is to point out what an utter failure you argument is put into another context.



Yes, that's in the UK. 



Watchman said:


> Proof? People are capable of eating things that don't taste good - just take a look at the Ascetics of classical India, who subsisted on things that must have tasted terrible.



Taste isn't the only thing, ever heard of hunger? You can eat anything when your hungry since your trying to *survive!*




> Proof? - If you were right, then why would there be erogenous zones in the anus and breasts, which obviously cannot be used for procreation?



So does the human skull. I assume that you haven't made a hole in your skull to reach those nerve ending. Short answer, they're for an entirely different purpose. 




> Entertainment's still not necessary to survival now, is it? Nor is Literature, Philosophy, Religion, etc.



Philosophy and religion help us improve society and understand the environment we live in. Morality is something that we created through philosophy (which is based on either religious beliefs or personal beliefs) and helped human advancement, which has kept us at the top of the food chain. Entertainment is a result of boredom, it isn't needed but we have created it due to time management i.e we can't always be doing work and developing our civilization. Entertainment is used to trick your brain into believing that your progressing when in reality your only relaxing. Relaxation on the other hand is very important for your health.



Xyloxi said:


> I'm bringing that up now because my point is that you're basing your entire argument on the Quran, which is only valid if it is the word of God, which there isn't evidence for. What scientific proof? It isn't a scientific text book, if it wants to use that answer it should word things out in a scientific manner and read like a lab report. Philosophers like Marx or Nietzsche probably didn't hold the Quran highly in regard, so its only philosophers you agree with that you're using then?



It's not a science book, it's a book of signs. It contains miracles as well as signs and has the solution for everything.  By the way after I read a philosopher's opinion I compere it to other philosopher's opinions and then decide who and where they're right.


----------



## Jessica (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> what biggotry homosexual sex has no purpose, its as purposeless as sex with animals. Opposites were created to attract while those similar repel.



Oh wow. Your skull must be _really_ thick.

(I didn't read past that reply because that one was more than enough for me, sorry.)


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 26, 2011)

Jessica said:


> Oh wow. Your skull must be _really_ thick.
> 
> (I didn't read past that reply because that one was more than enough for me, sorry.)




the truth hurts. Doesn't it??


----------



## dr_shadow (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not disputed, *unlike christianity in Islam we have the hadith.* If we don't understand the Quran we look at the prophet's commentary. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam!



Why do Sunni and Shia disagree over which Ahadith are true?

Not that I think it affects the homosexuality debate, but in general its a weekness that there is not consensus over the Ahadith. The only text all Muslim sects agree on is the Qur'an itself.


----------



## mali (Oct 26, 2011)

This is still going on.



lol.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not disputed, unlike christianity in Islam we have the hadith. If we don't understand the Quran we look at the prophet's commentary. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam!
> 
> Is making theft illegal discrimination against thieves? What about prostitution, is that discrimination against prostitutes? No one is forcing those people to take part in homosexual acts, and besides if they're that  desperate they could do these things behind closed doors.
> 
> ...



If I wasn't on a tablet and actually thought you listened to any rationality, I'd refute your utterly baseless claims.


----------



## SagemodePrinz (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> If I wasn't on a tablet and actually thought you listened to any rationality, I'd refute your utterly baseless claims.




I'd like to see you try and fail LOL


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> I'd like to see you try and fail LOL







SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not disputed, unlike christianity in Islam we have the hadith. If we don't understand the Quran we look at the prophet's commentary. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam!



Not relevant.



> Is making theft illegal discrimination against thieves? What about prostitution, is that discrimination against prostitutes?


Strawman argument.



SagemodePrinz said:


> No one is forcing those people to take part in homosexual acts, and besides if they're that  desperate they could do these things behind closed doors.


Implying that homosexuals don't have sex behind closed doors.



SagemodePrinz said:


> Yes, that's in the UK.


And UK, being a civilized nation, realizes that having laws that promote the murder of a group of people who help humanity survive might not be in their best interests.



SagemodePrinz said:


> Taste isn't the only thing, ever heard of hunger? You can eat anything when your hungry since your trying to *survive!*


Completely irrelevant.



SagemodePrinz said:


> So does the human skull. I assume that you haven't made a hole in your skull to reach those nerve ending. Short answer, they're for an entirely different purpose.


The brain has no sensory abilities, so what sensory nerves that can be accessed through making "a hole in your skull" is something that would revolutionize Neurology. Also, the skull is a collection of bones, which hardly have any nerve endings. The Scalp has no erogenous nerves. The only structure on or in the entire Cephalum that has erogenous nerves are the lateral edges of the Auricle, primarily the Helix.
Like all erogenous nerves, they are only there for sexual arousal.
Short answer: you don't know what you're talking about.



SagemodePrinz said:


> Philosophy and religion help us improve society and understand the environment we live in. Morality is something that we created through philosophy (which is based on either religious beliefs or personal beliefs) and helped human advancement, which has kept us at the top of the food chain.


I'm pretty sure that Evolution put us at the top of the food chains, not religion. Furthermore, mentioning religion in the context of "understanding [something scientific]" makes you lose all scientific credibility. 



SagemodePrinz said:


> Entertainment is a result of boredom, it isn't needed but we have created it due to time management i.e we can't always be doing work and developing our civilization. Entertainment is used to trick your brain into believing that your progressing when in reality your only relaxing. Relaxation on the other hand is very important for your health.


Entertainment is the result of evolutionary desires to be content and, for most mammals, enhance the survivability of the species by promoting group-based behaviors and division of labor.
Yet again, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.




SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not a science book, it's a book of signs. It contains miracles as well as signs and has the solution for everything.


It contains bullshit written by humans in order to make them feel better about their lives by giving them a false sense of security and superiority.



SagemodePrinz said:


> By the way after I read a philosopher's opinion I compere it to other philosopher's opinions and then decide who and where they're right.


I know a philosopher, in fact, I know a lot of philosophers. Actually, every person I know is a philosopher in their own ways. To that end, I asked an Ice Cream Woman and a Hotdog Man how the universe started, and then "decided who and where they're right."[sic] As if I already knew the right and wrong answer, but asked them just to distract them while I stole some food. I could do that because, as you've said, one can decided what is correct/right and incorrect.


*Spoiler*: _Sources_


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not disputed, unlike christianity in Islam we have the hadith. If we don't understand the Quran we look at the prophet's commentary. Homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam!


The op is evidence that this is not true, the fact of all the different sects are evidence this is not true, there were split in Islam as soon as Muhammad died. 


SagemodePrinz said:


> Is making theft illegal discrimination against thieves? What about prostitution, is that discrimination against prostitutes? No one is forcing those people to take part in homosexual acts, and besides if they're that  desperate they could do these things behind closed doors.


Yes, we do discriminate against thieves, yes we do discriminate against prostitutes. 

Do you even understand what the meaning of discrimination is?

They are discriminating against people who are gay! You would never accept how you treat gays, if it was enacted on yourself. 



SagemodePrinz said:


> Yes, that's in the UK.


Which didn't stop your comments before.


----------



## Jessica (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> the truth hurts. Doesn't it??



No not really. I am pretty sure that my actions have more purpose than what you described. One purpose being, um, love.


----------



## Doge (Oct 26, 2011)

Mael said:


> 1. Global warming doesn't exist to most of these religitards.  It might exist to the everyday Catholic or Buddhist, but not to the evangelical priests or hardcore imams.
> 
> 2. Economics => money.  God is supposed to be "separate" from money that while a complete crock of shit, they try to train people to think the two are separate.
> 
> 3. World hunger?  Let the heathens help themselves.



1. Come back in 50 years and the Earth will be just fine.  I'm fairly certain you have not tested global warming, and that it's just an accepted theory.

2. Money is the root of all evil.  All people are in essence evil.  Of course we aren't going to have an easy time putting God on the pedastel. 

3. Charity anyone?  Missions trips?


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 26, 2011)

SagemodePrinz said:


> It's not a science book, it's a book of signs. It contains miracles as well as signs and has the solution for everything.  By the way after I read a philosopher's opinion I compere it to other philosopher's opinions and then decide who and where they're right.



How do you know that these miracles happened though? What do you have to base that on apart from a circular argument? Does the Quran actually have a solution for everything, for example what am I supposed to do if a Komodo Dragon bites me? 

How do you decide how they're right though? What sort of philosophy have you been reading out of interest?


----------



## Karsh (Oct 26, 2011)

And on another perpective, not everything in nature is considered "good" in many of our standards so arguing that something "should be" because it's natural is pretty faulty without looking at context.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 26, 2011)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> 1. Come back in 50 years and the Earth will be just fine.  I'm fairly certain you have not tested global warming, and that it's just an accepted theory.


How can it be accepted if it has not been tested...


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

Karsh said:


> And on another perpective, not everything in nature is considered "good" in many of our standards so arguing that something "should be" because it's natural is pretty faulty without looking at context.



Except in this case, when you look at the context, homosexuality is good, and not just because it's natural.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 26, 2011)

This is too funny, everyone walks around pretending they are mature and smart, but base a person soley on the way they choose to have sex. That's logical.

"Hey marty, wanna help in the parade?"
"Sure, but there's just one problem. I caught the gay"
"Oh, well then it's only logical that every other form in your life is twisted."

Herp da derp


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 26, 2011)

Karsh said:


> And on another perpective, not everything in nature is considered "good" in many of our standards so arguing that something "should be" because it's natural is pretty faulty without looking at context.



but you have to remember, it can only be unnatural _and_ a sin if a human does it.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

The thing I don?t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.

It

Doesn?t

Make

Sense.

Or is it because homosexuality is less severe and consenting that different rules apply here?


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> The thing I don?t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.
> 
> It
> 
> ...



Not sure who said that pedophiles can change.... 

Anywho, the little matter of "consent" _does_ change almost all the rules.


----------



## Karsh (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Except in this case, when you look at the context, homosexuality is good, and not just because it's natural.



Which is why I said "looking at context" since I saw many posts insinuate that things are basically justifiable because they're natural. 

Yeah I would never force anyone to be with someone they don't want to be with or feel uncomfortable with. It's a beautiful thing if it's consenting adult love. 
I would only judge gays negatively if they're bad people, like with every other category a human can think up.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Not sure who said that pedophiles can change....
> 
> Anywho, the little matter of "consent" _does_ change almost all the rules.



Someone with a crappy alien avatar, Barrel, Borel or something, I dunno he's not important.

Any who, the notion we can?t help what we are attracted to is generally agreed upon on here and then just kinda dismissed as the severity does down is bizarre. This is not a subjective thing.

It?s understandable if you?re biased, we all are in our own ways on specific things, especially when we?re affected by them.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Any who, the notion we can?t help what we are attracted to is generally agreed upon on here and then just kinda dismissed as the severity does down is bizarre. This is not a subjective thing.



Really not sure what this says...


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Really not sure what this says...



Would you like me to dumb it down for you so your rainbow glazed mind can take it in?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 26, 2011)

mf, you're not in a position to condescend to other people.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Would you like me to dumb it down for you so your rainbow glazed mind can take it in?



 I sense hostility. But yes, what you could do is kick your communications skills up from Elementary school.



menstrual_flow said:


> Any who, the notion we can’t help what we are attracted to is generally agreed upon on here


This part makes sense.



> and then just kinda dismissed as the severity does down is bizarre.


This doesn't. The subject of this sentence is "the notion we can't help what we are attracted to" [sic] But if you put this sentence together without the semi-appositive is 
"The notion we can't help what we are attracted to just kinda dismissed as the severity does down is bizarre." 
*That makes no fucking sense.*

Do you mean? "It's bizarre that the notion that we can't help what we are attracted to seems to be dismissed as the severity of the attraction goes down."
Even that isn't good English, but at least it makes fucking sense. And supposing that that is the message you're trying to convey, it's still fucking wrong. Attraction isn't the same as electricity. A translation of the logic of this statement goes as such:
"It's bizarre that the notion that people get killed by electricity, from lightning bolts, seems to be dismissed when it comes to watch batteries."



> This is not a subjective thing.


Maybe if you translated your statement into English, I could understand what you meant. Because despite my best 5th Grade English Teacher efforts, I can't understand how this statement is at all related to the rest of your post. You might as well have said that it's not made of Blueberry Pie.

[sp=source]
[/sp]


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Do you mean? "It's bizarre that the notion that we can't help what we are attracted to seems to be dismissed as the severity of the attraction goes down."
> Even that isn't good English, but at least it makes fucking sense.



The fact you can disconcert what I mean implies what I’m posting isn’t that hard to grasp, despite your efforts to make it look so.

And that’s not my reasoning; this is yet again the misinformed underage people libtards on this forum. What I mean is; the gays don’t hurt non one; leave them alone. Peado’s do; they can change though.

And by subjective I of course refer to the fact one group can’t change their sexual urges and another be expected not to.

I understand you may try and attack me further on my enrish to make it appear like I’m an illiterate or retard to make my posts seem irreverent and the ramblings of someone who’s ill advised. It’s something we all do on subconsciously on the net to make it look like we’re the one who’s morally right or superior.



Toroxus said:


> I sense hostility. But yes, what you could do is kick your communications skills up from Elementary school.



Oh dear, I see you edited out the asshole bit and replaced it with; 'ur dumb, i'm smarter hurr hurr' jig, tsk


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> The fact you can disconcert what I mean implies what I’m posting isn’t that hard to grasp, despite your efforts to make it look so.


Definition of DISCONCERT
transitive verb
1 to throw into confusion
2 to disturb the composure of 

Yet again, the entire meaning behind your sentence is incorrectly stated so severely that it takes on a new meaning.



> And that’s not my reasoning; this is yet again the misinformed underage people libtards on this forum.


By "underage people libtards" you must be referring to college graduates whom are older than you.



> What I mean is; the gays don’t hurt non one; leave them alone.


Shouldn't I be saying that to you?



> Peado’s do; they can change though.


Cool story, but this isn't relevant to the topic.



> And by subjective I of course refer to the fact one group can’t change their sexual urges and another be expected not to.


You know this sentence contradicts your grand claim?



> I understand you may try and attack me further on my enrish to make it appear like I’m an illiterate or retard to make my posts seem irreverent and the ramblings of someone who’s ill advised. It’s something we all do on subconsciously on the net to make it look like we’re the one who’s morally right or superior.


Not quite. Understand that I _do_ attack your inability to convey a stable message because you're so uneducated and lazy that that doesn't matter to you. Why? Because, to you, it doesn't matter whether or not your message gets across, because either way, you're never going to backpedal over it.
However, scientists _do_ want to get their messages across, so as to discuss information and come to new conclusions.
tl;dr: You just admitted to being ignorant.



> Oh dear, I see you edited out the asshole bit and replaced it with; 'ur dumb, i'm smarter hurr hurr' jig, tsk


It was a fragment, a complete form would go something like:
"Okay, Asshole, you _are_ dumb and I _am_ smarter on _this_ topic."

You have all the permission in the universe to prove me wrong


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 26, 2011)

> The thing I don’t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.



Homosexuality has about the same amount do with Pedophilia as Heterosexuality. But nice try.


----------



## Mael (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual flow in all his logic likes to claim people edit their posts, fun fact. 

But yeah, pedo and homo...apples and oranges.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Homosexuality has about the same amount do with Pedophilia as Heterosexuality. But nice try.



Nice try?

What _are_ you talking about?

I wasn’t implying paedophilia and homosexuality are the same. I was using it and homo (and if you want hetro and bi) to illustrate that we do not have the choice to pick who we are attracted to.



Mael said:


> menstrual flow in all his logic likes to claim people edit their posts, fun fact.



You're jumping in the middle of a deabte here so obviously you don't know waht was previously posted, otherwise you'd understand waht you wrote just wrong. And you know I'm a woman.



> But yeah, pedo and homo...apples and oranges.



I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood what I have posted like the above user I quoted.


----------



## WT (Oct 26, 2011)

Hey Sage, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.

However, there are homosexuals who engage in sodomy. Much like heterosexuals. However, their both disgusting and should be considered the lowest of the low.


----------



## Mael (Oct 26, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Hey Sage, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.
> 
> However, there are homosexuals who engage in sodomy. Much like heterosexuals. However, their both disgusting and should be considered the lowest of the low.



Guess child rapists, drug lords, and murderers get a leg up on them.


----------



## WT (Oct 26, 2011)

Mael said:


> Guess child rapists, drug lords, and murderers get a leg up on them.


Drug lords and criminals are murderers and thieves, they are low in a different way. Men who put their dicks in other men or women's assholes are just sick.


----------



## Mael (Oct 26, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Drug lords and criminals are murderers and thieves, they are low in a different way. Men who put their dicks in other men or women's assholes are just sick.



But not the lowest of the low apparently.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 26, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Not quite. Understand that I _do_ attack your inability to convey a stable message because you're so uneducated and lazy that that doesn't matter to you. Why? Because, to you, it doesn't matter whether or not your message gets across, because either way, you're never going to backpedal over it.
> However, scientists _do_ want to get their messages across, so as to discuss information and come to new conclusions.
> tl;dr: You just admitted to being ignorant.



You?re now turning this away from what I?ve originally posted to scrutinising my posts fro grammar and while avoiding refuting the doubles standards of being gay is ok and pedo is not and they can change.

You?ve reacted the way I?ve expected you too and I really am too lazy to take this seriously at all now. And using disconcert was a poor choice of words, I agree but hey, by the time I realised I just didn?t care. You?ll just keep on avoiding what I say with a charge of moral superiority, no matter what I post.


----------



## Seph (Oct 26, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Drug lords and criminals are murderers and thieves, they are low in a different way. Men who put their dicks in other men or women's assholes are just sick.



Why? Anal sex can be more pleasurable for some people, and the anus is perfectly possible to clean. What's wrong for wanting to try it? Why does it make one sick?


----------



## No.1Moose (Oct 26, 2011)

What the hell is this woman smoking?


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 26, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Hey Sage, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.
> 
> However, there are homosexuals who engage in sodomy. Much like heterosexuals. However, their both disgusting and should be considered the lowest of the low.



What it's call when two boys have sex then?



White Tiger said:


> Drug lords and criminals are murderers and thieves, they are low in a different way. Men who put their dicks in other men or women's assholes are just sick.



Why is sodomy sick?



menstrual_flow said:


> You?re now turning this away from what I?ve originally posted to scrutinising my posts fro grammar and while avoiding refuting the doubles standards of being gay is ok and pedo is not and they can change.
> 
> You?ve reacted the way I?ve expected you too and I really am too lazy to take this seriously at all now. And using disconcert was a poor choice of words, I agree but hey, by the time I realised I just didn?t care. You?ll just keep on avoiding what I say with a charge of moral superiority, no matter what I post.



You know, it doesn't help your "you've reacted the way I've expected you to"
when you try to put the words, "gay is ok and pedo is not and they can change", in my mouth.

I never made that argument, so you can stop pretending I did.


----------



## Seph (Oct 26, 2011)

> What it's call when two boys have sex then?



A sin, duh.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 26, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Hey Sage, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.
> 
> However, there are homosexuals who engage in sodomy. Much like heterosexuals. However, their both disgusting and should be considered the lowest of the low.



last time i checked, sodomy is anal intercourse - intercourse meaning sex - between two males.

so does intercourse not mean "sex" anymore?  did i not get the memo?


also, quoted for it being so stupidly hilarious.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 26, 2011)

After reading this thread I am not convinced that homosexuality or anal sex are dehumanizing.

I am however leaning towards Islam being dehumanizing if this is what a moderate Muslim believes.

Jesus


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 26, 2011)

I was going to post that. 



menstrual_flow said:


> The thing I don?t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.
> 
> It
> 
> ...


You raise a fair and thought provoking point.



White Tiger said:


> Hey Sage, there's no such thing as homosexual sex.


Wat.



White Tiger said:


> However, there are homosexuals who engage in sodomy. Much like heterosexuals. However, their both disgusting and should be considered the lowest of the low.


Um, no.



No.1Moose said:


> What the hell is this woman smoking?


I dunno, man.

But whatever it is it must be GOOOOOOODDDD.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 26, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> The thing I don?t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.
> 
> It
> 
> ...



Between you and me....


*Spoiler*: __ 



It's called DENIAL.


----------



## Watchman (Oct 27, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> The thing I don?t get is how people on this forum can claim convicted paedophiles are capable of changing their sexual preference from porking kiddies while at the same time maintaining that homosexuality is immutable.
> 
> It
> 
> ...



Which people have said that paedophiles can change their sexual preference?


----------



## Borel (Oct 27, 2011)

@menstrual_flow: I'm surprised you think that what I say accurately represents the general consensus here, but to make things clearer you should probably clarify that you're just talking about what one person said.

And what I actually meant back then was that while pedophiles might not be able to change who they're attracted to, they can realize that taking advantage of children is morally wrong and hence not do that. Resisting urges is not a foreign concept to anyone.


----------



## Mael (Oct 27, 2011)

Borel said:


> @menstrual_flow: I'm surprised you think that what I say accurately represents the general consensus here, but to make things clearer you should probably clarify that you're just talking about what one person said.
> 
> And what I actually meant back then was that while pedophiles might not be able to change who they're attracted to, they can realize that taking advantage of children is morally wrong and hence not do that. Resisting urges is not a foreign concept to anyone.



It doesn't behoove you to argue with him.  He's king in his warped little mind.


----------



## Kue (Oct 27, 2011)

You guys know that men are more capable of enjoying anal sex than women right? The prostate is in that area and it has a lot of nerve endings.

It's almost as if God wanted men to have anal sex.


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Kue said:


> You guys know that men are more capable of enjoying anal sex than women right? The prostate is in that area and it has a lot of nerve endings.
> 
> It's almost as if God wanted men to have anal sex.



2 words. * Rectal Prolapse*.


----------



## WT (Oct 27, 2011)

Hey guys, I am going to start clapping my hands and claim that its a form of sex because it derives me extreme pleasure. Anyone who says its not sex is a bigot. If shoving a cock into a shithole is considered as sex, why can't this be?


----------



## Kue (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> 2 words. * Rectal Prolapse*.



That happens when you are not careful, and as well don't make me start listing all the things that can happen to a vagina when the partner isn't careful. :ho



White Tiger said:


> Hey guys, I am going to start clapping my hands and claim that its a form of sex because it derives me extreme pleasure. Anyone who says its not sex is a bigot. If shoving a cock into a shithole is considered as sex, why can't this be?



Pick up a dictionary.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 27, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Hey guys, I am going to start clapping my hands and claim that its a form of sex because it derives me extreme pleasure. Anyone who says its not sex is a bigot. If shoving a cock into a shithole is considered as sex, why can't this be?



so you admit you're a bigot when you say that there's no such thing as homosexual sex, but then go on to say there is only homosexual sodomy, which is anal _sex_ between two men.

also, i'm quoting this one too because it still holds some humor, but i highly suggest you to stop, because your closed-minded-ness is losing it's comedic value.


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Kue said:


> That happens when you are not careful, and as well don't make me start listing all the things that can happen to a vagina when the partner isn't careful. :ho




Point is the asshole isn't made for penetration. The membrane in the rectum is thin and so can tear easily. Not only that but the sphincter can be damaged as well. Which of course will result in uncontrolled shitting. 

Bottom line is it was never meant to be used for sex.


----------



## Seph (Oct 27, 2011)

The vagina can tear very easily while the baby is passing through the birth canal, which can result in death in some cases.

See what I did there?


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> The vagina can tear very easily while the baby is passing through the birth canal, which can result in death in some cases.
> 
> See what I did there?



That is one of its functions of the vagina and birth canal. What's your point? That woman can be hurt and or die during child birth? Cause that's a risk to a NATURAL PROCESS the female body was designed for. A dick being inserted into an asshole is not a natural process that the human anus was designed for.


----------



## Seph (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> That is one of its functions. What's your point? That woman can be hurt and or die during child birth? Cause that's a risk to a NATURAL PROCESS the female body was designed for. A dick being inserted into an asshole is not a natural process that the human anus was designed for.



It was very poorly designed for birth, just like the anus was poorly designed for intercourse.

Both can lead to ruptures and death. I think the chance of dying from birth is much higher than dying from anal sex, too.

See how bad your reasoning is now?


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> It was very poorly designed for birth, just like the anus was poorly designed for intercourse.
> 
> Both can lead to ruptures and death. I think the chance of dying from birth is much higher than dying from anal sex, too.
> 
> See how bad your reasoning is now?



If the anus was made for sex, it would be self lubricating, the female anus would be connected to the womb somehow. 

You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.

Edit: 

Insulting me by calling me an "Islamic scumbag" through a neg rep means you know you lost this argument. It also confirms you are a massive bigot who hates on Muslims for the sake of hating.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> If the anus was made for sex, it would be self lubricating, the female anus would be connected to the womb somehow.
> 
> You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.
> 
> ...



because people can't have sex for the pleasure of it?

sex isn't limited to procreation in this century, if i forgot to send you the memo. 

and there's a reason why there's companies that _make_ lube, just for that occasion.


----------



## Kue (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> If the anus was made for sex, it would be self lubricating, the female anus would be connected to the womb somehow.
> 
> You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.



How about the females that can't lubricate properly? Should they stop having sex as well?

Also in nature, sex is often used by certain animals as a means of recreation.  And please, don't be an idiot and say "so what, we are going to do what animals do?"

My mention of it being in nature is not an argument for the morality of having sex for pleasure, but rather I'm showing you that the point of sex is not simply to procreate.


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Kue said:


> *How about the females that can't lubricate properly? Should they stop having sex as well?*



Nope. The sex they are performing is what was meant for reproduction. Anuses are not. 




> Also in nature, sex is often used by certain animals as a means of recreation.  And please, don't be an idiot and say "so what, we are going to do what animals do?"



I'm fully aware of sex being a means of pleasure and fun more so than reproduction for some animals such as the Bonobo. In fact they use sex for domination of the opposite sex (female to male rape) and solving conflicts within their groups. However, your main assertion was that the anus was meant for sex due to nerves endings and the feeling of pleasure, when it isn't. That part of the body was NEVER meant for it. If people start using their penises to penetrate ears due to feeling some pleasure in the ear, does that mean ears were made for this act?



> My mention of it being in nature is not an argument for the morality of having sex for pleasure, but rather I'm showing you that the point of sex is not simply to procreate.



The act of Sex not simply for procreation? You're right. However, the fact is the asshole was not created for penetration what so ever.


----------



## Seph (Oct 27, 2011)

> If the anus was made for sex, it would be self lubricating, the female anus would be connected to the womb somehow.
> 
> You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.



If the vagina was made by Allah for giving birth, it wouldn't result in death so often.

You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.



> Insulting me by calling me an "Islamic scumbag" through a neg rep means you know you lost this argument. It also confirms you are a massive bigot who hates on Muslims for the sake of hating.



I neg repped you, but I didn't resort to ad hominem in this argument, did I?


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> If the vagina was made by Allah for giving birth, it wouldn't result in death so often.
> 
> You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.
> 
> ...



Who are you again?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> Nope. The sex they are performing is what was meant for reproduction. Anuses are not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well, then there wouldn't be all those nerve endings in the anus then. 

secondly: the average male penis wouldn't even _fit_ into an ear, so even if there _were_ nerves in the ear that stimulated sexual pleasure, it wouldn't matter because it _wouldn't fit._


----------



## Seph (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> Who are you again?



Best argument I've seen in my life.


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Best argument I've seen in my life.



Best trolling I've seen in my life.


----------



## Farih (Oct 27, 2011)

It must be terrible to be part of the LGBTQ community and feel like your religion is shunning you, so in some ways I admire what she's doing.  But what she is doing goes completely against some concrete Islamic rules, so I don't know if what she runs really is a mosque.  Based on examples in the Qu'ran of prophets having to deal with homosexuality, she's committing more sins than good deeds...


----------



## Kue (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> Nope. The sex they are performing is what was meant for reproduction. Anuses are not.



You can't seem to keep track of your own arguments.  You made self-lubrication a requirement for a hole to be considered to be useful for sex.  Now you are contradicting yourself, because now you have eliminated self-lubrication as a prerequisite.

Your argument also entails that infertile couples don't have sex at all.



> I'm fully aware of sex being a means of pleasure and fun more so than reproduction for some animals such as the Bonobo. In fact they use sex for domination of the opposite sex (female to male rape) and solving conflicts within their groups. However, your main assertion was that the anus was meant for sex due to nerves endings and the feeling of pleasure, when it isn't. That part of the body was NEVER meant for it. If people start using their penises to penetrate ears due to feeling some pleasure in the ear, does that mean ears were made for this act?



I'm not just talking about vaginal penetration when it comes to the animal kingdom.

As for ears, it isn't my business what two consenting adults want to do.  If two people want to penetrate their own ears, let them go for it.  There is bigger issues in the world to give a shit about where people put in their dicks.



> The act of Sex not simply for procreation? You're right. However, the fact is the asshole was not created for penetration what so ever.



Then why so many nerve endings? Anyways, even if your presumption was correct, the human race would adapt to anal penetration if it became a common practice.  It wouldn't matter if in the present time anal sex was not designed for penetration, because with time it would happen anyway.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 27, 2011)

Are there seriously not bigger issue for people in the world other than what other people get up to in their personal lives? Bigotry at it's finest.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 27, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Are there seriously not bigger issue for people in the world other than what other people get up to in their personal lives? Bigotry at it's finest.



oh god, your sig is farting sparkles.


----------



## Syed (Oct 27, 2011)

Kue said:


> You can't seem to keep track of your own arguments.  You made self-lubrication a requirement for a hole to be considered to be useful for sex.  Now you are contradicting yourself, because now you have eliminated self-lubrication as a prerequisite.



Self lubrication is not a prerequisite. What I was saying was that anuses do not lubricate for a reason. That is it was not meant for sexual intercourse, vagina's are. You said "but what about the vagina that can't lubricate". Doesn't matter since the reason for a vagina IS for sex (penetration). YOU asserted that anuses are for sex (penetration). I gave you reasons why it isn't. 



> Your argument also entails that infertile couples don't have sex at all.



Of course they do. Cause they are doing what sex is for, penetration of the vagina by a penis. Even though they can't have children doesn't mean they aren't performing the act. 



> I'm not just talking about vaginal penetration when it comes to the animal kingdom.



Yes I know some animals perform anal. But again that has nothing to do with my point. The point is, the anus was never *meant* evolution wise for penetration.



> As for ears, it isn't my business what two consenting adults want to do.  If two people want to penetrate their own ears, let them go for it.  There is bigger issues in the world to give a shit about where people put in their dicks.



Listen I do not care for what people do whether it's to screw the same gender or the opposite. However, this has nothing to do with my point. 




> Then why so many nerve endings? Anyways, even if your presumption was correct, the human race would adapt to anal penetration if it became a common practice.  It wouldn't matter if in the present time anal sex was not designed for penetration, because with time it would happen anyway.



Many reasons. One is it aids in orgasms. Some also say it's to help regulate the strength and sensation in the anal and rectal sphincters for fecal matter movement. 

The human race can adapt for anal sex eventually given the right circumstances. But, at the moment the anus is not made for this act.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 27, 2011)

So many naturalistic fallacies in this thread now.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 27, 2011)

Syed said:


> Point is the asshole isn't made for penetration. The membrane in the rectum is thin and so can tear easily. Not only that but the sphincter can be damaged as well. Which of course will result in uncontrolled shitting.
> 
> Bottom line is it was never meant to be used for sex.



Then why does it have Erogenous nerves in and around the anus? Why does the prostate have erogenous nerves?



Syed said:


> That is one of its functions of the vagina and birth canal. What's your point? That woman can be hurt and or die during child birth? Cause that's a risk to a NATURAL PROCESS the female body was designed for. A dick being inserted into an asshole is not a natural process that the human anus was designed for.



This isn't really saying anything because you have yet to prove how the anus isn't designed for sexual intercourse.



Syed said:


> If the anus was made for sex, it would be self lubricating, the female anus would be connected to the womb somehow.
> 
> You seem to not realize what the point of sex is.



So if the anus _is_ self-lubricating, then it is designed for sex, right? 




Syed said:


> Nope. The sex they are performing is what was meant for reproduction. Anuses are not.



Sex =/= Reproduction




> I'm fully aware of sex being a means of pleasure and fun more so than reproduction for some animals such as the Bonobo. In fact they use sex for domination of the opposite sex (female to male rape) and solving conflicts within their groups. However, your main assertion was that the anus was meant for sex due to nerves endings and the feeling of pleasure, when it isn't.


Except it is and you have yet to prove otherwise.



> That part of the body was NEVER meant for it. If people start using their penises to penetrate ears due to feeling some pleasure in the ear, does that mean ears were made for this act?


The ears were meant to play a role in sexual intercourse, but if they were designed for penile penetration, then it'd be possible to do so.





> The act of Sex not simply for procreation? You're right. However, the fact is the asshole was not created for penetration what so ever.


Except that almost all mammalian species have anal intercourse and enjoys it. This probably has something to do with the presence of nerves specifically placed to make anal intercourse enjoyable.... I wonder why those developed there... 



Syed said:


> Self lubrication is not a prerequisite. What I was saying was that anuses do not lubricate for a reason. That is it was not meant for sexual intercourse, vagina's are. You said "but what about the vagina that can't lubricate". Doesn't matter since the reason for a vagina IS for sex (penetration). YOU asserted that anuses are for sex (penetration). I gave you reasons why it isn't.


You didn't give anyone a reason why the anus isn't for penetration outside of the "not self-lubricating." However, since anus' are a mucus membrane and do secrete lubrication, this entire point is completely invalid.



> Of course they do. Cause they are doing what sex is for, penetration of the vagina by a penis. Even though they can't have children doesn't mean they aren't performing the act.


Again, sex=/=reproduction.




> Yes I know some animals perform anal. But again that has nothing to do with my point. The point is, the anus was never *meant* evolution wise for penetration.


Except that I provided a few reasons why anal intercourse is an evolutionary design. I'm sensing you really don't know much about Biology.



> Many reasons. One is it aids in orgasms. Some also say it's to help regulate the strength and sensation in the anal and rectal sphincters for fecal matter movement.


The argument that erogenous nerves aid in the strength of any muscles is laughable. Erogenous nerves are solely there for sexual pleasure, and many of them are placed inside the rectum and the prostate has a ton of them, which can only be stimulated by anal intercourse...



> The human race can adapt for anal sex eventually given the right circumstances. But, at the moment the anus is not made for this act.



Except that it is, and to recap, the only point you've made for your claim is "no lubrication" which I have already destroyed.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 27, 2011)

i honestly don't care much for this whole "ass was not meant for sexual acts" thing, but here's my rebuttal: if it wasn't made for it, then why do tons of people do it?


----------



## Terra Branford (Oct 28, 2011)

Well good for her trying. I hope she isn't threatened or killed of this, or any of the people she's planning on helping... 



> *Not only does she lead prayers*


Uh-oh!



> *but she is an outspoken advocate for gay, bisexual and transgender Muslims*. Later this year, she plans to officiate at the Islamic wedding of a *lesbian couple, which is perfectly acceptable by her reading of the Quran.*


Uh-oh!


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Oct 28, 2011)

The bigots in this thread are eat da poo poo level.


----------



## Mael (Oct 28, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> The bigots in this thread are eat da poo poo level.



But it's ok.  They're not Christian, thus not monsters.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 28, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> i honestly don't care much for this whole "ass was not meant for sexual acts" thing, but here's my rebuttal: if it wasn't made for it, then why do tons of people do it?



Because Satan has infected their minds.


----------



## Superstars (Oct 28, 2011)

Rob said:


> Because Satan has infected their minds.


Sarcastic or not, this is true.


----------



## Borel (Oct 28, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Sarcastic or not, this is true.


Sarcastic or not, this is funny.


----------



## kazuri (Oct 28, 2011)

How dare the devil make millions of happy gay couples. That bastard.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 28, 2011)

Borel said:


> Sarcastic or not, this is funny.



i declare that from this point forward, everything that Superstars says is to be taken as sarcasm, or whatever classifies as "not srs".

failure to comply will result in death by snakes.

so i decree.

edit: dawww, i love you too menstrual, you condescending jackass. with all my heart.


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 28, 2011)

This thread lacks hatr-oh, wait.


----------



## WT (Oct 28, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> What it's call when two boys have sex then?



Two boys can't have sex. Sex was originally a term used for reproduction. This word has been tainted by anal/oral "sex" since both are not acts of reproduction, pleasure perhaps, but certainly not reproduction. I find it shocking that heterosexual sex has been brought down and has been categorized alongside with anal and oral, when these things are *COMPLETELY* different. The only thing they apparently have in common is pleasure. If its on the basis of pleasure that these acts are being coined together, then why can't my original example of "clapping" be also coined alongside with them?


----------



## Seph (Oct 28, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Sarcastic or not, this is true.



HAHAHAHA this is just so funny


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 28, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Two boys can't have sex. Sex was originally a term used for reproduction. This word has been tainted by anal/oral "sex" since both are not acts of reproduction, pleasure perhaps, but certainly not reproduction. I find it shocking that heterosexual sex has been brought down and has been categorized alongside with anal and oral, when these things are *COMPLETELY* different. The only thing they apparently have in common is pleasure. If its on the basis of pleasure that these acts are being coined together, then why can't my original example of "clapping" be also coined alongside with them?



because clapping does not bring about sexual stimulus. 

what your definition of sex is, is your opinion. restricting it to only reproductive purposes, is again, your opinion. in today's society, it's widely accepted that "sex" and "fucking for the sake of fucking" are one and the same. if you don't accept that, that's fine, but don't go around trying to force your views on everyone else.


----------



## WT (Oct 28, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> because clapping does not bring about sexual stimulus.
> 
> what your definition of sex is, is your opinion. restricting it to only reproductive purposes, is again, your opinion. in today's society, it's widely accepted that "sex" and "fucking for the sake of fucking" are one and the same. if you don't accept that, that's fine, but don't go around trying to force your views on everyone else.



Why don't we explore this to the root? If you say "sexual stimulus", then we can easily say that the *purpose* of sexual stimulus for males is to have semen ejected. I'm not going to tell you what semen is but I will tell you that its main and only function is to impregnate a woman. As a result, sexual stimulus is designed only for reproduction. However, now you mention it, men who are sexually turned on by other men asshole is possibly a psychological disorder as it confuses the brain into thinking that its injecting semen into something that will become impregnated. In all likelihood, the above is just a thought not backed by scientific research. However, there are many researchers and doctors who do consider this as a sexual perversion.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 28, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Why don't we explore this to the root? If you say "sexual stimulus", then we can easily say that the *purpose* of sexual stimulus for males is to have semen ejected. I'm not going to tell you what semen is but I will tell you that its main and only function is to impregnate a woman.



so basically what you're saying is two people can only fuck if it's to make a child?

you make me laugh, you so funny.


> However, now you mention it, men who are sexually turned on by other men asshole is possibly a psychological disorder



i stopped reading here. 

you realize you're not supposed to wear stupid after labor day, right?


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 28, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Two boys can't have sex. Sex was originally a term used for reproduction. This word has been tainted by anal/oral "sex" since both are not acts of reproduction, pleasure perhaps, but certainly not reproduction. I find it shocking that heterosexual sex has been brought down and has been categorized alongside with anal and oral, when these things are *COMPLETELY* different. The only thing they apparently have in common is pleasure. If its on the basis of pleasure that these acts are being coined together, then why can't my original example of "clapping" be also coined alongside with them?






White Tiger said:


> Why don't we explore this to the root? If you say "sexual stimulus", then we can easily say that the *purpose* of sexual stimulus for males is to have semen ejected. I'm not going to tell you what semen is but I will tell you that its main and only function is to impregnate a woman. As a result, sexual stimulus is designed only for reproduction. However, now you mention it, men who are sexually turned on by other men asshole is possibly a psychological disorder as it confuses the brain into thinking that its injecting semen into something that will become impregnated. In all likelihood, the above is just a thought not backed by scientific research. However, there are many researchers and doctors who do consider this as a sexual perversion.



*Edit: Removed image that I was using inappropriately. This image is reserved for only the dumbest of claims.*

At least you admitted that your statement was "not backed by scientific research."


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 28, 2011)

> Yes, because using human input, intuition, and evolution of  compassion/tolerance is apparently taking a piss on a book or scripture  written thousands of years ago that couldn't even fathom what modern  life would be like.


It is hypocritical.

Why believe in this shit as true if you can just ignore parts of it?


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 28, 2011)

Wow, now people are talking about little boys sexing each other. 

I knew I should have watched another episode of GARO rather than logging back in.


----------



## Toroxus (Oct 28, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Wow, now people are talking about little boys sexing each other.



Bullshit! Nothing could be better


----------



## No.1Moose (Oct 28, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Bullshit! Nothing could be better



I didn't know Homos were pedophiles aswell


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 28, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I didn't know Homos were pedophiles aswell



only Toroxus.

and Catholic priests.

so don't generalize.


----------



## Mael (Oct 28, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> It is hypocritical.
> 
> Why believe in this shit as true if you can just ignore parts of it?



It's supposed to be more of what you get out of it rather than literal interpretation.


----------



## Watchman (Oct 28, 2011)

Basilikos said:


> Wow, now people are talking about little boys sexing each other.
> 
> I knew I should have watched another episode of GARO rather than logging back in.



Watch Karas instead. It has all the things that made GARO good, without the bad acting and cheap production value Tokusatsu seem to suffer from.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Oct 28, 2011)

In other news I'm battling for civil rights, in the name of the KKK...


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 28, 2011)

Watchman said:


> Watch Karas instead. It has all the things that made GARO good, without the bad acting and cheap production value Tokusatsu seem to suffer from.


Karas is already on my watch list. I just have not gotten to it yet.

I found GARO's acting pretty good along with the action and badassery of the show. It's a fun watch.


----------



## Mael (Oct 29, 2011)

GARO is pretty boss level...


----------



## Basilikos (Oct 29, 2011)

Yes it is. 

I'm trying to get a friend of mine IRL into it.


----------



## TatsukageX (Oct 29, 2011)

one word:

anti-Christ


----------



## mikejhonson (Nov 3, 2011)

Are they sure that wasn't former Assemblyman Mike Duvall's office number? It's getting pretty weird in Yorba Linda, even from a Pedro perspective.


----------

