Politically correct world of homosexuality & LGBTQ

[KingKhanWC]

In 74 countries in the world homosexuality is illegal.

In light of Shannon Gabriels remark to Root, people are calling out anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as being a bigot. Gabriel broke the rules and was rightly punished but he is entitled to his personal belief as others are.

Equating it to racism is also lazy and poor logic. You have a choice to be gay, there is no gay gene. People who say you are born this way cannot explain if those who a bi-sexual or indulge in incest are also born this way?

I personally know many gay people because of where I live, most are good friendly people and I have never discriminated against them or abused them in any way. What they do is between them and God in my view. It may be a sin in my faith but there are other sins which people also indulge in but we dont seem to abuse them for their actions.

People shoudln't attack gays but people shouldn't attack those who believe it's wrong either. Too much political correctness going on here.

 

[Sachin136]

You're misrepresenting the discussion from the Gabriel thread. People weren't attacking those who thought homosexuality is wrong (one can think whatever they want, no matter how disturbing it may be). What people had problems with was saying that they're degenerates because of their sexuality, that "gay apologists" shouldn't be defending them, that there's nothing wrong with these slurs because it's a part of the Carribean culture, etc.

Your argument about it being a choice is illogical. Religion is a choice. Is it fine to think that Hindus, Muslims, or atheists are inherently bad?

As far as political correctness goes, I'm a straight Republican ticket voter and am as far removed from the liberal PCness movement as possible. But homophobia in this day and age is unjustifiable.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You're misrepresenting the discussion from the Gabriel thread. People weren't attacking those who thought homosexuality is wrong (one can think whatever they want, no matter how disturbing it may be). What people had problems with was saying that they're degenerates because of their sexuality, that "gay apologists" shouldn't be defending them, that there's nothing wrong with these slurs because it's a part of the Carribean culture, etc.

Your argument about it being a choice is illogical. Religion is a choice. Is it fine to think that Hindus, Muslims, or atheists are inherently bad?

As far as political correctness goes, I'm a straight Republican ticket voter and am as far removed from the liberal PCness movement as possible. But homophobia in this day and age is unjustifiable.

I was talking in general not just regarding the thread on this forum. You do realise this has been discussed in various platforms since the incident? But even in that thread people were suggesting anyone who feels homosexuality is wrong is a bigot.

Sure if you believe religion is wrong, criticise it. Many do and we have had mainstream platforms given to the likes of Dawkins to preach their view on religion. You wont see many open debates regarding homosexuality on mainstream forums, why is this?

Having a view it is wrong is not homophobia.

 

[TM Riddle]

Homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Homosexuality is not a choice.

I respect your view bro but please prove this.

 

[JaDed]

You're misrepresenting the discussion from the Gabriel thread. People weren't attacking those who thought homosexuality is wrong (one can think whatever they want, no matter how disturbing it may be). What people had problems with was saying that they're degenerates because of their sexuality, that "gay apologists" shouldn't be defending them, that there's nothing wrong with these slurs because it's a part of the Carribean culture, etc.

Your argument about it being a choice is illogical. Religion is a choice. Is it fine to think that Hindus, Muslims, or atheists are inherently bad?

As far as political correctness goes, I'm a straight Republican ticket voter and am as far removed from the liberal PCness movement as possible. But homophobia in this day and age is unjustifiable.

So you support Mike Pence?

 

[Space Cat]

IMO if you disagree with it then sure its an internal prejudice but the world is not all black and white and most people would be lying to themselves if they didn't carry some form of prejudice against a particular lifestyle, religion etc. Its not perfect but what is in the real world? particularly when you take into account cultural, geographical or religious influences.

What i can't accept is the active discrimination of a particular lifestyle etc in the workplace, sporting field etc. Everybody should have the right to be treated like a human being.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So you support Mike Pence?

Ruined my reply.

The poster writes there is no place for homophobia yet has voted for a man(running mate) who is openly homophobic. You couldnt make this up.

IMO if you disagree with it then sure its an internal prejudice but the world is not all black and white and most people would be lying to themselves if they didn't carry some form of prejudice against a particular lifestyle, religion etc. Its not perfect but what is in the real world? particularly when you take into account cultural, geographical or religious influences.

What i can't accept is the active discrimination of a particular lifestyle etc in the workplace, sporting field etc. Everybody should have the right to be treated like a human being.

Why is disagreeing a prejudice?

 

[TSA321]

I respect your view bro but please prove this.

Do you choose to be attracted to women?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you choose to be attracted to women?

Yes. Some I find attractive, others I dont.

 

[troodon]

Out of the 74 countries, I bet most of them are Islamic Countries or Muslim majority countries.

Peoples views on gays are influenced by their religion and the culture that religion brings with it. Gays are very nice people and law abiding citizens where I live. They should be one of the last people to hate on.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Out of the 74 countries, I bet most of them are Islamic Countries or Muslim majority countries.

Peoples views on gays are influenced by their religion and the culture that religion brings with it. Gays are very nice people and law abiding citizens where I live. They should be one of the last people to hate on.

There are plenty of Christian nations too.

All gay people are nice people? What kind of daft generalisation is this?

 

[troodon]

There are plenty of Christian nations too.

All gay people are nice people? What kind of daft generalisation is this?

At least they do not go out and target people who are straight. That's a start.

On the other hand I know certain countries where gays and lesbians get thrown from the top of buildings.

 

[KingKhanWC]

At least they do not go out and target people who are straight. That's a start.

On the other hand I know certain countries where gays and lesbians get thrown from the top of buildings.

Because they are not known for ONE crime, they are all nice people?

No nation does this but only some extremists who are supported by Saudi and US. You have not raised any meaningful points so far, please try harder.

 

[Madplayer]

We are being told that LGBT community is less than 1% of total US population. Its an insignificant number and If thats the case then why is their history being taught to kids in some of the schools? What kind of B S propaganda is this where you talk to kids about sexuality against the wishes of most parents?

 

[TSA321]

Yes. Some I find attractive, others I dont.

Do you choose to find them attractive? And do you choose to not find men attractive?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you choose to find them attractive? And do you choose to not find men attractive?

If you have a point to make, please get to it.

Some women I find alluring and others not. Men I dont find alluring even though I can realise if a man is handsome or not.

I hope you will give me the same courtesy and answer truthfully. Do you find men attractive?

 

[TSA321]

If you have a point to make, please get to it.

Being straight or gay isn't a choice

Do you find men attractive?

No

 

[KingKhanWC]

Being straight or gay isn't a choice


No

Is being bi-sexual a choice? Or how about those who want relations with their children
ie incest?

Do you have any proof to offer or are you another one who can only say things without offering any evidence?

Why dont you find men attractive?

 

[Dios]

I respect your view bro but please prove this.

Do you remember the day you woke up and made the choice to be attracted to women?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you remember the day you woke up and made the choice to be attracted to women?

Not the exact day but it was at the time of primary school when I realised this girl made my heart beat a little faster.

I can go into detial about my love life history but you dont want to hear it.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic?

 

[Pakistanian]

I believe there is a gay gene according to some study, I'm very socially libertarian, so traditional but believe everybody should have the freedom do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

 

[TSA321]

Is being bi-sexual a choice?

No, neither is being asexual

Or how about those who want relations with their children
ie incest?

If they find their children attractive then that isn't a choice either.

Why dont you find men attractive?

See my previous post:

Being straight or gay isn't a choice

 

[Dios]

Yes. Some I find attractive, others I dont.

I think you have a different understanding to most people of what choice is. The question TSA321 asked is a valid one - the women you find attractive, are you making a conscious decision to be attracted to them? Or is it something from within you telling you that you are attracted to them and you don't have a say in the matter?

Is being bi-sexual a choice? Or how about those who want relations with their children
ie incest?

Do you have any proof to offer or are you another one who can only say things without offering any evidence?

Why dont you find men attractive?

As unfortunate as it is sexuality/attraction is not a matter of choice and that holds for attraction towards children and incest too. What is the broader point you are trying to make with this?

Not the exact day but it was at the time of primary school when I realised this girl made my heart beat a little faster.

I can go into detial about my love life history but you dont want to hear it.

Now do you have anything to add to the topic?

Your anecdotes are only making you contradict yourself and making me doubt that you understand what choice is.

Did you choose to make your heart beat faster upon interacting with this girl or did it just happen?

 

[light]

Is being bi-sexual a choice? Or how about those who want relations with their children
ie incest?

Do you have any proof to offer or are you another one who can only say things without offering any evidence?

Why dont you find men attractive?

Y'all throwing out being Gay is a choice. I know a lot of you guys are passionate and devoted religious people but put that aside for now. If you choose to be attracte to certain women, and choose to not be attracted to certain women, then you have a type. Just like how everysingle human being has a type. You won't get turned on by any living female that passes by or peak your interest. It's the same thing with homosexuality. Their brain gets excited when they see the same gender - even in that catagory they also have a type - black,white, asian, brown etc - but not so much when they see the opposite sex. So you mean to tell me that person sat down and trained his brain to do this? Which scientific study have you read that explains this theory of the naysayers?

Even in the animal kingdom, you find act of homosexuality.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If they find their children attractive then that isn't a choice either.

Wow! Does anyone else on here believe peodophilia is natural?

I think you have a different understanding to most people of what choice is. The question TSA321 asked is a valid one - the women you find attractive, are you making a conscious decision to be attracted to them? Or is it something from within you telling you that you are attracted to them and you don't have a say in the matter?

Its a concious decision even though it may come quickly. If I like a woman it's because I look at her face, hair, clothes , the way she carries herself etc. Having grown up around girls from all sorts of backgrounds in a liberal nation, I've never had issues talking to girls or more. Therefore I dont just see a pretty woman and turn on auto pilot. I've gone past the looks part, I see other things and only then I am attracted or not. I can understand for many esp Asians this isn't the same.

As unfortunate as it is sexuality/attraction is not a matter of choice and that holds for attraction towards children and incest too. What is the broader point you are trying to make with this?

The point is simple. If being gay is not a choice , what about bi-sexuals? Are they born to find both sexes attractive? What about those who were gay and then decided to change to being hetro?

 

[KingKhanWC]

I believe there is a gay gene according to some study, I'm very socially libertarian, so traditional but believe everybody should have the freedom do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

A new study found there is no gay gene but then suggested there may be certain genes within which make you attracted to the same sex but this is still new research and ambigious. The gay gene myth was found to be just that , a myth.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Y'all throwing out being Gay is a choice. I know a lot of you guys are passionate and devoted religious people but put that aside for now. If you choose to be attracte to certain women, and choose to not be attracted to certain women, then you have a type. Just like how everysingle human being has a type. You won't get turned on by any living female that passes by or peak your interest. It's the same thing with homosexuality. Their brain gets excited when they see the same gender - even in that catagory they also have a type - black,white, asian, brown etc - but not so much when they see the opposite sex. So you mean to tell me that person sat down and trained his brain to do this? Which scientific study have you read that explains this theory of the naysayers?

Even in the animal kingdom, you find act of homosexuality.

Some spiders kill their mates to find other mates.

The male lion will kill his own cubs when he feels threatened.

The pig will eat it's own excrement even if it's not hungry.

I could go on but the point is we are not like other animals which is why we are far more intelligent than the rest of them.

 

[RickyG]

You may argue that homosexuality is deviant behaviour and you may believe that it should be outlawed. But you still can't use it as a slur. It's as simple as that.

Some people believe Islam is religion of war. They can believe that but they can't go around calling every Muslim a terrorist. That becomes hate speech.


It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

[Sachin136]

So you support Mike Pence?

There exists no party where every senator, congressman, president, vice president, etc is perfect.

 

[slipcatch]

There exists no party where every senator, congressman, president, vice president, etc is perfect.

What?

Both are on a mission to destroy anything that has to do with homosexuality.

But you have a problem with some random person out of 7 billion being homophhobic.

Some of the republicans are just on another level of craziness.

 

[slipcatch]

What?

Both are on a mission to destroy anything that has to do with homosexuality.

But you have a problem with some random person out of 7 billion being homophhobic.

Some of the republicans are just on another level of craziness.

Correction.

Trumpster are on another level of craziness to defend anything that they do.

There are plenty of sane republican who aren’t happy with both

 

[KingKhanWC]

There exists no party where every senator, congressman, president, vice president, etc is perfect.

Mike Pence was running for Vice President. If Trump at any time becomes incapable, Pence will be Commander & Cheif, the most powerful man on the planet.

You wrote "But homophobia in this day and age is unjustifiable"

I apologise for reading into this too much, I thought you were very much against homophobia as there is no justification to defend it or approve of anyone who preaches it. Clearly not.

 

[Yossarian]

Homosexuality is not a choice.

I never studied biology at school, so forgive me if my knowledge is limited on the topic of why evolution has resulted in human males having evolved such that their sexual organs have evolved in the way they are, and similarly for females. I was under the impression, wrongly of course, that 'sexual desire / attraction', the urge to copulate with the opposite sex (hence the way the respective sexual organs have evolved), orgasm etc was, in evolutionary terms, natures way of ensuring that reproduction takes place. And in that regard, in terms of evolution, how does (homosexual) males being sexually attracted to males, and females to females, fits that evolutionary need? Of course if it's an aberration, or a deformity / disability, then that would explain it.

Medical science has already evolved to the point whereby it's possible to pinpoint different genes that, for example, determine your physical traits. or areas of the brain that perform different functions, such as speech, sight, thought processes (including differentiating between areas that are for deductive logic and reasoning versus others that are for creative thought). In that regard, is there anything similar in biological terms that indicates that a person is homosexual or heterosexual?

I ask because, being a logical person, one could be forgiven for thinking that if homosexuality is not a choice, then it must be genetic. And if so, has any proof been found thus far?

 

[tonmoy]

In 74 countries in the world homosexuality is illegal.

In light of Shannon Gabriels remark to Root, people are calling out anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as being a bigot. Gabriel broke the rules and was rightly punished but he is entitled to his personal belief as others are.

Equating it to racism is also lazy and poor logic. You have a choice to be gay, there is no gay gene. People who say you are born this way cannot explain if those who a bi-sexual or indulge in incest are also born this way?

I personally know many gay people because of where I live, most are good friendly people and I have never discriminated against them or abused them in any way. What they do is between them and God in my view. It may be a sin in my faith but there are other sins which people also indulge in but we dont seem to abuse them for their actions.

People shoudln't attack gays but people shouldn't attack those who believe it's wrong either. Too much political correctness going on here.

IF you think being Homesexual is a choice... Than you have to be a bi-sexual yourself.

Thanks for coming out of the closet.

 

[KingKhanWC]

IF you think being Homesexual is a choice... Than you have to be a bi-sexual yourself.

Thanks for coming out of the closet.

Do I choose to be bi-sexual too? You're describing a magic wadrobe rather than any closet.

 

[ElRaja]

I never studied biology at school, so forgive me if my knowledge is limited on the topic of why evolution has resulted in human males having evolved such that their sexual organs have evolved in the way they are, and similarly for females. I was under the impression, wrongly of course, that 'sexual desire / attraction', the urge to copulate with the opposite sex (hence the way the respective sexual organs have evolved), orgasm etc was, in evolutionary terms, natures way of ensuring that reproduction takes place. And in that regard, in terms of evolution, how does (homosexual) males being sexually attracted to males, and females to females, fits that evolutionary need? Of course if it's an aberration, or a deformity / disability, then that would explain it.

Medical science has already evolved to the point whereby it's possible to pinpoint different genes that, for example, determine your physical traits. or areas of the brain that perform different functions, such as speech, sight, thought processes (including differentiating between areas that are for deductive logic and reasoning versus others that are for creative thought). In that regard, is there anything similar in biological terms that indicates that a person is homosexual or heterosexual?

I ask because, being a logical person, one could be forgiven for thinking that if homosexuality is not a choice, then it must be genetic. And if so, has any proof been found thus far?

one does not require a purely genetic explanation to disqualify homosexuality as being a choice, there is much in our lives as children we are not in control of that may or may not affect sexual orientation, it is scientifically impossible to gather such "nurture" data in an objective and controlled way to make a conclusion.

there is some peripheral evidence for gay genetic biases, but nothing considered scientifically watertight afaik. if i was to bet on it, i would say like most things in life its a mixture of nature, nurture and choices. fwiw i cant fathom why a straight dude would choose to be gay. i can totally understand why some women on the other hand are attracted to each other.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Its not politically correct to treat people as human beings.

Ignoring this debate over whether its a choice or not, it harms nobody.

Nobody is suggesting you should love the practice or encourage it, but to accept that some people are wired differently to you and like different things, and to accept them for who they are and treat them no differently for it.

And no, telling gay people you disagree with them is not being polite, its an insanely insulting move. Like me telling every Muslim I knew I disagree with their religion,its just bad.

Live and let live, it hurts nobody, theyve been treated horrendously for millenia unjustly, be mature and accept that human beings are different.

 

[tonmoy]

Do I choose to be bi-sexual too? You're describing a magic wadrobe rather than any closet.

Do u not understand simple logic...

If you think Homosexuality is a choice, than by definition of "choice", a person is attracted to both sex but choosing one over the other. If one is attracted to both sex than that person is bi-sexual by definition...

Since you think it is a choice than that means you simply choose a woman over a man but you are attracted to both sexes..

U r a bi sexual....

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do u not understand simple logic...

If you think Homosexuality is a choice, than by definition of "choice", a person is attracted to both sex but choosing one over the other. If one is attracted to both sex than that person is bi-sexual by definition...

Since you think it is a choice than that means you simply choose a woman over a man but you are attracted to both sexes..

U r a bi sexual....

lol. Ironic. I've heard some arguments but never came across this amusement.

Choosing a woman over a man is a choice of one because the way men look ,their body, their stubble, nasal hair has no attraction for me.

What you're saying is there is NO choice, you are attracted to both but choose one over the other. So the choice is only of choosing who at this time pleases you.

I doubt you will understand this with what you have written.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its not politically correct to treat people as human beings.

Ignoring this debate over whether its a choice or not, it harms nobody.

Nobody is suggesting you should love the practice or encourage it, but to accept that some people are wired differently to you and like different things, and to accept them for who they are and treat them no differently for it.

And no, telling gay people you disagree with them is not being polite, its an insanely insulting move. Like me telling every Muslim I knew I disagree with their religion,its just bad.

Live and let live, it hurts nobody, theyve been treated horrendously for millenia unjustly, be mature and accept that human beings are different.

Plenty do and Muslims have got used to this. If it's acceptable to debate if Islam is wrong , then why isn't it acceptable to debate homosexuality is wrong? You dont see this on mainstream media.

 

[light]

Some spiders kill their mates to find other mates.

The male lion will kill his own cubs when he feels threatened.

The pig will eat it's own excrement even if it's not hungry.

I could go on but the point is we are not like other animals which is why we are far more intelligent than the rest of them.

When you run out of actual argument, start to bring in stuffs that are irrelevant to the conversation. Bravo! When you base your belief on religion, ofcorse you would think that. Infact, scientist are working on transfering a pigs heart to a humans to see if that person can stay alive. Rip your carcase apart, you have a heart, the pig has a heart, you have an anus, so does the pig. You're an animal with a bigger brain, so is the pig, but with a much smaller brain who can feel pain and emotions just like a human.

When you actually have a proper counter argument to what I have said regarding homosexulity instead of trying to divert it to some other subcatagory of discussion, I'll be waiting to give you a reply.

 

[aloo paratha]

Its not politically correct to treat people as human beings.

Ignoring this debate over whether its a choice or not, it harms nobody.

Nobody is suggesting you should love the practice or encourage it, but to accept that some people are wired differently to you and like different things, and to accept them for who they are and treat them no differently for it.

And no, telling gay people you disagree with them is not being polite, its an insanely insulting move. Like me telling every Muslim I knew I disagree with their religion,its just bad.

Live and let live, it hurts nobody, theyve been treated horrendously for millenia unjustly, be mature and accept that human beings are different.

If you were to say this to me, I would not be offended in the slightest. You do you buddy. You have the right to your own opinion, just as i have the right to mine. I wouldn't force you to believe that Islamic ideology is correct (which is my opinion), just as I expect you not to force homosexuality upon me (which is your opinion).

I know gay people. I do not like homosexuality, but I still live among those people. They live their lives, I live mine. When we have to coexist, I am not rude to them. As you said, they are not affecting me, however that does not stop me from formulating an opinion.

 

[aloo paratha]

When you run out of actual argument, start to bring in stuffs that are irrelevant to the conversation. Bravo! When you base your belief on religion, ofcorse you would think that. Infact, scientist are working on transfering a pigs heart to a humans to see if that person can stay alive. Rip your carcase apart, you have a heart, the pig has a heart, you have an anus, so does the pig. You're an animal with a bigger brain, so is the pig, but with a much smaller brain who can feel pain and emotions just like a human.

When you actually have a proper counter argument to what I have said regarding homosexulity instead of trying to divert it to some other subcatagory of discussion, I'll be waiting to give you a reply.

A man has a heart. A woman has a heart. A man has 2 arms and 2 legs. A woman has 2 arms and 2 legs. So by your logic, men and women are the same? Things aren't different between the sexes?

 

[Balthazar]

Why would people choose to become a gay if they had a choice? They had come to know about it very early in their age and I don't think you are mature enough to make decisions let alone know anything about sexuality at that point of time. This is just natural and it's about time people look beyond their religious point of view. If other cultures can accept this, then there's no right or wrong about it. It just depends on your mentality.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

I think people are blurring the line between "disagreement" and "hate"

I have total disagreement with homosexuality. I can't hate any homosexual for it because it is their CHOICE, their decision and their opinion.

I'm totally against homosexuality but that's my opinion.
There is no need for me to shove it down anyone's throat because its a free world.
Similarly, there is no need for mainstream media/culture/politics to force me to agree with homosexuality.

What I can't understand is why is every workplace/educational institution trying to encourage/normalise homosexuality. Why are they forcing their opinion of homosexuality on me?

And for those who want to point out that I don't agree with homosexuality only because of my faith then they're wrong. Yes, faith is part of the reason but for me anything which goes against nature is morally incorrect and I say that because obviously our bodies aren't meant to work that way hence the reason why homosexuals can't reproduce.

 

[Madplayer]

Homosexuality and current day intense feminism, if allowed to flourish, together can potrntially cause demographic changes which would be detrimental to society's and economy's progress over a period of time.

 

[light]

A man has a heart. A woman has a heart. A man has 2 arms and 2 legs. A woman has 2 arms and 2 legs. So by your logic, men and women are the same? Things aren't different between the sexes?

What does your post has to do with what I was debating with him originaly? Infact your post makes less sense than mr Khan's. Explain.

 

[BlackShadow]

Plenty do and Muslims have got used to this. If it's acceptable to debate if Islam is wrong , then why isn't it acceptable to debate homosexuality is wrong? You dont see this on mainstream media.

You think Gabriel was debating Root over homosexuality?

Debate on Islam or homosexuality isn't wrong, what's wrong is people getting insult for the way they choose to live their life.

 

[BlackShadow]

Homosexuality and current day intense feminism, if allowed to flourish, together can potrntially cause demographic changes which would be detrimental to society's and economy's progress over a period of time.

A lot of things if allowed to flourish can cause changes detrimental to society, certain religions included.

Why be harsh homosexuals while proudly propagating bigger threats?

 

[Madplayer]

A lot of things if allowed to flourish can cause changes detrimental to society, certain religions included.

Why be harsh homosexuals while proudly propagating bigger threats?

Yes but homosexuality directly attacks your population growth (obviously over a period of time and if its allowed to flourish). Also, current day feminism has created a confrontational relationship between men and women with women (and MGTOW men) increasingly wanting to stay single and not have kids etc. These two together are clear cut threats to society's foundations.

On a side note, sociologically speaking, i believe our ancestors did learn from mistakes and it wasnt a coincidence that they condemned homosexuality. There must have been long term ill effects of it which caused them to ban it far and wide.

 

[Robert]

In 74 countries in the world homosexuality is illegal.

In light of Shannon Gabriels remark to Root, people are calling out anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as being a bigot. Gabriel broke the rules and was rightly punished but he is entitled to his personal belief as others are.

Equating it to racism is also lazy and poor logic. You have a choice to be gay, there is no gay gene.

If sexuality is a choice, why did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

When I was young, I did a reasearch.

I mated a black male cat with a black female cat, and I found they had children that were black and I knew that the cats had not cheated.

Then I mated a black male cat with a white female cat, and imagine my surprise that she had more black cats than white cats as offspring.

My interest was piqued.

I decided to go further. Why are cats generally non-violent while Tigers have more aggressive genes and lions even more so.

I wanted the same aggressive gene for my cats. So I decided to try to mate the cat with a tiger. But no matter what I tried, the cat wasn't merely ready to mate with a female tiger. It wanted a female cat.

I realized the futility of my experiments and started to reasearch some more on the aggressive gene.

I found it was dominant, but it could be in either the male cat or the female cat depending on the genetic makeup.

I decided to mate the black male cat with a black male cat to create a super violent cat. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried the mating wasn't possible.

The cats were infertile and refused to bear an offspring for me.

Sad beyond belief, I thought perhaps it was a problem with the male cats, and I tried many other male cats.

But all male cats seemed to be attracted to female cats. Not one male cat was interested in another male cat.

It taught me a valuable lesson in life.

Nature has its way of reproduction of species by male and female attraction and by letting nature take its due course. If you interfere with the natural process, you won't be able to make much of it, and it will harm you in the long run.

If being "gay" and "lesbian" is not acceptable to animals, then why has man chose the strange path which cannot even render them fertile? Sure, you could argue there are test tubes now by which "gay" and "lesbian" couples could have children, but they still need those famous "egg and sperm donors" to achieve their nihilistic pleasures.

Man is undoubtedly very arrogant and thankless. He continuously interferes in nature's due course and 200 years later finds that "it was not beneficial at all in the long run."

The same defenders of "homos" would walk the other way if it was discovered at a later stage by science that "it leads to cancerous destruction of the society."

Do you say why one should be against them? Why should not be one against an evil of the society? You are against murder, rape, stealing, pedophilia and all other 1000 crimes of the community. You consider "homos" as a way of life when instead "they are causing the same destruction of the society as any pedophiliac or rapist is."

Its just that science is too young to understand, and people are too stubborn to accept something as harmful till "they find probable evidence otherwise."

But that has why thousands of societies have decimated and will continue to do so in the future.

Yes, I will call out gays and lesbians and continue to do so because I believe it is evil.

And I am not ashamed to do so.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yes but homosexuality directly attacks your population growth (obviously over a period of time and if its allowed to flourish). Also, current day feminism has created a confrontational relationship between men and women with women (and MGTOW men) increasingly wanting to stay single and not have kids etc. These two together are clear cut threats to society's foundations.

On a side note, sociologically speaking, i believe our ancestors did learn from mistakes and it wasnt a coincidence that they condemned homosexuality. There must have been long term ill effects of it which caused them to ban it far and wide.

Herein lies the problem when you decide to view things from your own ethnocentric perspective. There are plenty of tribes in the world which allow homosexuality and sometimes even encourage it.
Why do you think their ancestors didn't have this moment of epiphany like yours and mine had?

 

[Robert]

If being "gay" and "lesbian" is not acceptable to animals, then why has man chose the strange path which cannot even render them fertile? Sure, you could argue there are test tubes now by which "gay" and "lesbian" couples could have children, but they still need those famous "egg and sperm donors" to achieve their nihilistic pleasures.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed by the zoologists in 150 different species. Interestingly, it is more common in the more advanced animals such as apes and dolphins. Male Bonobos will give each other sexual favours in return for sharing of food.

There would appear to be some evolutionary advantage to homosexual behaviour - perhaps increasing the conhesiveness of a tribe of animals instead of weakening it with violence. Better to have sex with each other than kill each other and reduce or even end the tribe.

 

[Madplayer]

Herein lies the problem when you decide to view things from your own ethnocentric perspective. There are plenty of tribes in the world which allow homosexuality and sometimes even encourage it.
Why do you think their ancestors didn't have this moment of epiphany like yours and mine had?

There is no ethnocentricism here. Just that these minor tribes are restricted to little areas and are not a good enough sample size. When civilizations spread far and wide, then the problems become more apparent and society begins to see what changes need to be made.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Homosexual behaviour has been observed by the zoologists in 150 different species. Interestingly, it is more common in the more advanced animals such as apes and dolphins. Male Bonobos will give each other sexual favours in return for sharing of food.

There would appear to be some evolutionary advantage to homosexual behaviour - perhaps increasing the conhesiveness of a tribe of animals instead of weakening it with violence. Better to have sex with each other than kill each other and reduce or even end the tribe.

Not to the point of reproduction of species.

What you are saying is in the words of Simon LeVay "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities"

 

[TM Riddle]

There is no ethnocentricism here. Just that these minor tribes are restricted to little areas and are not a good enough sample size. When civilizations spread far and wide, then the problems become more apparent and society begins to see what changes need to be made.

What is this "apparent" problem you are talking about?
Also , Due to globalization, civilization has spread even far wide, why do you think the world is reverting to accepting Homosexuals then if that was the case?

 

[Madplayer]

Not to the point of reproduction of species.

What you are saying is in the words of Simon LeVay "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities"

It is seen in animals when there is lack of opposite sex among their population. For example female seagulls try to mate with each other when there are fewer male seagulls. If both sexes are available in equal numbers, homosexual behaviour becomes negligible anyway.

 

[Madplayer]

What is this "apparent" problem you are talking about?
Also , Due to globalization, civilization has spread even far wide, why do you think the world is reverting to accepting Homosexuals then if that was the case?

I mentioned a few apparent problems above already. There might be other bigger problems which can come up also but we will only know if it spreads far and wide (and i think our ancestors went through these problems before banning it).

World is reverting to homosexuality because we have short memories and anything goes in the name of freedom these days. Why is world slowly reverting to right wing politics?

 

[TM Riddle]

I mentioned a few apparent problems above already. There might be other bigger problems which can come up also but we will only know if it spreads far and wide (and i think our ancestors went through these problems before banning it).

World is reverting to homosexuality because we have short memories and anything goes in the name of freedom these days. Why is world slowly reverting to right wing politics?

Loads of assumptions and 'ifs' and 'buts' in your post.
And a big lol at comparing a type of political ideology with a biological phenomenon. If you are going to beat around the bush by bringing irrelevant examples and crackpot theories , I don't think I will be wasting my time any more with you.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Loads of assumptions and 'ifs' and 'buts' in your post.
And a big lol at comparing a type of political ideology with a biological phenomenon. If you are going to beat around the bush by bringing irrelevant examples and crackpot theories , I don't think I will be wasting my time any more with you.

Is not a biological phenomenon in humans.

Much as you would like to believe that "homosexuals" don't have a choice.

 

[TM Riddle]

Is not a biological phenomenon in humans.

Much as you would like to believe that "homosexuals" don't have a choice.

And I should take your word because?
You are the one who categorically rejected Big Bang and various other scientific principles going so far as to laugh and ridicule at them.
I don't think you even understand what 'science' exactly means and hence my questions on the validity of your doctor degree.

 

[Space Cat]

When I was young, I did a reasearch.

I mated a black male cat with a black female cat, and I found they had children that were black and I knew that the cats had not cheated.

Then I mated a black male cat with a white female cat, and imagine my surprise that she had more black cats than white cats as offspring.

My interest was piqued.

I decided to go further. Why are cats generally non-violent while Tigers have more aggressive genes and lions even more so.

I wanted the same aggressive gene for my cats. So I decided to try to mate the cat with a tiger. But no matter what I tried, the cat wasn't merely ready to mate with a female tiger. It wanted a female cat.

I realized the futility of my experiments and started to reasearch some more on the aggressive gene.

I found it was dominant, but it could be in either the male cat or the female cat depending on the genetic makeup.

I decided to mate the black male cat with a black male cat to create a super violent cat. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried the mating wasn't possible.

The cats were infertile and refused to bear an offspring for me.

Sad beyond belief, I thought perhaps it was a problem with the male cats, and I tried many other male cats.

But all male cats seemed to be attracted to female cats. Not one male cat was interested in another male cat.

It taught me a valuable lesson in life.

Nature has its way of reproduction of species by male and female attraction and by letting nature take its due course. If you interfere with the natural process, you won't be able to make much of it, and it will harm you in the long run.

If being "gay" and "lesbian" is not acceptable to animals, then why has man chose the strange path which cannot even render them fertile? Sure, you could argue there are test tubes now by which "gay" and "lesbian" couples could have children, but they still need those famous "egg and sperm donors" to achieve their nihilistic pleasures.

Man is undoubtedly very arrogant and thankless. He continuously interferes in nature's due course and 200 years later finds that "it was not beneficial at all in the long run."

The same defenders of "homos" would walk the other way if it was discovered at a later stage by science that "it leads to cancerous destruction of the society."

Do you say why one should be against them? Why should not be one against an evil of the society? You are against murder, rape, stealing, pedophilia and all other 1000 crimes of the community. You consider "homos" as a way of life when instead "they are causing the same destruction of the society as any pedophiliac or rapist is."

Its just that science is too young to understand, and people are too stubborn to accept something as harmful till "they find probable evidence otherwise."

But that has why thousands of societies have decimated and will continue to do so in the future.

Yes, I will call out gays and lesbians and continue to do so because I believe it is evil.

And I am not ashamed to do so.

Wait, you tried mating tigers with domestic house cats?

Questionable hobbies.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

And I should take your word because?
You are the one who categorically rejected Big Bang and various other scientific principles going so far as to laugh and ridicule at them.
I don't think you even understand what 'science' exactly means and hence my questions on the validity of your doctor degree.

I rejected "Big Bang" as per se.

Can you prove that Big Bang occurred billions of years ago ? The burden of proof is always on someone making the claim. You can't prove that "Big Bang" occurred thousands of years ago, but you can only "theorize" it.

And theories are fallible. Just like it was theorized that Earth was center of the Universe before "Copernicus" laid death to that claim. Many others would have laughed at the time when he claimed otherwise, so that's why I don't take you seriously when you say "Big Bang" must have occurred as there is no "proof of it except a few redundant and outdated theories".

However, there is proof of religion in the form of Holy Book which has been translated down over 1400 years ago without any change. You might disagree with the "Holy" part which is fine (everyone has different thoughts) but at least I can show you proof that this is my word.

Where is your proof for "Big Bang" ? A couple of scientific experiments that are not "end and be all?"

You shouldn't take my word for "homosexuality" as a biological phenomenon but you should obviously consider that the first person on the planet was Adam and the second person on the planet was "Eve" a female.

If you agree with the above statement, I can almost prove to you that "homosexuality" is not a biological phenomenon in humans but a trait acquired because of conditions and surroundings and circumstances.

Interested?

Let me know.

 

[Robert]

I rejected "Big Bang" as per se.

Can you prove that Big Bang occurred billions of years ago ? The burden of proof is always on someone making the claim. You can't prove that "Big Bang" occurred thousands of years ago, but you can only "theorize" it.

And theories are fallible. Just like it was theorized that Earth was center of the Universe before "Copernicus" laid death to that claim. Many others would have laughed at the time when he claimed otherwise, so that's why I don't take you seriously when you say "Big Bang" must have occurred as there is no "proof of it except a few redundant and outdated theories".

However, there is proof of religion in the form of Holy Book which has been translated down over 1400 years ago without any change. You might disagree with the "Holy" part which is fine (everyone has different thoughts) but at least I can show you proof that this is my word.

Where is your proof for "Big Bang" ? A couple of scientific experiments that are not "end and be all?"

You shouldn't take my word for "homosexuality" as a biological phenomenon but you should obviously consider that the first person on the planet was Adam and the second person on the planet was "Eve" a female.

If you agree with the above statement, I can almost prove to you that "homosexuality" is not a biological phenomenon in humans but a trait acquired because of conditions and surroundings and circumstances.

Interested?

Let me know.

I have already mentioned the two pieces of corroborating evidence for Big Bang.

Were I a mathematician I could show you Hawking’s and Penrose’s proof of same.

 

[TM Riddle]

I rejected "Big Bang" as per se.

Can you prove that Big Bang occurred billions of years ago ? The burden of proof is always on someone making the claim. You can't prove that "Big Bang" occurred thousands of years ago, but you can only "theorize" it.

And theories are fallible. Just like it was theorized that Earth was center of the Universe before "Copernicus" laid death to that claim. Many others would have laughed at the time when he claimed otherwise, so that's why I don't take you seriously when you say "Big Bang" must have occurred as there is no "proof of it except a few redundant and outdated theories".

However, there is proof of religion in the form of Holy Book which has been translated down over 1400 years ago without any change. You might disagree with the "Holy" part which is fine (everyone has different thoughts) but at least I can show you proof that this is my word.

Where is your proof for "Big Bang" ? A couple of scientific experiments that are not "end and be all?"

You shouldn't take my word for "homosexuality" as a biological phenomenon but you should obviously consider that the first person on the planet was Adam and the second person on the planet was "Eve" a female.

If you agree with the above statement, I can almost prove to you that "homosexuality" is not a biological phenomenon in humans but a trait acquired because of conditions and surroundings and circumstances.

Interested?

Let me know.

I'm honestly shocked and bewildered that you can't tell apart the simple distinction between the colloquial and scientific use of the word "theory" despite claiming to be a man of science!

Learn to understand the definitions of and differences between a scientific law, a hypothesis, and a theory.

In science a theory doesn't mean a hunch or guess like we tend to associate it in our regular conversation language. Thus for instance various pop culture fan 'theories' cannot be called as scientific theories.

In science a theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.

Re Big Bang , there are plenty of scholarly articles and research on the subject which corroborates it's findings. You can all find them with one simple Google search. Scientists all over the world unanimously accept it and it's safe to assume that they know more about the subject than two noobs on a cricket forum.

Listen bud I don't care about Islam or the Adam Eve myth. Give the proselytizing a break fgs.

 

[IMMY69]

I respect your view bro but please prove this.

The question of whether it is a choice or not is something I have given a lot of thought to especially in my teens and early 20's and my own life experiences have brought me to the conclusion that it is not a choice.

I have had the experience of at least one close friend who suffered trying to suppress his true self.
The shame he felt during his teens and how he tried to live a heterosexual life until he came close to ending it. Trust me he did not have a choice. The easy option for him would have been to get married (which he did initially), have kids with his wife (which thankfully he didn't) and live a normal heterosexual life.

Brought up in a strict Muslim family, played sports and actually had a choice of any girl he wanted. To everyone he was a real man's man. So the conclusion I made was that it was Nature over Nurture and actually people don't have a choice.

 

[IMMY69]

When I was young, I did a reasearch.

I mated a black male cat with a black female cat, and I found they had children that were black and I knew that the cats had not cheated.

Then I mated a black male cat with a white female cat, and imagine my surprise that she had more black cats than white cats as offspring.

My interest was piqued.

I decided to go further. Why are cats generally non-violent while Tigers have more aggressive genes and lions even more so.

I wanted the same aggressive gene for my cats. So I decided to try to mate the cat with a tiger. But no matter what I tried, the cat wasn't merely ready to mate with a female tiger. It wanted a female cat.

I realized the futility of my experiments and started to reasearch some more on the aggressive gene.

I found it was dominant, but it could be in either the male cat or the female cat depending on the genetic makeup.

I decided to mate the black male cat with a black male cat to create a super violent cat. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I tried the mating wasn't possible.

The cats were infertile and refused to bear an offspring for me.

Sad beyond belief, I thought perhaps it was a problem with the male cats, and I tried many other male cats.

But all male cats seemed to be attracted to female cats. Not one male cat was interested in another male cat.

It taught me a valuable lesson in life.

Nature has its way of reproduction of species by male and female attraction and by letting nature take its due course. If you interfere with the natural process, you won't be able to make much of it, and it will harm you in the long run.

If being "gay" and "lesbian" is not acceptable to animals, then why has man chose the strange path which cannot even render them fertile? Sure, you could argue there are test tubes now by which "gay" and "lesbian" couples could have children, but they still need those famous "egg and sperm donors" to achieve their nihilistic pleasures.

Man is undoubtedly very arrogant and thankless. He continuously interferes in nature's due course and 200 years later finds that "it was not beneficial at all in the long run."

The same defenders of "homos" would walk the other way if it was discovered at a later stage by science that "it leads to cancerous destruction of the society."

Do you say why one should be against them? Why should not be one against an evil of the society? You are against murder, rape, stealing, pedophilia and all other 1000 crimes of the community. You consider "homos" as a way of life when instead "they are causing the same destruction of the society as any pedophiliac or rapist is."

Its just that science is too young to understand, and people are too stubborn to accept something as harmful till "they find probable evidence otherwise."

But that has why thousands of societies have decimated and will continue to do so in the future.

Yes, I will call out gays and lesbians and continue to do so because I believe it is evil.

And I am not ashamed to do so.

What a complete load of hogwash.

I have seen animals of the same sex going at it with each other so how do you explain this?

On the other side of this "Nature" argument, you could say the world is now overly populated and perhaps the right thing to do is to have a bit more of the same sex relationships. Perhaps this is the cure?

 

[Robert]

The question of whether it is a choice or not is something I have given a lot of thought to especially in my teens and early 20's and my own life experiences have brought me to the conclusion that it is not a choice.

I have had the experience of at least one close friend who suffered trying to suppress his true self.
The shame he felt during his teens and how he tried to live a heterosexual life until he came close to ending it. Trust me he did not have a choice. The easy option for him would have been to get married (which he did initially), have kids with his wife (which thankfully he didn't) and live a normal heterosexual life.

Brought up in a strict Muslim family, played sports and actually had a choice of any girl he wanted. To everyone he was a real man's man. So the conclusion I made was that it was Nature over Nurture and actually people don't have a choice.

A sad tale and one which is all too common among more conservative Christian communities.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am sure there are more people who are predisposed to homosexuality than others, I think these could be physical or genetic, don't really have a problem with it. I am not a fan of treating it as something which is desirable in society though and have not seen much to change my mind on this. I think once you start promoting it you can influence those who might never have thought of it previously.

That said, I live in Britain where the good people have decided it is fine, so if the decision is to start teaching in schools that it is perfectly ok to have two dads or mums, then I am not going to argue. If my kids ever asked me for my opinion, I'd just tell them homosexuality is an anomaly, not the norm but society has accepted it as the norm so our views are strictly our own.

 

[tonmoy]

The question of whether it is a choice or not is something I have given a lot of thought to especially in my teens and early 20's and my own life experiences have brought me to the conclusion that it is not a choice.

I have had the experience of at least one close friend who suffered trying to suppress his true self.
The shame he felt during his teens and how he tried to live a heterosexual life until he came close to ending it. Trust me he did not have a choice. The easy option for him would have been to get married (which he did initially), have kids with his wife (which thankfully he didn't) and live a normal heterosexual life.

Brought up in a strict Muslim family, played sports and actually had a choice of any girl he wanted. To everyone he was a real man's man. So the conclusion I made was that it was Nature over Nurture and actually people don't have a choice.

People should just read about the fate of Alan turing.

 

[Madplayer]

Loads of assumptions and 'ifs' and 'buts' in your post.

Ifs and buts are part of the discussion everywhere. Just by mentioning that there are many ifs and buts in my post doesnt make my post nonsense or irrelevant. And i am not affirming the consequent when i use ifs and buts.

And a big lol at comparing a type of political ideology with a biological phenomenon. If you are going to beat around the bush by bringing irrelevant examples and crackpot theories , I don't think I will be wasting my time any more with you.

I dont think you understood the point that i was trying to make. First of all i wasnt equating biology with politics. So idk why you said that. You asked why the world is reverting to homosexuality after abandoning it. I said human beings in collectivity have a short memory and an example of it is that we are reverting to right wing politics after abandoning it in the aftermath of world wars. I was talking purely about behaviour of humans. If you feel this is a waste of time for you, then you are free to ignore my posts.

 

[tonmoy]

lol. Ironic. I've heard some arguments but never came across this amusement.

Choosing a woman over a man is a choice of one because the way men look ,their body, their stubble, nasal hair has no attraction for me.

What you're saying is there is NO choice, you are attracted to both but choose one over the other. So the choice is only of choosing who at this time pleases you.

I doubt you will understand this with what you have written.

You do not even understand simple logic..

Anyways, since Islam (and other religion) deems it to be a crime, so it is the job of Islam to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Homosexuality is a choice ,hence criminal, although that still makes little sense. The burden to provide proof lies on those who call it a crime.
So what proof do you have?

In nature Dolphins , penguins and even chimps show homosexual behavior.

 

[Robert]

People should just read about the fate of Alan turing.

The treatment of Turing was a national shame, after he shortened WW2 by two years and save untold lives.

 

[RickyG]

I rejected "Big Bang" as per se.

Can you prove that Big Bang occurred billions of years ago ? The burden of proof is always on someone making the claim. You can't prove that "Big Bang" occurred thousands of years ago, but you can only "theorize" it.

And theories are fallible. Just like it was theorized that Earth was center of the Universe before "Copernicus" laid death to that claim. Many others would have laughed at the time when he claimed otherwise, so that's why I don't take you seriously when you say "Big Bang" must have occurred as there is no "proof of it except a few redundant and outdated theories".

However, there is proof of religion in the form of Holy Book which has been translated down over 1400 years ago without any change. You might disagree with the "Holy" part which is fine (everyone has different thoughts) but at least I can show you proof that this is my word.

Where is your proof for "Big Bang" ? A couple of scientific experiments that are not "end and be all?"

You shouldn't take my word for "homosexuality" as a biological phenomenon but you should obviously consider that the first person on the planet was Adam and the second person on the planet was "Eve" a female.

If you agree with the above statement, I can almost prove to you that "homosexuality" is not a biological phenomenon in humans but a trait acquired because of conditions and surroundings and circumstances.

Interested?

Let me know.

What the fudge did I just read?

Your proof is your word?

Are you a hippie doctor?

"Run tests? I don't need to run tests, my proof is my word and you have a common cold"

*Meanwhile patient dies from tuberculosis*

 

[tonmoy]

What the fudge did I just read?

Your proof is your word?

Are you a hippie doctor?

"Run tests? I don't need to run tests, my proof is my word and you have a common cold"

*Meanwhile patient dies from tuberculosis*

When I read DrBassim's post, I was thinking the same thing.... what the heck is he talking about?

What does he expect? someone with a camera to record big bang as it happened?

I am not sure if he ever heard of background radiation

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You do not even understand simple logic..

Anyways, since Islam (and other religion) deems it to be a crime, so it is the job of Islam to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Homosexuality is a choice ,hence criminal, although that still makes little sense. The burden to provide proof lies on those who call it a crime.
So what proof do you have?

In nature Dolphins , penguins and even chimps show homosexual behavior.

You can give a job to Islam to provide proof of their theory, but there is no burden unless the public of an Islamic country demand changes to the law. Until homosexuals demand their rights like they did in the western world, all the righteous lectures on the internet will mean little. Change almost always comes from within, perhaps in the connected world it might come quicker than in previous times. Although that can go the other way as well as we have seen with the surge of right wing nationalism.

 

[James]

[MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] nailed it.

 

[topspin]

1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.