Politically correct world of homosexuality & LGBTQ

[JaDed]

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.

What's the 5th point again?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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.

Must admit, the Indians I know are also not very accommodating of homosexuality, they are generally still very family oriented and I don't know any who would welcome their sons or daughters taking up a same sex partner. That said, things may change, one of the reasons I always take a distant interest in Bollywood to see if there is a shift towards a more accepting culture.

 

[tonmoy]

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.

STD is a homosexual problem? Heterosexuals do not get STD?
The higher rate is simply because of not using protection (as there is no probability of pregnancy).

 

[RickyG]

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.

1. Sure, freedom of speech.

2. Dr Bassim is not being harassed. His credentials are being questioned because he took logic behind the barn and shot it through the head instead of applying it to any argument he may have.

3. Some of the African countries have the highest HIV rates from having heterosexual intercourse. It's not exclusive to homosexuals. Safe sex is the answer to that.

4. As far as I know, safe sex is encouraged anywhere that sex-ed is taught. Your paranoia seems to be about STD's though not homosexuality. Once again, STDs are not exclusive to homosexuals.

5. You were actually doing okay until this point. Homosexual practices are prevalent in all countries, rich or poor. But perhaps you'd care to provide examples or elaborate? Here's a counter-example: gay marriage is legal in Canada and it's doing comparatively better than countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc where homosexuality is illegal and punished severely.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Homosexuality is 'natural'? I'm sure many arguments could be made in terms of explaining homosexuality, but I doubt that nature intended it that way is one of them.

Otherwise how about trying to enlighten me vis-a-vis my earlier post?

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?

 

[aloo paratha]

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.

You say that a pig has a heart, and so does a man. That the pig has an anus, and so do we. Based off that, you are saying that animals and humans are similar enough to the point where you used it as an argument for homosexuality among humans.

 

[Robert]

You say that a pig has a heart, and so does a man. That the pig has an anus, and so do we. Based off that, you are saying that animals and humans are similar enough to the point where you used it as an argument for homosexuality among humans.

Close enough to us for our bodies not to reject their tissue. My father walked around with pig heart valve in his chest.

Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.

 

[shaz619]

Am not sure if homosexuality is a choice or not but it exists and that is a fact and as some have already said, live and let live. But how is two people of the same gender being with one another evil or destroying mankind ? I think a poster mentioned that and also rejected the big bang theory.

I have found that regardless of level of knowledge people have their views are generally inspired by their personal beliefs be it in the world of faith or lack of faith, so someone who claims to be a scientist but is also a person of god will use what he is aware of academically to justify his beliefs while the scientist who isn't a person of god would do the same. But as a neutral you can weigh up both arguments to find the truth somewhere in between it all.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

First of all, I believe those who worry about credentials or authencity of others are insecure about themselves and their lives so it just makes me laugh more.

The reason I stopped responding to most posts here is not because I am out of ideas or out of words to say or to defend my beliefs and thoughts.

But there is a verse in Quran which says "Those who have refused to follow the Way of Allah resemble cattle; when the shepherd calls them they hear nothing except shouting and crying; they are deaf, dumb and blind, and so they understand nothing."

Most people here are defending something which is not natural because their minds cannot perceive anything but a man shouting random inane nonsense so they think they are on the right path and they have an obligation to defend something un-natural.

It does not pain me but it does lead me to understand why man is so arrogant. When you believe you are the only thing that is intelligent in life, and this world happened by random chance occurrence, surely you would be arrogant as a mountain.

The day is not far off when they would be defending naked people, people who rape, murder and commit atrocities because it would be a choice of life.

[MENTION=29064]shaz[/MENTION] two people living together and being friends is never an issue. Infact religion demands meet ups between similar gender people in which they pursue the discussion of Allah. Two people of the same gender meeting up and practicing sexual activity is not only downright disgusting but it indeed does morally corrupt the society.

Rejection of Big Bang is based on lack of evidence except a few test tube demonstrations. Didn't once people believe that Earth was the center of the Universe and everyone who claimed otherwise was considered a fool.

Similarly, most people here are foolish and dumb. They will not agree to the presence of Creator, until they get to meet him in its finality. That's all I will say on the subject.

I can hold a scientific discussion well on my own and I understand the limitations of my medical therapy. If that makes me a man of religion more than a man of science I am happy to tread on that path and I only hope everyone sees light.

 

[Balthazar]

Homosexuality is 'natural'? I'm sure many arguments could be made in terms of explaining homosexuality, but I doubt that nature intended it that way is one of them.

Otherwise how about trying to enlighten me vis-a-vis my earlier post?

Natural as in it's not forced. I think it's all about in which circumstances people grew in and the brain takes it's natural course to adjust to ones emotional needs. I don't want to get into Biological terms as it's still unproven that gay is considered a deformity or as such. They are still part of the evolution as you can see in many other species and it's not as simple as a forced choice as many posters are claiming here.

 

[MenInG]

Guys this debate should be held with your own thoughts, do not include utube videos etc

 

[Robert]

Rejection of Big Bang is based on lack of evidence except a few test tube demonstrations. Didn't once people believe that Earth was the center of the Universe and everyone who claimed otherwise was considered a fool.

Similarly, most people here are foolish and dumb. They will not agree to the presence of Creator, until they get to meet him in its finality. That's all I will say on the subject.

So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Adijazz1706]

So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.

What is this 'hard' evidence?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.

I don't want you to accept God at all.

Everyone has a mind and a brain.

Use it and decide for yourself if the "Universe is created in vain by a random chance" or was it the "work of a Master Creator who will definitely impart justice one day".

I reject a mathematical theory which may or may not be fallible. If you can come to terms with that, than surely you can come to terms with the fact that God may or may not exist.

And if you can come to terms with the fact that "he may exist" than why should I be considered intellectually dishonest for the same reason?

But here's one reality that is impossible to ignore.

If I don't believe in the "Big Bang" and thousands of year later another Big Bang occurs and life starts somewhere else, would I be poorer off for not knowing it? Or perhaps if incontrovertible evidence did come thousands of years of now that "literally makes another Big Bang and another human species" would I be affected? Not really.

But if you don't believe in the "existence of God" and he really exists and you finally find that he did exist, would you be able to "go back and finally accept him". NO. Would you be able to argue with him about his message? NO. Would you be worse off for denying someone "who created you" actually existed? YES. Would you then be there to witness the true justice? YES.

In other words, my disbelief does nothing except harm my personal intellectual growth and my ability to understand science "in its true form" as you would say. If what you are saying turns out to be true, my persona is hardly affected.

But your disbelief is a cause for major concern, because if "what I am speaking turns out to be true" then you will have nowhere to hide on the Day of Judgment and no one can save you from the disaster of that day when "hearts will tremble."

 

[Robert]

I don't want you to accept God at all.

Everyone has a mind and a brain.

Use it and decide for yourself if the "Universe is created in vain by a random chance" or was it the "work of a Master Creator who will definitely impart justice one day".

I reject a mathematical theory which may or may not be fallible. If you can come to terms with that, than surely you can come to terms with the fact that God may or may not exist.

And if you can come to terms with the fact that "he may exist" than why should I be considered intellectually dishonest for the same reason?

But here's one reality that is impossible to ignore.

If I don't believe in the "Big Bang" and thousands of year later another Big Bang occurs and life starts somewhere else, would I be poorer off for not knowing it? Or perhaps if incontrovertible evidence did come thousands of years of now that "literally makes another Big Bang and another human species" would I be affected? Not really.

But if you don't believe in the "existence of God" and he really exists and you finally find that he did exist, would you be able to "go back and finally accept him". NO. Would you be able to argue with him about his message? NO. Would you be worse off for denying someone "who created you" actually existed? YES. Would you then be there to witness the true justice? YES.

In other words, my disbelief does nothing except harm my personal intellectual growth and my ability to understand science "in its true form" as you would say. If what you are saying turns out to be true, my persona is hardly affected.

But your disbelief is a cause for major concern, because if "what I am speaking turns out to be true" then you will have nowhere to hide on the Day of Judgment and no one can save you from the disaster of that day when "hearts will tremble."

You don’t seem to understand how science works, which is making people question whether you are a Doctor.

It works like this: someone makes an observation, and develops an explanation for it, termed an hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is tested experimentally. If evidence does not support the hypothesis it is discarded. If it holds up, it becomes a Theory.

I was taught that in a biology class at age 11.

I have explained to you why you are intellectually dishonest. Once again - you reject that for which there is evidence, yet expect me to accept something for which there is none.

The Big Bang Theory fits the observable facts so we go with it. Perhaps one day it will be falsified like the Phlogiston Theory. In which case it will be replaced by something which fits more evidence as it is discovered.

Yes, it is acceptable to me that the universe exists the way it is, because the four forces are in a certain ratio with each other. Were they not in that ratio then the universe would exist for an instant then collapse, or fly apart and no stars would ever form. But the forces are in that ratio so the universe forms not through chance but inexorable physical laws - stars firm, planets form, life begins and evolves.

Now there may be a god or gods involved in all this but - here is the crucial thing - there doesn’t have to be for everything to be as it is.

So in the absence of evidence for gods, I will apply Occam’s Razor and say there are none. If I see proof of gods I wil change my mind.

As for your invocation of Pascal’s Wager it applies to other gods as well - perhaps your religion is wrong and paganism is right, in which case you have to worship Odin and Zeus as well, just in case when you die you arrive at the gates of Asgard and/or Olympus.

 

[Robert]

What is this 'hard' evidence?

1. Microwave background radiation picked up in 1964 by the Bell Labs antenna in New Jersey

2. Galactic red shift data

If you read a bit about thermal radiation and wavelength lengthening over time then it makes sense.

 

[Realromeo]

I respect your view bro but please prove this.

Did you choose to be straight ? Assuming you are straight.

 

[pillionrider]

Think OP has been left with more questions than answers after starting this thread

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Did you choose to be straight ? Assuming you are straight.

If given a choice, would you want your children to grow up straight or homosexual?

 

[Yossarian]

Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.

This is the second time I'm asking a poster to 'enlighten' me vis-a-vis my earlier post (quoted below) when the poster is claiming that homosexuality is 'natural' just because some animals have been seen to have indulged in homosexual activity. To me 'natural' in this context implies it's 'intended', it's part of the evolutionary process of propagation of the human genes.

Surely if homosexuality was 'natural' and nature intended it that way, in evolutionary terms nature would also have ensured that homosexuals could mate with each other and be able to produce offspring as a result, thereby propagating the (homosexual) human genes instead of relying upon male/female mating to do so on behalf of homosexuals?

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?

 

[Yossarian]

If given a choice, would you want your children to grow up straight or homosexual?

I would like to be a grandfather one day, ideally with my future grandchildren being given birth to, and brought up by, parents who were parents in the traditional sense in every way, ie biological, legal, social, married to each other....etc...and straight.

 

[barah_admi]

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.

Exactly this.

If the claim is that in western society, we can have open discussions about everything, then we must be allowedt o present arguments from all angles. God forbid someone raise the issue of STDs and especially HIV linked to homosexuality. Britain currently spends millions every year combating HIV, one of the major causes of which is homosexual intercourse. This is basic facts and should be taught to all.

 

[barah_admi]

Close enough to us for our bodies not to reject their tissue. My father walked around with pig heart valve in his chest.

Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.

Ermm....what?

If it is natural for some creatures, does not mean it is natural for humans. What a ridiculous argument.

it is natural for a fish to live in water, you want to give that a try?

It is natural for pigs and dogs to eat their on faeces, would you let your children do that?

A bull does not ask a cow for consent, is that how you approach women?

Those are all also "natural".

 

[Robert]

Ermm....what?

If it is natural for some creatures, does not mean it is natural for humans. What a ridiculous argument.

it is natural for a fish to live in water, you want to give that a try?

It is natural for pigs and dogs to eat their on faeces, would you let your children do that?

A bull does not ask a cow for consent, is that how you approach women?

Those are all also "natural".

Let us stick to the point of homosexual behaviour rather than engage in whattabouttery.

I am advancing the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation to reduce violence in a population of creatures and that this has been observed in a great many species.

 

[Robert]

Exactly this.

If the claim is that in western society, we can have open discussions about everything, then we must be allowedt o present arguments from all angles. God forbid someone raise the issue of STDs and especially HIV linked to homosexuality. Britain currently spends millions every year combating HIV, one of the major causes of which is homosexual intercourse. This is basic facts and should be taught to all.

Not fact. The rate of HIV transmission in the straight population outstripped that in the gay population years ago.

 

[barah_admi]

Let us stick to the point of homosexual behaviour rather than engage in whattabouttery.

I am advancing the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation to reduce violence in a population of creatures and that this has been observed in a great many species.

This is not "what if", you made a statement that is frankly ridiculous. If something is natural for one species, does not mean it is natural for other species. Your initial argument is that because animals carry out homosexual acts, it is "natural" for humans to do so also. You first have to explain how that makes sense before we move on to anything else.

Ideally you should be presenting a scientific argument upon the basis of genetics, advantages to the human race and the progression of the population through homosexuality.

 

[barah_admi]

Not fact. The rate of HIV transmission in the straight population outstripped that in the gay population years ago.

I did not say HIV rates were not high in supposedly straight men (there is no telling if they are straight but let's take their words for it), I am saying male to male sexual intercourse is one of the major causes (as is drug use) of HIV spread in society. This is not mere speculation, it is fact. A medical student in his first year learns this.

As I mentioned previously, the NHS and various government departments spend millions every year combating the spread HIV among homosexual or bisexual men/women. In fact, it was only about 2 or 3 years ago that the government spent a record breaking sum on a poster campaign across the London underground and bus network in the hopes of having homosexual men test for HIV.

Anyway, all this aside, is your statement that HIV is not spread via male to male sexual intercourse?

 

[Realromeo]

If given a choice, would you want your children to grow up straight or homosexual?

Straight

 

[troodon]

Abrahamic faith people consider Homosexuality as sin. It’s not their personal opinion. God ordered them to kill homosexuals and they will follow it. It’s how they are brought up.

I see most Pak posters are against homosexuality. Sex is a private matter and why do others care what someone does in his/her bedroom?

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Speaking of gay related issues I recently came across this video from Uganda - one of the funniest things I've seen for a while especially when the pastor guy comes on to do his stuff with the fruit and veg.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4Q4O5ztz92o" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[light]

You say that a pig has a heart, and so does a man. That the pig has an anus, and so do we. Based off that, you are saying that animals and humans are similar enough to the point where you used it as an argument for homosexuality among humans.

Usually when you jump into a discussion between two people, it might be better if you actually follow the full conversation before jumping into bed with them. First go read what I wrote, to which OP had no response to and responded with something that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread and my response to him. To which I replied to his comment which had nothing to do with homosexuaity. So moral of the story is, don't jump into a discussion before reading the whole conversation ... makes you look silly.

 

[light]

Think OP has been left with more questions than answers after starting this thread

His arguments were weak, some made no sense, some had nothing to do with the subject to begin with. sometimes its better to take defeat like a man and leave, LOL

 

[light]

Let us stick to the point of homosexual behaviour rather than engage in whattabouttery.

I am advancing the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation to reduce violence in a population of creatures and that this has been observed in a great many species.

Unfortunetly Robert, religious people will never understand this. They will base their beliefs on a book rather than scientific proof. Evolution to them is a myth. I stopped arguing with religious people a long time ago about evolution.

 

[humzy]

First of all, I believe those who worry about credentials or authencity of others are insecure about themselves and their lives so it just makes me laugh more.

The reason I stopped responding to most posts here is not because I am out of ideas or out of words to say or to defend my beliefs and thoughts.

But there is a verse in Quran which says "Those who have refused to follow the Way of Allah resemble cattle; when the shepherd calls them they hear nothing except shouting and crying; they are deaf, dumb and blind, and so they understand nothing."

Most people here are defending something which is not natural because their minds cannot perceive anything but a man shouting random inane nonsense so they think they are on the right path and they have an obligation to defend something un-natural.

It does not pain me but it does lead me to understand why man is so arrogant. When you believe you are the only thing that is intelligent in life, and this world happened by random chance occurrence, surely you would be arrogant as a mountain.

The day is not far off when they would be defending naked people, people who rape, murder and commit atrocities because it would be a choice of life.

[MENTION=29064]shaz[/MENTION] two people living together and being friends is never an issue. Infact religion demands meet ups between similar gender people in which they pursue the discussion of Allah. Two people of the same gender meeting up and practicing sexual activity is not only downright disgusting but it indeed does morally corrupt the society.

Rejection of Big Bang is based on lack of evidence except a few test tube demonstrations. Didn't once people believe that Earth was the center of the Universe and everyone who claimed otherwise was considered a fool.

Similarly, most people here are foolish and dumb. They will not agree to the presence of Creator, until they get to meet him in its finality. That's all I will say on the subject.

I can hold a scientific discussion well on my own and I understand the limitations of my medical therapy. If that makes me a man of religion more than a man of science I am happy to tread on that path and I only hope everyone sees light.

un-natural is an interesting word, can you scientifically define that which is natural? Once defined can you let me know if you think rape, murder or nakedness is un-natural?

 

[Robert]

I did not say HIV rates were not high in supposedly straight men (there is no telling if they are straight but let's take their words for it), I am saying male to male sexual intercourse is one of the major causes (as is drug use) of HIV spread in society. This is not mere speculation, it is fact. A medical student in his first year learns this.

As I mentioned previously, the NHS and various government departments spend millions every year combating the spread HIV among homosexual or bisexual men/women. In fact, it was only about 2 or 3 years ago that the government spent a record breaking sum on a poster campaign across the London underground and bus network in the hopes of having homosexual men test for HIV.

Anyway, all this aside, is your statement that HIV is not spread via male to male sexual intercourse?

Of course it is, but also by straight intercourse and more transmission of HIV occurs via this route now. The virus doesn’t care how it is transmitted. Should we ban organ and blood donation because transmission occurs that way too? Of course not.

Lesbians don’t catch it, of course.....

 

[Adijazz1706]

Let us stick to the point of homosexual behaviour rather than engage in whattabouttery.

I am advancing the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation to reduce violence in a population of creatures and that this has been observed in a great many species.

I'm advancing the hypothesis that homosexuality is a choice and an illogical one at that. Gender dysphoria is being given the same treatment as homosexuality as in it's acceptance is being encouraged even though it's still considered a mental illness IIRC. A few years down the line, trans activists will protest against this causing it to be dropped from the list just like homosexuality was in 1998.

 

[barah_admi]

Of course it is, but also by straight intercourse and more transmission of HIV occurs via this route now. The virus doesn’t care how it is transmitted. Should we ban organ and blood donation because transmission occurs that way too? Of course not.

Lesbians don’t catch it, of course.....

- Just a place holder for a later reply -

 

[Robert]

I'm advancing the hypothesis that homosexuality is a choice and an illogical one at that. Gender dysphoria is being given the same treatment as homosexuality as in it's acceptance is being encouraged even though it's still considered a mental illness IIRC. A few years down the line, trans activists will protest against this causing it to be dropped from the list just like homosexuality was in 1998.

No choice. A bloke fancies men not women. He prays a lot if he is religious but the feelings remain. He could marry a woman and be unhappy for life. Or he could be with a man and be happy. I could not choose to be gay, any more than I could choose to have brown eyes instead of blue.

Gender dysphoria is a separate issue which I don’t fully understand. But in Ireland a trans person does not need a diagnosis of dysphoria by two doctors like in the UK, they just declare themselves to the govt and become legally trans. There is a big and angry debate about this between trans activists and some feminists who resent the implicit redefining of femaleness.

 

[aloo paratha]

Usually when you jump into a discussion between two people, it might be better if you actually follow the full conversation before jumping into bed with them. First go read what I wrote, to which OP had no response to and responded with something that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread and my response to him. To which I replied to his comment which had nothing to do with homosexuaity. So moral of the story is, don't jump into a discussion before reading the whole conversation ... makes you look silly.

Okay big boy!

 

[ManFan]

Homosexuality was removed from the APA DSM in 1974.

But the interview of Dr. Spitzer of Colombia University, along with the nomenclecture of the APA, and professor at York Medical College (NY Times suggest that it is “not normal” and occurs after “disturbance of normal heterosexual development, as a result of fears which produce anxieties and inhibitions of sexual behavior. His sexual adaption is a substitution adaption”. He continues with saying that although it is not a mental illness, it is only because it does not meet the requirements but is not normal. He concludes with the statement that he makes no distinction between a disorder and a sexual orientation disturbance.

A recent position paper by M.D’s David Scasta and Philip Bialer states that there is no conclusive evidence as to the origins of homosexuality but can assume it is a “multifactorial including biological and behavioral roots which may vary between different individuals”.

I think the question may be WHY was it removed despite being declared “not normal” by members in the field of pyschology and what causes it?

I don’t mean to offend anyone here but my theory is childhood sexual abuse. For example, according to one study by the California School of Professional Psychology, in a group of 942 adults, forty-six percent of the male homosexual adults admitted childhood sexual abuse while only seven percent of the heterosexual male adults did. Twenty-two percent of lesbians in comparison to one percent of adult women.

That does not mean everyone homosexual is abused, but it does make you think.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Did you choose to be straight ? Assuming you are straight.

Think OP has been left with more questions than answers after starting this thread

It wasn't about questions but just a discussion. My point was homosexuality should be debated with freedom like other topics without people being accused of being homophobic if they dont agree with any aspect of it.

I was born a male with male organs. I was born in a family with a mother and father, grandmother and grandfather, uncles and aunties etc. For me to see a man should be a woman was a very normal way to see the world.

People are also confusing feelings with actions. Even if man has feelings for another man, this doesn't mean he then has to act out these feelings.

The logic of some on here is if somone doesn't choose to be gay he/she can be gay.

I've asked this question but nobody has responded, so Ill try again. If someone has feelings/desires/urges for children, their own siblings or even animals, is it also 'natural' for them to act upon these? [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

 

[Robert]

The logic of some on here is if somone doesn't choose to be gay he/she can be gay.

I've asked this question but nobody has responded, so Ill try again. If someone has feelings/desires/urges for children, their own siblings or even animals, is it also 'natural' for them to act upon these? [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Actually [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] I did answer on another thread and I refer you to that.

The key is that of consent between two adults. Consent cannot apply in the examples you give, except in sibling incest. I guess that this is still banned by law because of the high probability of genetic damage to any issuing children.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] I did answer on another thread and I refer you to that.

The key is that of consent between two adults. Consent cannot apply in the examples you give, except in sibling incest. I guess that this is still banned by law because of the high probability of genetic damage to any issuing children.

There is a high risk of diseases in relationships between two males too. Many examples of children born out incest have shown no genetic damage too.

As for children, the age of minor is different in nations around the world. Are you saying if the law changed and those between 12-16 were no longer seen as minors, it would be ok because the person was born with these feelings? As for animals in many states in the US, it's not illegal. We cannot ask animals if they consent or not when killing them for food, using them in sport or making them work.

 

[Robert]

There is a high risk of diseases in relationships between two males too. Many examples of children born out incest have shown no genetic damage too.

As for children, the age of minor is different in nations around the world. Are you saying if the law changed and those between 12-16 were no longer seen as minors, it would be ok because the person was born with these feelings? As for animals in many states in the US, it's not illegal. We cannot ask animals if they consent or not when killing them for food, using them in sport or making them work.

We have to draw the line between legal and illegal intercourse somewhere. Some people are emotionally ready for sex when younger, others when older. Over time the line may more as society and culture changes.

So you want me to say that sex with sheep is ok because we eat mutton? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. That societal rules of sexuality are arbitrary? They are dependent on culture like all rules, and culture changes over time.

We have had this discussion before, you and I.

 

[KingKhanWC]

We have to draw the line between legal and illegal intercourse somewhere. Some people are emotionally ready for sex when younger, others when older. Over time the line may more as society and culture changes.

So you want me to say that sex with sheep is ok because we eat mutton? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. That societal rules of sexuality are arbitrary? They are dependent on culture like all rules, and culture changes over time.

We have had this discussion before, you and I.

Of course Im not saying having relations with sheep is ok as I prefer to eat them only and find any sexual act with an animals disgusting perversion of ones mind. But when an argument is put forward regarding consent , its only fair to point out there is never consent with animals in any area of life.

If you use legal basis then you are opening yourself up because laws differ from country to country and laws change reguarly.

I'm sure we have so will get back to my main point. There is no strong scientific evidence to support people are born gay. If anything there is evidence to suggests people are not born gay which is why they have male and female organs. If in millions of years people had gay genes their phyisical attributes would have evolved too but have not.

Having homosexual feelings IS NOT a sin in Islam so I accept some people have these desires but they CHOOSE to act out these desires. There are people who have strong desires to steal, others have strong desires to harm others but they refrain and so can gay people if they really want to.

Again to clarify living in the UK people are free to be gay and I have no issue with them doing so. I am happy to work and converse with homsexuals, what they do in their private areas is nothing to do with me and I dont see them as lesser humans for choosing this.

I think by saying they are born this way is wrong as you are putting them down, as something they didn't choose and cant control. Homosexuals should come out and say I choose this lifestyle because there is no law against it.

 

[Robert]

Of course Im not saying having relations with sheep is ok as I prefer to eat them only and find any sexual act with an animals disgusting perversion of ones mind. But when an argument is put forward regarding consent , its only fair to point out there is never consent with animals in any area of life.

If you use legal basis then you are opening yourself up because laws differ from country to country and laws change reguarly.

Open myself up to what? All rules are human made in my belief, even the religious ones because gods are human made too.

I'm sure we have so will get back to my main point. There is no strong scientific evidence to support people are born gay. If anything there is evidence to suggests people are not born gay which is why they have male and female organs. If in millions of years people had gay genes their phyisical attributes would have evolved too but have not.

Not how evolution works, because a solitary animal born exclusively gay will not reproduce and will not pass some alleged ‘gay gene’ on. Gayness develops in utero according to the mother’s hormone balance during pregnancy.

But family groups of apes or dolphins where some exhibit homosexual behaviour are more likely to survive, because the males show a reduced level of violence to each other and will survive to mate more and produce more young. I bet the gays in your workplace don’t start conflict, and they are better at reducing it than straight men. So having a few gays helps social cohesion and tribe survival. But then 4000 years ago somebody came up with the idea of a gay sex ban and the evolutionary advantage of some gays in the tribe was overridden and society got more violent.

Having homosexual feelings IS NOT a sin in Islam so I accept some people have these desires but they CHOOSE to act out these desires. There are people who have strong desires to steal, others have strong desires to harm others but they refrain and so can gay people if they really want to.

Again to clarify living in the UK people are free to be gay and I have no issue with them doing so. I am happy to work and converse with homsexuals, what they do in their private areas is nothing to do with me and I dont see them as lesser humans for choosing this.

I think by saying they are born this way is wrong as you are putting them down, as something they didn't choose and cant control. Homosexuals should come out and say I choose this lifestyle because there is no law against it.

That’s a distortion, because I don’t believe gay sex is bad, but simply a natural expression of life energy for some people. It isn’t a lifestyle, it is life.

You didn’t choose to be straight, I presume, you were just born that way. Am I therefore putting you down for not having a choice to be gay? Of course not.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Open myself up to what? All rules are human made in my belief, even the religious ones because gods are human made too.


Not how evolution works, because a solitary animal born exclusively gay will not reproduce and will not pass some alleged ‘gay gene’ on. Gayness develops in utero according to the mother’s hormone balance during pregnancy.

But family groups of apes or dolphins where some exhibit homosexual behaviour are more likely to survive, because the males show a reduced level of violence to each other and will survive to mate more and produce more young. I bet the gays in your workplace don’t start conflict, and they are better at reducing it than straight men. So having a few gays helps social cohesion and tribe survival. But then 4000 years ago somebody came up with the idea of a gay sex ban and the evolutionary advantage of some gays in the tribe was overridden and society got more violent.

You can take my word for it as we have discussed many subjects for years, those I know are the most emtional ones and often cause a lot of conflict. But Im not suggesting this is linked to their lifestyle but you are suggesting gay people are more peaceful.

That’s a distortion, because I don’t believe gay sex is bad, but simply a natural expression of life energy for some people. It isn’t a lifestyle, it is life.

You didn’t choose to be straight, I presume, you were just born that way. Am I therefore putting you down for not having a choice to be gay? Of course not.

So this 'life' changes too? Many men who have never even had thoughts of relationships with other men turn to gay lifestyle in later life esp in the prison system. Some have desires for both men and women and act these out with both sexes too. Some gay men go straight. How do you account for such people in regards to your 'theory' of not having a choice?

 

[light]

Okay big boy!

Ego hurt? You're still welcome to debate, before that, READ what the discussion was about.

 

[KingKhanWC]

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.

Your post is nothing more than a rant which is why I didn't reply. I dont know you as a poster and so I dont entertain trolls. Pigs organs have little to do with my points.

So before you get exicted and think I have no reply to you or you have won, let it sink in I treated your posts with amusment and nothing more.

 

[light]

Your post is nothing more than a rant which is why I didn't reply. I dont know you as a poster and so I dont entertain trolls. Pigs organs have little to do with my points.

So before you get exicted and think I have no reply to you or you have won, let it sink in I treated your posts with amusment and nothing more.

Pigs organ had nothing to do wth homosexuality. I gave you a proper explanation with valid points to which you replied with nonsense. I replied back to your nonsense by telling you about how animals/humans all have same organs. Go back to the first post and you're welcome to debate me instead of degrading yourself by calling me a troll. If you have no proper argument, just call it a day and move on.

 

[pillionrider]

People are also confusing feelings with actions. Even if man has feelings for another man, this doesn't mean he then has to act out these feelings.

The logic of some on here is if somone doesn't choose to be gay he/she can be gay.

I've asked this question but nobody has responded, so Ill try again. If someone has feelings/desires/urges for children, their own siblings or even animals, is it also 'natural' for them to act upon these? [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Lol if you have feelings for another man, you ARE gay/bisexual. Whether you act on them or not. That is a question of being sexually active not being gay.

You are confusing things I suspect almost deliberately and trying to somehow equate this with:
I felt like killing that guy, but I didn't. Does that make me a murderer?

Anyway, regarding the Thread title which this has deviated from, I agree. Too much correctness nowadays. I should have the right to not approve of a gay person so long as I'm not attacking them physically or mentally. If I choose to ignore them and not wanna have to deal with them, it is my right and I shouldn't be vilified for it. Only problem is, what if I'm a gay person's Manager at a workplace. What happens then

 

[aloo paratha]

Ego hurt? You're still welcome to debate, before that, READ what the discussion was about.

Nope. Just too lazy to reply. You wouldn't understand anyways.

 

[light]

Nope. Just too lazy to reply. You wouldn't understand anyways.

If you say so. If you ever want to have this debate, let me know. I'll be up for it

 

[Realromeo]

It wasn't about questions but just a discussion. My point was homosexuality should be debated with freedom like other topics without people being accused of being homophobic if they dont agree with any aspect of it.

I was born a male with male organs. I was born in a family with a mother and father, grandmother and grandfather, uncles and aunties etc. For me to see a man should be a woman was a very normal way to see the world.

People are also confusing feelings with actions. Even if man has feelings for another man, this doesn't mean he then has to act out these feelings.

The logic of some on here is if somone doesn't choose to be gay he/she can be gay.

I've asked this question but nobody has responded, so Ill try again. If someone has feelings/desires/urges for children, their own siblings or even animals, is it also 'natural' for them to act upon these? [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

WOW so OP is not naturally straight, he chose to be straight. Interesting.

NO NO NO. Having natural feelings is one thing but acting up on is another. You may have an urge towards a female or male but if you act up on it without their permission it is rape. There is a reason why 25 years old cannot be with a 13 year old. The 13 year old is naive and has not developed maturity enough to handle the situation and can be easily manipulated. It is worse with animals and children, don't even go there bro. Some LGBTQ activisits also want to add "p". P=Pedophile. They believe having feelings is normal but acting up on is not okay.

 

[PennOne]

How do we know that the feelings of homosexuality like other behavioral traits are not genetic disorders or chemical imbalances. Behavior which is differing from a baseline is often explain by mutations of genes or chemical imbalances which are as a result of environmental factors and/or combination of inherited mutations in multiple genes .

You cannot just say that the behavior of one individual which is differing from another one is just an inherent trait, a traits are material, such as height, eye color, blood type

https://www.latimes.com/science/sci...osexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

Why do we treat homosexuality as the baseline for behavior while we call the behavior differences in other when compared to baseline as disorders
Their

 

[Tubs]

Homosexuality isn't a choice, but other posters have given good reasons why it isn't, so I won't go there.

Free speech dictates that anyone can have an opinion on anything (thought institutions reserve the right to take actions on employees who have certain views seen as bigoted, which is another discussion) be it race, religion (yes, including Islam), sexuality, politics etc.

I'd much rather people be open and say what they're thinking.

 

[MenInG]

Paris St-Germain's Idrissa Gueye refused to play in a match to avoid wearing a rainbow symbol in support of LGBTQ+ rights, BBC Sport understands.

The 32-year-old former Aston Villa and Everton midfielder was absent from Saturday's 4-0 win over Montpellier.

PSG boss Mauricio Pochettino said only that Gueye missed the game for "personal reasons".

The French Football Federation (FFF) has reportedly written to Gueye to clarify why he was absent.

BBC Sport has approached Gueye's representatives for comment.

Crystal Palace's Cheikhou Kouyate and Watford's Ismaila Sarr have posted on social media in apparent support of their Senegal team-mate's stance.

Kouyate posted a picture of himself alongside Gueye on Instagram, with a caption calling Gueye "a real man". Watford winger Sarr posted a picture of him and Gueye accompanied by three heart emojis and the caption "100%".

In response to Sarr's post, Watford reiterated their commitment to equality and diversity, adding "this includes the willingness to offer further education and support to any of its employees".

At a news conference on Wednesday, Crystal Palace boss Patrick Vieira said if his player had posted in relation to Gueye, he would speak to them. "It's going to be an in-house conversation," he added.

Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal and punishable by prison sentences of up to five years.

For the second successive season, clubs in France have been invited to mark 17 May's International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia by wearing rainbow-design numbers on the back of their shirts.

In addition to missing Saturday's win over Montpellier, Gueye, who arrived at PSG for £30m in July 2019, missed last year's show of solidarity citing gastroenteritis, according to Le Parisien newspaper, who first reported the reason for his absence.

The AFP news agency said on Wednesday it had seen a letter from the FFF's ethics board calling on Gueye to explain why he missed Saturday's game.

The letter, says AFP, calls for him to "issue a public apology" or to say that the rumours he refused to play are "unfounded".

The letter reportedly adds if he did refuse to play he would be "validating discriminatory behaviour".

PSG said on Wednesday that they were "very proud to wear this shirt".

"The biggest stars of world football were on the field on Saturday and expressed the club's commitment to the fight against homophobia and all forms of discrimination," it added.

Gueye's stance has been supported by prominent politicians in Senegal.

The country's president Macky Sall wrote on Twitter that Gueye's Muslim beliefs must be respected, while sport minister Matar Ba wrote that Gueye was backed by his country's people, alongside a picture of the midfielder on pilgrimage to Mecca.

BBC

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Black managers posturing when racism is rife

 

[MenInG]

Former Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas has claimed his Twitter account was hacked after a post appeared saying he was gay.

The message under the World Cup-winning keeper's blue tick-verified account read in Spanish: "I hope I'll be respected: I'm gay."

It appeared along with the hashtag "HappySunday," also in Spanish, and was 'liked' 250,000 times, creating a social media stir.

But, dozens of homophobic comments also appeared, and it was later removed - and replaced with another tweet apologising.

The replacement tweet said: "Hacked account. Luckily, everything in order. Apologies to all my followers. And of course, more apologies to the LGBT community."

 

[MenInG]

Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been criticised for saying the country's ban on same-sex marriage is not discriminatory.

Weeks ago, he apologised to the LGBTQ community over homophobic comments made by an aide who has since been sacked.

Mr Kishida's party is under growing pressure to improve LGBTQ rights, as more Japanese support same-sex marriage.

Japan remains the only G7 country that doesn't recognise such unions.

When asked by an opposition lawmaker if the country's existing law constituted discrimination, the PM said on Tuesday: "I don't think disallowing same-sex couples to marry is unjust discrimination by the state."

The prime minister also reiterated his position on Wednesday that a ban on same-sex marriage is "not unconstitutional" but said his stand should not be seen as a form of discrimination.

Local LGBTQ groups have accused Mr Kishida of backpedalling on commitments made in recent weeks - saying his words contradicted his actions.

He held a meeting with LGBTQ activists last month after he sacked his Executive Secretary Masayoshi Arai, who said he didn't "even want to look at" sexual minorities. He appointed a special aide for LGBTQ issues and also said his party would consider a new bill.

BBC

 

[Champ_Pal]

West is largely liberal and it will stay that way forever. They have worked hard to kick religion out of public sphere and they will never let their freedoms go.
Legalizing homosexuality is one of those freedoms and it is here to stay. Anyone who has a problem with it is clearly living in the wrong country.

 

[sweep_shot]

West is largely liberal and it will stay that way forever. They have worked hard to kick religion out of public sphere and they will never let their freedoms go.
Legalizing homosexuality is one of those freedoms and it is here to stay. Anyone who has a problem with it is clearly living in the wrong country.

Do you think all westerners support LGBTQ? Have you heard of Westboro Baptist Church? What about Conservatives? What about Amish people? What about orthodox Jews? Aren't they westerners too?

If you think everyone in West approves of LGBTQ, you are not very informed.

 

[szrana007]

West is largely liberal and it will stay that way forever. They have worked hard to kick religion out of public sphere and they will never let their freedoms go.
Legalizing homosexuality is one of those freedoms and it is here to stay. Anyone who has a problem with it is clearly living in the wrong country.

Hopefully India legalizes the sam sex marriage soon

 

[Champ_Pal]

Do you think all westerners support LGBTQ? Have you heard of Westboro Baptist Church? What about Conservatives? What about Amish people? What about orthodox Jews? Aren't they westerners too?

If you think everyone in West approves of LGBTQ, you are not very informed.

Obviously everyone does not support LGBTQ just like everyone does not support 2nd amendment or cancelling debt for students.
We saw what happened in midterm elections when Republicans tried to meddle with abortion rights of women. They lost seats that they were supposed to win.

If you are an immigrant and you chose west to be your future home, then you have to leave your biases and accept the democratic choice of the people of the West.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Hopefully India legalizes the sam sex marriage soon

Everyone deserves a right to love whoever they want. Homosexuality is natural. I hope India does legalize it. There are already homosexual couples in India. No one hunts for their heads. That is how it should be.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Everyone deserves a right to love whoever they want. Homosexuality is natural. I hope India does legalize it. There are already homosexual couples in India. No one hunts for their heads. That is how it should be.

"Homosexuality is natural" ?
What does this mean?

 

[Technics 1210]

What liberals of the West do not realise is that same sex marriages has nothing to do with freedom and acceptance, but is to do with tax and inheritance equality.

In the past, if a spouse of a heterosexual married couple died, then by law they would inherit the estate as next of kin, this was not the case with homosexual couples, until now that same sex marriages is legalised amd recognised as a legal next of kin - spouse.

Hence, same sex marriages are actually known as civil marriages.

 

[Technics 1210]

"Homosexuality is natural" ?
What does this mean?

It means the justification of homosexuality is based on nature.

Rape and murder within the natural world is also natural by this warped logic.

 

[Stewie]

It means the justification of homosexuality is based on nature.

Rape and murder within the natural world is also natural by this warped logic.

thats a rubbish argument. Are you seriously equating someone taking a human life or engaging in sexual abuse of a person with a sexual orientation that you do not agree with? If two gays engage in concensual sex, how is that the same as rape or murder?

 

[Stewie]

Everyone deserves a right to love whoever they want. Homosexuality is natural. I hope India does legalize it. There are already homosexual couples in India. No one hunts for their heads. That is how it should be.

good luck with that, If it happens, can we ship our Billo raani over to you? maybe he/she and pappu Rahul can make a life for themselves in shining india! lol

 

[Champ_Pal]

good luck with that, If it happens, can we ship our Billo raani over to you? maybe he/she and pappu Rahul can make a life for themselves in shining india! lol

Homosexuals don’t force you to join them and become a homosexual like them. Live and let live. I don’t understand the hate for them.

 

[Stewie]

Homosexuals don’t force you to join them and become a homosexual like them. Live and let live. I don’t understand the hate for them.

The hate comes from lack of proper understanding and education. A lot of people think homosexuality is a choice and condoning it might potentially result in them turning into one themselves. It’s lack of proper education and awareness. Plus throw in some religious zealotry and self righteousness and you have the perfect recipe for homophobia

 

[Robert]

"Homosexuality is natural" ?
What does this mean?

It means that homosexual behaviour has been observed in over 200 species. It appears to be an evolutionary adaptation as it is more prevalent in the higher forms such as chimps and dolphins, reducing violence in the troop or pod.

 

[daytrader]

Tennessee curbs trans treatment and drag for children

Tennessee's governor has signed laws banning drag performances in front of children and restricting medical treatment for transgender youth.

Civil rights and LGBT groups vowed to sue to stop the medical treatment measure from taking effect on 1 July.

Violators of the new drag law, meanwhile, face nearly a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 (£2,100).

Governor Bill Lee enacted the laws as questions were asked about an old photo apparently of him in women's clothing.

When it comes into force next month, the drag law will ban performances "harmful to minors" by "go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators" in public places or venues where they could be viewed by children.

The statute is the first of its type to be enacted in the US after a recent flurry of similar laws proposed in Republican-run states.

...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64830835

 

[SM1989]

Tennessee curbs trans treatment and drag for children

Tennessee's governor has signed laws banning drag performances in front of children and restricting medical treatment for transgender youth.

Civil rights and LGBT groups vowed to sue to stop the medical treatment measure from taking effect on 1 July.

Violators of the new drag law, meanwhile, face nearly a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 (£2,100).

Governor Bill Lee enacted the laws as questions were asked about an old photo apparently of him in women's clothing.

When it comes into force next month, the drag law will ban performances "harmful to minors" by "go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators" in public places or venues where they could be viewed by children.

The statute is the first of its type to be enacted in the US after a recent flurry of similar laws proposed in Republican-run states.

...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64830835

Sanity!

 

[Champ_Pal]

Children should not be taught about sexuality and multiple gender awareness at schools. Transitioning kids from one gender to another is child abuse and the parents or people involved must be arrested.

 

[Stewie]

Children should not be taught about sexuality and multiple gender awareness at schools. Transitioning kids from one gender to another is child abuse and the parents or people involved must be arrested.

I think the purpose of what is going on is bit misunderstood but also the way such initiatives are going about it is also wrong. The idea was to bring general overall acceptance of LGBTQ++ to the masses. Someone somewhere decided the best way to do it is to get them early and introduce them to this at a young age so its normal to them. So they just started hammering away at it... now its almost as messed up as fascism. You just cannot disagree with them. kids that age can easily get confused. now, its considered hip to be cross gender or non binary or whatever. There are some really confused kids running around now. It is turning into a fad to be considered non traditional when it comes to gender/sexuality matters. Elementary or middle school kids had no business dealing with this stuff.

 

[Robert]

Children should not be taught about sexuality and multiple gender awareness at schools. Transitioning kids from one gender to another is child abuse and the parents or people involved must be arrested.

They can't do that without agreement from the medical profession.

Use of puberty-blocking drugs in children does worry me. I think some of these kids aren't trans, but are gay.

 

[Stewie]

They can't do that without agreement from the medical profession.

Use of puberty-blocking drugs in children does worry me. I think some of these kids aren't trans, but are gay.

or maybe.. we have just ended up confusing a whole lot of them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It means that homosexual behaviour has been observed in over 200 species. It appears to be an evolutionary adaptation as it is more prevalent in the higher forms such as chimps and dolphins, reducing violence in the troop or pod.

The black widow female spider eats the male partner while in the act.

We are humans, we have the ability to say choose. If you have a desire, it doesnt mean you should act upon it.

As a Muslim two men having intimate relations is wrong, as our faith tells us.

Muslims will not change their faith because some European liberals want to act out disgusting desires, and we will not apologise for this stance either. However we shouldn't show hate or discriminate against such people if they are within the law or rules.