All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
norsefire,
There are enough studies now to show that HS is quite natural and that the religious establishment is out of step with reality.
Now there are many things that are natural that we should not tolerate, cancer, and many diseases for example.
The issue is not that we must accept everything that is natural but we should reject religious dogma based on ignorance and intolerance.
But the religious position is dominantly that homosexuality is not natural and hence the primary reason they object.
There are enough studies now to show that HS is quite natural and that the religious establishment is out of step with reality.
Now there are many things that are natural that we should not tolerate, cancer, and many diseases for example.
The issue is not that we must accept everything that is natural but we should reject religious dogma based on ignorance and intolerance.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
From the Bible, Torah.
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
Well, it doesn't exactly "prove" it. It just offers evidence that homosexuality appears to be a positive trait (aids in the species survival) in some species.
I'm not trying to backtrack, it's just part of the scientific method, at least as I understand it. You notice interesting behavior, and reach a point where you you form a premise as to "why" that behavior occurs. In this case we would be talking about homosexuality, which is noticed in nature, and our premise is that it is necessary for the survival of the species.
This premise must be falsifiable in that it is possible, at least in theory, to find other evidence that rules out the premise.
Now go test that premise through observation and experimentation. If the results of said observation are consistent with your premise and you can reasonably rule out other factors influencing the outcome, this bolsters your premise.
Share said premise and the results of your observations with others (professionals in the particular field of interest), and they will try to tear your premise to pieces. If they can't, and the results of your experiment / observation are reproducible, your premise may become a generally accepted theory.
At this point, the theory is casually referred to as being "true".
Norsefire's, errors arise in several contexts, one of them being his request for me to "prove" a negative. This is a logical fallacy, and impossible to satisfy. (Google for more information).
Also, I presented him with a premise, i.e. homosexuality is necessary for survival of the species and backed it up with data. He proceeded to reiterate his opinion without falsifying this data, in fact he ignored it.
Once this sort of thing happens, any further attempt at rational discussion is usually fruitless.
P.S. - for the relevant bits from the article I cited, see the bold sections in the second post that has the article embedded.
james there are days i agree with that, mostly when i see those nobs riding around in lycra
Rand,
A postive trait for the survival of some species I agree, but what about humans ? There may be evidence for that but it's not discussed in the article.
That is all I was questioning. I personally can't think of any for us simply because we have become so successful in making babies. Maybe there was a time when it was an aid in the rearing of children, who knows.
If you think about it. If most women were constantly pregnant and the men were off hunting together, maybe gay men and women were supportive of the group at large in rearing children, doing tasks to help etc . Just speculation on my part.
A postive trait for the survival of some species I agree, but what about humans ? There may be evidence for that but it's not discussed in the article.
That is all I was questioning. I personally can't think of any for us simply because we have become so successful in making babies. Maybe there was a time when it was an aid in the rearing of children, who knows.
If you think about it. If most women were constantly pregnant and the men were off hunting together, maybe gay men and women were supportive of the group at large in rearing children, doing tasks to help etc . Just speculation on my part.
You know saying stuff like that just makes you seem like an idiot.
Its a conglomeration of ancient jewish propaganda and semi historical religious fiction.
Then you don't know that and are making a false claim.
I'll be...
You and I arrived at that theory independently. It came to me after I responded to your last post, but I did not want to go back and make such an extensive edit. In fact, this will probably be my last post for today, I've got to get some sleep.
It's possible that you've hit how it might apply to people head on. If anyone demands evidence though, you're going to have to explain how we have distorted that "natural" system with the artificial imposition of laws and social customs. Therefore, unbiased data is unavailable.
You might even be able to make a case towards some of the bigots that run around complaining how "homosexual depravity" is becoming more and more widespread. Maybe homosexuality is on the rise because, citing your post, we are "so good at making babies now". (if it really is on the rise, I have no idea in a broad historical context)
We do know a couple of things: More babies now survive their first year of life and the stable two or more "adults at home" lifestyle is decreasing. Is this supposed increase in homosexuality nature's intended way of compensating?
Save the children, the poor, poor children. Well, OK, but homosexuality is going to rise! What a hoot you could have advocating that theory!
There is no way of knowing if there is an increase in homosexuality rates. It is only in the last 20 years that men and women have been able to admit their homosexuality without fearing persecution since antiquity, and even now that is only true in certain parts of the world. Coming out of the closet in some parts of the United States can still mean death.
But what we do have is an increase in people coming out. Doesn't mean there are more homosexuals, just more open homosexuals.
But what we do have is an increase in people coming out. Doesn't mean there are more homosexuals, just more open homosexuals.
I didn't miss that. That's an interesting study, but I don't see the connection between that study and somehow having to accept homosexuals.
i.e, while we could accept them on the "it's natural and beneficial" grounds, we could reject them on cultural grounds
Therefore it's simply up to our society as a whole to choose. Apparantly in certain societies, they tolerate gays and in others, they do not. Let different cultures live as they wish.
I would agree, but then again, freedom is not a given. Efficiency, productivity, and technological sophistication can all be achieved without freedom...therefore civilization can exist without freedom and still be far superior to any we have today.
But that's the reality; what alternative is there? Honestly, do you think that if you couldn't enforce your "good" on the world that it would make a difference?
What good is the law without the police to enforce it? You see what I am saying? The reality is "might makes right" whether we like it or not.
I agree. However, think of a sadist: their happiness stems from the pain of others.
Not to mention it's a useless concept unless everyone agrees.
Yes but again, this depends on your definition of "right" and "wrong". One could feel that Hitler was one of the "bravest men" to utterly oppose the will of the majority (i.e, the world) and pursue "progress"
However morality isn't an objective fact. It's existent only subjectively in our minds. Morality cannot be demonstrated to exist independently of human perception. That is because it does not.
Yes, therefore they are ignorant.
However, at least this is how I take it, apparantly rejecting homosexuality for any reason makes you an "idiot".
Even if you are informed; although then I call that unfair. If one is informed of the reality, perhaps even an athiest too, and still rejects homosexuality out of, say, cultural grounds or some other reason, then it's their fair decision.
Norsefire:
Looks like you've been sucked into the belief that things like efficiency, productivity and technology are the only things that make a civilisation "superior". Personally, I'd say social factors are much more important.
Yes. It's happening all over the world right now.
You don't need enforcement if people agree to obey the law, which the vast majority of people do.
No. People agree what is right and wrong, by and large.
No. Broad agreement is good enough. We don't have to consider the happiness of the sadists (at least as it pertains to committing sadistic acts).
How much "progress" did Hitler achieve? He destroyed his own nation.
We've done this before. People agree that morality exists. It is a colllective thing, not just an individual subjective thing.
Looks like you've been sucked into the belief that things like efficiency, productivity and technology are the only things that make a civilisation "superior". Personally, I'd say social factors are much more important.
Yes. It's happening all over the world right now.
You don't need enforcement if people agree to obey the law, which the vast majority of people do.
No. People agree what is right and wrong, by and large.
No. Broad agreement is good enough. We don't have to consider the happiness of the sadists (at least as it pertains to committing sadistic acts).
How much "progress" did Hitler achieve? He destroyed his own nation.
We've done this before. People agree that morality exists. It is a colllective thing, not just an individual subjective thing.
Here's a picture of Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini. He's kind of like the Pope for many Shia. He ran Iran as the "Supreme" pizza... I mean Leader.
Here he is doing something to some boy?
He spent his whole life studying the Qur'an and the life of Mohammad and then wrote a book that would be the foundation of the Perfect Islamic society.
Here: تحرير الوسيلة
In it he says some very interesting things, based on his life-time's study of The Qur'an and Mohammad.
For example:
If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.
During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.
Here he is doing something to some boy?
He spent his whole life studying the Qur'an and the life of Mohammad and then wrote a book that would be the foundation of the Perfect Islamic society.
Here: تحرير الوسيلة
In it he says some very interesting things, based on his life-time's study of The Qur'an and Mohammad.
For example:
If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.
During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.
James,
In a perfect world I agree. It all depends on whether the fight can be fought. If another society were to use their effeciency, productivity and technology to say wipe out the society that is seeking social equality for example, it doesn't matter.
Their existence ends and to the winners go the spoils. Their existence could be wiped from history as if they didn't exist.
Not saying it is right but in the end did it matter.
To fight the good fight is valid, but for example, if you are one against many and they kill you for it. There is no one to carry on the message. The messenger is dead.
If your voice is never heard were you right ?
I would say yes, but no is equally valid.
In a perfect world I agree. It all depends on whether the fight can be fought. If another society were to use their effeciency, productivity and technology to say wipe out the society that is seeking social equality for example, it doesn't matter.
Their existence ends and to the winners go the spoils. Their existence could be wiped from history as if they didn't exist.
Not saying it is right but in the end did it matter.
To fight the good fight is valid, but for example, if you are one against many and they kill you for it. There is no one to carry on the message. The messenger is dead.
If your voice is never heard were you right ?
I would say yes, but no is equally valid.
Here's a picture of Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini. He's kind of like the Pope for many Shia. He ran Iran as the "Supreme" pizza... I mean Leader.
Here he is doing something to some boy?
He spent his whole life studying the Qur'an and the life of Mohammad and then wrote a book that would be the foundation of the Perfect Islamic society.
Here: تحرير الوسيلة
In it he says some very interesting things, based on his life-time's study of The Qur'an and Mohammad.
For example:
If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.
During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.
Jesus christ !