Islam supports Terrorism .... biiiiiiig surprise

oh just that saying "allah is existence" sounds like a hindu take on god

Im not that familliar with Hindu , I am sure it has similarities with Islam , however they have more Gods do they not ? Allah=1 . Anyways be aware that this isnt your conventional Sunnism talking , rather Sufi and beyond .

not my issues. yours.

fine . my issues .

well obviously a homosexual act is not intended to be a reproductive one (if that is what you mean by "natural process"). then again i could also say neither are most hetero ones

You obviously missed me saying : Im not denying in any ways there isnt emphasize in hetero-sexual acts

As for not intended to be reproductive , the point is that is a replacement (oftenly) of heterosexuality . It is not an extra , it replaces an element of life that gives you possibility to do as life desires , reproduce . Homosexuality as a replacement to heterosexuality is a philosophical end of eternal life .

nature is a work in progress. it is not divine. it is not perfect. it is also a mistake to view nature as some static object impervious to change

So it would be more prefect if 2 males could have babies together ? Why then would you need different sexes in the first place ? You see in the situation as nature is today is very much divine , perfection is not to be sought in specific positions but rather in balances between them .

When we have no longer sexes its ok to be gay :D

fucking is irrelevant as far as reproduction is concerned. infact, reproduction is a curse as far as fucking is concerned

Dont be such a life hater spookz , weither you agree with the system or not , try to look at it from a nihilistic point of view . Emotions are tied with things that ensure our very purpose , to survive and exist on . Thats what reproduction is for , replacement .

Its a curse to non-existence indeed , to life its not a curse . However peoples dont treat it quite rightly , but unlike the system man isnt perfect (see gay , lol) .

not only hypocritical but hoplessly prejudiced as well. you are now rationalising and attempting to justify your dislike (illogical) for homosexualty

Its not illogical as I have the logical understanding that its an emotional proces , I am very well aware why homosexuality is created into my emtional system to be of dislike , it ensures my survival . Thats the whole issue here .

However I dont fear being a homophobe like you do , and try to explore what other things I can describe as being in conflict dealing with homosexuality .

As I said , the final point is not a moral one , but one dealing with the reproductive system . However you may wish to deny what I have said about homosexuals , but IMO they (not their sexuality itself but they) function from another basis when dealing with matters as lust , because of the so conscious choice that is very , very physically emphasized .

I wonder weither all homosexuals actually all have that genetical difference as others have mentioned . I still believe psychjological and sociological issues are as influent as the genetical ones .

boy/boy=bad, girl/girl=good

please re-read what I said :

However I dont consider this a virtuous action , I am aware its merely lust and has no other function within life whatsoever (no love nor reproduction nor an element of familiy)

No good there . However my emotions desire it , as I can imagine a gay mans emotions to make him desire his , we cant help how we feel maybe .... but we can help how we act .

however this islamic philosophy is also, merely just a humanistic one dressed up in some regional and cultural flavor. to live is to know islam/christianity/hindu/...

I couldnt agree more . However Islam claims to be the one and only true Deen , thus higher in perfection compared to others .

But that would be for the individual self to decide . IMO it provides an entire alternative to nihilism by embracing it .
I havent seen any scriptures do the same .
 
Last edited:
Anyways be aware that this isnt your conventional Sunnism talking , rather Sufi and beyond .

noted. (it would surprise me if it was)

You obviously missed me saying : Im not denying in any ways there isnt emphasize in hetero-sexual acts

i dismissed that since there was a "however...." following it. a hetero is every bit of a dog as is a homo. i do not think men are naturally monogomous anyway so......But homosexual groups say recent data indicate that homosexual relationships look increasingly like heterosexual marriage.

As for not intended to be reproductive , the point is that is a replacement (oftenly) of heterosexuality . It is not an extra , it replaces an element of life that gives you possibility to do as life desires , reproduce . Homosexuality as a replacement to heterosexuality is a philosophical end of eternal life .

it really doesnt make sense to talk about an either/or situation or life ending. these are implausible scenarios and not worth pursuing. "do as life desires?"? understand that life had to bribe us with orgasms in order to perpetuate itself. i aint no materialist but this anthropomorphizing of life/nature has to stop.;)

So it would be more prefect if 2 males could have babies together ?

never said that. besides if reproduction is to be perfected, it should occur outside the human.....say....petri dishes/baby farm.

Why then would you need different sexes in the first place ?

dunno. random mutations appear inexplicable but i am sure an explanation is somewhere out there. i am sure you are aware of alternative methods of reproduction in nature.

perfection is not to be sought in specific positions but rather in balances between them .

semantics. a balance is a position albeit one that could be dynamic

Dont be such a life hater spookz ,

oh i aint really, its just that i gotta adopt some kind of position in order to converse.

weither you agree with the system or not , try to look at it from a nihilistic point of view .

is that point of view supposed to be a good thing?

However peoples dont treat it quite rightly , but unlike the system man isnt perfect (see gay , lol) .

you coudnt resist could you!

Its not illogical as I have the logical understanding that its an emotional proces , I am very well aware why homosexuality is created into my emtional system to be of dislike , it ensures my survival . Thats the whole issue here .

aah, forget the limbic system and ascribe causes to more immediate stuff like education and religion

However I dont fear being a homophobe like you do ,

you deduced this, sherlock? perhaps i outta share my exploits

As I said , the final point is not a moral one , but one dealing with the reproductive system . However you may wish to deny what I have said about homosexuals , but IMO they (not their sexuality itself but they) function from another basis when dealing with matters as lust , because of the so conscious choice that is very , very physically emphasized .

see hetero/dog reply

I wonder weither all homosexuals actually all have that genetical difference as others have mentioned .

no matter what the fags say, a gay gene so far has not been found

I still believe psychjological and sociological issues are as influent as the genetical ones .

yes

No good there . However my emotions desire it , as I can imagine a gay mans emotions to make him desire his , we cant help how we feel maybe .... but we can help how we act .

bah, your on your own here, friend
 
Spookz :

i dismissed that since there was a "however...." following it. a hetero is every bit of a dog as is a homo. i do not think men are naturally monogomous anyway so......

Yes hetero is as much dog as homo , however sociologic circumstances have had their psychologic effect on homosexuals , as well as have sociologic elements simply changed the physical social situations , the context that was left behind is in wich homosexuals are in a more probable positions to behave like dogs as heterosexuals are .

Your link only proves that there is significance difference for a homosexual in the situation he find himself because of society . Dont misunderstand me Im not saying that there needs to be a psychological effect as well as a sociologic one , that is merely a theory . However there is absolutely no denial that for a homosexual a different situation presents itself , and this situation encourages a higher probability of moral disengagement .

* The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.
* Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.

Surely its changing , surely it grows into a normalization based on how heterosexual interaction is considered normal . However its not the same , not today .

it really doesnt make sense to talk about an either/or situation or life ending. these are implausible scenarios and not worth pursuing. "do as life desires?"? understand that life had to bribe us with orgasms in order to perpetuate itself. i aint no materialist but this anthropomorphizing of life/nature has to stop.

Understand that morality as an ethical understanding is to be considered philosophical . In philosophy not only actual and reaal situations are described , but theories are formed based on "should" and "if" .

Life had to bribe you as well with pain in your stomach when you dont eat , or headaches , or the feeling of tiredness when you dont sleep , or thirst when you dont drink . Life doesnt only persuade you with pleasancies , life also simply blackmailes you with death and horror . Do not think that because life's approach differs , it ought to result into a significant different ethical consideration .

never said that. besides if reproduction is to be perfected, it should occur outside the human.....say....petri dishes/baby farm.

But as long as today there is no baby farm (humans aint gonna pull this one off succesfully I can guarantee u that) , and the system is at is today , female-male technique is perfect compared to male-male , is it not ?

i am sure you are aware of alternative methods of reproduction in nature.

Surely , but Im sure you are also aware that there are reasons why those alternative methods would not be applyable with humans .

semantics. a balance is a position albeit one that could be dynamic

The point is that the relation one position can have with the other can be much more relevant than one of the 2 positions themselves .

oh i aint really, its just that i gotta adopt some kind of position in order to converse.

So what you say is independant of what your opinion is .

is that point of view supposed to be a good thing?

I dont think so nihilism doesnt acknowledge "good" as such .
It would rather depend on to whom it would be good . To humans in general its bad really , but if truth is what you'rer after its very good . That is , truth as far possible to our minds .

you coudnt resist could you!

Gay = natural imperfection .
:D

Hey at least Im not saying its not natural (anymore) . But that was semantics anyways .

aah, forget the limbic system and ascribe causes to more immediate stuff like education and religion

Thats like negative intellectual evolution . Like going from round to flat earth .

you deduced this, sherlock? perhaps i outta share my exploits

Your limbic system gives it away :D
Exploits ?

no matter what the fags say, a gay gene so far has not been found

So now your limbic system makes you emphasize your
non-homophobism ?

Anyways , fags didnt say ...... but there isnt any ? So then how the fuck did my point on choice got refuted ? Ive been scammed

bah, your on your own here, friend

How so ? What I do ?
 
Originally posted by Zero
Read it. Be afraid. Be very afraid. All non Muslims, you will soon find a gang of psychotic ragheads strapped with dynamite chasing you!


http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html
Click to expand...

Hi. I guess this will be my first post on this forum.

While those quotes are true, it must be understood. These is a common conception among "Islamic extremists." To believe in some part of the Koran and not the other part does not make you a Muslim.

Currently with everything that is going on, there is no jihad. A jihad is only when the enemy is attacking you because of your faith and forcing you to believe something else or forcing you out of your holy land. Take the Holocaust. If Hitler was attacking Muslims and not Jews, then we would have fought back. We are to avoid war at all means! But if the other side still goes to war with you, then it will have to be war.

This site also does not show the quotes that come before and after these quotes. This is written by a non-Muslim and the page does have bias on it. Thus, it should not be taken as to what the character does to represent Islam.

Thanks.
 
Just throwing in a random comment here, since the topic has drifted to gay sex.

It always surprises me that some men think that two lesbians would be interested in having sex with them. There is an interesting double standard at work in these people's minds: gay men will be gay men forever, and nothing can change that, but gay women only need a real man to appear and they will suddenly become heterosexual. The assumption is that lesbianism is just something girls get into to fill in the time until a real man comes along to show them what sex is really about.

Just saying this shows what a stupid idea it is. The thing to realise about lesbians is that <b>they are not attracted to men!</b>
 
There can be no gene for gayness. When a mom and a dad have sex, they have straight genes if they were to get together. From the beginning of history from whatever you might think it started with, it started with straightness. From that we were born. And there would be no such thing as a gay gene for someone to inherit.

If it started with gayness, then that's wrong because none of us would be here today.

I bet gay people tell themselves about gay genes and stuff before they go to sleep every night. I will respect other people's views and perspectives, but I draw a line when it comes to gayness. So forgive me if any one is offended with my post.
 
Pakman:

It is not true that there cannot be a gay gene.

For example, a gene can be recessive. Suppose gene G codes for homosexuality, and gene H codes for heterosexuality. You get one copy of the gene from each of your parents. Possibilities are:

HH - you are heterosexual
GH - you are heterosexual
HG - you are heterosexual
GG - you are homosexual

Notice that you can be heterosexual and still have the gay gene, which can be passed on to your children.
 
Hey, that's a real good example. Let me congratulate on that first. Ok, on to the topic.

To me, there can't be a gene for gayness. The first man and woman on the earth would have to have gotten the gay gene from elsewhere. If this gene did exist, there would be a lot more gays than there are now.

The Earth has been around for millions of years. Say the gay gene did exist, it woudl eventually die out because there would be no one to pass it down. Gayness is not a type of species, but more of an ideal.
 
Gay Gene

Originally posted by James R
Pakman:

It is not true that there cannot be a gay gene.

For example, a gene can be recessive. Suppose gene G codes for homosexuality, and gene H codes for heterosexuality. You get one copy of the gene from each of your parents. Possibilities are:

HH - you are heterosexual
GH - you are heterosexual
HG - you are heterosexual
GG - you are homosexual

Notice that you can be heterosexual and still have the gay gene, which can be passed on to your children.
Click to expand...

Interesting, JR. I've read statistics are that 1 in 4 people (both M/F) are gay, so your analogy of genetic inheritance is probably true to form.
 
<b>Pakman</b>:

Clearly, you either didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, since you've just repeated your previous incorrect argument.


<b>Medicine*Woman</b>:

Actually, I don't believe 1 in 4 people are gay. I suspect it is closer to 1 in 8. There are genetic explanations for that possibility, too. For example, the gay gene (if it exists) might be what is called a "switch" gene.
 
James R,
1/8th of the total population being homosexual is too high...
BTW, please provide any reference to the confirmed existence of 'gay' gene, otherwise involving such a gene in arithmatic is not fair. even if such a gene exists there would be various factors making it recessive or dominant.
 
Gay statistics

Originally posted by James R
<b>Pakman</b>:

Clearly, you either didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it, since you've just repeated your previous incorrect argument.


<b>Medicine*Woman</b>:

Actually, I don't believe 1 in 4 people are gay. I suspect it is closer to 1 in 8. There are genetic explanations for that possibility, too. For example, the gay gene (if it exists) might be what is called a "switch" gene.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said 1 in 4 are 'believed' to be gay. That would also include those who haven't come out yet, I would think. I guess also depending on where one lives could be a factor. Isn't it usually in higher populated areas as opposed to rural areas? I'm a believer in the gay gene hypothesis and would definitely like to see more studies done.
 
Question: Are you referring to 1 in 4 or 1 in 8 are gay(like completely gay) or have committed a sexual act with the same sex?

I believe there is a difference.
 
Gay statistics

Originally posted by Quigly
Question: Are you referring to 1 in 4 or 1 in 8 are gay(like completely gay) or have committed a sexual act with the same sex?

I believe there is a difference.
Click to expand...

I am sure I heard that 1 in 4 are believed to be gay. This goes for homosexuals and lesbians. This number would include all those who may not know or accept it themselves. I cannot confirm these statistics. I heard it somewhere, but I don't remember where. I'm not sure if this also includes 'experimentation.' It may include the bi population as well. For one to be gay does not mean that they have actually experimented with the same sex, I would think that it refers to the desire one has for the same sex.

What is 'completely gay?' Do you mean having come out? It is sad that people discriminate against people who have a genetic disposition. I am totally opposed to any kind of discrimination based on sex. Remember, it was women who were the first slaves!

All I know is that my children grew up and went to school with about 1/3 of the population in their high school being gay. These are conservative figures, too. It was unfortunate that their school discriminated against the gay students even to the point of expelling them for 'other' reasons. The same school also discriminated against my son and his friends who had long hair because they were in a band. I ended up home-schooling him so he could keep his hair. He turned out much better than had I left him to the wolves in the school system. (He's not gay--just a musician dude).

I personally believe that the gay population is growing, and that one day us heterosexuals will be in the minority, but that's not a bad thing. I'm loving and very tolerant of genetic persuasions.
 
Completely Gay: You know, like desire the same sex and do not wish to be in any relationship other then the same sex. I guess out of the closet if you may. Not just someone that has messed around with the same sex a couple of times for the experience, but the full blown gay man/women.

Also, if they were born gay with a gay gene, then they are a lesser species right now because obviously they do not follow an evolutionary track to reproduce and populate. If they aren't born with it, then they need treatment because they are diseased. Then again, I believe to some extent we all are mentally diseased/influenced.

Either way though, I will not condone it because A. It does not further population. and B. my personal beliefs. Now if you want to believe that later on the evolutionary chain that 2 men somehow will be able to reproduce or 2 women together then maybe that was the direction it was supposed to go, but right now, not a chance.

I wouldn't make excuses for them, whether you are an atheist, christian, muslim, naturalist or just plain human. I agree with most of what Ghassin was saying really. I also don't think it propogates advancement.
 
<b>everneo</b>

1/8th of the total population being homosexual is too high...

How do you know?

BTW, please provide any reference to the confirmed existence of 'gay' gene, otherwise involving such a gene in arithmatic is not fair.

I have not claimed a gay gene exists. I suspect things are more complicated than that.

if such a gene exists there would be various factors making it recessive or dominant.

Same for any gene.

Medicine*Woman:

I guess I should have said 1 in 4 are 'believed' to be gay. That would also include those who haven't come out yet, I would think.

Believed by whom? As I say, my impression is that one in four is too high.


Quigly:

I don't believe there's any such thing as "completely gay", just as there's no such thing as "completely heterosexual". Human sexuality exists on a continuum; people just love to divide things into two categories.

Also, if they were born gay with a gay gene, then they are a lesser species right now because obviously they do not follow an evolutionary track to reproduce and populate.

So I guess you'd say people who are infertile are also a "lesser species", right? And people who choose not to have children.

Either way though, I will not condone it because A. It does not further population. and B. my personal beliefs.

Why is furthering population such a great thing? The world is overpopulated as it is.

I wouldn't make excuses for them, whether you are an atheist, christian, muslim, naturalist or just plain human.

What have they got to be sorry about? Nobody needs to make any excuses. It's like excusing somebody because they have blue eyes.
 
Tolerance for Gays

Originally posted by James R
<b>everneo</b>

1/8th of the total population being homosexual is too high...

How do you know?

BTW, please provide any reference to the confirmed existence of 'gay' gene, otherwise involving such a gene in arithmatic is not fair.

I have not claimed a gay gene exists. I suspect things are more complicated than that.

if such a gene exists there would be various factors making it recessive or dominant.

Same for any gene.

Medicine*Woman:

I guess I should have said 1 in 4 are 'believed' to be gay. That would also include those who haven't come out yet, I would think.

Believed by whom? As I say, my impression is that one in four is too high.


Quigly:

I don't believe there's any such thing as "completely gay", just as there's no such thing as "completely heterosexual". Human sexuality exists on a continuum; people just love to divide things into two categories.

Also, if they were born gay with a gay gene, then they are a lesser species right now because obviously they do not follow an evolutionary track to reproduce and populate.

So I guess you'd say people who are infertile are also a "lesser species", right? And people who choose not to have children.

Either way though, I will not condone it because A. It does not further population. and B. my personal beliefs.

Why is furthering population such a great thing? The world is overpopulated as it is.

I wouldn't make excuses for them, whether you are an atheist, christian, muslim, naturalist or just plain human.

What have they got to be sorry about? Nobody needs to make any excuses. It's like excusing somebody because they have blue eyes.
Click to expand...

I believe I saw this on a TV commercial about tolerance. I don't remember the exact details, but there was a cross-racial group of 4 people and the announcement said that as many 1 in 4 people may be gay. I suppose this would include those who carry the gene, too. I believe homosexuality will become mainstream during the course of our evolution. I heartily agree with you about not using excuses for these people because of a genetic inheritance. But until we fully understand what makes people gay, we need to lay off the discrimination of them. They are equal to us in God's eyes (if God had eyes). Well, I suppose the human race has eyes, so in that event, we all need to look at the rest of the human race with equality. They are part of us and we are part of the greater whole.
 
Originally posted by James R


1/8th of the total population being homosexual is too high...

How do you know?
Click to expand...

99% of the fuckers are skirt-chasers. :p
if such a gene exists there would be various factors making it recessive or dominant.

Same for any gene.
Click to expand...
abnormal hormone exposure level during pregnancy plays a role in inflicting abnormal sexual traits of the child.
 
Abnormal hormone exposure in utero

Originally posted by everneo
abnormal hormone exposure level during pregnancy plays a role in inflicting abnormal sexual traits of the child.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this all along. There's no way to really tell how much hormone exposure our children have since the dairy industry uses estrogens to make the cows make more milk. They beef up cattle to sell them for more money at the slaughterhouses. We've been ingesting these hormones since we were children, at least here in the good ol' US of A. And it's regulated by our government at work! We really don't know what we're actually eating.

Besides food additives, it is entirely possible for a pregnant woman to have surges of different hormones during pregnancy that happens naturally. It is very rare to put a pregnant woman on hormones, but in a thyroid crisis, for example, she may need a low-dose of thyroid to maintain her health.

Gestational diabetes is another problem that many pregnant women have that could affect the fetus.

I blame the advent of oral contraceptives back in the 1960s as the cause of homosexual tendencies today. Many women continue to take their OCs because they don't know they're pregnant and assume they're not since they're on OCs. Studies have shown that these fetuses end up with a wide variety of defects, and doctors usually recommend abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top