discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[the.crooked]

Word. I think we are closer in our appreciation of it all then it originally seemed.

 

 

Mar,

 

I think the that is the difference we take in the word then. I think anything that happens in the empirical world is natural.

[the.crooked]

For the emperical world is nature.

[russell jones]

Well, just because rape and murder are natural and generally bad, doesn't mean that if homosexuality is natural it, too, is bad. Breathing is natural, but is it bad? I don't know if homosexuality is natural, I know that people who are gay say that it is natural, I'll have to take their word for it. The only argument that religious people have against it is that "God says it's bad". Again, it's down to a matter of faith in religious text. It can be bad for many more reasons, but none of them are listed in religious scripture.

 

That is exactly why this argument is relevant in this thread. Most people believe it is wrong because their religion tells them so, then, if that is not enough to convince others, they look for other answers with that conclusion in mind. It is very similar to our discussion about evolution.

[fermentor666]

But thats just it, there is plenty of inhabitable space. Personally, I sincerly doubt that homosexuality is natures way of "thinnning the herd".

 

 

 

Well, it depends on what your definition of "space" is. Certainly, packing them in like sardines not only leads to great risks in physical health but also mental health. How much mental space do we need before we start to drive each other crazy?

[MAR]

Well' date=' it depends on what your definition of "space" is. Certainly, packing them in like sardines not only leads to great risks in physical health but also mental health. How much mental space do we need before we start to drive each other crazy?[/quote']

 

The reason I dont think that there is overpopulation is because humanity, as a whole, is too used to thier city lifestyle so they do not utilize the open lands around them. The estimated population of New York City is 8,008,278, the population of Kansas is 2,688,418; and Kansas is over 104 time bigger than NYC. There's no overpopulation, just poor land management. Same goes for africa, asia, india, and most everywhere else. Its the lack of funding (health, food, clean water, etc) and constant wars, especially in africa, that make the land less productive not the amount of people, I will conceed that this does become a circle that can only be broken through outside interference, but overpopulation is not the main factor.

 

....

[El Mamerro]

So basically, banish the gays out into the countryside. Problem solved.

[Dawood]

basically.

 

And no, there is definately not an overpopulation problem in the world. I live in Cairo Egypt presently and I don't care where you are in America...Mid-day Manhattan, Chicago, L.A. or wherever else you think is crowded. You've never seen crowded until you came here and people manage. And I agree with what Mar said about people not utilizing the land around the cities properly, but if you notice, people will be forced to willing or unwillingly.

[MAR]

So basically, banish the gays out into the countryside. Problem solved.

 

I thought thats what brokeback mountain was about.

[fermentor666]

....

 

 

 

First of all, try moving 8 million people into Kansas and see what Kansas has to say about it. Not only that, but unless the government takes the land by eminent domain, most land is privately owned. The population of the world has jumped from three billion to six billion in twenty years. All these people pollute, take up space, and consume. If you don't think overpopulation is going to be a problem then your eyes are closed.

 

And forget about New York, it's not the only big city in the world. There are a LOT more that are outside of the US that are nearly as large or larger than NYC and have a hell of a lot more poor people. Try moving them out into countrysides.

 

Land isn't even the issue, it's resources. Take everyone out of the city and dump them into the country and they're still going to be driving the same amount of cars, using the same amount of gas, and shitting into the same ocean. It's already happening and it's called "urban sprawl".

[StephenHarper]

Just thought I'd put out some lesser known stats about homosexuality that the gay lobby doesn't want you to hear:

 

43 percent of gay males estimated having sex with 500 hundred or more different partners

28 percent with 1000 or more partners.

 

Only 60 percent reported having used a condom in the last year. (Higher use than heterosexuals but when you consider that a homosexual is 430 times more likely to contract aids its pretty scary)

 

Epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of all 20 year old homosexual males will be dead by the time they are thirty. (Roughly the same rate that persitant drug users die at according to WHO)

 

I find it strange that our society condemns drug use yet encourages (In Canada anyways I'm not sure about the states) a behavior just as dangerous. Thoughts?

[the.crooked]

And where are these statistics coming from?

[the.crooked]

It's already happening and it's called "urban sprawl".

 

Welcome to my home, houston.

[Smart]

I find it strange that our society condemns drug use yet encourages (In Canada anyways I'm not sure about the states) a behavior just as dangerous. Thoughts?

 

really, I always thought Canadians were 'kinda gay' but I didn't realize that sort of thing was actually encouraged.

[fermentor666]

And where are these statistics coming from?

 

 

 

Seriously, did you pull those statistics out of your own asshole or someone else's?

[StephenHarper]

Just thought I'd put out some lesser known stats about homosexuality that the gay lobby doesn't want you to hear:

 

43 percent of gay males estimated having sex with 500 hundred or more different partners

28 percent with 1000 or more partners. (1)

 

Only 60 percent reported having used a condom in the last year. (2) (Higher use than heterosexuals but when you consider that a homosexual is 430 times more likely to contract aids its pretty scary)

 

Epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of all 20 year old homosexual males will be dead by the time they are thirty. (3) (Roughly the same rate that persitant drug users die at according to WHO)

 

I find it strange that our society condemns drug use yet encourages (In Canada anyways I'm not sure about the states) a behavior just as dangerous. Thoughts?

 

(1) A.P. Bell et al. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women 1978.

 

(2) R.T. Micheal et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 1994.

 

(3) E.L. Goldmen, "psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men", Clinical Psychiatry News, October 1994.

[StephenHarper]

really, I always thought Canadians were 'kinda gay' but I didn't realize that sort of thing was actually encouraged.

 

Oh yeah, they're starting classes in school (with a pro-homosexual bias), they got books in kindergarten classrooms, and they United church runs TV adds proclaiming how tolerant they are because they hire gay ministers.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/08/28/bc-same-sex.html

[the.crooked]

I'll grant you the second two, for now. But the first is rediculous in your use of its stats. How can you use stats from 1978? Before the public interpretation and reaction to the Aids epidemic, etc. I'll report back on the other two sources after I have some time free from final papers.

[the.crooked]

Oh yeah, they're starting classes in school (with a pro-homosexual bias), they got books in kindergarten classrooms, and they United church runs TV adds proclaiming how tolerant they are because they hire gay ministers.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/08/28/bc-same-sex.html

 

My dude, there is so much about sexuality and education. I can give you a lil lesson sometime soon, but it might be a few days before I find some free time. Basically there are very very large issues with questioning the environmental "encourangement of homosexuality" in schools and other positions of dynamical power for children.

[StephenHarper]

I'll grant you the second two, for now. But the first is rediculous in your use of its stats. How can you use stats from 1978? Before the public interpretation and reaction to the Aids epidemic, etc. I'll report back on the other two sources after I have some time free from final papers.

 

Granted that may not be entirely true today, but I'm willing to bet its still extremely high. In a quick google search here's what I found.

 

A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

[Smart]

Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples.

 

Looks like a false analogy there chief... hey, remember when you said:

 

Just like someone who has been "gay" can choose not to be.

 

That was funny... don't you think you should start your own thread before you save us from the perils of skull buggery?

 

Let these gentle folks go back to talking about God...

[Dawood]

psst, I know right (no homo) let's just get back to the topic.

[the.crooked]

EDIT- This is in response to StephenHarper

 

 

This is not considering the social context of promiscuity among the queer community comparative to hetersexual one. There should be taken into account the concept that heterosexuals are more than likely less apt to be open with the actual amount of people they have been involved with. Not only that, questions of sexual value in relation to personal values should be considered as well in terms of reporting such numbers. People in a sexual community which is counterculture to the norm are already in a place to be less concerned with the social constraint of religious or normative values on such an idea. Really what the fuck does it matter if I fuck 100 bitches or 100 dudes? In so much as their sexuality questions the percieved norm it automatically questions the other values placed there in. Consider also this idea in relation to religion, as we should given the title of the thread. I would venture to say that while many people live a secular lifestyle they are still indoctrinated with certain social values that ring true in religious moral construct.

 

 

Iono, I am very leary of statistics, especially ones asking people to report numbers of sexual partners. My entire college is like an expirement on sexuality and constructed norms, so this discussion hits home in some ways. The other thing that I think you fail to recognize is how the Gay Lobby/Agenda's main focus is on reproductive rights and social education. The very things you are concerned with, Aids, STI's, etc, are at the forefront of contemporary discourse, academically and socially, in the queer community. I know untold amounts of people here concerned solely with sexual education. This is what I meant about reaction to the Aid's epidemic. Even if you statistically grant that they are more sexually active, it does not mean anything in light of having protected consentual sex. What is of concern is how to inform these people of the gravity of these actions such that their choices are better made. Perhaps people will be and are less apt to have as many partners even among the gay community, by virtue of the descimination of this knowledge.

 

You might counter that such progressive educational stances enforce a positive view of homosexuality and such influence the respective sexuality of a given person, but I think that is an argument left for what we were discussing earlier as relevant issues in the sexual development of a person.

 

All of this to say that the percieved increase in STI's among homosexual populations is likely to be spurrious at best. Especially when considered against such statistical populations of those in the current AIDS epidemic in Africa. Where the dominant part of the sexual transmission is among heterosexual partners. Over six million (I think according to an old TIME article I am trying to remember) childen infected with it because their mothers transmitted it though birth.

 

If anything the increase of STI's is linked to an ineducation in a means to safe sex with a weak correlary to sexual activity. Who gives a rats ass about the "morality" of how many sexual partners a person has. Would it be any less immoral if I (a male) sleep with 200 women in my life comparative to if, say, I slept with 2 men during the course of my life?

 

 

 

And then...

 

Drawing an ironic correlation between a society condemning such life damaging acts as taking drugs comparative to the "positive" stance taken on homosexuality? Cmon. That's not strong enough to provide a critique on the moral stance taken by the society. If anything it speaks to questioning why the society would condemn those acts at face value. Specifically, what rhettoric was in the popular discourse around the time there becomes a history of a specific stance taken on the morality of drug usage. This is all, I am assuming, coming from a north american perspective. I would say that it is again a case of under-education about a given concept. What leads to the damaging aspects of drug use? Is it it's moral value as bad? Is it the deaths, murders, crimes, lies, associated with the abuse and manipulation of drugs? Perhaps. Even conceeding such, the question could be asked, would people, given the proper education, make certain desicions about drug use? Education would have to be maintained as morrally objective for placing a moral value in the teachings suppresses the concepts and does not allow for a fuller more meaningful discourse on the subject. Take for example your discussion of drugs. DARE, is a perfect example of the inefficacy of moral value as an educational tool in abating the morally reprehensible features of drugs. That DARE always presented drugs in a negative connotation, and discusses any possible effect of a drug in such a way that even what would seem positive about it is in fact negative, creates a certain subversiveness about an experience then when a person does break the moral norm and try a drug. That is to say, if I smoke a joint most people would publicly percieve it as immoral as shooting up some heroin. By classifying all the drugs under one thing of the kind, NEGATIVE MORAL VALUE, it annihilates any room for consideration of varying difference among the drugs and their respective probabilities for abuse, etc.

 

 

 

 

To conclude, it is fallacious to suppose an immediate connection between a putative moral norm (condemning drug use, accepting homosexuality, levels of accepted promiscuity among a population, etc.), the basis for such moral norms (crimes, increased populations with STI's, questioning sexual limitations, respectively), as suggestive about a moral value of that population in question. That is to say, look to what actually affects the basis of the moral norm before you ascribe its cause post hoc.

[the.crooked]

now that this is over, lets get back to g o dizzle and whether or not I can progenate his likeness. yeah? i thought so.

[fermentor666]

Granted that may not be entirely true today, but I'm willing to bet its still extremely high. In a quick google search here's what I found.

 

A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

 

 

 

There is a huge problem with that study. First, they only surveyed 2,583 people. 2,000 of those could have been prostitutes. There are a ton of homosexuals that are either in the closet or uncomfortable discussing their lifestyle. ESPECIALLY in 1978, for crying out loud. And how many of those people could have lied? Personally, I find it very, very hard to believe that half of the homosexuals in the world have literally hundreds, maybe thousands of partners. Your use of statistics without questioning them shows a clear bias that contridicts the concept of scientific studies.

 

And again, what the fuck do condoms have to do with it? The Catholic church doesn't even allow them at all. It's stupid, but it has nothing to do with the concept of homosexuality.

 

Personally, I think anal sex between men is gross, I don't even like to think about it. But I feel the same way about tunafish and bondage. What the three have in common is that they have no effect on my life. Gay people aren't out there trying to rape me, tuna fish isn't trying to shove itself down my throat, and bondage isn't even in the equation. The only problem I have is when being gay is flaunted and when gay people incessently talk about their sex lives. I hate it when straight people do. Just as much as I hate the smell of fucking tunafish. Godammit I hate it, don't open that shit anywhere around me.

[fermentor666]

And it does relate to religion because most of the hatred against homosexual stems from it's denial from the churches, mosques, and temples.

[MAR]

First of all, try moving 8 million people into Kansas and see what Kansas has to say about it. Not only that, but unless the government takes the land by eminent domain, most land is privately owned. The population of the world has jumped from three billion to six billion in twenty years. All these people pollute, take up space, and consume. If you don't think overpopulation is going to be a problem then your eyes are closed.

 

And forget about New York, it's not the only big city in the world. There are a LOT more that are outside of the US that are nearly as large or larger than NYC and have a hell of a lot more poor people. Try moving them out into countrysides.

 

Land isn't even the issue, it's resources. Take everyone out of the city and dump them into the country and they're still going to be driving the same amount of cars, using the same amount of gas, and shitting into the same ocean. It's already happening and it's called "urban sprawl".

 

Space, we discussed. Not an issue.

 

Food: Grain prices have been on the steady decline since 1988, if food was such an issue then wouldnt they have increased? The prices got so low that the us gov't pays farmers not to grow food. Crazy isnt it?

 

Polution: Dispite the fact that it exists the world as a whole seems to be making an effort to reduce emissions. Kyoto was a fine example of that even though our gov't was an embarressment.

 

Interestingly enough, the reason the population has spiked in the past 20 years is because of longer life expectancies. The furtility rate has actually decreased from 5 to 3 kids per family. Thats a big decrease. And the UN thinks it will keep going down in developed countries. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

[StephenHarper]

now that this is over, lets get back to g o dizzle and whether or not I can progenate his likeness. yeah? i thought so.

 

You got a lot of time on your hands that for sure. I just started book right now called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." When I get more into it I'll start another thread to debate this issue further.

 

 

 

 

 

Dawood I was wondering what a Muslims has to do, believe etc. to get into heaven?

 

How does that aspect of Islam compare with Christianities view that you are saved by accepting Christ as your saviour by dying on the cross?

[Dawood]

now that this is over, lets get back to g o dizzle and whether or not I can progenate his likeness. yeah? i thought so.

 

 

Authoo billah.

[Dawood]

You got a lot of time on your hands that for sure. I just started book right now called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." When I get more into it I'll start another thread to debate this issue further.

 

 

 

 

 

Dawood I was wondering what a Muslims has to do, believe etc. to get into heaven?

 

How does that aspect of Islam compare with Christianities view that you are saved by accepting Christ as your saviour by dying on the cross?

 

 

In short, The muslim is not given paradise because of good deeds. the muslim essentially attains paradise through the mercy of God on mankind. If he beleives in God and doesn't worship other Gods or set up false gods to beleive in (like idols etc.) Then he will be forgiven for his sins if he is truly in his heart a beleiver.

 

Christians worship Jesus , and Jesus was a prophet and a messenger who, himself used to worship God, so he was not a God nor did he deserve worship (just like Muhammad)

Muslims don't worship Muhammad btw.

 

Also, there are different levels of paradise for the beleiver. And different levels of Hell for disbeleivers. The descriptions of them both are very graphic and detailed in the texts of Islam.

 

The pinnacle of disbelief (according to Islam) is to worship something other than God (shirk) To worship a stone or a tree, or a man, and animal or an angel , or even a prophet.

people today even worship money, or their own desires, they put their vain desires over and above their morality and sense of right and wrong (how many of us can say we never do that?)

Islam teaches self restraint and morality. it makes us upright , honest individuals. I never knew true honestly and truthfulness until I became muslim. before I was a muslim the enviroment around me was shady and deceitful, now it's not.

 

All of this is just my perspective, but if you like I can post links to articles that can give a more in depth explanation on what I'm talking about.

[Dawood]

this is a good site for info.

 

http://www.islaam.ca