Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[QUOTE=dizzydoll;876005]

Quote:

---

I would never allow any religion or belief system to dictate to me sexually or otherwise.

---

You're completely free to follow or not to .

Quote:

---

As far as I am concerned all religions were created by men for insecure men,

---

The religion I've talked about is not created by men !!
It's the words of God delivered to human beings through revelations to prophets . I wish things are clear to u now .
I don't allow a human being to dictate to me my system of life, but I do allow myself to follow the " Words of God " !!

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Allow me to ask a question here : What is the unit of a strong and well organized society

---

?

Depends which society you mean and what that society uses as its cultural norm.
The modern societies tend to make the individual as its unit not the family ,that's what creates a basic difference between the attitude of the religious societies and others .

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Religion . Isalm for instance , aimed at creating societies by organizing the relationships among human beings .

---

I see that as extremely dangerous. Why would anyone let a religion rule the [arguably] most important aspect of their entire life?

I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God " not the words of some human beings .
You are an athesit ; how can you understand how do those
people think if u don't agree with them on the basic issue ?!!

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
With Mohammad the last of prohets , Religion becomes fully developped , it aimed at constructing a strong society with legistlations that organized every detail in your life

---

.

Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok?

the average age of sexual maturity varies according to time and geographical location .
But the general rule no marriage before sexual maturation.

If Muhammad was the last prophet, then he must have been quite right.

No . There is no relation . It's a matter of belief . We do believe that the Quran is right and everything is mentioned in it concerning Mohammad or others and everyting is right .

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Moreover ,a Muslim is taught how to control his desires and basic intincts , using his own free will :What transcends human beings above animals .
Animals cannot say " No" to their instincts , but a human being should say it when necessary .

---

What makes it necessary?
Violating the religious codes that are made for the goodness of human beings.

How is it proof of free will if it is nothing more than a theological imperative? Surely, free will would require a conscious reasoning not to follow the instinct other than; "the quran says so"?

It 's a practice of your free will not to violate the moral and religious codes . What it is natural is to follow an order and to achieve a purpose for everyting we do . And sex is no exception . Everything in the universe follows an order and there is a purpose for its existence . We are part of this universe . We are above animals and the best among creatures that what God said .
We cannot degrade ourselves to the level of animals self- abusing our reason and free will .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

This raises another interesting point, actually. How do we know what is 'natural' and what is 'cultural' in human behaviour? You suggest that rape is the result of tensions created by the oppressive effects of culture and religion - and that without those influences no one would force themselves sexually on another person.

But one could also argue that it's only the influence of culture and religion that discourages humans from forcing themselves sexually on anyone else. In other words, the conventions of civilisation are designed to prevent rape, and generally speaking that's what they do.

Unfortunately, we don't have a human test group for this - as all humans live, one way or another, in groups that have rules of culture and morality.

My conclusion would be that the very fact that there are no humans who live without these things means that these things are natural to humans. Humans cannot live without culture and a moral structure (which tends to codify itself into religion), any more than koalas can live without eucalyptus trees. That is our natural state.

---

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Our culture is never our natural state. At times cultures, rituals,systems, taboos and the like disable humans. I know at times simple defenseless men are indoctrinated into certain patterns of thinking and will stray into foolhardiness.

I am not always against cultures, but there are certain aspects of cultures that are harmful to the human race. In Hinduism women are treated subserviently as if they are subhumans or beings who are less humans and more animals. One of the great mystics of the east said women must be always beaten tamed or else they become uncontrollable. They must be domesticated. This idea has been codified into a religious belief and later on assimilated into a popular culture.

I can give tens of thousands of such examples in all cultures. That is why I I feel cultures at time cripple humans.

---

But what is a human natural state? To compound Mark's point how far away fom this natual state are we? 500,000 years? 1 million years? It's a myth, and to think that we could all go back to this natural state is preposterous. The nearest experiments are communal living which hve invariably ended in tears.

Despite sometimes professing the alternative, humans thrive in order. It is protective - physically and emotionally. It is the evolving of social order that now allows the liberation of women, and has strengthened the position of gay rights.

It's also why I don't give much credence to Bonobo studies and comparisons to other animal groups. They may be fascinating, and closest to humans sexually, but we are removed by a huge amount of time in evolutionary terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Our culture is never our natural state. .

---

What is, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

What is, then?

---

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

---

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

But isn't culture designed to curtail those very damaging instincts - especially as expressed by groups of young men?

Are you advocating anarchy? You may be a perfectly resectable person Blaze, and so are most people, but there are those who you wouldn't want to allow to follow their instincts.

---

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I seem to advocate anarchy. But our monarchical, democratic or dictatorial regimes have not made our world a better place to live in.

we know dictatorial Hitler or Stalin, both were engaged in genocidal wars. They were of course great idealists, statesmen, formulators political ideologues. Of course in the so called American democratic system George Bush was the Hitler or Stalin Incarnate. Take the example of what he did in Iraq. You may support his idea out of nationalistic spirit. What we call nationalism is a love and hate game.

Of course I support anarchism that does not allow another holocaust or genocide of Hitler.

---

You are talking of national and nationalistic systems, which is different to the discussion in hand. We could discuss that the main difference between Bush and Hitler and Stalin is that one could be, and has been got rid of, whilst the other two - aside from being responsible for mass murderer, as was Mao to an even greater extent - could not easily be displaced. Whatever you think of Bush, he was not responsible for anything like the numbers of the other three.

But are'nt we talking about a more individual level - the effects of anarchy upon individuals? individuals become vulnerable - let alone all the already vulnerable people in society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

When we come out of the shroud of culture and behave following our instincts

---

But human beings have never lived without a shroud of culture. Never. So what makes you think it's natural?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Do you have less limiting diction when it comes to disparaging what isn't godspel in your worldview? Anthropology isn't astro-physics, but as the study of humanity it is a science, within certain parameters; it intersects with biology, forensics, and a number of other disciplines, and doesn't fall under mild epithets for feces.

---

Whatever my world view is, it's science based. As someone who has a degree from a science discipline and a degree from a liberal arts discipline, I can tell you there is a world of difference between the curriculium and approaches. Sorry, there just is.

Quote:

---

It is certainly more valuable than Catholicism's history of torture and child abuse and then covering all this up for the sake of protecting the divine sanction of the so called Church.

---

What the hell is that all about? Sounds like you're off mixing subjects. Second, my worldview is science based (first and foremost I am a mechaincal engineer), and it is in no way incompatable with my R.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It probably has more to do with males controlling women to guarantee the paternity of women. That's why virgin wives are so universally popular across many cultures. I think it's a little optimistic to concentrate on protecting women from the dangers of childbirth, especially when Christianity's views of marriage essentially prescribes them to be baby factories with little regard to their health.

I would venture a guess that religious restrictions of masturbation probably arise out of some primitive vain idolatry of semen.

The persecution of homosexual acts arise out of the usual desire to punish anything out of the normal.

---

why do people in general think there is something abnormal about homosexuality? it's common. Some people are gay and some aren't. So homosexuality is normal. Did people start feeling guilty about their sexual orientation because they were afraid they'd get their butts kicked or killed or where exactly do people pick up this sex-related shame (and the last part of that applies to all orientations) and where do these ideas about what's "normal" come from? That last sentence up there seems to say that homosexuality is abnormal and that's why there arose the need to persecute. But maybe the reality is that homosexuality is normal, and someone decided that it wasn't? But then you go back to the shame guilt thing - I guess I'm just asking, which came first?

I was using normal in the sense of near the average. I don't accept naturalistic tautologies that suggest moral behavior can be extrapolated from "natural" behavior. Besides, all human behavior must be natural by definition, as we are part of nature and so is our culture, the nature/culture binary is an artificial invention.

I obviously don't have anything against homosexuality lol.

I'm not familiar with the dominant theories for why it is persecuted, but I imagine it's tied in with cultural ideas of sex being merely for reproduction and the valuing of sexual constraint. From what I know there are pretty much 4 forms of homosexual societal views that have existed. One is ceremonial, the second is pederastic, the third is heteronormative, and the last is repressive. I would say homosexuality in the west falls into the heteronormative range, where homosexual relations mimic the culture heterosexual norms in large part and exclusive sexuality is more often practiced. Many tribal cultures have been observed to use ceremonial homosexual acts as forms of rites of passage. The prominent example being the rituals of Papua New Guinean tribes that inseminate pubescent boys as a way of passing on masculinity to the younger man. Pederastic relationships seem to be structured on power relations between a male in a more dominant position with one in a submissive position, the Ancient Greeks and warrior culture in Feudal Japan are good examples of this. Then you have the traditional Abrahamic situation where homosexual behavior is viewed negatively and repressed.

This gets complicated in cultures that have non-binary gender conceptions, and I'm sure there have been cultures that view homosexuality in different ways than the broad categories above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalot

why do people in general think there is something abnormal about homosexuality? it's common. Some people are gay and some aren't. So homosexuality is normal.

---

Homosexuality is as prevalent in other high end species as it is within human animal populations, but with this assertion stipulated, I don't like the use of the terms normal and abnormal. There isn't much that is *normal* about mating or intimacy.

And having said that as well, I have issues with gay culture and norms that I have not discussed in this forum, partly because it's personal and partly because even in my writer's head ticking off an opinion piece with the intent to be controversial, I haven't sorted this out in my own mind, since I am not sympathetic to religious views on the issue, and I try really hard not to run rough shod over rational stances with reactionary sentiment.

And you also see in the above paragraph the lengths to which I'll contort myself to avoid getting moderated:D.

Joz, I'd be more than willing to get into a discussion of homosexual cultural norms in the West. I have more than my fair share of issues with it, and I don't think any culture or behavior should be beyond criticism. I especially take issue with the essential American Post-Stonewall cultural norms that seem to have pervaded Western queer culture as a whole, it's a strange phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Joz, I'd be more than willing to get into a discussion of homosexual cultural norms in the West. I have more than my fair share of issues with it, and I don't think any culture or behavior should be beyond criticism. I especially take issue with the essential American Post-Stonewall cultural norms that seem to have pervaded Western queer culture as a whole, it's a strange phenomenon.

---

Pip, we may have had an uneasy introduction, but I have come to genuinely respect your views and level of education.

However much I would enjoy getting down and dirty, however, I think Sche would be thrilled if we found another way to air out what could be considered to be dirty laundry issues ;).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I do not try finding unnatural elements with homosexuality but still heterosexuals are more natural.

---

:lol:

George Orwell would have loved you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I used to work for a Lebonese family. They seriously do view homosexuality in the same light as we do, say, raping babies. Talk about effed up priorities...

---

Never mind Lebanese, Fred Phelps is a good enough example of how people see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God " not the words of some human beings .
You are an athesit ; how can you understand how do those
people think if u don't agree with them on the basic issue ?!!

---

Oh, I can understand the position, I just find it fascinating that the god speaks with so many different tongues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

Does this mean marrying nine year olds is ok?

the average age of sexual maturity varies according to time and geographical location .
But the general rule no marriage before sexual maturation.

---

This is the part i have a major problem with, especially in the light of 50 million child brides in the world at present, and almost all of them under islamic law.

Whether or not a child is sexually mature at 6, 8 or 10, it is most emphatically not ready to indulge in sexual intercourse or be a mother.

Some of us in the world find that idea quite repulsive - that a child should be forced into a position where an adult male may legally exploit, sexually abuse and control her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

No . There is no relation . It's a matter of belief . We do believe that the Quran is right and everything is mentioned in it concerning Mohammad or others and everyting is right .

---

I know.

However, as with the christian bible, there is vast divergence between what you think Muhammad said, what another muslim thinks Muhammad said and what the Taliban tell their followers Muhammad said.

Again, as with christianity, you will never get consensus on what the quran actually means and sects will continue to use it to justify their individual beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Our culture is never our natural state.

---

Surely, under any meaning of "natural" our culture is our natural state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I noticed that everyone here speaks of religion as the invention
of men and they forgot the basic thing about religion :what rules in religion is the " words of God "

---

Trouble is God never wrote any words. Man wrote words and he ascribed them to God. The christian bible was not written by God either, it was definitely written by insecure men. I am horrified by the many disgusting verses, in the bible, in reference to woman.... and I am not going there.

I am free right now as a women... it took a long time for females to get here.

Nevertheless we have a lot to thank religion for - charity, anti-slavery movements and laws, civil rights support, protection of rights, holidays etc.

How religions have been utilised has depended upon the practitioners - both for good and bad - politically, socially and interpersonally. That's why religions often have such a bad name because of the way it has been used and abused by powermongers.

What you also get though are many many good people who really embody the good qualities of their religion. They may not be the leaders and policy makers, but they can be the stranger who helps you.

In Pakistan their ambulances are run by a charity - the Edhi foundation. There is no other organised ambulance services available in Pakistan.

Here I am impressed by the salvtion Army. Our local hostel has rooms for 100 males who would otherwise be sleepng rough. They are not easy blokes to deal with either. All run by ordinary christians.

I can undertand the opposition to religion for all the bad effects we have seen over time and in the news, but despite all this it has a positive effect on many people.

It just seems too easy to dismiss everything religions have to say on aspects of human life.

Paul, I hear you, but my problem, say, with institutional religious power structures, is that they basically come to no good end. Virgil disparages institutional academics all of the time, in this thread and others, and that is fine. Universities are human institutions like any other, but long after I left the Roman Catholic Church, I defended it, particularly against well educated Protestants who otherwise held the most outrageous theories about what Catholic catechism was, and I think I need to break this habit from the disclosures coming out right up into the modern era. Scholars say the Inquisition was unfortunate but the good fathers were worried about the purity of the soul, and okay, life was cheap under the Spanish monarchy and the late Roman Empire before that, but the abuse of the children has been going on a long time, in secret, for most of the 20th century, in Europe and America and goodness knows where else. It breaks my heart, and I think it deserves a stronger response from me than to dismissively deem it *crap*, not that I think Commonweal would let me aim some choice words at the Vatican.

It isn't that institutional abuses don't occur elsewhere, but I am entitled to anger at a way of life in which I was raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I obviously don't have anything against homosexuality lol.

---

Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it? I mean, what % of the population is disabled? How often do we give them a compassionate break? They are certainly most deserving.

I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic. Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population? I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist? Gay issues fit into the same category, imo. And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them, or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves. If they did this my respect for them would certainly improve. In the meantime I see no purpose discussing blondes who take issue with dumb jokes or narcissistic gays who take issue with society's views of them either.

Right, let me have it. :confused5:

Sex and religion are emotionally charged for many people because they involve intimacy. If people choose to attack one another what better way to insult than to use their sex and religion against them.

Many wars have been fought over such issues.

Homosexuals have been discriminated against throughout history and it isn't surprizing that a back lash from them occurs in todays more open society. We still have a long way to go before most societies accept homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in many species, not just humans.

Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it? I mean, what % of the population is disabled? How often do we give them a compassionate break? They are certainly most deserving.

---

Well, I don't know about South Africa, but in the UK the answer is 'all the time' - and quite right too.

Quote:

---

I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic.

---

This is a version of the 'hair-piece error' - where people say 'I can always tell when a guy is wearing a wig'. You can't ever know that that's true because if someone were wearing a wig and you didn't know, you wouldn't know you didn't know. Similarly, you have no idea how many gays you have worked with, because if you didn't know they were gay, you wouldn't know you didn't know. So you can't tell whether a high proportion of them are narcissistic.

Quote:

---

Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population? I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist? The way I see it, gay issues fit into the same category.

---

When they start witholding civil rights from blondes, refuse certain jobs to blondes, and splash all over the papers the revelation that some politician or pop star is blonde, as if it were a shameful scandal, then, yes, you can put blondes in the same category. I'm with you on the jokes though. I don't think jokes should be dscouraged.

Quote:

---

And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them. Or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

---

You are not the first to ask. For some reason many straight people have this suspicion that gay people are like the aliens from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, wanting the whole of humanity to join the Pink Swarm. I have no idea why so many people think that. It's something to do with fear, but I haven't yet worked out what. So my question would be - why does it even occur to you to ask that question? Just asking.

Quote:

---

I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves. If they did this my respect for them would certainly improve. In the meantime I see no purpose discussing blondes who take issue with dumb jokes or narcissistic gay issues either.

Right, let me have it. :confused5:

---

You see, this is where your problem lies. You have lumped all gays together as narcissistic and self-serving, and as a result of that you have little respect for them - though you very generously let them know how they can improve themselves in your eyes, which I'm sure is something that they'll act on. But that tendency - to ascribe the same characteristics to an entire group of disparate people identified by only one shared attribute - that is prejudice.

Then again, I have worked and played with many South Africans and I find them often very arrogant and insensitive. In fact, my company no longer employs South Africans because of that - they're all like it. They should get over themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Similarly, you have no idea how many gays you have worked with, because if you didn't know they were gay, you wouldn't know you didn't know. So you can't tell whether a high proportion of them are narcissistic.

---

I do know how many, they have opened up with me extensively as far as their sexuality is concerned. I speak from direct experience as many gay guys seek answers from women.

Quote:

---

When they start witholding civil rights from blondes, refuse certain jobs to blondes

---

Blondes are often exploited sexually from a very young age.. as far as I am concerned that IS a civil rights issue.

Quote:

---

You see, this is where your problem lies. You have lumped all gays together as narcissistic and self-serving

---

From direct experience I find this to be true.

Quote:

---

Then again, I have worked and played with many South Africans and I find them often very arrogant and insensitive. In fact, my company no longer employs South Africans because of that - they're all like it. They should get over themselves.

---

We have lived with this attitude all our lives... in fact when the apartheid regime lost the vote the whole world expected and I dare say 'hoped for' for a blood bath. It didnt happen, have you ever wondered why? Your attitude or that of those around you is not new to us and so doesnt faze us. Until you come to this country and meet its people you are just shooting hot air.

I have a lot more knowledge of gay people than you realise so please dont assume anything otherwise you make an *** out of U and ME.

My message stays the same, gays must get over themselves and pick up the banner for a higher cause.. I am not the only one with this view and its NOT only restricted to South Africa either. And by the way, I was not born here but I do chose to live here for good reason, in fact I even have a S.A passport now which I am proud of.

My 1st question stays the same. What % is the gay populace in society?

In fact I feel that homosexuality is despised when we are too much obsessed with cultural attributes. Homosexuality in itself is not a vice. The problem is with us and with our conditioned mind. Even hetero-sex is deemed contemptible in our part of the world. Man is expected to have sex only after marriage and of course he or she has to be wedlock to enjoy this. Even after marriage one lovemaking must be confined to procreation. Acts of sex for pleasure is considered profane. But now gradually the new generation is breaking the rule and have an affair before marriage and at times outside the matrimonial tie. Homosexuality is unthinkable here and people simply cannot think about homosexuality.

What I feel is if we do not feel guilty and nothing wrong with homosexuality.
In my country people choose to go to the temple after sex or worship or pray after the act of lovemaking. Because they feel sex is an unholy act.

A great Indian mystic, named Osho wrote a book called from sex to supreme consciousness and the book raised great uproars throughout the country but the same book popularized or recognized him globally.

The same is true of homosexuality. I do not consider it bad despite the fact given the choice I am in for heterosexuality.

Maybe it is hard for me indulge in homosexuality for I was brought up in a very orthodox society. Homosexuality is often secretly a case under certain circumstances especially in boy or girl hostels wherein they share the same bed or room or heterosexuals are not available there.

I have, speaking principally, have no objection to acts of homosexuality or even asexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Nevertheless we have a lot to thank religion for - charity, anti-slavery movements and laws, civil rights support, protection of rights, holidays etc.

---

Since religion caused most of the issues facing mankind, including the ones you list, I don't know whether we should thank it, but I do admit that religion, particularly the more moderate kinds, are of net benefit to mankind.

When they become fundamental and used as a blueprint for all life, then I think they move into negative territory and aren't worth preservation.

Not that they'll be going anywhere soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

How religions have been utilised has depended upon the practitioners - both for good and bad - politically, socially and interpersonally. That's why religions often have such a bad name because of the way it has been used and abused by powermongers.

---

Bingo!

And by the same token, should we not credit those who have used the power in better ways instead of the religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

In Pakistan their ambulances are run by a charity - the Edhi foundation. There is no other organised ambulance services available in Pakistan.

---

Same in New Zealand - ours are run by St John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Here I am impressed by the salvtion Army. Our local hostel has rooms for 100 males who would otherwise be sleepng rough. They are not easy blokes to deal with either. All run by ordinary christians.

---

I admit the Sallies do some good work, but for me, they lose all their points by being so fervently anti-gay.

I'd rather have no altruists than bigoted ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It just seems too easy to dismiss everything religions have to say on aspects of human life.

---

It is easy, when their desire and attempts to have that say are based on thousands of years old manuscripts of dubious value and authenticity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Me too, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I am going to strike out here now and probably be hammered for it. So here's the 1st question, what % of the population is gay? I could be wrong but I figured it must be around 10%, and if this is the case why should we bother discussing it?

---

That's the number I always see touted by LGBT rights groups, but I don't buy a bar of it.

I'd say the real number is somewhere less than 5%.

That said, I don't think the rate is relevant - it's perfectly human behaviour and lot more user-friendly than spitting on the footpath, which seems to be quite natural behaviour, but one which I find disgusting.

Gayness, on the other hand is natural, harmless and not at all disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I have worked and played with gays and I find them often very narcissistic. Why must we constantly talk about their issues and thousands of $$$ are spent on appeasing them when they are only 10% of the population?

---

God, I wish we'd taken that attitude when we gave you sheilas the vote!

"There's your vote, don't come crying to us about equality of pay, opportunities and freedom from discrimination!"

Emmeline Pankhurst, eat my shorts!

Gays have been discriminated against for longer than almost all other groups, and are still discriminated against in lots of countries, to the extent of death penalty in some.

I think they have a right to be a touch homocentric about the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I am blonde, so my issue is that I find blonde jokes offensive and so I take issue with people who tell them. Do you get my gist?

---

:lol:

You wouldn't like me, then!

My wife's a blonde. She forwarded me a joke on the seven levels of blondeness yesterday, so let me know if you want 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Gay issues fit into the same category, imo. And why do gays always want to talk about societies acceptance of them, or is it possible they want all of us to become like them? Just asking.

---

Dunno about you, but I have lots of gay mates and none of them want me.

I feel so left out, dammit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I think gays would do better to pick up the banner for a group in need, like disabled people, and by doing that it might help them get over themselves.

---

That's twice you analogise gayness and disability in the same sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borty

Sex and religion are emotionally charged for many people because they involve intimacy. If people choose to attack one another what better way to insult than to use their sex and religion against them.

Many wars have been fought over such issues.

Homosexuals have been discriminated against throughout history and it isn't surprizing that a back lash from them occurs in todays more open society. We still have a long way to go before most societies accept homosexuality.

Homosexuality occurs in many species, not just humans.

Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

---

Well put!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

A great Indian mystic, named Osho wrote a book called from sex to supreme consciousness and the book raised great uproars throughout the country but the same book popularized or recognized him globally.

---

I agree with you. He was a rebel and it must have been very difficult to refuse to conform to what society saw as normal, especially as he decided to go against his upbringing by not marrying or having kids... in those days that was quite a radical stance.

I also agree he was a great teacher but he did hang around with bad company at certain stages of his life, understandably so.. a rebel will always attract rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You wouldn't like me, then!

My wife's a blonde. She forwarded me a joke on the seven levels of blondeness yesterday, so let me know if you want 'em.

---

You missed my point... and yes I want them. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borty

Several religions believe homosexuality is a sin and many gay people are excluded from worship and some even claim they are demon possessed.

I believe sex is one of many expressions of love. In our present society it has become to many people a commondity to be bought and sold like ice cream.

Sort of drains the sacredness out of it ...don't you think?

---

I agree with you 100% Bort being gay is not a sin and as stated earlier I have no problem with gays per-say, I just dont understand why so much time and money should be spent on them instead of focusing on much more pressing causes to make others' lives easier. Surely you can see my point as you provide an excellent service for hospice. Dont you think gay people will feel better about themselves when they find a higher cause to focus on other than themselves?

And then my mind keeps going back to its only 10% [or 5%] of the population, isnt it narcissistic arrogance to expect so much attention of their issues?

Quote:

---

Oh, I can understand the position, I just find it fascinating that the god speaks with so many different tongues

---

God speaks with one tongue only and his words are the same to all nations throughout history . His words are distributed among different prophets and in different periods of time . All prophets said the same basic things and they complement each other .It's one religion that begun with Adam and ended with Mohammad (p.B.U. H). The differences are because the followers of the religion deviates from the right path . It happened with Mohammad too when he died. Some followers loved him to the extent that they wouldn't believe he could die like any other human being . They converted from Islam when their prophet died . So one of his disciples delivered a very famous speech in the history of Islam ; he said :If you WORSHIP Mohammad , Mohammad died . IF you worship God , God is alive and can never die .
The followers of Jesus loved him to the extent that they made him the son of God . They worshipped him, distorted his words . And here the problem begins ............

Quote:

---

This is the part i have a major problem with, especially in the light of 50 million child brides in the world at present, and almost all of them under islamic law.

Being a Muslim doesn't mean you know everything about Islam and you apply everything .
THIS HAS TO DO WITH TRADITIONS NOT WITH RELIGION . TRIBES HAVE TRADITIONS THAT OVERPOWER RELIGION .

Quote:

---

Whether or not a child is sexually mature at 6, 8 or 10, it is most emphatically not ready to indulge in sexual intercourse or be a mother.

---

This is a social ,cultural and economic issue and it is decreasing with time . You said 50 millions child bribes . It was much more in the past and it will be less in the future.

Some of us in the world find that idea quite repulsive - that a child should be forced into a position where an adult male may legally exploit, sexually abuse and control her

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

The followers of Jesus loved him to the extent that they made him the son of God . They worshipped him, distorted his words . And here the problem begins .............

---

Right on, you are absolutely correct on this one. I cannot speak for Islam cos I know very little about it and I am am pleased for the diverse cultures on this thread to enlighten all of us. Talking and learning about others faiths never killed anyone. Its all good even tho I might not share the same views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I do know how many, they have opened up with me extensively as far as their sexuality is concerned. I speak from direct experience as many gay guys seek answers from women.

---

So you are fully conversant with the sexuality of every person you've ever worked with. Wow. How special.

Quote:

---

Blondes are often exploited sexually from a very young age.. as far as I am concerned that IS a civil rights issue.

---

So are brunettes. What's your point?

Quote:

---

From direct experience I find this <that gays are narcissitic and self-serving> to be true.

---

If I were to say that from direct experience I find that blondes are slutty dimwits, would you consider that admissible evidence?

Quote:

---

We have lived with this attitude all our lives... in fact when the apartheid regime lost the vote the whole world expected and I dare say 'hoped for' for a blood bath. It didnt happen, have you ever wondered why? Your attitude or that of those around you is not new to us and so doesnt faze us. Until you come to this country and meet its people you are just shooting hot air.

---

And that's exactly my point. You quite rightly get defensive when I make outrageous generalisations about South Africans derived from my own experience, and yet you expect us to accept your outrageous generalisations about gays, derived from your experience.

Your argument has fallen flat. You are going to have to come back with something better than that, or offer your services to a higher cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I agree with you. He was a rebel and it must have been very difficult to refuse to conform to what society saw as normal, especially as he decided to go against his upbringing by not marrying or having kids... in those days that was quite a radical stance.

I also agree he was a great teacher but he did hang around with bad company at certain stages of his life, understandably so.. a rebel will always attract rebels.

---

Yes dizzydoll,

He was really a rebel and always rebelled against the established social and ethical systems and values. His first book, from sex to supreme consciousness has raised a storm.

He was a liberal and never looked at things through others' perspectives. He had always his say and his voice no matter what difficulties he had to face

Its so encouraging to see Osho has inspired men like you Blaze. Forgive me I have to bring this out.

I read from your posts that you are a strong man of principal and morals. Just remember life is not a problem, its a solution to a problem. If you focus only on problems you will weaken and that is no good. Solutions bring progress as nothing else can.. we rack our brains and then *poof* we find them.

Look at it this way, the past is gone.. buried, nothing we can do about that, but we can do a tremendous amount in the present for future generations of girls. It might be difficult to do but you should stand up alongside like-minded men for womens rights in your country. Motto: One step at a time, there is no looking back.

I believe God sends people like Osho to enlighten all of us, so dont be too hard on yourself or your plan of action, lets be grateful that at last its all coming together.. women today are much better off than we were in the past.. I am sure this is the case even in your country. So the first step is always, be grateful.. and more will follow. Promise.

Lets celebrate to the success already achieved.

If we are able to break the sound barrier , surely we are able to do this.

:gnorsi:

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find yourself unable to show respect and understanding towards those who do not share your views -especially on religious and moral issues-, please refrain from posting in these threads.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.

~

Since religion caused most of the issues facing mankind, including the ones you list, I don't know whether we should thank it, but I do admit that religion, particularly the more moderate kinds, are of net benefit to mankind.

When they become fundamental and used as a blueprint for all life, then I think they move into negative territory and aren't worth preservation.

Not that they'll be going anywhere soon.

I agree with this.

And by the same token, should we not credit those who have used the power in better ways instead of the religion?

Yes

It is easy, when their desire and attempts to have that say are based on thousands of years old manuscripts of dubious value and authenticity.

I agree.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think when religions start trying to affect the lives of people and inflicting their beliefs, then it is often negative. We are moving away from the organised infuence in some parts of the west - the UK and Europe. Here in the UK religious leaders make their comments and squabble about Gay admission to the church whilst the rest of society has enshrined their rights in law and moved on. The legal system has thankfully taken over much of the church's province in this respect.

As a set of standards for an individual to lead their life, religions do provide a good role model. I suppose this is what I am getting at.

Religion - powerful organisation - attempting to affect policy, laws, individual conduct - bad

Religion - set of standards to lead your life by, promoting good/ charitable works/ vocations/ setting a good example to others, not interfering in other business - generally good.

I wasn't aware that the Sally A was anti-Gay. That goes against them, but I still can't deny the positive effect they have. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's the number I always see touted by LGBT rights groups, but I don't buy a bar of it.

I'd say the real number is somewhere less than 5%.

That said, I don't think the rate is relevant - it's perfectly human behaviour and lot more user-friendly than spitting on the footpath, which seems to be quite natural behaviour, but one which I find disgusting.

Gayness, on the other hand is natural, harmless and not at all disgusting.

---

The most accurate statistics are 4-6% for self-identifying homosexuals, and then if you include self-identifying bisexuals you get another 3%. So, 7-9% for the entire LGBT community is fairly accurate. However, in major urban centers you get the gay migration phenomenon so the numbers get inflated a few percentage points. The gay population in New York is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the USA. That's why Kinsey got the inflated numbers because he was using strictly urban samples. I'm not exactly sure that the population should matter when it comes to civil rights. Natives, and Africans make up less of that population in Canada, should we then be ignoring their civil rights?

@dizzy

I'm mildly insulted that you think blondes are equally discriminated against as homosexuals. Also, what money is the government spending on gays exactly? Last I checked gays aren't even considered a visible minority so we don't get affirmative action. The only people spending money on gay issues, are gay and anti-gay lobbying groups.

Let's look at the comparative history of blondes (which some gays happen to be too, besides the point) and gays.

Figures from the government of Canada:

Violent hate crimes committed against blacks in 2006: 90
Violent hate crimes committed against Jews in 2006: 32
Violent hate crimes committed against homosexuals in 2006: 44

Those are the 3 most discriminated against (in terms of actual violence) in Canada. Making homosexuals the second most discriminated against. Unfortunately, the government of Canada doesn't keep figures on how many people cite blondness as a reason for assault, because nobody does.

How about historically.

Last time someone was sent to jail for being homosexual (and declared by a psychiatrist unlikely to stop having sex with men) in Canada was 1967. Last time someone was jailed simply for being blonde... gee can't find that stat.

Also, Mark's argument doesn't fall flat because he is absolutely right about your jump to baseless generalizations. If you think the disabled deserve more attention than gays from the government (still not sure what attention gays actually get from the government) then blame the masses of straight people who are more obsessed with gays than the disabled.

Hello Pip, firstly the fact that I mentioned disabled people was merely as an example. Serving any higher cause is better than serving ourselves be you gay or not. That was the point I was striving for which I have no doubt you understood anyway.

Secondly you express your views, and I express mine. You seem to have little time for blondes I see. I wonder what % of little girls [I believe blondes are in high demand] are exploited through porn etc. These days the younger the better. For me those are real life civil rights issues against all children with dire long term repercussions. Yet somehow the law cannot stop online porn or there is just too much money earned to care, after all someone gets tax from google, yahoo etc.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You, like me, are happy with your opinions. So I say it again if a blonde finds blonde jokes offensive she must get over herself. If gays have a problem with public opinion of them, they must get over themselves.. both should find a higher cause to get their teeth into and stop being so narcissistic. For me the blonde analogy with gays works perfectly. Clearly you and I agree to disagree so there is no more to discuss.

Cost of money -- the cops cost the state money every time there are public demonstrations by gays, plus I am sure there are more costs but I really couldnt care less about their issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

Hello Pip, firstly the fact that I mentioned disabled people was merely as an example. Serving any higher cause is better than serving ourselves be you gay or not. That was the point I was striving for which I have no doubt you understood anyway.

Secondly you express your views, and I expressed mine. I wonder what % of little girls [I believe blondes are in high demand] are exploited through porn etc. These days the younger the better. For me those are real life civil rights issues against all children with dire long term repercussions. Yet somehow the law cannot stop online porn or there is just too much money to care, after all someone gets tax from google, yahoo etc.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. You, like me, are happy with your opinions. So I say it again if a blonde finds blonde jokes offensive she must get over herself. If gays have a problem with public opinion of them, they must get over themselves.. both should find a higher cause to get their teeth into and stop being so narcissistic. For me the blonde analogy with gays works perfectly. Clearly you and I agree to disagree so there is no more to discuss.

Cost of money -- the cops cost money every time there are public demonstrations by gays, plus I am sure there are more but I really couldnt care less about their issues.

---

Oh please, so you think gays should stop exercising democratic rights and just roll over and take the abuse. I'd rather be dead than just smile and nod at every affront. I'm not talking about jokes here, I'm talking about physical harm and equity.

If you care so much about how blondes are treated do something about it instead of blaming other groups for not caring enough about it. If gays don't fight for gay rights, nobody else is going to do it. Society doesn't hand people rights and equity on silver platters, it's always an uphill battle. The battle isn't over, and it's not going to stop until equity is achieved, and even then it has to continue to prevent regression.

Edit: As if porn has anything to do with this at all, as if gays are diverting attention against the imagined plight of porn starlets.

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dizzydoll

I rest my case.

---

Fine if you think it's good to be a sheep and walked over by others, so be it. Good luck in the world with that attitude.