On Moderate Muslims

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:42 am

First topic message reminder :

Ever since the Islamic atrocity of 9/11 (some would argue even before that), it has become fashionable to run after "moderate" Muslims, to court them, to highly value their views, to appease them to the point of losing freedoms won through centuries of bloodshed and activism. And yet at some point we must ask ourselves, have we been chasing a mirage all along? Fareed Zakaria explains:

Over the past decade, the United States helped organize Iraq’s “moderates” — the Shiite-dominated government — giving them tens of billions of dollars in aid and supplying and training their army. But, it turned out, the moderates weren’t that moderate. As they became authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements grew and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS gained tacit or active support. This has been a familiar pattern throughout the region.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support “moderates.” The problem is that there are actually very few of them.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/on-moderate-Muslims.html

by Eilzel Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:00 pm

It is killing me didge, Zack's terrible goose chase that is lol

We now know:

God doesn't seem to punish lesbianism directly.
He'd encourage monogamous gay relationships.
He punishes straight men for not sleeping around.
Gay men are typically less likely to get prostate cancer...
... Unless they are promiscuous, but that isn't the same.

What next lol

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:02 pm

Eilzel wrote:It is killing me didge, Zack's terrible goose chase that is lol

We now know:

God doesn't seem to punish lesbianism directly.
He'd encourage monogamous gay relationships.
He punishes straight men for not sleeping around.
Gay men are typically less likely to get prostate cancer...
... Unless they are promiscuous, but that isn't the same.

What next lol

Best own goal I have ever seen to be honest Eizel.

He may attempt to get around this with sanctioned adultery, as Muhammad had more than one wife, which then means this deity santions adultery as stated.

by Eilzel Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:03 pm

He could do that, but I'm expecting some backtrack. He's probably rummaging through google as we speak looking for something to fix his blunders haha

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:06 pm

Eilzel wrote:He could do that, but I'm expecting some backtrack. He's probably rummaging through google as we speak looking for something to fix his blunders haha

He does tend to do that being slow in reply proving he does not understand what he is arguing.
I am still waiting why adultery was allowed with Muhammad, because if it is then this deity has no belief in a loving monogamous relationship or adultery is redundent and thus should not be punishable based on polygamy.

by Eilzel Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:09 pm

Which would be just another flaw in what is a ridiculous religion. I have to go bed anyway didge, so have fun, I'll catch up tomorrow :-)

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:13 pm

Eilzel wrote:Which would be just another flaw in what is a ridiculous religion. I have to go bed anyway didge, so have fun, I'll catch up tomorrow :-)

All the best mate.

Smile

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:40 pm

Eilzel wrote:Different report different findings- funny that.

Also funny (considering what this is 'suppose' to prove) is that men who sleep around 'apparently' have a better chance of avoiding cancer! So your god would encourage infidelity?

Be careful the sources you cite Zack. You contradicted yourself with the first and destroy your point with the second. Notable to how it mentions a monogamous gay couple are at not greater risk.

Of course these are two separate reports with different results- and you'd never take these as conclusive facts would you Zack?

But it's not me. It's science. Something you depend on.

Religion is quite clear. Science is getting there, slowly.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:42 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Eilzel wrote:It is killing me didge, Zack's terrible goose chase that is lol

We now know:

God doesn't seem to punish lesbianism directly.
He'd encourage monogamous gay relationships.
He punishes straight men for not sleeping around.
Gay men are typically less likely to get prostate cancer...
... Unless they are promiscuous, but that isn't the same.

What next lol

Best own goal I have ever seen to be honest Eizel.

He may attempt to get around this with sanctioned adultery, as Muhammad had more than one wife, which then means this deity santions adultery as stated.

Or 4 wives. But that's too easy.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:45 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Eilzel wrote:He could do that, but I'm expecting some backtrack. He's probably rummaging through google as we speak looking for something to fix his blunders haha

He does tend to do that being slow in reply proving he does not understand what he is arguing.
I am still waiting why adultery was allowed with Muhammad, because if it is then this deity has no belief in a loving monogamous relationship or adultery is redundent and thus should not be punishable based on polygamy.

Unlike you 2 regulars, I have a life outside here.

And there's a difference between polygamy and adultery. D'UH!

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:45 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Best own goal I have ever seen to be honest Eizel.

He may attempt to get around this with sanctioned adultery, as Muhammad had more than one wife, which then means this deity santions adultery as stated.

Or 4 wives. But that's too easy.

Not at all as again, allaha has no belief in a loving monogamous relationship or adultery is redundent and thus should not be punishable based on polygamy, because it is sanctioned adultery..

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:46 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

He does tend to do that being slow in reply proving he does not understand what he is arguing.
I am still waiting why adultery was allowed with Muhammad, because if it is then this deity has no belief in a loving monogamous relationship or adultery is redundent and thus should not be punishable based on polygamy.

Unlike you 2 regulars, I have a life outside here.

And there's a difference between polygamy and adultery. D'UH!

Really because the Quran says so, or that most rational countries ban this because it is illegal based around the view it is adultery?

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:48 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Unlike you 2 regulars, I have a life outside here.

And there's a difference between polygamy and adultery. D'UH!

Really because the Quran says so, or that most rational countries ban this because it is illegal based around the view it is adultery?

No because in this case, it's about trust and consent.

Is this how pathetic you have become.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:50 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Really because the Quran says so, or that most rational countries ban this because it is illegal based around the view it is adultery?

No because in this case, it's about trust and consent.

Is this how pathetic you have become.

So swingers are accepatable in Islam then, because they trust and consent.

Walkled into that one then.

So you just proved there should be no adultery punishment for swingers who consent.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:52 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No because in this case, it's about trust and consent.

Is this how pathetic you have become.

So swingers are accepatable in Islam then, because they trust and consent.

Walkled into that one then.

So you just proved there should be no adultery punishment for swingers who consent.

Lol! The trust and consent is based on a contract of marriage.

You really are pathetic. And you have the audacity of accuse me of being childish. HA!

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:55 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

So swingers are accepatable in Islam then, because they trust and consent.

Walkled into that one then.

So you just proved there should be no adultery punishment for swingers who consent.

Lol! The trust and consent is based on a contract of marriage.

You really are pathetic. And you have the audacity of accuse me of being childish. HA!

No I am easily able to show the complete contradiction in your faith.
So if two married swingers draw up a contract they then can both commit adultery based on this contract?
They can marry more than one party, that is bigamy, basically an adultereus bigamist.
So on all counts allah endores bigamy for Muslim men, which is really adultery, women are punished for adultery, and by his logic swingers, also adulterers should not be punished based on consent.

So much fun this.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:58 pm

Back later, this has been so much fun proving this religion is man made, of Muslims thus believe in bigmay, swingers not being adulterers, where Allah santions adultery for men, making allah a bigamist
Catch you all later

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:59 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! The trust and consent is based on a contract of marriage.

You really are pathetic. And you have the audacity of accuse me of being childish. HA!

No I am easily able to show the complete contradiction in your faith.
So if two married swingers draw up a contract they then can both commit adultery based on this contract?
They can marry more than one party, that is bigamy, basically an adultereus bigamist.
So on all counts allah endores bigamy for Muslim men, which is really adultery, women are punished for adultery, and by his logic swingers, also adulterers should not be punished based on consent.

So much fun this.

That would not be a valid contract within Islam. You're such a simpleton.

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 5:00 pm

Brasidas wrote:Back later, this has been so much fun proving this religion is man made, of Muslims thus believe in bigmay, swingers not being adulterers, where Allah santions adultery for men, making allah a bigamist
Catch you all later

That's it. Run away with your monkey tail between your legs.

You still remain a savage coward who is all talk.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:23 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Back later, this has been so much fun proving this religion is man made, of Muslims thus believe in bigmay, swingers not being adulterers, where Allah santions adultery for men, making allah a bigamist
Catch you all later

That's it. Run away with your monkey tail between your legs.

You still remain a savage coward who is all talk.

Oh dear back to infantile insults when I have just shown up the contradictions in your religion.

So again your deity endorses adultery id endorsed by a loop hole with a contract thus by this logic married wingers can do the same within a contract of marriage.

What ever way you look at it Allah thus clearly endorses bigamy and treats a monogamous relationship of love of lower importance and more dangereous than a bigamist one.

So we have found that there can not be a moderate Muslim, even by Zacks view of his religion and mine, we know it is not reliable as a written source based on arabic in its infancy and we know that it is clearly man made where it favours men to have less chance of prostrate cancer if they have adultery based on the amount of women.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:09 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Eilzel wrote:^tommy the fact you just CnPd a load of quotes from the Koran proves nothing other than the fact you don't understand the word context...

That you think I see extrenism something 'dreamt up' shows you don't even understand what people have been saying on this thread- if you are going to be ignorant at least have the grace to say. That those quotes ARE used by extremists is the REASON I have a problem with the Koran- that those quotes can be interpreted to relate to now is another of the problems I'd put Zack (which he has ignored prefering to focus solely on the homosexuality example).

Zack- all the things you've said do not address the fact the key verse in the Koran is vague enough on homosexuality to be understood as warranting human punishment for homosexual acts.

That most Muslims will think gay people sinful is of no interest. I think all confessed Muslims are deluded- swings and roundabouts; at least I'm not wasting life thinking I'm being watched by the sky daddy (however wise and merciful...) ;-)

The verse(s) (more than one verse. If you'd read the Quran, you'd know that) about homosexual acts is crystal clear. It's a sin. And if lewd acts (sexual acts outside heterosexual marriage) are committed in front of 4 independent witnesses, then legal sanctions can be applied.

The legal interpretations beyond this are based on the Hadeeth, which I admit is not perfect. But you don't understand this because you are ignorant about Islam. You think it's all based on the Quran. Educate yourself.

As for what God thinks about homosexuality in Islam, sodomy (or man mounting) and lesbian acts are a sin. Your body (specifically your anus) wasn't designed for such practices. As proved with the higher case of prostate cancer amongst the male gays. That's not Islam saying that but science.

And that's just one example. I could go on about how the anus is designed for one way traffic only. Yet gays choose to abuse their bodies.

And there's 'being gay is not a choice'. So where's the gay gene? Why is there a fluid spectrum of sexuality, as science says?

You have a lot of questions to answer if you want to justify your abhorrent lifestyle to me.

actually science says this "There’s no evidence that gay or bisexual men are more likely to get prostate cancer or other prostate problems. But prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK. About 1 in 8 men will get prostate cancer at some point in their lives. Older men, men with a family history of prostate cancer and Black men have a higher risk."

from .... http://prostatecanceruk.org/information/living-with-prostate-cancer/gay-and-bisexual-men

so once again Fuzzy creeps under a rock to find some bogus "fact" to prove his cretinous religious "belief"

funny init....how thw MOST religious of any "faith" are the most science disabled morons...

just like the funamentalist "creationists"

moreover the above at least is reasonably up to date....as in ..updated nov 2013

unlike fuzzys crapola which is from 2011....how positively .........dinosaurean....just like his beliefs On Moderate Muslims - Page 8 2023022481

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:31 pm

and just for everyones interest we will now destroy the fuzzy ones argument totally....

and prove what a scientific ignoramus he is....

May 9, 2011 -- A new study sheds light on the differences in cancer prevalence and survival rates in gay, lesbian, and bisexual populations compared with heterosexuals.

It found that gay men had nearly twice the odds of being diagnosed with cancer as heterosexual males.

This is ALL cancers...NOT prostate cancer...in fact the study goes on to say..................

In women there was no significant difference in cancer prevalence by sexual orientation. But cancer survivors who were lesbians were twice as likely to describe their health as fair or poor, and bisexual women were 2.3 times as likely compared with heterosexual females.

Prior to this point, there's been a lack of information about sexual orientation and detection rates and health status of cancer survivors, since cancer registries do not break out data by sexual orientation.

To create one of the earliest snapshots of this population, Boston researchers used data from the California Health Interview Survey. Done every two years by telephone, this large statewide survey asks participants about sexual orientation along with other questions about their health and medical history.

The analysis pooled data from surveys done in 2001, 2003, and 2005. The sample looked at adults who were age 18 to 65. It included nearly 70,000 heterosexual women along with more than 900 lesbians and 1,100 bisexual women. Among the men, more than 49,000 were heterosexual, nearly 1,500 were gay, and about 600 were bisexual.

Sexual Orientation and Cancer Rates

More than 7,200 women and nearly 3,700 men reported being diagnosed with cancer as an adult. When the scientists looked at specific cancer types, they found some differences by sexual orientation.

Gay men had significantly lower rates of prostate cancer but higher rates of other cancers.

so much for fuzzys assertion that gays have higher rates of prostate cancer

Uterine cancer was the most prevalent among lesbians. Bisexual women had cervical cancer rates twice that of other women.

Cancer survivors are people who are living with, through, or beyond a diagnosis of cancer. As of January 2007, the latest year with available numbers, the U.S. had an estimated 11.7 million cancer survivors.

Although the study's findings represent self-reported data from one state rather than a national sample and did not include cancer survivors older than 65, the results shed light on cancer trends by sexual orientation and the unique needs of survivors.

so its a limited survey and thus of dubious value

"This information can be used for the development of services for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population," says study researcher Ulrike Boehmer, PhD, an associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at Boston University School of Public Health. For gay men, programs may focus on cancer prevention and early detection and in lesbian and bisexual women, services might emphasize improving the well-being of cancer survivors, she suggests.

It's also unclear to what extent lifestyle factors might influence cancer risk in this population, and whether discrimination and social support may affect the quality of life of cancer survivors.

so they they didnt allow for lifestyle factors, which are probably the greatest causitive agent
which means the surveys conclusions are invalid and the study fatally flawed...

Gays tend (and I think Eil will agree here) to be big on the use of drugs, they tend to drink more than the "average" and I suspect there are more smokers per head of the gay population than per head of the general population. Also of course the biggest population tend to live in the busiest towns...with all that implies

fuzzy, you cold NOT have picked a worse piece of shit pseudo scientific twaddle to support you idiot cliams if you had tried

this report is flawed, limited and the conclusions it draws are not only weak and nonsensical they are plain wrong...
and before you say owt fuzzy...I have spent half a life time in medical laboratory studies.....
and can read and criticise reports when I see em

yuou on the other hand would seize on any crap to support your religiously bigoted POV....

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:39 pm

Hi Victor

Brilliant, Eilzel and myself also caught him out on this that led to the next link of men have multiple partners to decrease the chance, thus adultery would lessen the chance. This deity if existed really plays some cruel jokes here, that being monogamous would increase your chance of catching . Hence all our follow up posts.

Apparently bigamy is not adultery in the eyes of this deity .

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:49 pm

Where did I say scientific studies are perfect vic?

Nor did you read the second link.

Eiz and Didge espouse the virtues of science over religion - yet scientists seem to think there is a link due to the nature of anal sex.

I'm not using science to support my religious views. Merely showing Eiz that cannot depend on science to reassure himself about his lifestyle.

Your hysteria does not impress me.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:53 pm

There is no link, that is the point, clearly one report clearly shows tey get this cancer less than heterosexuals, then maybe there is something to anal sex.

Seriously it is about time you grow up Zack

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:55 pm

Brasidas wrote:There is no link, that is the point, clearly one report clearly shows tey get this cancer less than heterosexuals, then maybe there is something to anal sex.

Seriously it is about time you grow up Zack

And which sexuality predominantly practices anal sex?

Hmm!

Nor do I need lessons in growing up from you after your pathetic violent threats.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:58 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:There is no link, that is the point, clearly one report clearly shows tey get this cancer less than heterosexuals, then maybe there is something to anal sex.

Seriously it is about time you grow up Zack

And which sexuality predominantly practices anal sex?

Hmm!

Nor do I need lessons in growing up from you after your pathetic violent threats.

Heterosexual women, bi-sexual men and homosexual men, are you going on numbers now, when again if homosexual men are lest likely to get prostrate, is this down to having anal sex as a benefit as a factor?

Science is biting you in the arse

by Fuzzy Zack Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:22 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

And which sexuality predominantly practices anal sex?

Hmm!

Nor do I need lessons in growing up from you after your pathetic violent threats.

Heterosexual women, bi-sexual men and homosexual men, are you going on numbers now, when again if homosexual men are lest likely to get prostrate, is this down to having anal sex as a benefit as a factor?

Science is biting you in the arse

As long as it's not fucking me in the arse, I'll be fine.

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:04 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Where did I say scientific studies are perfect vic?

You didnt but if they are not "sufficiently accurate " then they are of no use to you as evidence. in otherwords basing your argument on a flawed study means your argument is also fatally flawed.. (in plain english ...you are talking bollocks)

Nor did you read the second link.

Eiz and Didge espouse the virtues of science over religion - yet scientists seem to think there is a link due to the nature of anal sex.

I'm not using science to support my religious views. Merely showing Eiz that cannot depend on science to reassure himself about his lifestyle.

Your hysteria does not impress me.

lets see this second link

" Sleeping with more than 20 women protects men against prostate cancer, a study has suggested.

Men who had slept with more than 20 women lowered their risk of developing cancer by almost one third, and were 19 per cent less likely to develop the most aggressive form.

In contrast, men who slept with 20 men doubled their risk of developing prostate cancer compared with men who have never had sex with another man.

Researchers at the University of Montreal believe that intercourse protects men, and men who are more promiscuous have more sex than those in monogamous relationships.

However, for homosexual men the benefit is lost because of the increased risk of picking up a sexually transmitted disease, and the damage to their bodies from intercourse. However gay men with just one partner are at no greater risk.

firstly this only applies to promiscuous homosexuals...whos numbers are falling.....there is NO increased risk for "non promiscuous" gay men ...so your argument is invalid...(again). the point highlighted in green is pure fantasy, otherwise the other conclusions of that sentence wouldnt work....
if a gay man has sex twice a week with the same partner......or sex twice a week from a choice of 20 partners......how does that cause more "damage"?

Related Articles

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer among men, with more than 40,000 diagnoses a year in the UK, and 10,000 deaths

'Worrying variation' in prostate cancer treatment
10 Nov 2014

7 ways to protect yourself against prostate cancer
11 Nov 2014

Five surprising benefits of having more sex
28 Oct 2014

Thousands of prostate cancer patients told to avoid treatment
08 Jan 2014

"It is possible that having many female sexual partners results in a higher frequency of ejaculations, whose protective effect against prostate cancer has been previously observed in cohort studies," said lead researcher Dr Marie-Elise Parent.

But when asked whether public health authorities should recommend men to sleep with many women in their lives Dr Parent added: "We're not there yet."

The study looked at more than 3,200 men over a four year period between 2005 and 2009.

Overall, men with prostate cancer were twice as likely to have a relative with cancer. However, the researchers were surprised to find that the number of sexual partners also affected the development of their cancer.

Men who said they had never had sexual intercourse were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as those who said they had.

When a man has slept with more than 20 women during his lifetime there was a 28 per cent reduction in the risk of having prostate cancer, and a 19 per cent reduction for aggressive types of cancer.

On the other hand, those who have slept with more than 20 men are twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer of all types compared to those who have never slept with a man. due soley to the risk of diseases....

And their risk of having a less aggressive prostate cancer increases by 500 per cent compared to those who have had only one male partner.

Withn no other context that sentence is pointless and obscure....and says NOTHING about the overall risk of cancer....they could have the SAME or LESS overall risk...and yet that sentence could still be right......

Dr Parent said that she could only formulate "highly speculative" hypotheses to explain the association.

"It could come from greater exposure to STIs, or it could be that anal intercourse produces physical trauma to the prostate," she said.

the scientists way of saying "we have a load of meaningless results, which I havnt got a clue as to what to do with....

Previous studies have found that sexual intercourse may have a protective effect against prostate cancer because it reduces the concentration of carcinogenic crystal-like substances in the fluid of the prostate.

The study, published in the Journal Cancer Epidemiology is the first to find a link between the number of sexual partners and the risk of developing cancer.

"We were fortunate to have participants from Montreal who were comfortable talking about their sexuality, no matter what sexual experiences they have had, and this openness would probably not have been the same 20 or 30 years ago," said lead researcher Dr Marie-Elise Parent.

"Indeed, thanks to them, we now know that the number and type of partners must be taken into account to better understand the causes of prostate cancer."

so agin fuzzy one...you use a flawed and potentially invalid "study" to back up your ridiculous religious claims.....

by Guest Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:06 pm

and of course...it was published in the Guardian......whos ability to get things right and in context is only matched by that pinacle of working class erudition...the Daily Star.......

by Eilzel Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:00 am

Zack, where did I ever mention looking to science to assure myself of my sexuality? You wont find any such thing. I'm totally secure with being gay, and only a gay person could really know if they made a 'choice' or not.

You introduced science to 'prove' god opposed homosexuality and 'cancer rates' were your evidence. Yet your two (hardly conclusive) reports show:

1. Lesbianism isn't punished via cancer.
2. Gay men are less likely to get prostate cancer IF non-promiscuous.
3. Straight men are MORE likely to get any cancer if NOT promiscuous- and the point you have eluded-

IF your point with this was to prove gay men being more likely to get cancer 'proved' god opposed homosexuality then WHAT is your answer to the follow up (based on your reason for digging up this info) that god must also support heterosexual promiscuity because that leads to lower cancer rates???

And again, I do rely on science for many things, my sexuality isn't one of them. However, two 'reports' one being a small sample university study and the other a telephone poll are hardly conclusive of anything. As vic says, you just demonstrate complete ineptitude when it comes to science- in fact your attempts at association fallacies are from the tommy monk school of BS, he does the same all the time with black people, Muslims and gays.

-for the record if 'polls' alone count as conclusive science (which they don't), gay people must be more intelligent as we proportionally have better and better paid jobs. Just saying, if you want to use association fallacies we can all do that. While we're here, Muslims are, by association, the most violence inclined religious people on earth...

^Vic- yes, numbers suggest gay people are also traditionally more likely to smoke, drink and use drugs (and indeed be promiscuous). These things all may lead to other cancers at those suggested higher rates.

It is worth noting however those habits often come from depression or sexual frustration/repression and those things were more likely to be suffered by gay people in the past. As society is more open these are less likely to be the case among younger gay people.

I hardly say I'm a typically example but I've never smoked, or used drugs and though I do drink now and then it's not heavy- I've never been promiscuous. I guess Allah looks favorably upon my monogamy- unlike my heterosexual counterparts haha Smile

by veya_victaous Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:07 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:There is no link, that is the point, clearly one report clearly shows tey get this cancer less than heterosexuals, then maybe there is something to anal sex.

Seriously it is about time you grow up Zack

And which sexuality predominantly practices anal sex?
actually funny stat that is Hetro married couples.... Or more correctly most anal sex is between hetro married couples
Hmm!

Nor do I need lessons in growing up from you after your pathetic violent threats.

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:06 am

Eilzel wrote:Zack, where did I ever mention looking to science to assure myself of my sexuality? You wont find any such thing. I'm totally secure with being gay, and only a gay person could really know if they made a 'choice' or not.

In all friendliness and agreeableness, I beg to differ there, Les. I've known I was attracted to women literally since I was four years old, when I saw this lovely lady on TV:

On Moderate Muslims - Page 8 2011-04-18_175142_ww588b

On Moderate Muslims - Page 8 2011-04-18_175142_ww588b

I can't imagine a gay person doing an "eeny, meeny, miney, mo" between the two genders, either -- you know who you're attracted to and you can't change it; I know I couldn't choose to be attracted to men.

Really, I think the only way someone could claim to be able to choose is if they're bi, and equally attracted to men and women, whether they admit it or not.

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:06 am

And where did I say I was using religion to back up science?

So don't lie Eiz and Vic.

Nor did I say science was perfect. Just that you can't be sure and that many scientists and those in the medical profession (who are far more qualified than either of us) are worried about gay people and certain types of cancer. It's why some cancer sites have a special gay section.

FYI - I have a degree in Physics. So it's not like I don't have a science background. Which is why I have the entire report - to be balanced.

But you guys are so defensive that you use it as some sort of points victory. Pathetic.

The fact is Eiz, Islam or Muslim beliefs will not change when in comes homosexuality and there are very good reasons for this which science cannot deny.

Homosexuality is a vile disgusting behaviour - and you should keep it behind closed doors at the very least.

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:15 am

This is why such views are short sighted to claim disgustiung is nothing but based off nothing more than the indoctrination you have received from an early age. You forget Zack I was raised as a Catholic and once like you, looked at this with sheer ignorance becuase it is your faith that is swaying your views here not common sense. I saw past the bullshit and see no wrong in two people of the same sex consenting adults expressing their love.

So a hetrosexual man can enjoy anal sex thrrough his female partner and not be homosexual, becausew they are not attracted to men but enjoys anal sex. There is nothing in the Quran to classify this as a sin.

So a woman can have anal sex and this is not in the Quran as a sin. Kissing thus along the lines of the logic being used here would also be disgusting according to zack, oral sex would be too due to what the main uses they have. Yet I hav e never seen you claim snogging is disgusting.

You see your views are blinded by your faith not common sense and show the complete nonsense portrayed by the Quran. There is nothing wrong with people enjoying consenting sex, where if your deity does exist it would have designed humans to have the capability to orgasim through anal sex.

So on all factors your views are the ones that are backward and why unless Islam is able to reform its barbarity it will eventually die out through education. No matter how hard you try to indoctrinate people with bullshit as religions do, people eventually come to their own conclusions of the lies portrayed in the man made books.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:26 am

See Zack now its clear you've been shown up you get nasty-bound to happen I guess.

I never said you used religion to back science; I said you tried to use science to back religion. Which you did when you said higher cancer rates are proof god disapproves.

Well that backfired, since the science you pulled out (dubious as it was) actually demonstrated that promiscuous straight men are less likely to get cancer. Which by your logic means god approves of straight male promiscuity. You still haven't addressed this point?!?

And I don't care for your opinion that 'Islam' wont change since you are no more qualified to speak than Nawaz, Choudary or any other Muslim. Its just an opinion.

And if you want a society which ia homophobic go live wherever your grandparents or whoever came from- undoubtedly they'll have homophobic laws there in line with your backward religion- I can't promise it'll be as safe and cosy as England though since Muslims have a habit at being crap at making stable nations.

Meanwhile I'll carry on happy in my engagement. Enjoy life zack ;-)

by Eilzel Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:29 am

^fair play Ben. You are being logical and you are right. I was reacting directly to Zack's science assertion however and stating that really all things considered the only people who can conclusively know how they feel are the individual in question.

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:30 am

Sodomy is a sin in Islam - regardless of sexuality.

It is using your body (which is something you borrow in this dimension) unnaturally (not it's intended purpose). Even science says the anus is designed for one way traffic.

Consenting to have your body abused is still abuse.

As for adultery or betraying the trust of your spouse, that is wrong in any measure.

So please don't patronise me. You're superior to me.

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:33 am

Eilzel wrote:See Zack now its clear you've been shown up you get nasty-bound to happen I guess.

I never said you used religion to back science; I said you tried to use science to back religion. Which you did when you said higher cancer rates are proof god disapproves.

Well that backfired, since the science you pulled out (dubious as it was) actually demonstrated that promiscuous straight men are less likely to get cancer. Which by your logic means god approves of straight male promiscuity. You still haven't addressed this point?!?

And I don't care for your opinion that 'Islam' wont change since you are no more qualified to speak than Nawaz, Choudary or any other Muslim. Its just an opinion.

And if you want a society which ia homophobic go live wherever your grandparents or whoever came from- undoubtedly they'll have homophobic laws there in line with your backward religion- I can't promise it'll be as safe and cosy as England though since Muslims have a habit at being crap at making stable nations.

Meanwhile I'll carry on happy in my engagement. Enjoy life zack ;-)

So now you want me out of the country. Lol!

Bit racist.

Just remember that faggots are the fuel of hell fire. Enjoy that life.

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:34 am

Really show me the Quranic verse on sodomy?
Show me the Quranic verse on oral sex?
Show me the Quranic verse on kissing because by your absurd logic they would all be disgusting.??

Any hadith is baseless and unreliable due to historicity and the fact there is no original hadiths.

How is it abusing your body?

Also your deity allows for adultery, not only through sanctioned bigamy, but also through spoils of war, showing the complete hypocrisy, where Muslim men can have adultery with captives who are married.

I do not claim to be superior here, but I certainly an intellectually superior to the crap spouted in the Quran.

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:39 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Eilzel wrote:See Zack now its clear you've been shown up you get nasty-bound to happen I guess.

I never said you used religion to back science; I said you tried to use science to back religion. Which you did when you said higher cancer rates are proof god disapproves.

Well that backfired, since the science you pulled out (dubious as it was) actually demonstrated that promiscuous straight men are less likely to get cancer. Which by your logic means god approves of straight male promiscuity. You still haven't addressed this point?!?

And I don't care for your opinion that 'Islam' wont change since you are no more qualified to speak than Nawaz, Choudary or any other Muslim. Its just an opinion.

And if you want a society which ia homophobic go live wherever your grandparents or whoever came from- undoubtedly they'll have homophobic laws there in line with your backward religion- I can't promise it'll be as safe and cosy as England though since Muslims have a habit at being crap at making stable nations.

Meanwhile I'll carry on happy in my engagement. Enjoy life zack ;-)

So now you want me out of the country. Lol!

Bit racist.

Just remember that faggots are the fuel of hell fire. Enjoy that life.

Taken out of context, he said "if" you want to live in a homophiobic society.
That is not racist, because in the west in the UK we have laws rightly so to protect from homophobia, which of course you do respect our laws, because your faith commands you too.
So you then use a homophobic word, showing again your immaturity.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:52 am

Too easy wasn't it didge, like he wanted to take it of context to excuse his own bigotry.

So Zack the point you keep ignoring. Why does your god not use cancer to punish promiscuous straight men? Why does he prefer straight men to be promiscuous that have just one woman?

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:58 am

Eilzel wrote:Too easy wasn't it didge, like he wanted to take it of context to excuse his own bigotry.

So Zack the point you keep ignoring. Why does your god not use cancer to punish promiscuous straight men? Why does he prefer straight men to be promiscuous that have just one woman?

Of course that is what sadly the religion teaches, prejudice and a view of superiority over Non Muslims, that is religion for you.
Hence I have questioned for the Quranic verses, as this is their only source to claim anything, even though the Qurans historicity is shoddy also
I Know his claims are poor and based off views in Islam which are done so off interpretations and hadiths, which he cannot claim otherwise because how many times has he gone off the relaibility of hadiths? We know the hadiths are complete hearsay, where they even amonsgt themselves use what I find the worst methodology to claim reliability and yet many of their laws stem from this shoddy history.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:55 pm

I guess he couldn't answer either of us.

Funny how he always 'gets busy' when a tricky question comes up lol!

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:Really show me the Quranic verse on sodomy?
Show me the Quranic verse on oral sex?
Show me the Quranic verse on kissing because by your absurd logic they would all be disgusting.??

Any hadith is baseless and unreliable due to historicity and the fact there is no original hadiths.

How is it abusing your body?

Also your deity allows for adultery, not only through sanctioned bigamy, but also through spoils of war, showing the complete hypocrisy, where Muslim men can have adultery with captives who are married.

I do not claim to be superior here, but I certainly an intellectually superior to the crap spouted in the Quran.

Firstly, I said Islamic - not Quranic.

Sodomy is mentioned in the Quran as man mounting another man. You can look that up.

I didn't mention oral sex or kissing, you dumb ass.

Lastly, most Muslims are Sunni. You know what that means, right?

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:50 pm

Eilzel wrote:Too easy wasn't it didge, like he wanted to take it of context to excuse his own bigotry.

So Zack the point you keep ignoring. Why does your god not use cancer to punish promiscuous straight men? Why does he prefer straight men to be promiscuous that have just one woman?

This has clearly become some sort of point scoring exercise for you.

It's not for me. I answered your original questions after you found the courage to ask me.

And who said God was giving you cancer or any other illness? All I said was action has consequences. In otherwords you are responsible for you actions and whatever consequences. No point blaming God.

by Fuzzy Zack Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Eilzel wrote:I guess he couldn't answer either of us.

Funny how he always 'gets busy' when a tricky question comes up

You've clearly joined in the childish games.

I answered your questions -

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:26 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Really show me the Quranic verse on sodomy?
Show me the Quranic verse on oral sex?
Show me the Quranic verse on kissing because by your absurd logic they would all be disgusting.??

Any hadith is baseless and unreliable due to historicity and the fact there is no original hadiths.

How is it abusing your body?

Also your deity allows for adultery, not only through sanctioned bigamy, but also through spoils of war, showing the complete hypocrisy, where Muslim men can have adultery with captives who are married.

I do not claim to be superior here, but I certainly an intellectually superior to the crap spouted in the Quran.

Firstly, I said Islamic - not Quranic.

Sodomy is mentioned in the Quran as man mounting another man. You can look that up.

I didn't mention oral sex or kissing, you dumb ass.

Lastly, most Muslims are Sunni. You know what that means, right?

So there is no claim from the Quran claiming that sodomy is in anyway wrong only that men should not lie with each other. So heterosexual men can enjoy receiving sodomy sex from their wife etc, women can have anal sex etc, showing again how either the Quran is thus not perfect where where the deity cannot make a clear command on sodomy, even though has made plenty other commends, but not this one. Does that not tell you that it would not be seen as a sin, as why would this deity omit any sins?
You see ,you wrongly view sodomy as just a predominantly homosexual act, when it is not, many hetrosexuals engage in sodomy , where also Muslim scholars get it wrong and try to make up new sins.
You see the reality is your views you take on today with Islam is later views of the Islam school, adapting Islam to attach to homosexuality as a sin, sodomy . No you can make an absurd claim on sodomy based on no more than Islamic scholars covering the arses to then state the verse in the Quran covers all aspects of sodomy, when it does not.
Thus either the act of sodomy is then not a sin, and homosexuals are then only seen as sin, due to the union or love, not the sexual act.

Oral sex and kissing are important to your logic of what you think is disgusting where again why is not oral sex not commanded as a sin when again the Islam view. again an interpretation, is that it is a sin. So basically you are not thinking with clear clarity like me how the claims from Islam do not make any sense and are just based off an made views who discriminate against homosexual..

Yes I know what Sunni means, but the only really book that could even come close, even though it is billions of miles from even claiming to be perfect, is the word of God to you, then all other works are thus and would be the words of men, all very much unreliable when you have no corroborating outside source let alone any original works to the time of Muhammad. So basically Muslims are making somethings sins, based off their own interpretation, as the Quran does not call it a sin, neither with oral sex. They are basing this off hearsay claims.

I mean last post I just showed how flawed the adultery command is, but warriors who win in battler are sanctioned to have women, who are wives as captives and thus against. the captives wills have sex with them, thus having no choice basically raping them.

So far we in this date we have proved and worked out, Allah backs, slavery, rape, adultery, bigamy sodomy for Muslim men, but not homosexuality he does not back them. Where if the book is perfect, then countless Muslims are not following Islam, because they have countless interpretations from other works, or the book is not perfect, thus not from a God and these are nothing more than the view of men..

Checkmate

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:40 pm

What is really the nail in the coffin is why Muslims can also receive boys when they get to heaven, yes boys:

SURA LII:24

"And there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls."

SURA LXXVI:19

"They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."

Why would this deity enslave boys, to the attendance of another, if not for sex?

You see the many contradictions in the Quran, clearly even at least bi-sexuality and even homosexuality is a past time in heaven.
Clearly though sex with under age boys is fine also, another aspect this deity backs, with more examples of slavery

by Guest Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:45 pm

Eilzel wrote:I guess he couldn't answer either of us.

Funny how he always 'gets busy' when a tricky question comes up

lol he had to wait for an email reply to attempt to counter our points to help him. Laughing

I will pop by later and just to add, the Quran clearly states the following:

"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet human and jinn devils to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications." 6:112

Which clearly is going on about the hadiths, making a prediction, , because the Quran also states this:

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbour any doubt.

The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient." 6:114-115

So here Allah is very clear on only his words being law and that it is complete. thus many things taken as sins not in the Quran are thus false and millions of Muslims are not obeying Allah, by taking them as laws over the Quran where none exist.

See you later people

by Eilzel Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:12 am

Yes Zack but your reports claim monogamous gay relationships have no greater risk, while promiscuous straight men actually reduce risk- does this prove the consequence of sleeping around is better health? Is this what god intends? What is the consequence (on Earth) of me and my boyfriend getting married?

And I eagerly anticipate how you address the Suras didge just brought up.

by Sponsored content