Sanitizing terror: Has the press distorted Islamic radical’s crusade against gay men?

Whenever I see the, ”Gays For Palestine,” signs at liberal demonstrations I am astonished at the blatant ignorance of such gays in SF, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Seattle.
Gays in ”Palestine,” are often defenestrated: thrown off a 2 or 3 story building then spit on and kicked until they die where they hit….sometimes days later.
Gays in Iran are hung from construction cranes set to slowly suffocate them instead of quickly break their necks.
And one need not be arrested and charged and tried and found guilty before these death sentences are carried out.
The mere rumor that someone (say a rival barber on the street) is homosexual is enough for the morality police (muttuwa) to pronounce sentence and the mob to race into action.
A few years ago a couple of Muslim men were making a practice of driving around SF and stopping if they saw a man who ”seemed gay,” then beating him to within an inch of his life.
Still the Left LOVES them some Muslims!

Weird.
As if Muslims are going to change on this issue.

@Richard Wheeler:

Wow, Richard. Are you really equating Christian opposition to the concept of “gay marriage” to the wholesale murder by muslims of those afflicted with homosexual urges? And you miss the point entirely of the sheer hatred homosexuals have for Christian teachings that they throw their support to a group that calls for the brutal slaughter of those afflicted with homosexual urges.

@Pete: “those afflicted with homosexual urges” you say. Pete, there lies the disconnect.
As to Palestine, we have a conflict that can not be solved until both sides agree to accept and respect the other. Hamas refuses to do this. They must go before a meaningful peace can be reached. Then and only then can Israel begin to treat the Palestinians as members of the human community. With respect and dignity and equality.

@Nathan Blue:”Israel supports Palestine and always has.” You are the idiot Nathan. You have consistently shown that.
BTW Are you onboard with describing gays as “those AFFLICTED with homosexual urges?”
Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

Richard, it is only a “disconnect” because the PC crowd has tried for decades politically to bestow normalcy upon something that is inherently scientifically abnormal. There is absolutely no benefit to the species, even if the pro-homosexual crowd someday proves the existence of a “gay gene”, because homosexual activity cannot produce offspring. Homosexual urges are simply misdirected urges just like having other abnormal sexual attractions. Homosexual urges were recognized as abnormal until the 1973 APA conference held in San Francisco was hijacked by homosexual activists who manipulated a vote by the group responsible for updating the next DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illness) resulting in homosexuality being removed from the list of mental illness.
That being said, there is no justification for persecuting someone afflicted with homosexual urges, anymore than there would be justification for persecuting someone with bipolar disorder, borderline or narcissistic personality disorders, depression, alcoholism or diabetes. However, simply because persecution of individuals afflicted with any medical or mental illness is abhorrent does not mean said individuals should be encouraged to behave in a manner that is harmful to them, no matter how much short term gratification said individual obtains from their abnormal indulgences.

And please don’t waste your breath calling me a bigot or a homophobe as the typical PC person responds when I present this argument. Neither charge is accurate, no matter how uttering such terms may soothe your sense of self-righteous indignation. “Majority (politically correct) opinion” is not a component of truth, nor does such trump scientific fact. It does not matter how large a crowd exists praising the emperor’s garments, he is still stark raving naked.

@Tom:

We know that gays biologically can and do produce offspring, when they so choose.

Pete did not dispute that. What Pete did say was:

because homosexual activity cannot produce offspring

, which is absolutely correct. Homosexual activity cannot produce offspring.

We know that people have been gay as long as there’s been recorded history.

And have rapists and pedophiles existed since recorded history. It doesn’t prove that rape and pedophilia are normal human conditions.

So is having eidetic memory, or red hair, or being albino, or seven feet tall, or an outlier athlete like Lebron James.

You very purposefully, and pejoratively, use of the word “”afflicted” when you compare being gay to having “bipolar disorder, borderline or narcissistic personality disorders, depression, alcoholism or diabetes”. That implies there is something we should want to cure

Please, name one other mental illness that just disappeared from the DSM without a cure or any form of treatment. Just one. Now, logical people understand that mental diseases, just as with physical diseases, do not just go away because a group of doctors got together and decided, for politically correct reasons, and under extreme pressure along with threats of harm, that a particular disease no longer existed.

You are trying to conflate the physical with the mental. A thousand years from now, if someone digs up your rotted corpse, using today’s technology, they will be able to tell if you were male or female, what color your hair was, the tone of your skin, and how tall you were. They will not be able to tell if you were gay, a rapist or a male who was into little boys.

It seems that you understood little of what Pete was saying. I highly recommend you take a reading comprehension course.

@retire05:

Homosexual activity cannot produce offspring.

And neither can celibacy. Celibacy cannot produce offspring and therefore, according to Pete, is of ” absolutely no benefit to the species” and thus ” inherently scientifically abnormal”. So please explain why you aren’t trying to cure priests of this affliction.

Please, name one other mental illness that just disappeared from the DSM without a cure or any form of treatment. Just one.

There is no clinical or empirical basis for the belief that being gay is a mental illness. Should we call it one anyway, just because that’s what people used to think? Did people used to think anything else that was proven wrong?

You are trying to conflate the physical with the mental

Not true. If being gay is biological, then there is a physical component. If it’s an “illness”, as you believe, then there is a physical component. Only if it’s merely a conscious choice of behavior, is it purely mental. And that still leaves you with the problem of justifying why you should have any input into how other people live their lives.

They will not be able to tell if you were gay, a rapist or a male who was into little boys.

If there is gay gene, perhaps they will be able to tell. Is there any point to this observation?

@Tom:

Choosing to whether or not to use birth control -.as far as the morality component – is a religious argument with which we can engage if you like – but generally I try to discuss this from a secular, scientific standpoint as religious positions are unlikely to sway the nonreligious. Being forthright I must tell you that my wife and I did not use birth control for religious reasons, and we had 7 children together.

I would ask you to consider this simple thought experiment. How many expectant parents actively want their offspring to be gay? When have you ever known such a couple to express hope that their child would have homosexual tendencies? I am not implying that anyone should reject a child who grows up to engage in homosexual tendencies, just simply asking if people about to have children ever hope that their child will choose to be gay as an adult.

@Tom:

If I were a Christian Conservative who started with the premise that homosexuality is an abomination and gay people are all going to hell, would that help me to understand Pete’s scientific approach better?

Pete didn’t bring religion into the argument. Why did you? Is it because you have such disdain for Christians and their beliefs? The subject of this thread, in part, is the belief of Muslims toward gays. But you didn’t want to go there, did you? You reserve your disdain for only Christians. Why are you not slamming the Muslims who are actually killing gays in the public square?

But you also do not offer any rebuttal to what Pete said, and only showed just how little of what he said was understood by you.

Celibacy cannot produce offspring and therefore, according to Pete, is of ” absolutely no benefit to the species” and thus ” inherently scientifically abnormal”. So please explain why you aren’t trying to cure priests of this affliction.

Celibacy is a choice. Are you trying to argue that homosexuality is also a choice because I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

If being gay is biological, then there is a physical component

.

There is no proof that homosexuality is biological. None.

If it’s an “illness”, as you believe, then there is a physical component.

What is the physical component of bi-polarism, which is also a mental illness?

Only if it’s merely a conscious choice of behavior, is it purely mental

.

You’re getting warm.

And that still leaves you with the problem of justifying why you should have any input into how other people live their lives.

I don’t have to justify having input into other’s lives since I am not in the position of justifying the actions of others. As a citizen, of a nation that has laws and a certain moral norm, I do have the right to think as I wish, by using any standard of my choosing.

Now, care to rebut Pete’s opinion with some rationale?

@Richard Wheeler:

Thank goodness The Christian Right, is so supportive of gay rights.

It’s good to see you back Rich, but I didn’t know you had converted to the role of troll. Why deflect the conversation? I read Nan’s post and after that it devolved into a debate about gays in the US. It’s pretty hard to equate the two. I haven’t seen homosexuals hung from the gallows in a public square in the US, but have seen it in Iran.
The great thing about living in the US is that we can disagree with someone’s choices, be it religion, politics, or lifestyle. We don’t take someone out to the public square and execute them over it. The left is such a big proponent of big federal government, yet they fail to see most of their problems are a direct result of big government. That’s not exactly true, the problem is when big government rules against their side. Take DOMA for example: where exactly in the constitution does the congress have the right to decide who can marry who? But the problem there is that if the left decides that congress doesn’t have that right, they have to acknowledge a whole list of legislation that congress doesn’t have the right to decide. We used to have a system where the States got to decide what was best for their people. And people had a much bigger voice in their States. Now we have 535 morons deciding what is best for all of us.
You direct your anger, frustration, and sarcasm at the right when it should be focused on how our government has devolved into an oligarchy.

@Richard Wheeler:

The far right’s refusal to accept gay marriage is difficult for a social lib. to ignore.

Since black Americans basically oppose same sex marriage, do you also include them in your “far right” category?

Why should they be denied?

Do you also support polygamy? How about incestuous marriages? Do you support those, as well?

Why should heterosexuals care?

Does a people not have the right to determine their own social norms?

Keep govt. out of the bedroom

Are we to take from that that you believe the federal government has no authority demanding that companies provide a birth control inclusion in their employer sponsored health care insurance plans?

and let women make their own choices when it comes to their bodies.

Isn’t the choice made by women done prior to conception?

@Nanny G: That was extremely confusing. Do you even understand what you said? Reminded me of a discourse in The Princess Bride lol

@retire05: You’re so damn nasty tiresome.
In response to your 5 questions— NO,NO.YES,YES.NO.

@Pete:

Homosexual acts cannot, by definition, produce offspring. Hence homosexuality is inherently a darwinian dead end.

That’s a narrow view that doesn’t withstand scrutiny. To suggest that only those people or creatures who can and do breed are of value to the species is a specious argument. Or should I say, a reverse-engineered argument designed to come to a designed conclusion. How do you square this argument with the existence of species where only the alpha males breed? The species is reliant upon the contributions of non-alpha males to exist, but they do not breed. Are the beta males therefore “Darwinian dead ends”? Only in your narrow sense, yet their value to the species is self-evident. Did Leonardo da Vinci earn his keep as a human or is he similarly flawed, in your worldview, for not having bred?

Arguing that there have been people born afflicted with homosexual tendencies throughout history, therefore positing that homosexuality is “normal”, is a strange position to support. People have been born throughout history with all sorts of afflictions, but that does not make them normal either.

I didn’t argue anything about an affliction. I stated a fact, that gay people have always existed as part of the human race. It is absolutely normal for gay people to exist. The proof is that they do. You seem confused by the distinction between something being “abnormal” as in “statistically unlikely” and the fact that it’s normal for some statistically unlikely things to happen regularly. You continue to advance arguments that are easily dismissed by my simply pointing at a gay person and saying “there he is!”. So the question is, what do you plan to do about it? Again, your entire worldview on gays falls apart when one points out that its careful construction cannot withstand comparison to other Darwinian unlikely or “abnormal” occurrences in nature. Does a blind person throughout history, in purely Darwinian terms, stand an equal chance of passing on his genetic material than a non-blind person? Should he be allowed to marry? Your scrutiny can be brought to bear on almost anyone. You call it an “affliction” to distance yourself from the reality. The fact of the matter is that there are many people who primarily identify as “gay”. This is outside the mechanics of sexual activity. When you say a gay person can’t marry, that has nothing to do with sex. That is a cultural, a moral, prescription.

Using your logic, had the Aztecs survived to the present day, we would have to accept their bloodthirsty enactment of human sacrifice was “normal”, and any opposition to such acts nothing more than inappropriate moral judgment

Utterly ridiculous (but creative). Obviously, gays aren’t asking for human sacrifice. They’re asking to be granted exactly the same, no more or less, standing in society that you have.Part of that is the right to marry. Your stance is very illustrative of a certain mode of thinking, the illogical notion that “other” people should be satisfied with what they have, even though it’s less. In fact, they should be grateful! We don’t kill you people any more for your disgusting activities, yet here you are, asking for more. Why isn’t less than what we have, but better than you used to have, good enough? Of course the same argument has been made many, many times, for example, about blacks, who apparently were supposed to be happy enough with Jim Crow, since it was better than slavery. The simply fact is no one is ever satisfied being a second class citizen, and artificially settling for less. That wouldn’t be very “Darwinian”, would it?

@Pete:

Pete, again, I think you’re too hung up on the sex aspect. I happen to know some gay people pretty well. They would be gay whether they engaged in gay sex or not. Trying to reduce it to some physical activity you find disgusting is reductive. They have rich lives, in some cased with committed partners. These are people, not thought experiments on the Darwinian odds of human propagation or rectal lubrication.

@Tom:

Homosexual acts cannot, by definition, produce offspring. Hence homosexuality is inherently a darwinian dead end.

That’s a narrow view that doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

Well then, provide an example of where a homosexual man impregnated another homosexual man. Or where has a homosexual woman ever impregnated another homosexual, or even straight, woman?

No matter how you cut it, Tom, the male/female equation must be present for reproduction of the human species.

I stated a fact, that gay people have always existed as part of the human race.

As have rapists and pedophiles. Does that make them part of the normal human condition in your mind? If so, how can we punish someone for doing what you consider normal?

. Does a blind person throughout history, in purely Darwinian terms, stand an equal chance of passing on his genetic material than a non-blind person?

Possibly.

The fact of the matter is that there are many people who primarily identify as “gay”.

1.6% of the U.S. population, according to the federal government.

They’re asking to be granted exactly the same, no more or less, standing in society that you have

Name the state that asks the question “Are you gay?” on a marriage license. Gays already have the right to marry, but are limited in who they can marry, just as straights are.

Of course the same argument has been made many, many times, for example, about blacks, who apparently were supposed to be happy enough with Jim Crow, since it was better than slavery

Lame argument since blacks were discriminated against due to their skin tone and people being able to identify them visually. Now, how can we tell is someone is gay by simply looking at them?

We don’t kill you people any more for your disgusting activities, yet here you are, asking for more, asking to be married. Why isn’t what you’ve got good enough?

We also don’t kill polygamists. Do you think polygamy should also be legal? How about incestuous relationships? Should those be legal, as well as long as both participants are of legal age?

When you say a gay person can’t marry, that has nothing to do with sex. That is a cultural, a moral, prescription.

Actually, Tom, it is the homosexuals choice of sexual partner that defines them. Are those homosexuals who are not married any less homosexual? And a society has the right to determine what is, and what is not, acceptable for that society.

@Pete:

You are deliberately misrepresenting my position to avoid the obvious ramifications. Being a darwinian dead end refers specifically to the fact that homosexual acts cannot pass on their genes – if one accepts the unproven “gay gene” theory. Simply because something exists does not automatically confer normalcy, as is understood with the existence of individuals afflicted with Trisomy 21, Prader Willi Syndrome, depression, bipolar disorder, or any other medical or psychiatric condition. These afflictions exist as well, but are hardly considered normal.

I haven’t misrepresented your position. I think we both agree you consider homosexuality to be an “affliction”. Affliction has a negative connotation, does it not? The disconnect is that most gays don’t consider being gay an affliction, at least those living in places where they’re not forced to feel that way. There’s something obtuse about your refusal to acknowledge this. And something creepily Dr. Mengele-ish about your insistence that homosexuality is the result of a malignant cause, something to be remedied.

You dodge the question regarding expectant parents wanting a gay child.

Hardly. My job as a parent isn’t to “wish” a specific fate upon my child, it’s to love my child unconditionally and be the best parent I can be, come what may. I don’t go in for hypotheticals like this because they’re pointless. Happiness and health are not mutually exclusive with being gay. If that’s what you choose to fret about and pray over, to try and put a finger on the metaphysical scales, that’s your deal.

I have many friends and coworkers who choose the gay lifestyle.

Seriously? Don’t get me wrong, I have friends who are (fill in the blank), BUT…

You castigated me for having no scientific basis for classifying homosexuality as abnormal. I have provided a darwinian basis and a histological justification for my reasoning. You have misapplied the concepts of Darwin, and have avoided the histological aspect of our debate, as well as implying that I am a hate-filled Christian when I have not brought Christian religious precepts into the discussion at all.

Don’t play a victim. This is an anonymous online debate, after all. To your accusation: all you’ve done is gone into the weeds while avoiding the simple matter that your opinion and your actions vis a vis gay people have a tangible impact upon their lives and happiness. What is your goal in that regard? You brag about your bestie, but you display nothing like empathy for those you term “Darwinian dead ends”.