It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Even Fundamentalist religious people can not even agree with this...surely?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by 23refugee

Since it is widely known that prepubescent humans cannot bear children, is a 53 year old male who copulates with a 9 year old female mentally ill or do we lay blame on the culture that produced him?

Don't make wild claims without having a decent knowledge in regards to the subject you are talking about, it will destroy your credibility...

Wait, wait its 23refugee..

Ohhh nvm:

Aisha was 17-20 as history records:

I can bet you don't understand what that source is talking about, if you do, explain in your own words what it is saying? Let us see how ignorant you are. And also explain, why that source is so important, and how Hadith's credibility is analysed, and how Hadith is passed on, and which persons is not to be trusted with their testimonies of Hadith, and ....

This is a test of your credibility for all to see, I already know how ignorant you are.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:15 PM
Wipe the spittle from your screen.
A little tit for tat from the mentally ill sure drives away that smug condescension.
As for your source, a group of deluded followers using guesstimations in a desperate attempt to clear their holy man of any wrongdoing is suspect to any reasonable person.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by 23refugee
Wipe the spittle from your screen.
A little tit for tat from the mentally ill sure drives away that smug condescension.
As for your source, a group of deluded followers using guesstimations in a desperate attempt to clear their holy man of any wrongdoing is suspect to any reasonable person.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:54 PM
Ahh! Capitalization.
Now there's some upper-case credibility

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:21 PM
Of course corprophilia is a fetish that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and there's even an allusion to it in The Bible (2 Kings 18:27).
Homosexuality was first considered a judicial issue and its treatment as a mental illness was considered the "humane" option. The American Psychiatric Association removed it as an illness in the 1970s, following widespread legal reform in Western countries.
However, the treatments were far from humane, including brain surgery, emitics, electro-shocks and other aversion therapies. One thinks of Alan Turing who helped to crack the Enigma Code and paved the way for the computers we are using now. Yet, he was given hormone treatments to "cure" his homosexuality, and ended up killing himself after he grew breasts. Such repeated failures that ended in death, rather than "cures" caused the loss of support for "conversion therapies".
For a long time other countries like China offered forced sex changes as a humane option. In many of the pre-colonial non-Western countries homosexuality, eunuchs and "third genders" (the Hijras of India and Pakistan, or the Waria of Indonesia) were common. It was the British penal codes that introduced legal sanctions against homosexual acts. Now many of these countries either deny homosexuality exists, or that it was imported (when the sanctions against it were imported). In postcolonial theory they have become "colonial mimics" - more British than the erstwhile colonial British, and more moral that the former colonizers. Arguably this was a reaction against colonial Orientalism, and regarding Africans as closest to nature, and thus "hyper-heterosexual". These notions have become internalized.

Calling things mental disorders may sound humane, but it is a slippery slope. Religion could be called a mental disorder, or even a genetic aberration (there have been threads on this research). In the Soviet Union a new disorder called "delayed schizophrenia" was invented to lock up political dissidents in asylums. Many of the "therapies" against homosexuality ironically also led to sexual abuse. I think here especially of Apartheid's infamous Dr. Aubrey Levine. When the National Party discussed law reform in the late 1960s, he announced that such reform was unecessary because he could "cure" homosexuals. He tried his infamous experiments in the Apartheid military's Ward 22, leaving many damaged people, both physically and mentally (and he was arrested recently in Canada for abusing several patients).
If one aims to "cure homosexuality" (anyone who has had sexual or romantic feelings towards the same sex) rather than just "gay people" prepare to build huge asylums and to declare a large part of the population "mentally ill".
- first you would have to define "homosexuality" and whom to treat, an act or a mental attraction?
- the homosexual role may vary between cultures, some only regard feminine men as "gay", while their often married sexual partners are considered "normal". Judicially (in Islam, or so I've been told) it is public sex before four or more witnessess that is forbidden.
- should all people who do not procreate be regarded as mentally ill, including nuns, monks, spinsters, trans-sexuals, the unfertile? Masturbation was thought to be a mental illness or lead to it, and even oral sex is illegal in some African countries - surely that is non-procreative?
So if it's an illness, will the whole population be tested for homosexual attractions (there are brain scan tests, and tests that measure penile arousal that are fairly accurate for this these days), and what is the proposed cure? Since same-sex sexual attraction is so easy to establish, if it is labelled a mental disorder that requires forced treatment then there will hardly be anyone left to treat or police it.
I have a feeling several religious and political leaders will be institutionalized.
Religiously homosexuality is at worst a sin. While some adults may choose to repress that sin, can one really medicalize sins?

And if prisons, or same-sex institutions make people homosexual, then where should one put them for cofinement or recovery?

And what would one treat them to become, or what is the "normality" promised by a cure. Heterosexuality is not perfect. What is the ideal heterosexuality? Surely adulterers, rapists, wife-beaters and fetishists are possible forms of heterosexuality, so any therapy should only result in a very specific, ideal of heterosexuality (we wouldn't want more rapists and wife-beaters).

[edit on 21-7-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

If I could applaud you Sir I would.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:23 AM
reply to post by Freeborn

Thank you very much!
It mainly goes out to Oozyizm, who has maintained a "treating homosexuality as mental illness" position (but also goes into further issues).
I think this position actually tries to be humane, and instead of shouting people down (there is place for anger too, and that was well put by others) I could explain from my view the historical evidence and other problems that mean it will not work.
Perhaps a confrontational Western method of open sexuality will not work in all societies either, but the reality is that homosexuality and gay people exist, will always exist, and that allowing them a space to exist will allow their talents to enrich any culture.

Imagine how much more Alan Turing could have given us if not driven to suicide. Imagine how much poorer our world would be if Michelangelo or Da Vinci spent their lives in a madhouse...

[edit on 21-7-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Wise Man
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Read my signature if you want to go tit for tat about bible verses.

I think I should start a cult. "God Hates Whores". How Christian would that be?

Or better yet, I'd like to know this professor's views on all the black women out there having children out of wedlock. I wonder if there are any in his "church"? How would he condemn them? Death? It says to kill them in the bible does it not?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Nutter]

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:52 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:27 PM
To be honest, it's the fundamentalists who mess stuff up for the sane rest of us. Extremism is never a good thing!

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:33 PM
After reading a few posts, I realized it was not for me to watch the video.

But from the gist I'm getting, it sounds like these particular people aren't real christians, but people who are out to corrupt peoples' minds.

I bet there are a few people in that congregation that barely knew even how to imagine what those things might be! And now, they are forever corrupt and more curious because the guy ran his mouth...

Christians could spend their time doing better things, but who am I to judge?

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Sararainmaker

Let's make this simple OK:

A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern associated with distress or disability that occurs in an individual and is not a part of normal development or culture.

It is a mental disorder because they can produce kids, but they refuse to.

That is the disability they acquire through this mental illness, or disorder.

So if someone is sterile and gay then they don't have a mental disorder?

What about gays that do reproduce? They don't have a mental disorder?

What about straight people that refuse to reproduce? They have a mental disorder?

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:37 PM
I hope i'm not too late to put my two cents in, and to be honest I haven't read every post on this topic but did anyone notice that the guy taking a picture a 1min 35sec into the clip has a striking resemblance to comedian Dave Chappelle?

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:52 PM
I disagree with this reverend because sin is sin. God does not establish any sin being more offensive than another, with the exception of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. All sins can be forgiven save that one, so homosexuality is no more offensive to God than lying, or stealing, or adultry etc.

Now when you bring the condition of repentance into the equation, which is a requirement for salvation, it changes somewhat. The question becomes then, do you revel in your sin, or despise that you sin. If one takes pride in his or her sins, then repentance is not there. But if one feels badly about their sins, repentance is evident.

Bottom line, live and let live. God gave us free choice. We are free to choose Him, or to choose against Him, free to sin and enjoy it, or sin and regret it, but make no mistake we ALL sin. And there are always consequences, both immediate and eternally.

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Endure

...or so you BELIEVE. Given that we have no evidence for a vengeful creator/god, I'm pretty sure gays don't have to worry. Just like they don't have to worry about a pink unicorn sending them to hell.

I love how religious folk use their scriptures as means to judge others, when all their scriptures where written by MEN and we have NO evidence for a creator.

You are condemning people based on belief, and not Hitler did with the jews. At least most of you don't act on it.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
It is has come to my attention through the last few years that the ones firing off against homosexuality the hardest are fighting what they think of as and "unatural" attraction deep within themselves.

They hate what they don't understand and what they don't understand is why they are feeling the way they are. In response they try to ride themselves of that feeling through passionate and sometimes violent opposition of homosexuals.

I may be wrong but that is just what I have observed.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in