Instagram


Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 81 to 105 of 105
  1. #81
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    20,089
    Mentioned
    516 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topspin View Post
    1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

    2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

    3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

    4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

    5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.
    What's the 5th point again?

  2. #82
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    24,586
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topspin View Post
    1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

    2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

    3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

    4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

    5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.
    Must admit, the Indians I know are also not very accommodating of homosexuality, they are generally still very family oriented and I don't know any who would welcome their sons or daughters taking up a same sex partner. That said, things may change, one of the reasons I always take a distant interest in Bollywood to see if there is a shift towards a more accepting culture.


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  3. #83
    Debut
    Apr 2015
    Runs
    588
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topspin View Post
    1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

    2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

    3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

    4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

    5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.
    STD is a homosexual problem? Heterosexuals do not get STD?
    The higher rate is simply because of not using protection (as there is no probability of pregnancy).

  4. #84
    Debut
    Jun 2013
    Runs
    1,241
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topspin View Post
    1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

    2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

    3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

    4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

    5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.
    1. Sure, freedom of speech.

    2. Dr Bassim is not being harassed. His credentials are being questioned because he took logic behind the barn and shot it through the head instead of applying it to any argument he may have.

    3. Some of the African countries have the highest HIV rates from having heterosexual intercourse. It's not exclusive to homosexuals. Safe sex is the answer to that.

    4. As far as I know, safe sex is encouraged anywhere that sex-ed is taught. Your paranoia seems to be about STD's though not homosexuality. Once again, STDs are not exclusive to homosexuals.

    5. You were actually doing okay until this point. Homosexual practices are prevalent in all countries, rich or poor. But perhaps you'd care to provide examples or elaborate? Here's a counter-example: gay marriage is legal in Canada and it's doing comparatively better than countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran etc where homosexuality is illegal and punished severely.

  5. #85
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,498
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Balthazar View Post
    Why would people choose to become a gay if they had a choice? They had come to know about it very early in their age and I don't think you are mature enough to make decisions let alone know anything about sexuality at that point of time. This is just natural and it's about time people look beyond their religious point of view. If other cultures can accept this, then there's no right or wrong about it. It just depends on your mentality.
    Homosexuality is 'natural'? I'm sure many arguments could be made in terms of explaining homosexuality, but I doubt that nature intended it that way is one of them.

    Otherwise how about trying to enlighten me vis-a-vis my earlier post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
    I never studied biology at school, so forgive me if my knowledge is limited on the topic of why evolution has resulted in human males having evolved such that their sexual organs have evolved in the way they are, and similarly for females. I was under the impression, wrongly of course, that 'sexual desire / attraction', the urge to copulate with the opposite sex (hence the way the respective sexual organs have evolved), orgasm etc was, in evolutionary terms, natures way of ensuring that reproduction takes place. And in that regard, in terms of evolution, how does (homosexual) males being sexually attracted to males, and females to females, fits that evolutionary need? Of course if it's an aberration, or a deformity / disability, then that would explain it.

    Medical science has already evolved to the point whereby it's possible to pinpoint different genes that, for example, determine your physical traits. or areas of the brain that perform different functions, such as speech, sight, thought processes (including differentiating between areas that are for deductive logic and reasoning versus others that are for creative thought). In that regard, is there anything similar in biological terms that indicates that a person is homosexual or heterosexual?

    I ask because, being a logical person, one could be forgiven for thinking that if homosexuality is not a choice, then it must be genetic. And if so, has any proof been found thus far?


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  6. #86
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Canada
    Runs
    5,749
    Mentioned
    443 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by light View Post
    What does your post has to do with what I was debating with him originaly? Infact your post makes less sense than mr Khan's. Explain.
    You say that a pig has a heart, and so does a man. That the pig has an anus, and so do we. Based off that, you are saying that animals and humans are similar enough to the point where you used it as an argument for homosexuality among humans.


    Does cricket survive off of it's money or does it survive for it's money?

  7. #87
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aloo paratha View Post
    You say that a pig has a heart, and so does a man. That the pig has an anus, and so do we. Based off that, you are saying that animals and humans are similar enough to the point where you used it as an argument for homosexuality among humans.
    Close enough to us for our bodies not to reject their tissue. My father walked around with pig heart valve in his chest.

    Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.

  8. #88
    Debut
    Apr 2010
    Runs
    26,334
    Mentioned
    4555 Post(s)
    Tagged
    23 Thread(s)
    Am not sure if homosexuality is a choice or not but it exists and that is a fact and as some have already said, live and let live. But how is two people of the same gender being with one another evil or destroying mankind ? I think a poster mentioned that and also rejected the big bang theory.

    I have found that regardless of level of knowledge people have their views are generally inspired by their personal beliefs be it in the world of faith or lack of faith, so someone who claims to be a scientist but is also a person of god will use what he is aware of academically to justify his beliefs while the scientist who isn't a person of god would do the same. But as a neutral you can weigh up both arguments to find the truth somewhere in between it all.


    Ah, so this is what it feels like

  9. #89
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Venue
    Dubai
    Runs
    14,908
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    First of all, I believe those who worry about credentials or authencity of others are insecure about themselves and their lives so it just makes me laugh more.

    The reason I stopped responding to most posts here is not because I am out of ideas or out of words to say or to defend my beliefs and thoughts.

    But there is a verse in Quran which says "Those who have refused to follow the Way of Allah resemble cattle; when the shepherd calls them they hear nothing except shouting and crying; they are deaf, dumb and blind, and so they understand nothing."

    Most people here are defending something which is not natural because their minds cannot perceive anything but a man shouting random inane nonsense so they think they are on the right path and they have an obligation to defend something un-natural.

    It does not pain me but it does lead me to understand why man is so arrogant. When you believe you are the only thing that is intelligent in life, and this world happened by random chance occurrence, surely you would be arrogant as a mountain.

    The day is not far off when they would be defending naked people, people who rape, murder and commit atrocities because it would be a choice of life.

    @shaz two people living together and being friends is never an issue. Infact religion demands meet ups between similar gender people in which they pursue the discussion of Allah. Two people of the same gender meeting up and practicing sexual activity is not only downright disgusting but it indeed does morally corrupt the society.

    Rejection of Big Bang is based on lack of evidence except a few test tube demonstrations. Didn't once people believe that Earth was the center of the Universe and everyone who claimed otherwise was considered a fool.

    Similarly, most people here are foolish and dumb. They will not agree to the presence of Creator, until they get to meet him in its finality. That's all I will say on the subject.

    I can hold a scientific discussion well on my own and I understand the limitations of my medical therapy. If that makes me a man of religion more than a man of science I am happy to tread on that path and I only hope everyone sees light.


    And I get so high.. And I just can't feel it....

  10. #90
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    1,076
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
    Homosexuality is 'natural'? I'm sure many arguments could be made in terms of explaining homosexuality, but I doubt that nature intended it that way is one of them.

    Otherwise how about trying to enlighten me vis-a-vis my earlier post?
    Natural as in it's not forced. I think it's all about in which circumstances people grew in and the brain takes it's natural course to adjust to ones emotional needs. I don't want to get into Biological terms as it's still unproven that gay is considered a deformity or as such. They are still part of the evolution as you can see in many other species and it's not as simple as a forced choice as many posters are claiming here.

  11. #91
    Debut
    Oct 2004
    Runs
    98,508
    Mentioned
    1784 Post(s)
    Tagged
    16 Thread(s)
    Guys this debate should be held with your own thoughts, do not include utube videos etc


    For the latest updates on Cricket, follow @PakPassion on Twitter

  12. #92
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Bassim View Post

    Rejection of Big Bang is based on lack of evidence except a few test tube demonstrations. Didn't once people believe that Earth was the center of the Universe and everyone who claimed otherwise was considered a fool.

    Similarly, most people here are foolish and dumb. They will not agree to the presence of Creator, until they get to meet him in its finality. That's all I will say on the subject.
    So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.

  13. #93
    Debut
    Jun 2015
    Venue
    Srinagar
    Runs
    4,108
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.
    What is this 'hard' evidence?

  14. #94
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Venue
    Dubai
    Runs
    14,908
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    So in other words you choose to reject a mathematical theory supported by hard physical evidence, yet you want us to accept a premise (God) for which there is no evidence at all. This is intellectual dishonesty.
    I don't want you to accept God at all.

    Everyone has a mind and a brain.

    Use it and decide for yourself if the "Universe is created in vain by a random chance" or was it the "work of a Master Creator who will definitely impart justice one day".

    I reject a mathematical theory which may or may not be fallible. If you can come to terms with that, than surely you can come to terms with the fact that God may or may not exist.

    And if you can come to terms with the fact that "he may exist" than why should I be considered intellectually dishonest for the same reason?

    But here's one reality that is impossible to ignore.

    If I don't believe in the "Big Bang" and thousands of year later another Big Bang occurs and life starts somewhere else, would I be poorer off for not knowing it? Or perhaps if incontrovertible evidence did come thousands of years of now that "literally makes another Big Bang and another human species" would I be affected? Not really.

    But if you don't believe in the "existence of God" and he really exists and you finally find that he did exist, would you be able to "go back and finally accept him". NO. Would you be able to argue with him about his message? NO. Would you be worse off for denying someone "who created you" actually existed? YES. Would you then be there to witness the true justice? YES.

    In other words, my disbelief does nothing except harm my personal intellectual growth and my ability to understand science "in its true form" as you would say. If what you are saying turns out to be true, my persona is hardly affected.

    But your disbelief is a cause for major concern, because if "what I am speaking turns out to be true" then you will have nowhere to hide on the Day of Judgment and no one can save you from the disaster of that day when "hearts will tremble."



    And I get so high.. And I just can't feel it....

  15. #95
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Bassim View Post
    I don't want you to accept God at all.

    Everyone has a mind and a brain.

    Use it and decide for yourself if the "Universe is created in vain by a random chance" or was it the "work of a Master Creator who will definitely impart justice one day".

    I reject a mathematical theory which may or may not be fallible. If you can come to terms with that, than surely you can come to terms with the fact that God may or may not exist.

    And if you can come to terms with the fact that "he may exist" than why should I be considered intellectually dishonest for the same reason?

    But here's one reality that is impossible to ignore.

    If I don't believe in the "Big Bang" and thousands of year later another Big Bang occurs and life starts somewhere else, would I be poorer off for not knowing it? Or perhaps if incontrovertible evidence did come thousands of years of now that "literally makes another Big Bang and another human species" would I be affected? Not really.

    But if you don't believe in the "existence of God" and he really exists and you finally find that he did exist, would you be able to "go back and finally accept him". NO. Would you be able to argue with him about his message? NO. Would you be worse off for denying someone "who created you" actually existed? YES. Would you then be there to witness the true justice? YES.

    In other words, my disbelief does nothing except harm my personal intellectual growth and my ability to understand science "in its true form" as you would say. If what you are saying turns out to be true, my persona is hardly affected.

    But your disbelief is a cause for major concern, because if "what I am speaking turns out to be true" then you will have nowhere to hide on the Day of Judgment and no one can save you from the disaster of that day when "hearts will tremble."

    You don’t seem to understand how science works, which is making people question whether you are a Doctor.

    It works like this: someone makes an observation, and develops an explanation for it, termed an hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is tested experimentally. If evidence does not support the hypothesis it is discarded. If it holds up, it becomes a Theory.

    I was taught that in a biology class at age 11.

    I have explained to you why you are intellectually dishonest. Once again - you reject that for which there is evidence, yet expect me to accept something for which there is none.

    The Big Bang Theory fits the observable facts so we go with it. Perhaps one day it will be falsified like the Phlogiston Theory. In which case it will be replaced by something which fits more evidence as it is discovered.

    Yes, it is acceptable to me that the universe exists the way it is, because the four forces are in a certain ratio with each other. Were they not in that ratio then the universe would exist for an instant then collapse, or fly apart and no stars would ever form. But the forces are in that ratio so the universe forms not through chance but inexorable physical laws - stars firm, planets form, life begins and evolves.

    Now there may be a god or gods involved in all this but - here is the crucial thing - there doesn’t have to be for everything to be as it is.

    So in the absence of evidence for gods, I will apply Occam’s Razor and say there are none. If I see proof of gods I wil change my mind.

    As for your invocation of Pascal’s Wager it applies to other gods as well - perhaps your religion is wrong and paganism is right, in which case you have to worship Odin and Zeus as well, just in case when you die you arrive at the gates of Asgard and/or Olympus.

  16. #96
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adijazz1706 View Post
    What is this 'hard' evidence?
    1. Microwave background radiation picked up in 1964 by the Bell Labs antenna in New Jersey

    2. Galactic red shift data

    If you read a bit about thermal radiation and wavelength lengthening over time then it makes sense.

  17. #97
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    86
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by KingKhanWC View Post
    I respect your view bro but please prove this.
    Did you choose to be straight ? Assuming you are straight.

  18. #98
    Debut
    Nov 2015
    Runs
    1,376
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Think OP has been left with more questions than answers after starting this thread

  19. #99
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    UK
    Runs
    24,586
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Realromeo View Post
    Did you choose to be straight ? Assuming you are straight.
    If given a choice, would you want your children to grow up straight or homosexual?


    I for one welcome our new In____ overlords - Kent Brockman

  20. #100
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,498
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.
    This is the second time I'm asking a poster to 'enlighten' me vis-a-vis my earlier post (quoted below) when the poster is claiming that homosexuality is 'natural' just because some animals have been seen to have indulged in homosexual activity. To me 'natural' in this context implies it's 'intended', it's part of the evolutionary process of propagation of the human genes.

    Surely if homosexuality was 'natural' and nature intended it that way, in evolutionary terms nature would also have ensured that homosexuals could mate with each other and be able to produce offspring as a result, thereby propagating the (homosexual) human genes instead of relying upon male/female mating to do so on behalf of homosexuals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
    I never studied biology at school, so forgive me if my knowledge is limited on the topic of why evolution has resulted in human males having evolved such that their sexual organs have evolved in the way they are, and similarly for females. I was under the impression, wrongly of course, that 'sexual desire / attraction', the urge to copulate with the opposite sex (hence the way the respective sexual organs have evolved), orgasm etc was, in evolutionary terms, natures way of ensuring that reproduction takes place. And in that regard, in terms of evolution, how does (homosexual) males being sexually attracted to males, and females to females, fits that evolutionary need? Of course if it's an aberration, or a deformity / disability, then that would explain it.

    Medical science has already evolved to the point whereby it's possible to pinpoint different genes that, for example, determine your physical traits. or areas of the brain that perform different functions, such as speech, sight, thought processes (including differentiating between areas that are for deductive logic and reasoning versus others that are for creative thought). In that regard, is there anything similar in biological terms that indicates that a person is homosexual or heterosexual?

    I ask because, being a logical person, one could be forgiven for thinking that if homosexuality is not a choice, then it must be genetic. And if so, has any proof been found thus far?


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  21. #101
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    13,498
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpt. Rishwat View Post
    If given a choice, would you want your children to grow up straight or homosexual?
    I would like to be a grandfather one day, ideally with my future grandchildren being given birth to, and brought up by, parents who were parents in the traditional sense in every way, ie biological, legal, social, married to each other....etc...and straight.


    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule”

  22. #102
    Debut
    Jan 2018
    Runs
    1,918
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by topspin View Post
    1. Homophobia is wrong but criticising the practice of homosexuality isn't.

    2. I see most of the gay right champions are Indian based but most of the Indians I know personally are against it, so perhaps some of you need to open up? I'm not trolling, reason I ask is because I see a few of you harassing Dr Bassim and questioning his credentials? Seems like he touched a nerve.

    3. Finally why hasn't anyone brought the STD rate of homosexuals? You'll find the rate is astronomically higher in those who engage in this kind of intercourse.

    4. I have no problem with raising awareness of homosexuality in UK schools but they need to provide a balanced view with the inclusion of facts from both sides - including the STD rate. God forbid otherwise we may end up having an epidemic! Yes I know it can only be transmitted via body fluids but all it takes is a HIV (or whatever STD pathogen might be) to contaminate the water supply.

    5. The Almighty destroyed nations of the past for homosexual practices - for e.g. people of Lut.
    Exactly this.

    If the claim is that in western society, we can have open discussions about everything, then we must be allowedt o present arguments from all angles. God forbid someone raise the issue of STDs and especially HIV linked to homosexuality. Britain currently spends millions every year combating HIV, one of the major causes of which is homosexual intercourse. This is basic facts and should be taught to all.

  23. #103
    Debut
    Jan 2018
    Runs
    1,918
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Close enough to us for our bodies not to reject their tissue. My father walked around with pig heart valve in his chest.

    Point is that homosexual behaviour is widespread in many species, therefore is natural.
    Ermm....what?

    If it is natural for some creatures, does not mean it is natural for humans. What a ridiculous argument.

    it is natural for a fish to live in water, you want to give that a try?

    It is natural for pigs and dogs to eat their on faeces, would you let your children do that?

    A bull does not ask a cow for consent, is that how you approach women?

    Those are all also "natural".

  24. #104
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by barah_admi View Post
    Ermm....what?

    If it is natural for some creatures, does not mean it is natural for humans. What a ridiculous argument.

    it is natural for a fish to live in water, you want to give that a try?

    It is natural for pigs and dogs to eat their on faeces, would you let your children do that?

    A bull does not ask a cow for consent, is that how you approach women?

    Those are all also "natural".
    Let us stick to the point of homosexual behaviour rather than engage in whattabouttery.

    I am advancing the hypothesis that homosexual behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation to reduce violence in a population of creatures and that this has been observed in a great many species.

  25. #105
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    24,850
    Mentioned
    793 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by barah_admi View Post
    Exactly this.

    If the claim is that in western society, we can have open discussions about everything, then we must be allowedt o present arguments from all angles. God forbid someone raise the issue of STDs and especially HIV linked to homosexuality. Britain currently spends millions every year combating HIV, one of the major causes of which is homosexual intercourse. This is basic facts and should be taught to all.
    Not fact. The rate of HIV transmission in the straight population outstripped that in the gay population years ago.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •