hello from a new member

Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #60 - April 16, 2009, 01:04 PM

Speaking of late in the day I'm off to sleep. I just thought I should point out to Tut that he was being an idiot. Mission accomplished.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #61 - April 16, 2009, 01:05 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 12:22 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 12:17 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 11:40 AM
I just don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of weather or not wanting to live with homosexual couple.

I'm going to turn this on it's head and say heterosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of whether or not they want to live with a heterosexual couple.

You cannot take child out of natural environment, throw it into an artificial one and expect it to me normally, I think to raise a good balanced healthy child you need the touch of a man and a woman, but mostly a woman. For me, the problem is a child cannot make an informed choice if it wants to live with homosexuals or not. I don't think homosexuals are bad parents, but your putting that child out to be a target in school, imagine everyone finding out, one you are adopted and two you live with a gay couple.

Find me a study that shows children raised with homosexual parents come out abnormal? As far as I'm aware all studies show they come out normal.

And what basis do you have to say homosexuality is unnatural? It is very prevalent in nature hence it is natural. What the hell is artificial about being gay? It's about as natural as being straight or bi.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #62 - April 16, 2009, 01:14 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on April 16, 2009, 12:53 PM
You're evading now. Why not simply admit you were wrong?

I don't understand where you showed me I was wrong, in evolutionary terms being a homosexual is not an advantage it is a handicap, as you cannot bread. Now I am speaking of completely natural Darwinian evolution and natural selection. If being homosexual was not a handicap why would homosexual penguins steal eggs from heterosexual penguins? Or why would homosexuals want to adopt and have children? Until you can show me how in an evolutionary sense it is an advantage to be a homosexual I don't think I could abrogate my philosophy. By the way I propose theories, which are supported by rational and logical arguments, as well as factual and scientific evidence, I do not necessarily "believe" it is an axiom, thus for that reason I cannot be wrong, as proposing a theory is not dogma, it is not something I stringently believe in if there is new information I simply abrogate my philosophy.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #63 - April 16, 2009, 01:26 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 01:05 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 12:22 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 12:17 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 11:40 AM
I just don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of weather or not wanting to live with homosexual couple.

I'm going to turn this on it's head and say heterosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of whether or not they want to live with a heterosexual couple.

You cannot take child out of natural environment, throw it into an artificial one and expect it to me normally, I think to raise a good balanced healthy child you need the touch of a man and a woman, but mostly a woman. For me, the problem is a child cannot make an informed choice if it wants to live with homosexuals or not. I don't think homosexuals are bad parents, but your putting that child out to be a target in school, imagine everyone finding out, one you are adopted and two you live with a gay couple.

Find me a study that shows children raised with homosexual parents come out abnormal? As far as I'm aware all studies show they come out normal.

And what basis do you have to say homosexuality is unnatural? It is very prevalent in nature hence it is natural. What the hell is artificial about being gay? It's about as natural as being straight or bi.

You've misconstrued my position on some many levels I don't know where to start.

1.) If a child comes out "normal" there is still risk he would be bullied in school if other children found out he was living with a homosexual couple, which would be a problem physically and mentally for the child. Also a child cannot make an informed opinion if it wants to live with a homosexual couple.

2.) I did not say homosexuality is not natural it is simply a disadvantage i.e. a handicap under Darwinian evolution and natural selection, as homosexuals cannot naturally breed, and thus the genes for that particularly organism will die off, but not all organisms need to be heterosexual to reproduce some species can self impregnate. However, this is not the case for the fifth ape, thus it would be a disadvantage for the fifth ape (i.e. humans) to be homosexual.

3.) I meant to say putting a child in an artificial environment, for a human child it is not natural for it to be raised by homosexual couple.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #64 - April 16, 2009, 01:35 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:26 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 01:05 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 12:22 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 12:17 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 11:40 AM
I just don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of weather or not wanting to live with homosexual couple.

I'm going to turn this on it's head and say heterosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of whether or not they want to live with a heterosexual couple.

You cannot take child out of natural environment, throw it into an artificial one and expect it to me normally, I think to raise a good balanced healthy child you need the touch of a man and a woman, but mostly a woman. For me, the problem is a child cannot make an informed choice if it wants to live with homosexuals or not. I don't think homosexuals are bad parents, but your putting that child out to be a target in school, imagine everyone finding out, one you are adopted and two you live with a gay couple.

Find me a study that shows children raised with homosexual parents come out abnormal? As far as I'm aware all studies show they come out normal.

And what basis do you have to say homosexuality is unnatural? It is very prevalent in nature hence it is natural. What the hell is artificial about being gay? It's about as natural as being straight or bi.

You've misconstrued my position on some many levels I don't know where to start.

1.) If a child comes out "normal" there is still risk he would be bullied in school if other children found out he was living with a homosexual couple, which would be a problem physically and mentally for the child. Also a child cannot make an informed opinion if it wants to live with a homosexual couple.

2.) I did not say homosexuality is not natural it is simply a disadvantage i.e. a handicap under Darwinian evolution and natural selection, as homosexuals cannot naturally breed, and thus the genes for that particularly organism will die off, but not all organisms need to be heterosexual to reproduce some species can self impregnate. However, this is not the case for the fifth ape, thus it would be a disadvantage for the fifth ape (i.e. humans) to be homosexual.

3.) I meant to say putting a child in an artificial environment, for a human child it is not natural for it to be raised by homosexual couple.

1) That risk will be eliminated when people stop thinking like you. You would be better off asking the children raised by homosexuals how they feel rather than making mass generalisations. I don't know many liberal people who would bully such a child, only those who think conservatively but why should we change the world to compensate for such backwards thinking fools?

2) It isn't a handicap when we have ways around it. Animals may be at a handicap but humans have evolved past that.

3) You have a strange definition of what is natural. Nevertheless studies show children come out just fine so you have no argument there.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #65 - April 16, 2009, 01:50 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 01:35 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:26 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 01:05 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 12:22 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 12:17 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 11:40 AM
I just don't think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of weather or not wanting to live with homosexual couple.

I'm going to turn this on it's head and say heterosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children who cannot make an informed choice of whether or not they want to live with a heterosexual couple.

You cannot take child out of natural environment, throw it into an artificial one and expect it to me normally, I think to raise a good balanced healthy child you need the touch of a man and a woman, but mostly a woman. For me, the problem is a child cannot make an informed choice if it wants to live with homosexuals or not. I don't think homosexuals are bad parents, but your putting that child out to be a target in school, imagine everyone finding out, one you are adopted and two you live with a gay couple.

Find me a study that shows children raised with homosexual parents come out abnormal? As far as I'm aware all studies show they come out normal.

And what basis do you have to say homosexuality is unnatural? It is very prevalent in nature hence it is natural. What the hell is artificial about being gay? It's about as natural as being straight or bi.

You've misconstrued my position on some many levels I don't know where to start.

1.) If a child comes out "normal" there is still risk he would be bullied in school if other children found out he was living with a homosexual couple, which would be a problem physically and mentally for the child. Also a child cannot make an informed opinion if it wants to live with a homosexual couple.

2.) I did not say homosexuality is not natural it is simply a disadvantage i.e. a handicap under Darwinian evolution and natural selection, as homosexuals cannot naturally breed, and thus the genes for that particularly organism will die off, but not all organisms need to be heterosexual to reproduce some species can self impregnate. However, this is not the case for the fifth ape, thus it would be a disadvantage for the fifth ape (i.e. humans) to be homosexual.

3.) I meant to say putting a child in an artificial environment, for a human child it is not natural for it to be raised by homosexual couple.

1) That risk will be eliminated when people stop thinking like you. You would be better off asking the children raised by homosexuals how they feel rather than making mass generalisations. I don't know many liberal people who would bully such a child, only those who think conservatively but why should we change the world to compensate for such backwards thinking fools?

2) It isn't a handicap when we have ways around it. Animals may be at a handicap but humans have evolved past that.

3) You have a strange definition of what is natural. Nevertheless studies show children come out just fine so you have no argument there.

A.) I think like an atheist rationalist, you see the problem is with the religious masses, the main 3 faiths regard homosexuality as an abomination. And I don't think that attitude will change, even some atheists object to homosexuality. I have objection on some aspects of homosexuality becoming some kind of movement like feminazism. Movement which are no longer about equality but more rights for a selective group of people. Rights are extended to individuals not to mobs, the individual needs protection from the mob not the other way around.

B.) I was speaking on an evolutionary time scale, in a natural state, as I have said before due to the rapid expansion of our skulls we have larger brains and have higher cognitive abilities thus, outside the evolutionary context it is not a handicap to be a homosexual. But it may still well be a handicap in a cultural, religious and social sense, due to archaic beliefs, but that would be a different subject.

C.) By definition of natural is the same as anyone else. Could you direct me to some of these studies, moreover there is a risk the child once it grows up may resent being raised by a homosexual couple, imagine a a child raised by lesbians who grows up to be a Muslim.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #66 - April 16, 2009, 01:54 PM

I'll ask again:

Are worker ants and soldier ants at an evolutionary disadvantage compared to the queen ants?

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #67 - April 16, 2009, 01:58 PM

Quote from: Tlaloc on April 16, 2009, 01:54 PM
I'll ask again:

Are worker ants and soldier ants at an evolutionary disadvantage compared to the queen ants?

The Queen ant still gets to breed. Individually, its disadvantage for the worker and solider ants, but as a unit they've evolved like that and are efficient. Also I don't think you can compare humans to ants.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #68 - April 16, 2009, 02:18 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:58 PM
Quote from: Tlaloc on April 16, 2009, 01:54 PM
I'll ask again:

Are worker ants and soldier ants at an evolutionary disadvantage compared to the queen ants?

The Queen ant still gets to breed. Individually, its disadvantage for the worker and solider ants, but as a unit they've evolved like that and are efficient. Also I don't think you can compare humans to ants.

How is it an evolutionary disadvantage for the worker and soldier ants, since they contribute to their own genes spreading?

For example, imagine A and B breed together and the siblings C and D are born.
C is sterile, and D is not sterile.
D breeds with some unrelated specimen E, spawning F.

C shares half his genetic code with its sibling D.
D shares half his genetic code with its offspring F.

On all pragmatic accounts, D is as valuable to C as F is to D.
Even if C cannot breed, it can help its own genes spread and prosper by helping D survive.
Just like D helps its own genes prosper by reproducing with E and helping F survive.

Now, let's substitute letters with some "real life examples"...

A = Queen ant
B = Male ant
C = Worker/soldier ant
D = Queen ant
E = Male ant
F = Any other ant

And...

A = Mom
B = Dad
C = Homosexual son/daughter
D = Heterosexual son/daughter
E = Mate of heterosexual son/daughter
F = C's nephew/niece

Of whatever species, including, why not, humans.

By working to make the nest prosper, the worker/soldier ants can grant their sibling queens a chance to survive and colonize new area, thus helping spread their own genetic code.

By helping their relatives, the homosexual person can grant their siblings a better chance to survive and reproduce, thus spreading their own genetic code.

Or... is there some special metaphysical quality into the genetic code of a specimen that comes from your direct breeding, as opposed to specimen that share your genetic code but are a result of somebody else's breeding?

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #69 - April 16, 2009, 02:20 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:50 PM
A.) I think like an atheist rationalist, you see the problem is with the religious masses, the main 3 faiths regard homosexuality as an abomination. And I don't think that attitude will change, even some atheists object to homosexuality. I have objection on some aspects of homosexuality becoming some kind of movement like feminazism. Movement which are no longer about equality but more rights for a selective group of people. Rights are extended to individuals not to mobs, the individual needs protection from the mob not the other way around.

B.) I was speaking on an evolutionary time scale, in a natural state, as I have said before due to the rapid expansion of our skulls we have larger brains and have higher cognitive abilities thus, outside the evolutionary context it is not a handicap to be a homosexual. But it may still well be a handicap in a cultural, religious and social sense, due to archaic beliefs, but that would be a different subject.

C.) By definition of natural is the same as anyone else. Could you direct me to some of these studies, moreover there is a risk the child once it grows up may resent being raised by a homosexual couple, imagine a a child raised by lesbians who grows up to be a Muslim.

A & B) You think like a hypocrite. According to you ants who cant reproduce are not at a disadvantage because they have an 'efficient' system yet we are? Only a very small percent of the population is homo, it does not disadvantage us at all. In fact it can even be an advantage considering there are too many of us anyway.
There is no logical reason to object to homosexuality. They need to be protected if they are targeted. They need a movement like the feminism, it is the only way to bring change.

B) By your logic a white child should not be raised by black parents in case they grow up to be racist. There are many logical inconsistencies with that statement. What about the children who were fine with their gay parents? Are we just going to ignore them because one child grew up to be a religious nutter?
What about adopted children raised by religious nutters who are homophobic and the child turns out to be gay? They will grow to resent their parents and even themselves. Is it ethical to let children be raised by extremely religious people?

Here's an article about kids raised by homosexual parents- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
There have been no proper studies into this area however.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #70 - April 16, 2009, 02:22 PM

The mechanics of evolution (mutation, breeding, selection) do NOT reward a single individual for reproducing.

So sterility or homosexuality are not an "evolutionary disadvantage" because you can still help your genes survive by helping those who are genetically similar to yourself.

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #71 - April 16, 2009, 02:22 PM

Do you think gay children should be allowed to be raised by heterosexual couples?

My Book
My Blog
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #72 - April 16, 2009, 02:39 PM

Quote
For example, imagine A and B breed together and the siblings C and D are born.
C is sterile, and D is not sterile.
D breeds with some unrelated specimen E, spawning F.

C shares half his genetic code with its sibling D.
D shares half his genetic code with its offspring F.

On all pragmatic accounts, D is as valuable to C as F is to D.
Even if C cannot breed, it can help its own genes spread and prosper by helping D survive.
Just like D helps its own genes prosper by reproducing with E and helping F survive.

What if D dies? and C has no other "close" relatives. Moreover, your son is going to share more of your genetic code then say for example your relative. Also, your relatives might not even reciprocate your children are more likely to reciprocate. In fact if it is a battle for resources they may even kill you, in Darwinian evolution they have no reason to something out of empathy.

But I do see your point.

Quote
Or... is there some special metaphysical quality into the genetic code of a specimen that comes from your direct breeding, as opposed to specimen that share your genetic code but are a result of somebody else's breeding?

Well there is benefit, more genetic code possessing your genes is being spread.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Zaephon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #73 - April 16, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote from: a.ghazali
I know things may not be easy in Pakistan and I understand your wish to emigrate. However if those with the will to make change, are not there, such places will forever remain with its 7th century ideology.

That's quite the dilemma. Is every apostate under some obligation to sacrifice his/her own personal happiness while struggling against Islam? I am an idealist apostate and I can make sacrifices, but I cannot expect the same from everyone.

Welcome, Ned. I hope King Tutty doesn't alienate you with his prattling.

Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #74 - April 16, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 02:20 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:50 PM
A.) I think like an atheist rationalist, you see the problem is with the religious masses, the main 3 faiths regard homosexuality as an abomination. And I don't think that attitude will change, even some atheists object to homosexuality. I have objection on some aspects of homosexuality becoming some kind of movement like feminazism. Movement which are no longer about equality but more rights for a selective group of people. Rights are extended to individuals not to mobs, the individual needs protection from the mob not the other way around.

B.) I was speaking on an evolutionary time scale, in a natural state, as I have said before due to the rapid expansion of our skulls we have larger brains and have higher cognitive abilities thus, outside the evolutionary context it is not a handicap to be a homosexual. But it may still well be a handicap in a cultural, religious and social sense, due to archaic beliefs, but that would be a different subject.

C.) By definition of natural is the same as anyone else. Could you direct me to some of these studies, moreover there is a risk the child once it grows up may resent being raised by a homosexual couple, imagine a a child raised by lesbians who grows up to be a Muslim.

A & B) You think like a hypocrite. According to you ants who cant reproduce are not at a disadvantage because they have an 'efficient' system yet we are? Only a very small percent of the population is homo, it does not disadvantage us at all. In fact it can even be an advantage considering there are too many of us anyway.
There is no logical reason to object to homosexuality. They need to be protected if they are targeted. They need a movement like the feminism, it is the only way to bring change.

B) By your logic a white child should not be raised by black parents in case they grow up to be racist. There are many logical inconsistencies with that statement. What about the children who were fine with their gay parents? Are we just going to ignore them because one child grew up to be a religious nutter?
What about adopted children raised by religious nutters who are homophobic and the child turns out to be gay? They will grow to resent their parents and even themselves. Is it ethical to let children be raised by extremely religious people?

Here's an article about kids raised by homosexual parents- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
There have been no proper studies into this area however.

1.) It is a disadvantage to that particular organism. I might not be a disadvantage to the species as a whole. People need protection not the mob. A movement is similar to a mob, protection should always be extended to the individuals, as individuals need protection from the mob.

2.) You are missing the point of the rights of the child, the right of a child to make as choice if he wants to leave with a homosexual couple or not. Moreover, racism something you choose to be, homosexuality is not. Again you choose to be homophobic it is not a condition.

I will check that article out.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #75 - April 16, 2009, 02:49 PM

Quote from: IsLame on April 16, 2009, 02:22 PM
Do you think gay children should be allowed to be raised by heterosexual couples?

How can a child be gay? Its not until the child reaches the age of being sexually active that it knows if it is gay or not, and moreover, it is no longer a child buy a young adult who can make an informed opinion.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #76 - April 16, 2009, 02:53 PM

Quote from: Zaephon on April 16, 2009, 02:47 PM

Welcome, Ned. I hope King Tutty doesn't alienate you with his prattling.

Look at your avatar, it explains the bias undertone of that comment. Why don't you come out of the closet?

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- PeruvianSkies
- Ex-Muslim
- La Illaha Il al FSM
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #77 - April 16, 2009, 03:25 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 02:47 PM
Quote from: PeruvianSkies on April 16, 2009, 02:20 PM
Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 01:50 PM
A.) I think like an atheist rationalist, you see the problem is with the religious masses, the main 3 faiths regard homosexuality as an abomination. And I don't think that attitude will change, even some atheists object to homosexuality. I have objection on some aspects of homosexuality becoming some kind of movement like feminazism. Movement which are no longer about equality but more rights for a selective group of people. Rights are extended to individuals not to mobs, the individual needs protection from the mob not the other way around.

B.) I was speaking on an evolutionary time scale, in a natural state, as I have said before due to the rapid expansion of our skulls we have larger brains and have higher cognitive abilities thus, outside the evolutionary context it is not a handicap to be a homosexual. But it may still well be a handicap in a cultural, religious and social sense, due to archaic beliefs, but that would be a different subject.

C.) By definition of natural is the same as anyone else. Could you direct me to some of these studies, moreover there is a risk the child once it grows up may resent being raised by a homosexual couple, imagine a a child raised by lesbians who grows up to be a Muslim.

A & B) You think like a hypocrite. According to you ants who cant reproduce are not at a disadvantage because they have an 'efficient' system yet we are? Only a very small percent of the population is homo, it does not disadvantage us at all. In fact it can even be an advantage considering there are too many of us anyway.
There is no logical reason to object to homosexuality. They need to be protected if they are targeted. They need a movement like the feminism, it is the only way to bring change.

B) By your logic a white child should not be raised by black parents in case they grow up to be racist. There are many logical inconsistencies with that statement. What about the children who were fine with their gay parents? Are we just going to ignore them because one child grew up to be a religious nutter?
What about adopted children raised by religious nutters who are homophobic and the child turns out to be gay? They will grow to resent their parents and even themselves. Is it ethical to let children be raised by extremely religious people?

Here's an article about kids raised by homosexual parents- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
There have been no proper studies into this area however.

1.) It is a disadvantage to that particular organism. I might not be a disadvantage to the species as a whole. People need protection not the mob. A movement is similar to a mob, protection should always be extended to the individuals, as individuals need protection from the mob.

2.) You are missing the point of the rights of the child, the right of a child to make as choice if he wants to leave with a homosexual couple or not. Moreover, racism something you choose to be, homosexuality is not. Again you choose to be homophobic it is not a condition.

I will check that article out.

1) Big deal if it is a disadvantage, it's not really a disadvantage with modern technology. I still fail to what has this go to do with anything?
Are you calling the homosexual movement a mob? Are they hurting others by fighting for equal rights? I fail to see the comparison.

2) How does this support what you said? That child had a choice to be homophobic or not and it became homophobic. That is not the parents fault. If the child decide it doesn't like it's parents ways it can move out and switch foster parents. There is no 100% certainty that a child will grow up to like the parents it ends up with regardless of their sexual orientation. And as I said before the views of one child should not supersede the views of many others.

~My story~
~Collection of unethical hadiths/surahs~
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #78 - April 16, 2009, 03:48 PM

am a little busy now look at sex adds found a really cool one:

http://www.illicitencounters.co.uk/member/id/190762

going to message her see what happens. looks promising..

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- ned
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #79 - April 16, 2009, 04:04 PM

Just want to state an official position ... I can't be bothered to answer people like KingTut, so I'm just going to ignore all his posts.

Thanks to everyone who was welcoming.
- Zaephon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #80 - April 16, 2009, 04:06 PM

Quote from: ned on April 16, 2009, 04:04 PM
Just want to state an official position ... I can't be bothered to answer people like KingTut, so I'm just going to ignore all his posts.

Thanks to everyone who was welcoming.

Good move, Ned. I hope you stay around and enjoy posting.

Islam: where idiots meet terrorists.
- AlmostAisha
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #81 - April 16, 2009, 04:45 PM

Welcome Ned!

I live in Canada and I love it Don't worry, it's not as cold as they say when they try to scare you

"when you've got thousands of hadith/sunnah and a book like the Qur'an where abrogation is propagated by some; anyone with a grudge and some time on their hands can find something to confirm what ever they wish"- Kaiwai
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #82 - April 16, 2009, 04:48 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 02:39 PM
Quote
For example, imagine A and B breed together and the siblings C and D are born.
C is sterile, and D is not sterile.
D breeds with some unrelated specimen E, spawning F.

C shares half his genetic code with its sibling D.
D shares half his genetic code with its offspring F.

On all pragmatic accounts, D is as valuable to C as F is to D.
Even if C cannot breed, it can help its own genes spread and prosper by helping D survive.
Just like D helps its own genes prosper by reproducing with E and helping F survive.

What if D dies? and C has no other "close" relatives. Moreover, your son is going to share more of your genetic code then say for example your relative. Also, your relatives might not even reciprocate your children are more likely to reciprocate. In fact if it is a battle for resources they may even kill you, in Darwinian evolution they have no reason to something out of empathy.

But I do see your point.

Quote
Or... is there some special metaphysical quality into the genetic code of a specimen that comes from your direct breeding, as opposed to specimen that share your genetic code but are a result of somebody else's breeding?

Well there is benefit, more genetic code possessing your genes is being spread.

Your calculations are wrong.

You share 50% of your genetic code with each of your parents and each of your siblings and each of your offspring.

With mather/father/children the relationship is evident cause they get exactly 50% genetic code from the father and 50% from the mother.

For siblings, let's consider each gene singularly.

Each gene in diploid organisms, like humans, is made of two alleles.
You get one allele from the mother and one from the father. Let's call them F1 and M1.
And let's call F2 and M2 the other allele for the same gene that are present in your parents but you did not get from them.

Now, in your siblings, the same gene can be coded as:

F1-M1 = 2 alleles from your same genetic material
F1-M2 = 1 allele from your genetic material
F2-M1 = 1 allele from your genetic material
F2-M2 = nothing from your genetic material

Since they are equiprobable, using simple math, you get that the average is that each sibling has 1 allele in common with you for each gene, which is 50% of your alleles (with a negligible stochastical error in defect or eccess)

So your brothers and sisters are quantitatively "genetically similar" to you as your parents or your children

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- ned
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #83 - April 16, 2009, 04:50 PM

Hi AlmostAisha,

Yes, I spent a winter in Canada ... it was quite cold, but bearable, at least in Toronto. The weather is the only thing that puts me off Canada ... otherwise it seems like a wonderful country.

I do look forward to moving there in a couple of years.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #84 - April 16, 2009, 04:51 PM

So, evolutionarily speaking, defending your parents or siblings or offspring is equivalent for the survival of your genes.

And your cousins and your nephews and nieces are quantitatively similar to grandchildren, and so on...

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #85 - April 16, 2009, 05:01 PM

I hope Ned gives this post five minutes of her precious cappuccino sipping, time. As a preliminary, I want to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of "moral good". In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that she has made some imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them. Her behaviour might be different if she were told that the most delusional persons I've ever seen suffer from a collective self-image that prefers victimization to success and imposes a suffocating group conformity that ostracises nonconformists.

As far as I can tell, I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Ned's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) She thinks I'm trying to say that it's okay to create division in the name of diversity. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over her head. Her posts may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that every time she tries, she gets increasingly successful in her attempts to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with her policies while punishing those who oppose them. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: No one can be right all of the time.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #86 - April 16, 2009, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Tlaloc on April 16, 2009, 04:51 PM
And your cousins and your nephews and nieces are quantitatively similar to grandchildren, and so on...

Would your cousins also share 50% of your genes?

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #87 - April 16, 2009, 05:20 PM

Can anyone see a boz-eyed wolf in your avatar, or is it just me?

Secondly how come your IQ has dropped my more that 100 points since I last saw it? Have you been labotomised?

My Book
My Blog
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #88 - April 16, 2009, 05:41 PM

Quote from: IsLame on April 16, 2009, 05:20 PM
Can anyone see a boz-eyed wolf in your avatar, or is it just me?

Secondly how come your IQ has dropped my more that 100 points since I last saw it? Have you been labotomised?

I was showing that the interaction in this thread has made my IQ fall dramatically.

It is not a wolf. Its a half man half animal entity which is invoked by the cosmic vibrations, such are practising the dark arts of Kabbalah, Kala Jadoo, Voodoo, etc it is a king by the way its origin is black African half human not necessarily "evil" there is really no such thing as "evil" it is a cultural archetype, only seen when the 3rd eye is open. It can also be invoked by pir (a powerful head of a sufi order) for the protection of its mureed (students) our pir also use such "magic" to protect us from the negative cosmic energy, and manifestations of that negative energy, there is positivity and negativity, we don't necessarily believe in "evil" and "good" anyway I am working on auric radiation enhancement. It results in attractiveness and increased personal magnetism. It neutralizes negative energies in one's system and builds-up self-confidence.

But I am working on a whole philosophy dealing with this stuff.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: hello from a new member
Reply #89 - April 16, 2009, 09:09 PM

Quote from: King Tut on April 16, 2009, 05:03 PM
Quote from: Tlaloc on April 16, 2009, 04:51 PM
And your cousins and your nephews and nieces are quantitatively similar to grandchildren, and so on...

Would your cousins also share 50% of your genes?

No, I fucked up, I actually meant uncles, and they share 1/4 alleles with you, like nieces or grandchildren.

Cousins would be 1/8

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »