Tweet
Originally posted by Khostai
View Post
-
then why you crying in your last post ? -
I am not crying, or every remark or discussion about Islam is crying in your eyes?Originally posted by jankhan View PostComment
-
lol, being gay is genetic, and this nephew of yours is just a cover up of your own life story. Thats why its so funny.Originally posted by کیش View PostComment
-
always be complainant about something is called crying.Originally posted by Khostai View PostComment
-
its typical for usa but i have seen it also in germany that gay try to escape into radical christianityOriginally posted by Khostai View Post
that explains a lot!faye's chauffeur
Pashton's girlfriend
I'm a Pashtun Princes
Comment
-
LOL yeah right, your little childlish atenmpt to shut every discussion by accusing the other oponent of being emotional is just weak. But again it was a nice try from a porki.Originally posted by jankhan View PostComment
-
also the reason why they are so hard on women being virgins, that way a woman will never know that the reason her husband is so bad in sex becuase he is not atracted to her. LOLOriginally posted by ImAjEw View PostComment
-
halaka my religion islam teaches me to be humble and not bark. what does your atheism teach you, always crying ?Originally posted by Khostai View PostComment
-
Again questioning and discussing is not crying. But I guess for a brainded zombi like you thats a hard concept to grasp.Originally posted by jankhan View PostComment
-
Whenever one of these discussions comes up, we ought to inject some reason into the back and forth. Let us break the discussion into three parts: 1) Scientific implications 2) Societal and Anthropological implications and 3) religio-political implications
1) The science: I still recall when Hamer out of NCI published his ground breaking work about the Xq28 gene and gay brothers and their maternal uncles. Subsequent to this, the other work with Baily et al came out multi center research and despite being broadcast as proof positive of "gay genes" Baily had to concede that environmental factors played a role. An attempt to replicate Hamer's work before that sample size 409 patient study I mentioned above, out of Canada, failed to replicate Hamer's findings in a reasonable sample size of 52 pairs. A final point to make, and I may be wrong since its been a long time since I looked at these studies, is that female sexual orientation was not studied in these investigations.
The other issue to think about is organ system function and dysfunction. In medicine, we define disease as organ malfunction. There are various phenotypes that are deleterious. For example, we know for sure that a child born with heart malformations of various types will NOT do well. On the other hand, there are phenotypes that functionally normal variants (e.g. Blue, Green, Brown eyes and hair and skin color).
If we accept the hypothesis that an individual is born exclusively gay then this entails accepting the fact that a male being exists that experiences sexual excitement not at wanting to "mate with" females and enter the vaginal canal but rather at wanting to either insert his phallus into another male's rectum or have a male insert his phallus into his rectum. This OVERTLY an abnormal variant because we know that lining of the rectum (mucosa) is not similar to that of the vaginal vault. Its inherent design by nature or God or whatever you choose to accept was not in line with receiving a sexual organ. Additionally, the secretions of the vagina enhance the ability of optimal sperm to survive and there are components that are complementary to the male secretions. The anal vault on the other hand is a feces transit point - i.e. it is a waste management site of the body not a site designed for sexual reproduction. Sexual behavior obviously is variant (e.g. Clinton and Monica - I wont go into detail but you all understand what I mean regarding different body points and sexual behavior with this reference). That behavioral preference however is not what we are addressing, since the contention is that a being is born that is PURELY sexually excited with attempting to have intercourse with the same half of his species. By the same token, even though no significant female studies exist, the same could be said of the fact that a woman born PURELY oriented to want to insert a nonexistent phallus into another woman is clearly a pathological malfunction.
All this boils down to me saying that its not the same as brown eyes versus green eyes - i.e. it would based on how medicine defines pathology without the modern imposed bias of political correctness - which in this case would mean it would at best be a pathological disease state and at worst, if Baily, one of the authors of that more robust sample size study is to be believed - influenced to some degree by environment (i.e. a modicum of choice).
Merely run a simulation in your own heads to prove the point. Do not inject technology or the ability to have surrogates as we do now but imagine a colony of 99 hominoid individuals. 33 of them have blue eyes, 33 green eyes, and 33 brown eyes. This trait will not decrease the ability to have healthy robust offspring and propagate. Now imagine an alternative scenario ---> 100 individuals with 50 males and 50 females. If all 50 of the males were exclusively gay this would inherently result in population extinction within a single generation.
Therefore, one thing that is worth arguing about or looking into is that if this were a "genetic" trait that is ?dominant? recessive? sex chromosome linked? one would have to account for how eons of evolution have resulted in such a trait being passed forth when natural selection and evolution tend to promote traits of preservation not extinction.
For that matter, since devastating disease states like cystic fibrosis and ones like heart deformities have a low PREVALANCE in a minority of the population due the reasons i mentioned above of natural selection and evolutionary processes resulting in many of these individuals not passing the "survival of the fittest" test - how are we to accept the notion that a theoretically large portion of the population (gays) that are inherently/theoretically designed with a trait that has the potential for population extinction survived eons of generational processes? We might say that societal pressures in complex beings like ourselves masked its expression? If so, then one must accept the fact that religious and political rules against this practice were suppressing an unhealthy and pathological trait.
2) Societal implications - this is a tough topic. Once again, in an eerie morally bankrupt societal state - like the one Aldous Huxley writes of in his classic work, Brave New World we could think about how a society that sheds the time honored cross cultural general definitions of marriage and family use science to create new structures (Frankensteinian if I were to invent an adjective). Women could theoretically serve as surrogates and keep exclusive female partners while bearing offspring to propagate the species for exclusive male couples. As I said, such a society would likely be as morally bankrupt as what we see in Brave New World.
The reality is that nature pushes back! The REPLACEMENT FERTILITY rate for a viable population is 2.1 babies per woman. This is one reason why Europe and Russia are freaking out - their respective rates are 1.38 and 1.14. America on the other hand up until recently was nearly right at that 2.1 cusp and out of the Western nations is the most religious and socially conservative.
A part of this is that they, have introduced birth control, later child bearing age, and societal constructs such as accepted fornication without the goal of reproduction.
If we add this trait to the mix, then unless those responsive paradigms I stated above are used (surrogacy etc) then these societies will have more problems.
This is why Vladimir Putin has had to institute reforms offering some $10,000 to women to have more babies:
And perhaps another reason why he is ardently against accepting homosexuality in his nation state.
And what of choice? For instance, is it justified for a parent who conducts genetic testing on himself and his child and finds none of the potential gay genes to be upset that their child has made a possible choice to act gay?
A single example is all that is needed. Take for instance, the odd case of Rock Star Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher. They were a prominent couple that advocated for the concept of gay rights and exclusivity. Cypher then apparently, in a therapy session disclosed that she was "just not gay"
Or take another example, that of Anne Heche who was gay with Ellen Degeneres and was another huge gay rights advocate:
She then proceeded to have affairs with men and admit she was not gay as well.
There are countless examples of environment and choice being involved, similar to these.
In such instances, I believe it is perfectly valid for parents and family to be upset that someone is engaging in a behavior, that as I said above, when viewed without pressure or political bias, may be defined as a disease state at best.
3) Religio Political
Many religious and political constructs are inherently designed to promote societal stability. For instance, pre-marital sex has a clear linkage to disease transmission rates of STDs. There is no scientific debate over this. Mate guarding behavior is a primate trait that also resulted in certain societal imposed paradigms that permitted stability and prevent infighting/chaos - hence until recently why many societies had certain boundaries on women (e.g. even "Juliet" lived behind high walls in Shakespeare's time). As society has limited or slowly eliminated mate guarding behavioral traits there has been a rise in children with questionable paternity and the plummeting birth rates I cited above.
Additionally, people seem to be confused about Pederasty and homosexuality. They cite instances in Pashtun lands of the former and attempt to relate it to the latter or somehow insinuate that its an acceptable under the table trait in Pashtuns. They forget that for the most part, men like Jan Muhammad Khan, Karzai's Popalzai close friend, was not applauded or lauded for his practice of pederasty.
There is actual video evidence of Jan Muhammad Khan asking coalition soldiers to hand over a boy on the cusp of puberty to him to molest.
Anand Gopal in personal interviews cites these examples of Hamid Karzai's molester friend admitting his behavior:
He goes on to explain why Pashtuns actually accepted Taliban in that they were imprisoning people like Jan Muhammad Khan (who Karzai Bibi sprung from prison as one of his first acts):“Justice,” Jan Muhammad told me years later, “justice is the most important thing. You see, without it, you can’t have stability. That was on my mind always—how do I ensure justice? How do I make the bad things good again?” We sat cross-legged on his guest-room floor, sipping green tea, on a warm spring day in 2010. With glass tables and gold-framed portraits of President Karzai, ornate curio pieces and finely crafted porcelain vases, the room was airy and clean—and he was proud of every
inch of it. “I earned all of this,” he told me, unprompted, “not like those warlords who steal land. I’m not a thief.” Seated nearby were the hangers-on and acolytes you tend to accrue in Afghanistan when you are a man of means and power: a pair of bodyguards, two or three cousins, a secretary, someone who dealt with guests, and an old man with no discernible role. There was also a young boy whom Jan Muhammad liked to keep around. “He has beautiful eyes,” he explained. page 85 of No Good Men Amongst the Living
Here is the description of the video evidence (which is here on PF somewhere) of Jan Muhammad Khan stating his intention to commit pederasty:The malek told me that the village had been under Taliban control for nearly two years, and in that time crime had vanished. The Taliban court adjudicated disputes and sentenced criminals, something only a bribe would have achieved in government courts. He explained how Taliban “police” had captured a known child molester and turned him over to Islamic justice, with judges tarring his face, parading him around Chak, and forcing him to apologize publicly. If caught again, he was told, he would be executed. page 144 from No Good Men Amongst the Living
So what we see is in indigenous Pashtun society, this pederasty trait is not particularly acceptable to common people and is rather associated with hoodlums and thugs.Once, during a joint Afghan-American mission to a Ghilzai region—home to Mullah Manan—they descended on a house where they uncovered weapons, a common enough occurrence in a country awash with arms. In a sequence captured by a documentary filmmaker, a villager was brought out to JMK (Jan Muhammad Khan) for interrogation, with US troops and his militiamen seated around him. JMK then began rummaging through photos of young boys and men taken from the captive’s house.
“Where did you find these boys? Oh God, what good looks!” he exclaimed, as his militiamen chuckled. The prisoner sat nearby uncomfortably. “Aren’t they heavenly creatures? What beautiful boys they are. I wish I was young again. They’re more beautiful than ten women.”
After conferring with the militiamen over the evidence, Jan Muhammad told the prisoner, “Come on, man. You say this is the photo of a lion? It looks like a donkey.” He glared. “I’ll **** your mother.
I’ll make you suck my ****.” Then, through a translator, he sent a message about the captive’s fate to an American officer sitting nearby. “Tell the colonel we’ll take him along with us and for a few nights he will keep us entertained. He will do his thing and then we’ll see.” page 167 from No Good Men Among the Living
The only example of ANY MENTION of gay marriage in Pashtun society was a report that turned out to be fabricated regarding an Afridi Jirga called on by Markeen Afridi and Liaqat Ali:
As we can see, no Pashtun in their right mind would dare to say this practice, overt homosexuality between two adult men, is indigenous or native or accepted by Pashtuns - and they should refrain from accepting the propaganda that pederasty laden folks like Jan Muhammad Khan gain any traction either.Markeen, hailing from a domi*nant Afridi tribe, uses to transport goods to the inaccessible Tirah valley on mule and donkeys. Li*aqat also does the same business. Both are married persons and have kids, according to tribal sources. Meanwhile, Shah Hussain, Markeen's father spoke to reporters in Bara on telephone from Tirah and defended his son. "My son is a mature person. He runs the business of mules and donkeys and uses to transport goods to the inaccessible mountainous region," he said.
"Our enemies have spread the rumour only and only to defame us. The people of this area cannot think of samesex marriage. There is no concept of this practice here," he explained. Commenting on media reports he said, 'At least they should confirm this before publishing it. The news has not only hurt me and my family but the whole tribe."
Hussain said the fabricated news of gay marriage was so skil*fully propagated as that of the hoax call of earthquake, which had spread across the whole province.
The religious aspect of this is already addressed in the Quranic text directly where Lot's people are condemned for wanting to force Lot's angelic guests, bearing the form of men, into homosexual lewd acts.Last edited by BarakzaiAbdali; 07-12-2015, 04:23 PM."2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quoteComment
-
These are the last days. Every family has someone who is Gay, i 100% know that for sure. They hide it or you turn a blind eye because it is someone close to you.
When i took a Cultural Anthropology i wrote how LGBT people suffer from mental illness. Science says that the brain work different from a gay man and a straight one. All cultures had Gay and transgender people, because it is as common as schizophrenia, dementia, ADHD etc. . .Comment
-
No disrespect to you and yours bro, but like I was trying to point out above - I dont think it can be possible for it to be that widespread by any means for the very reasons I stated. I think this is a media slant to things that is meant to brain wash the public into viewing it as ubiquitous.Originally posted by کیش View Post
If you project those numbers and you go way back into our primate past -before social norms- the only explanation of how that could be would be as follows:
1) There was no real gay exclusivity but rather male male interplay and males still mated with females (bisexuality)
2) It was theoretically as widespread as you say but then if such were the case how would Xq28 get passed down again and again (because it would not be a trait that supported reproduction and propagation of the species) except to say that random females were imparting a gay X chromosome again and again to male offsprings generation to generation.
In any case, I am no evolutionary biologist and there are debates over this subject - but I am unwilling to accept it under social norms.
I am still fascinated how no one else realized just how much of a difference media has made in the rapid acceptance of this sexual behavior. In the 1990s it was not at all considered an acceptable thing to have a "gay character" on TV. Now all of a sudden, starting with Spin City and other shows suddenly every show has a "gay cool guy" character so as to brain wash the public into thinking it is ubiquitous. And as I said, I cannot medically, sociologicaly, anthropologically etc accept it as a ubiquitous phenomena.
The West has done many good things and what not in terms of productivity, hard work, inventiveness, order, systems efficiency - but these attempts to overcome nature and our inherent design in this Brave New World esque fashion is like a lemming running over a cliff."2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quoteComment
-
Originally posted by Khostai View Post
Being gay is biological, but there is no evidence that it is genetic. Genetic means there is a code in our chromosomes that codes for being gay. No such code has ever been found in the same way eye color or hair or what not.
What SOME scientists believe is that homosexuality happens due to misreading of sex specific code during protein synthesis in zygote during gestation.
Get your facts straight. No Pun intended.Comment
-
Originally posted by Khostai View Post
I don't think Islam is for gender segregation but regulating sexuality. Which are different concepts.
It seeks to direct and channel gender behavior not entirely elminate them. In that sense it's not "anti-natural" it's auxiliaryComment
-
I think it was the whole gay rights movements starting from the 80's that mainstreamed gays and lesbians. They were always there but suppressed themselves and continues living straight as it is wrong.Originally posted by BarakzaiAbdali View Post
I have known my cousin since he was in the womb and he was always off, and very feminine in character. we would shrug it off and say High school would change it. but it came and went and he exponentially became worse. And now he is gone. confused and lost in a city that is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, Babylon, Ad and Thamud, and Median put together
In no way do i believe this epidemic is only within my family. We are Muslims and Afghans just like the restComment
Comment