Who's Next On The Alphabet?

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
- How do we recognize the most sexually depraved human society in History? When sexuality becomes identity itself. A couple of decades ago, 2% was the share of the LGBTQ population in the US. Fast forward today, apparently 40% among GenZ identify as LGBT. This number will keep increasing in the future until, most likely, by next generation virtually the whole population may be involved in these practices -just as Pederasty (gay pedophilia) was normalized in Ancient Greece. Now, every other year a new letter is added to the LGBTQABCD+ sexual identity spectrum in your countries. The American Psychology Association (I think?) lists some 200 paraphilias. Which do you think is next in line on this identity alphabet? 

- My personal list is: Incest, because free love & all that; then Bestiality, because western people love their animals as they love humans & more; then Pedophilia, because consent laws are anti-sexual freedom; then Polygamy, because no Christianity can stop it anymore, then everything else... So, LGBTQIIBPP+
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

It is permissible for a man to arrange a marriage for his young son even if he has not reached puberty; it is also permissible for him to arrange a marriage for his young daughter even if she had not reached the age of puberty. It was narrated that there was consensus on this point, but that is provided that compatibility is taken into account and that a clear and real interest is served by this marriage.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the father may arrange a marriage for his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married ‘Aa’ishah when she was six years old.

End quote from at-Tamheed, 19/98 
Ismaa‘eel ibn Ishaaq (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The father may arrange a marriage for a young (daughter) according to the consensus of the Muslims, and that is binding on her. 
End quote from at-Tamheed, 19/84 
Ibn Shubrumah disagreed with that, as we shall see below. 

Secondly: 

It is not prescribed to arrange a marriage for a young girl unless there is a clear and real interest to be served by doing so. The same applies to young boys, but the ruling is emphasized more with regard to girls because a boy has the power of divorce (talaaq). 

An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It should be noted that ash-Shaafa‘i and his companions said: It is recommended for the father or grandfather not to arrange a marriage for a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and he seeks her consent, lest she find herself trapped in a marriage that she resents. What they said is not contrary to the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that he should not give her in marriage before puberty if there is no clear and real interest to be served by that for which there is the fear that it will be missed by delaying marriage, such as the story of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case (i.e., if there is a clear and real interest to be served) it is recommended not to miss the opportunity to marry that husband, because the father is enjoined to take care of his children’s interests, not to neglect them. 

End quote from Sharh Muslim, 9/206 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was of the view that in the case of a girl who has reached the age of nine years it is stipulated that she give consent and he said: This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and this is the correct view. 

With regard to the girl who is younger than the age of nine years, he favoured the view that the father does not have the right to arrange a marriage. He narrated from Ibn Shubrumah (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said: It is not permissible to arrange a marriage for a young girl who has not reached the age of puberty, because if we say that that is subject to her consent, her consent does not count (because she is too young to make such decisions), and when she does reach the age of puberty we believe that she should not be forced into a marriage. The Shaykh said: This view is the correct one, that the father should not arrange a marriage for his daughter until she reaches the age of puberty, and when she reaches the age of puberty he should not arrange a marriage unless she gives her consent. 
But if we assume that a man regards this suitor as compatible and he is old, and there is the fear that if he passes away and guardianship of the girl passes to her brothers, they may not take the matter of her marriage seriously and they may arrange her marriage according to their whims and desires, not according to what is in her best interests, and he thinks that it is in her best interests to arrange her marriage to someone who is compatible, there is nothing wrong with that, but she will have the choice when she grows up; if she wishes she may say: I do not agree to this and I do not want it. 

If the matter is like this, then the safest option is not to arrange her marriage and to entrust her to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. Perhaps now he thinks that this man is compatible but then the man’s situation may change, and perhaps when she reaches the age of marriage Allah will bring her a man who is better than this man, because all things are in the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted.

End quote from ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 12/57-59 
The Shaykh also favoured the view that marriage should not be arranged for a boy until he reaches the age of puberty. 

Ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 12/53 

With regard to consummation of the marriage with a minor, it does not become permissible by merely drawing up the marriage contract; rather the husband should not consummate the marriage with her until she is able to have intercourse, which is not necessarily at puberty. This is something that varies from one environment and time to another. With regard to that, sharee‘ah pays attention to physical makeup. 

Thirdly: 

From the words of the Muslim fuqaha’ concerning this issue, it is clear that marriage of minors is based on achieving clear and real interests thereby. If marriage of a young girl will serve some very real interest for her, then her guardian may arrange a marriage for her, but if no real interest will be served for her by that, then he does not have the right to arrange a marriage when she is still a minor, until she can choose for herself and give consent. 

That is not a transgression against her rights, as may be said with regard to the trustee’s handling of the orphan’s wealth; it is permissible for him to buy and sell on his behalf without obtaining his consent, if that serve a clear and real interest and is more beneficial for him and his wealth. 

The view concerning young boys is the same as that concerning young girls; it is essential for the guardian to take into consideration what interests may be achieved for the minor thereby. 

This is applicable in all cases in which Islam gives permission to conduct affairs on behalf of another and gives guardianship of another. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:          
                           
If a person has authority to handle the affairs or wealth of another, either as a guardian or by appointment as a proxy, it is not permissible for him to do whatever he wants; he has to choose that which is in (his ward’s) best interests.

End quote from Mukhtasar al-Fataawa al-Masriyyah, 796 

Based on that, one should take the appropriate approach to the emotional aspect of this issue, because choosing the right person for the woman in terms of his character and choosing the right time for arranging this marriage is in fact paying attention to the woman’s natural and emotional needs and inclinations. Emotion here does not refer to love relationships and infatuations that may occur between young men and women; these relationships and ideas are one thing and the reality of life is something else. How many marriages have started with these relationships but soon failed, and how many marriages have started without prior acquaintance between the spouses but Allah created love, compassion, tranquillity and harmony between them, and they continued to live happily together. 

And Allah knows best.
Topic's author
#3
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
@RationalMadman
- Stick to the OP! Save the above for your debate, unless you're planning on running away, then I may opt to respond here instead, though I'd rather not so you'd waste your character count on stupid shit like that. – Anyways, you seem to care a lot about LGBT, you don't want others left behind, so what do you think is next in line? 

#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Yassine
Well pedophilia will never be added to the western LGBTQ+ but has always been socially acceptable for legal marriage in Islamic cultures until they realised that elsewhere it is considered disgusting and wrong.
#5
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Well pedophilia will never be added to the western LGBTQ+ but has always been socially acceptable for legal marriage in Islamic cultures until they realised that elsewhere it is considered disgusting and wrong.
This. I have to say, it's pretty tone deaf for OP to rail against the 'sexual depravity' of LGBTQ and modern society when neither condone pedophilia ...unlike his holy book.
Topic's author
#6
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
Well pedophilia will never be added to the western LGBTQ+
- It definitely will, have no doubt. Soon too. It already was the case in the West in the past. It already is today, except your people go elsewhere to do their business, such as South America, Africa or places like Thailand. Also, in case you didn't know, why do I have to teach you people your own history, it gets old. The people who instigated the Sexual Liberation in the West, starting with people like Foucault, Sartre, De Beauvoir...  did so for both Homosexuality & Pedophilia, as depravity has no boundaries, except the former succeeded faster than the latter, with enough media exposure. In fact, pedophilia then (70s) was less stigmatized then homosexuality. A man who lived with 12 girls as young as 6 in France was sentenced to 3 months in prison. 


but has always been socially acceptable for legal marriage in Islamic cultures until they realised that elsewhere it is considered disgusting and wrong.
- Use this in the debate. It'd be a shame if you lose such a "nice" line of reasoning.

Topic's author
#7
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
This. I have to say, it's pretty tone deaf for OP to rail against the 'sexual depravity' of LGBTQ and modern society when neither condone pedophilia
- They do, of course. It's just not popular enough yet.


...unlike his holy book.
- Please! Don't stick your depravities & sexual fantasies on us. Ew! You're atheist anyways, you got no moral judgment. 

#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Actually if they were going to add a new letter it would probably be for polyamory or polygamy. I don't technically think there's anything wrong with those and I think most people don't care either. Incest still illegal in most areas so I don't see it coming around anytime soon, thankfully. And bestiality will never be acceptable people do love their animals like they love humans which is why they would never tolerate an animal being raped.
Topic's author
#9
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually if they were going to add a new letter it would probably be for polyamory or polygamy. I don't technically think there's anything wrong with those and I think most people don't care either.
- Christians have a very strong bias against Polygamy than anything else. It's very hard for such a practice to gain popularity in a majority Christian nation.


Incest still illegal in most areas so I don't see it coming around anytime soon, thankfully.
- If you accept homosexuality, why not incest? 


And bestiality will never be acceptable people do love their animals like they love humans which is why they would never tolerate an animal being raped.
- It's already legal in a lot of states, though not normalized yet. Why would the animal get raped if a dog enjoys f*cking his owner?

#10
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,432
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Yassine
Personally I'd view a contemporary society that keep slaves, as more evil than a society where individuals of the same sex bang each other, or individuals pretend to be a sex they are not.
Though there is argument to be made, for people being trapped in societal steps, even those with power.
#11
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Yassine
unlike his holy book.
- Please! Don't stick your depravities & sexual fantasies on us. Ew! You're atheist anyways, you got no moral judgment. 
That "depravity and sexual fantasy" is explicitly permitted by the Quran. Muhammad married A'isha when she was 7 and took her to his house as a bride (with her dolls) at 9. 

I don't revere pedophiles or cherish books which permit pedophilia. I also dont gaslight when caught out. It is not my moral compass which needs calibrating, friend.
#12
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually if they were going to add a new letter it would probably be for polyamory or polygamy.
I agree. 
#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Yassine
How do we recognize the most sexually depraved human society in History?
Good question.  Let's agree that the most evil kind of sex is rape- where a participant is unable to say no to the sexual act.  It stands to reason that any country where women have no control over who they marry and are not allowed to say no to sex once married and indeed can often punished only for being the victim of rape must, by definition, be more depraved than countries that have strong laws protecting men and women from rape.  Based on population size, quality of law enforcement,  and legal structure protecting rapists, I would submit modern Pakistan as the most sexually depraved society in history. 

A couple of decades ago, 2% was the share of the LGBTQ population in the US.
  • That number reflected the percent of Americans who identified as gay or lesbian at a time when identifying as gay or lesbian could get you fired or thrown in jail.  By 2014 that number was over 8% and is probably higher now.  There's no evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of homosex has increased, just that people are a lot more honest about it as the consequences for honesty have diminished.  We've understood since the 50's that gay identity has little to do with gay sex which the majority of all humans seems to enjoy to some degree.  For example, only 3% of daily viewers on PornHub come in through the gay video portal but an astonishing 40% of all content viewed on Pornhub is male only.  That's a whole lot of straight men jerking off to a whole lot of porn with zero women.  Any psychologist or priest will tell you that the percentage of straight men who feel burdened by a single same-sex indulgence or recurring gay fantasy is closer to 80-90% range.  Studies of actual sexual arousal patterns confirm that virtually all women are aroused by sex acts between only females and the majority of all men are aroused by sex acts between only males.
Fast forward today, apparently 40% among GenZ identify as LGBT.
  • That's a lot more honest than a few decades ago.
This number will keep increasing
  • On what science do you base this ridiculous presumption?
in the future until, most likely, by next generation virtually the whole population may be involved in these practices -
  • In my studies of history and literature, it seems likely that the great majority of every culture was at least secretly, quite bisexual and that the numbers of humans willing to admit to bisexual feelings is directly proportional to the amount of freedom in society.  You see peaks of homosexuality in Greece, the Roman Republic,  Western democracies, etc.  Gay marriage was briefly legalized in the early days of the French and Russian revolutions.  Its not so much an increase in same-sex experimentation so much as an increase in (men's) willingness to talk about their secret feelings.
just as Pederasty (gay pedophilia) was normalized in Ancient Greece.
  • Naturally, you haven't even researched the subject enough to understand that PEDERASTY and PEDOPHILIA are mutually exclusive terms.  Pederasty is sex with pubescent adolescents while pedophilia is getting turned on by prepubescent children.  Greeks and Roman men had a lot of sex with teenage boys but those boys generally weren't any younger than the legal age of marriage for women.  Pedophilia was still a crime in both of those cultures.
Now, every other year a new letter is added to the LGBTQABCD+ sexual identity spectrum in your countries. The American Psychology Association (I think?) lists some 200 paraphilias. Which do you think is next in line on this identity alphabet? 
  • I don't have much a problem with same sex incest.  So long as inbreeding is not a risk, I can't see what would motivate public interest.
  • Again no problem as long as women are afforded full equal rights and young males are kicked out of the family.
  • Pedophilia, Bestiality, the absence of women's suffrage in conservative Islamic societies- these are cases of rape- the sex is involuntary, the victim is not in a position to say no.
I have long argued that the LGBTQ+ initialism is stupid.  Queer is a one syllable word and the semantic intent is recognizable just about anywhere English is spoken.  Just as queer is seldom used as a synonymous with odd anymore exactly because the widely understood alternative meaning.  Queer is inclusive, already including a the initials commonly employed  but also initials to rare to include.  Somebody should contact the monolithic gay culture community hotline and tell them that stringing on more initials is tiresome and erosive to queer reputation.  We're not going to just keep adding syllables to acronyms until nobody can stand to use the term.  Queer is fine, direct, super-inclusive, well-understood and comes with the advantage of a certain amount of history.

Topic's author
#14
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
That "depravity and sexual fantasy" is explicitly permitted by the Quran.
- & the Earth is flat. You know what's absolutely depraved though, it's the dozens of millions of teen & preteen children in your country being in sexual relationships without marriage, more than 40 thousands of them bellow the age of 10. What you abhor is not children being sexually involved, for that is glorified in your debauched culture, it is rather commitment & rights brought by marriage. Now that is unacceptable to the depraved mind. Only 3% of sexually active children in the US are in marital relationships.


Muhammad married A'isha when she was 7
- Betrothed*. She could've been 1. It's a nothing.


and took her to his house as a bride (with her dolls) at 9. 
- MARRIAGE. Perfectly legal in your country as well, done with mutual consent, dower, home, majority & with parental approval. She loved making dolls, that was her hobby even at older age. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) supported her hobby as well. They loved & were committed to each-other. He died on her lap & was buried in her room, then she carried his legacy becoming the most influential woman in History. But I know true love isn't what your over-sexualized culture is about, instead it's all about sex to you. Disgusting!


I don't revere pedophiles or cherish books which permit pedophilia.
- This means nothing, you're but a mere slave to your decadent social customs. Sexual liberty necessarily entails pedophilia, as your depraved masters such as Foucault & Derrida indeed dictated. Your predecessors felt the same about homosexuals too, & here you are.


I also dont gaslight when caught out. It is not my moral compass which needs calibrating, friend.
- You have no moral compass. It's just customary feelings. If you were born a couple of decades ago, you would've abhorred gays, in a few decades you would feel ashamed how you ever disliked pedophiles, of which your countries are full. All it takes is a little bit of exposure, & boom. There are no moral boundaries anymore in your society, just a matter of taste. Answer me then, why do you feel homos get to express their free "love" & deprive pedophiles & all the other philes from expressing theirs?

#15
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Animals can't consent. I don't see homosexuality being offensive at all. People who are related having sex with one another is creepy.
#16
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Angry Arab. Very angry paedophile. 

So did Muhammad fuck a 9 year old girl? 
Topic's author
#17
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
Good question.  Let's agree that the most evil kind of sex is rape- where a participant is unable to say no to the sexual act.  It stands to reason that any country where women have no control over who they marry and are not allowed to say no to sex once married and indeed can often punished only for being the victim of rape must, by definition, be more depraved than countries that have strong laws protecting men and women from rape.
- No. This is nonsense. Depravity =/= aggression. 


Based on population size, quality of law enforcement,  and legal structure protecting rapists, I would submit modern Pakistan as the most sexually depraved society in history. 
- No. Western countries generally rank much higher in rape rates, usually by an order of magnitude higher, than Muslim countries, including Pakistan. That much is obvious, for in an over-sexualized nation the opportunities & incentives of rape are substantially much higher than in a modest nation. The punishment for rape in Pakistan is death penalty, unlike in your countries, where rapists get 3 years or months or stupid shit like that. – As to your very civilized countries, the numbers are simply staggering, as much as a third of US campus students report sexual assault, 6% report incestuous assault by family member, a fifth of prison inmates are raped, thousands of serial rapists & killers, the filthiest most vile rape crimes one can imagine, many times every day, an unending stream of crime shows & programs just to cover some of the most atrocious of these cases. Like the one kept in the basement to be raped by her father for decades, or the ones kept in a container as sexual slaves for years... The problem is you export this rape culture all over the world, fueling one of the most lucrative tourist businesses.


That number reflected the percent of Americans who identified as gay or lesbian at a time when identifying as gay or lesbian could get you fired or thrown in jail.
- No. You need to stop making shit up.


By 2014 that number was over 8% and is probably higher now. 
- Well after two decades of exposure & legalization, of course. It is indeed higher among GenZ, as I said, it's close to 40%.


There's no evidence to suggest that the actual prevalence of homosex has increased, just that people are a lot more honest about it as the consequences for honesty have diminished.  We've understood since the 50's that gay identity has little to do with gay sex which the majority of all humans seems to enjoy to some degree.  For example, only 3% of daily viewers on PornHub come in through the gay video portal but an astonishing 40% of all content viewed on Pornhub is male only.  That's a whole lot of straight men jerking off to a whole lot of porn with zero women.  Any psychologist or priest will tell you that the percentage of straight men who feel burdened by a single same-sex indulgence or recurring gay fantasy is closer to 80-90% range.  Studies of actual sexual arousal patterns confirm that virtually all women are aroused by sex acts between only females and the majority of all men are aroused by sex acts between only males.
- All this is nonsense. I've read dozens of studies on this subject, mostly BS. Bottomline, destigmatization leads to normalization. If you legalize pedophilia tomorrow, be sure by a generation or less, most people will become pedophiles. Same with everything else. Sexual stuff is just addictive. It is not that GenZ are more gay, it's just they experiment more therefore they get into it. 


That's a lot more honest than a few decades ago.
- So, if in a few years when that number becomes 80%, you're gunna say "a lot more honest than a few decades ago."? – Saves us all the trouble, & just say you're all gay.


On what science do you base this ridiculous presumption?
- You know... the Greeks were literally all gay. They had sex with men before marriage. The rate of LGBT from Boomers, to GenX, GenY & GenZ are increasing, there is no reason to believe it's gunna stop at 40%. Also, more alphabet letters are going to be added to that spectrum, so...


In my studies of history and literature, it seems likely that the great majority of every culture was at least secretly, quite bisexual and that the numbers of humans willing to admit to bisexual feelings is directly proportional to the amount of freedom in society. 
- No. It was directly proportional to the amount of normalization the practice enjoyed in that society. Self-incest was common among Zoroastrians because it was not seen as bad, when the Muslims next door abhorred it. Same with Greeks & pederasty, or some other nations with Zoophilia. In some regions of Columbia today, they all f*ck donkeys & animals, because it's normalized in their culture. Absolutely any practice no matter how repulsive, if normalized it will become normal, even murder, & infanticide. There isn't a single practice which hasn't been a norm sometime someplace. Abolish consent laws or reduce them & see what happens.


You see peaks of homosexuality in Greece, the Roman Republic,  Western democracies, etc. Gay marriage was briefly legalized in the early days of the French and Russian revolutions.
- LOL! No. Don't lie please.


Its not so much an increase in same-sex experimentation so much as an increase in (men's) willingness to talk about their secret feelings.
- So everybody is all 200 paraphilias all at once? Yeah, no. This has nothing to do with "freedom". You don't even have sexual liberty, what you have is merelya decadent society which found its customs degraded in time as it decades. Enforcing one sexuality under the plea of free love just to deny another undermines your own cause. It's also incoherent & hypocritical, especially given the history of said cause itself, then stigmatized as a "perversion" & "abuse" driven practice. Committing against others exactly what you denounce against yourself. You give homos the sexual rights which you deprive others with other orientations, be it incestuous, zoophilic, pedophilic or otherwise. Why? Because these practices aren't popular yet, albeit cause for sexual liberty.


Naturally, you haven't even researched the subject enough to understand that PEDERASTY and PEDOPHILIA are mutually exclusive terms.  Pederasty is sex with pubescent adolescents
- No. It's sex with PREPUBESCENT boys or pubescent boys who don't show no (or little) sign of maturity (beard, jaw...etc). 


while pedophilia is getting turned on by prepubescent children.  Greeks and Roman men had a lot of sex with teenage boys but those boys generally weren't any younger than the legal age of marriage for women.  Pedophilia was still a crime in both of those cultures.
- Why do you always lie?! Do this nonsense with people who don't know. Obviously you don't know anything. In Ancient Greece, child male beauty was considered the apotheosis of aesthetic, & love for a boy a divine love. To be adopted into the education system, fathers would chose adult lovers for theyr boys as a right of passage to prove honor, else not welcomed to the aristocracy. In fact, the most important bond in Greek society was between the adult sodomite & his sodomee. It pervaded every aspect of their political, social & academic life. Wives were taken for children, not for love.


I don't have much a problem with same sex incest.  So long as inbreeding is not a risk, I can't see what would motivate public interest.
Again no problem as long as women are afforded full equal rights and young males are kicked out of the family.
- Why?


the absence of women's suffrage in conservative Islamic societies
- Keep your fantasies to yourself. Muslim women have been able to participate in votes since Islam's inception. This isn't the West, where every minot achievement is celebrated as a groundbreaking revolution. Meh. 


Pedophilia, Bestiality, - these are cases of rape- the sex is involuntary, the victim is not in a position to say no.
- Says who?! Listen, the initiative cause of "Free Love" & "Sexual Freedom" born out of the French postmodernist movement lead by intellectuals like Foucault, De Beauvoir, Sarter & others, which spread to the US in the 60s & 70s, did not aim to legalize only homosexuality. They called for decriminalization of all consensual relationships, including between adults & minors & zoophilic relations. In 1977 a petition to abolish consent laws in France was issued to the French Parliament & signed by 70 prominent intellectuals. Their rationale being – that maintaining consent laws, which were priorly set to protect the chastity of young girls, when chastity is no more a concern, is to create a criminal class of adults without any actual crimes committed, predicated that adults are criminals by virtue of being just adults – that to claim a child is incapable of consent is preposterous, for they are sexually aware & do effectively & normally consent to sexual acts (with other so called minors) – & that consent laws are predicated on a contractual condition, of mutual agreement, without a contract, hence void laws. Indeed, all sound & valid arguments.


I have long argued that the LGBTQ+ initialism is stupid.  Queer is a one syllable word and the semantic intent is recognizable just about anywhere English is spoken.  Just as queer is seldom used as a synonymous with odd anymore exactly because the widely understood alternative meaning.  Queer is inclusive, already including a the initials commonly employed  but also initials to rare to include.  Somebody should contact the monolithic gay culture community hotline and tell them that stringing on more initials is tiresome and erosive to queer reputation.  We're not going to just keep adding syllables to acronyms until nobody can stand to use the term.  Queer is fine, direct, super-inclusive, well-understood and comes with the advantage of a certain amount of history.
- Why is sexual identity so important?

Topic's author
#18
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Animals can't consent.
- They don't consent to being slaughtered either. What does it mean when a dog f*cks his owner? 


I don't see homosexuality being offensive at all.
- You predecessors felt otherwise, so will your successors feel differently about things you don't like.


People who are related having sex with one another is creepy.
- So are people of the same sex. You gotten used to that one though. Where is sexual liberty & rights & all that jazz?

Topic's author
#19
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
- Have you bombed a mosque yet?

#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Yassine
- LOL! No. Don't lie please.
I'm so impressed with the depth of your argument.

Topic's author
#21
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
I'm so impressed with the depth of your argument.
- Seriously, you lose all credibility when you lie so much. Don't always assume the other party doesn't know the subject. Some of us do know... I'd take it from Stephan, but he is a fanatic, which I hope you aren't.


#22
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
What are you so afraid of? Where's the courage of your convictions?

Answer me:
Are their circumstances under which it is acceptable to have sex with a 9 year old girl?
Topic's author
#23
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
What are you so afraid of? Where's the courage of your convictions?
- I'm not so courageous as to bomb cities for my convictions like you. & you're not so courageous as to debate me on a subject about my convictions.


Answer me:
Are their circumstances under which it is acceptable to have sex with a 9 year old girl?
- In marriage, it is legal in all states which do not have a minimum age of marriage (like California). Out of wedlock, it's legal in states with close-in-age laws, ranging from 3 years gap to 15. 
#24
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Don't always assume the other party doesn't know the subject. Some of us do know..
On the subject of gay rights?  I was that 2% you talk of.  Yes, I am assuming that I know more about the subject than you. Why, what do you know about being gay?

The punishment for rape in Pakistan is death penalty, unlike in your countries
and yet somehow you don't make that connection, right?  Do you really think most wives would testify to see their husbands executed, even if they'd been raped by him every night for 20 years?  This measure by itself has to power to suppress most incidents of rape in Pakistan, yet you don't see it.
Topic's author
#25
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
On the subject of gay rights?  I was that 2% you talk of.
- Then why are you extrapolating on the rest of the population!?


  Yes, I am assuming that I know more about the subject than you
- Yeah, no. That much is obvious, the moment you started saying false things.


Why, what do you know about being gay?
- That's entirely besides the point. You being gay doesn't warrant you inherent knowledge in History, Psychology or else. Why are you so adamant at depriving others their cause to free love, accusing them of the same stigma of perversion which you have been accused a generation ago. That's just hypocritical & warrants no right for you to speak of other people's sexual stigmas.  


and yet somehow you don't make that connection, right?  Do you really think most wives would testify to see their husbands executed, even if they'd been raped by him every night for 20 years?
- Isn't this very funny. A husband having sex with his wife isn't rape, even if forceful, for marriage contract itself is written consent. That's an entirely different crime than rape, & obviously does not merit death penalty.


This measure by itself has to power to suppress most incidents of rape in Pakistan, yet you don't see it.
- Death penalty is extremely effective, so are harsh punishments for violent crimes. A man raped his daughter in Sweden hundreds of times, they gave him 3 years. I would've just cut off his head. No one else would dare do it again.
#26
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
- Then why are you extrapolating on the rest of the population!?

Speaking of extrapolating on populations, did you read that poem I wrote last weekend and posted in ARTISTIC EXPRESSIONS?

  • No? 
    • oh.

It's kind of valentine's day themed.  I'm happy to reprint it for you here.


LOVING up CHUCK

the one time he kissed me 
i threw up immediately
which goes to show
how much that meant to me
but it's hard on the
kisser's conception
of my reception
to his kiss
which was bliss
blessed
in a doorway
of a church
he kissed me sixty seconds
then i lurched
in my cranium
we were swimming
on a loop up old uranium
canals in summer soup
up salt lake flats
in birthday suits
sputtering our reasons
smoking proofs
in the sleet storm
warm bundled in our slickers
all hands in pockets
under firs over graves
furrowed on knees needled
spit and pine sap-stickied then
even then I knew nothing
would ever be this hard again



Topic's author
#27
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
Speaking of extrapolating on populations, did you read that poem I wrote last weekend and posted in ARTISTIC EXPRESSIONS?
- Hmm... whatever happened to that dude?
#28
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Yassine
You know what's absolutely depraved though, it's the dozens of millions of teen & preteen children in your country being in sexual relationships without marriage,
It sounds like you're saying sex with children is acceptable if they are married. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you did not communicate that well.

MARRIAGE. Perfectly legal in your country as well,

Not when one of the parties is 9. Someone who is 9 can not give informed consent to sex and/or marriage. That is why pedophilia is considered predatory - someone old enough to understand the scenario is taking advantage of someone who is not.

If you were born a couple of decades ago, you would've abhorred gays
Perhaps, but if we allow it, our moral compass is honed by a greater understanding of humanity. I will take an incomplete morality over a rigidly flawed 7th century morality which does not allow for the insights new information can provide.

#29
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
- Hmm... whatever happened to that dude?

To Chuck?  Chuck got married.  Twice I think. 
Topic's author
#30
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
It sounds like you're saying sex with children is acceptable if they are married. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you did not communicate that well.
- Nice dodge, almost. Why do you act so childish, you're not fooling anyone. It's ok to assume depravity. Sexual liberty & free love, remember?


Not when one of the parties is 9.
- Let it go, your denial is meaningless. Many US states have no minimum age of marriage, this is trues elsewhere as well.


Someone who is 9 can not give informed consent to sex and/or marriage.
- Nonsense. That's not even true, & it is also an is-ought-to fallacy. Consent laws today, & since the 80s, are not about actual ability to consent as they are about statutory rape, i.e. age-span laws. Content laws prior had to do with preserving chastity, for it was seen as a commodity; because their chastity was seen as particularly precious, young girls were felt to be especially in need of protection. Thus it was a crime to tempt them into sex, unless the female is your wife. In the past century, these laws ranged from 7 to 21 in the US. Chastity defense died out in the legal framework with the coming of 2nd wave feminism in the 1980s, for obvious reasons, with the introduction instead of age-span provisions. 


That is why pedophilia is considered predatory
- So was homosexuality seen as predatory, & all stigmatized sexual relations. These are just after the fact excuses to explain one's bias, which naturally go away with destigmatization. All the arguments against gay marriage are gone now, so will the arguments against trans gender/sex nonsense, once the issue is normalized within the coming years. – Forceful sex against unchaste girls then wasn't even considered rape. What you feel now is the case is no justification for future liberties. You're, by design, just as bigoted to your successors as your predecessors are to you.


- someone old enough to understand the scenario is taking advantage of someone who is not.
- Same BS. Here we go again, the initiative cause of "Free Love" & "Sexual Freedom" born out of the French postmodernist movement lead by intellectuals like Foucault, De Beauvoir, Sarter & others, which spread to the US in the 60s & 70s, did not aim to legalize only homosexuality. They called for decriminalization of all consensual relationships, including between adults & minors & zoophilic relations. In 1977 a petition to abolish consent laws in France was issued to the French Parliament & signed by 70 prominent intellectuals. Their rationale being – that maintaining consent laws, which were priorly set to protect the chastity of young girls, when chastity is no more a concern, is to create a criminal class of adults without any actual crimes committed, predicated that adults are criminals by virtue of being just adults – that to claim a child is incapable of consent is preposterous, for they are sexually aware & do effectively & normally consent to sexual acts (with other so called minors) – & that consent laws are predicated on a contractual condition, of mutual agreement, without a contract, hence void laws. Indeed, all sound & valid arguments.


Perhaps, but if we allow it, our moral compass is honed by a greater understanding of humanity.
- This is a bunch of drivel. Feel-good nonsense. Here I thought you did Philosophy.  What you're saying stems from the belief that 'newer is better', which is a self-negating stance, for every newer is thereafter older. Your moral "improved" standards of today are, in effect, deteriorations to your predecessors. By the same token, tomorrow's moral standards -when incest, zoophilia, pedophilia & such become norm (naturally from sexual liberalism)- are not seen as improvements to today's standards either, for if that were the case, these future standards would've already been adopted today. This makes your Western system akin to a tribal system, where laws are effectively customary & morality is constantly changing in accordance to social norms & whims - Except, these changes are made to be universal at each turn, & constantly expected from other societies too.


 I will take an incomplete morality over a rigidly flawed 7th century morality which does not allow for the insights new information can provide.
- More BS. You know the true difference? The latter stands on rigid foundations, from where it improves & adapts, while the former undermines its own foundations constantly, thus improvement is absurd, for improvement entails an objective reference -else all is equal. Why don't we have a debate about this 7th century morality against yours?