Straw man. I never said trans men have no advantage. Keep to the topic at hand, rather than trying to go on a tangent. It’s transparent, and many will assume you’re doing it because you know you can’t win the argument.
Conservative guys complain about women not wanting to date them. People date people they share values with.
Assuming non-conservative women are all ‘whores’ who sleep around is incel nonsense. If they’re choosing not to date conservative men, a large proportion of men, if anything they’re being selective. The opposite of being promiscuous. Data also suggests young women have less sex than previous generations. Most sex happens in long term stable relationships.
If you assume the rest of us know what a MAP is, you’ve likely spent too much time in an echo chamber. It’s pretty weird if I’m honest, like if someone mentioned a scientology term and assumed average people knew what they were talking about.
I would be glad
But you’re not happy about it, are you? Be honest with yourself. You wouldn’t call them whores if you were happy about it. You would live and let live.
Brought it up because you talked about logic and I was making a point out there that most liberals believe this is the case.
I agree. I don’t have any problems with people choosing to stay with who. Shared morals and values are the main reason couples stay together.
That is complete nonsense. The average young woman has more pre-marital sex today with multiple partners than any previous generation. No matter where on the political spectrum.
I’m pretty sure you guys know what MAPs are. If not you can look it up. They’ve been trying to be a part of the LGBT community for quite a while. Because they know their perversion will likely be accepted under the guise of ‘gay rights’. Sooner or later they will be accepted in this community. Because this whole thing is a slippery slope. Never seems to end.
Reason I called them hoes was because pre-marital relationships are haram. Regardless if it’s a man or woman.
Also, if you’re a muslim as your username suggests, and given we know Mohammed was a paedophile by modern standards, you should perhaps spend more time worrying about your own community.
Christian conservatives are very similar. They also obsess about the gay community harbouring paedophiles, while ignoring rampant child sexual abuse within the church.
Applying ‘modern standards’ to history is called Presentism. Women back then were more mature at a younger age and developed much quicker due to the harsh circumstances. Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) was an adult when Muhammad (ﷺ) consummated the marriage.
An ‘adult’ is different in every country today. The age of consent can be 18, 16, 14. Btw, in most european countries it is between 14 and 16. Austria for example has age of consent at 14. Funny enough, most Muslim countries have it between 16 and 18.
If your definiton of child is anything below 18, then you need to step outside for a little bit. Every country has a different number for what they call “adult”. Heck even the states within the US can’t agree on that.
I was explaining how the definition of adult is always changing for different cultures and different times. The baseline in Islam is that if a person reaches puberty, they are an adult.
Aisha was likely 9-10 when she had sex with Mohammed. That’s not me, that’s plenty of Muslim scholars. It likely isn’t a coincidence that child marriage is prevalent in the Musim world to this day.
Of course, like most religions, people simply ignore the bits or facts they don’t agree with even if they claim to be literalists. That’s just religion. Different flavour, same soda. Obviously you won’t agree with me on that, but we don’t need to agree on that. Just tolerate that different views on this exist.
What should be obvious, is that it would be entirely unfair to judge all Muslims by the paedophiles among you, and the higher prevalence of child marriages in current day Islam. I’ll leave that to Christian conservatives.
But it is a bit much when devout Muslims like you then decide to complain about the gays and claim they’re paedophiles. Sure, find gay sex icky, but these are invariably grown men engaging in consensual sex, from a community that has repeatedly denounced paedophilia, which if anything is far less deviant than you like to imagine. Rich gay businessmen aren’t out there marrying 9 year old cousins.
Women back then were more mature at a younger age
So you’re saying that it didn’t happen, but if it did she was ‘mature for her age’.
When you claim to hate gay people because they’re paedophiles, without evidence of this being prevalent, but then make excuses for paedophilia and rampant child marriage within your own community, it becomes pretty obvious you hate gay people because they’re gay and don’t actually care about age inappropriate relationships.
Obviously, this is going to annoy you, so we’ll leave it at that.
But do try to remember that tolerance goes two ways.
Never once denied Aisha’s (May Allah be pleased with) age that she was 9 years old when Muhammad (ﷺ) consummated the marriage. I’m not picking and choosing. I’m saying at 9 years old she was an adult because of her circumstances. There is no blanket age for what an adult is. If a person reaches puberty then by Islamic standards they are an adult.
I’m using the pedophile arguments against you because by your standards anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Not because I necessary believe that.
You’re right, my distain towards gay people that promote their gay nature to the public is because it goes against the Quran. If a Muslim is gay for example, it is a test from Allah for them to keep these desires to themselves and seek help through therapy or asking Allah to keep them steadfast.
You might say that it is unfair because straight Muslims can fulfil their desires through marriage but gay Muslims can’t. My response to that is that Allah tests different people with different tests. A rich person can be tested with their wealth and a poor person can be tested with poverty. The wealthy person must use their to give charity and use it in the cause of Allah. The poor person must bear patience with the poverty they face. Same way the gay person must control these desires and can have more time to worship Allah whereas the straight person must bear the responsibility of taking care of the family.
If you actually invest time in researching the different religions, you’ll realize that the only religion with a perserved divine book is Islam. If you want to discuss more about that, I’m happy to give more info as to why. So no, not all religons are the same with different flavors just because on the surface it looks that way.
I am not trolling. It is the next level LGBT will take it to. First it’s homosexuals, next is pedophiles, soon it will be incest, and maybe even bestiality might be justified. The LGBT agenda at its core just wants to promote degenaracy and break the family structure.
Because there is no limits set in place. There is no morality or ethics to base off of so what is there to stop this from progressing to that level. If you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
what is there to stop this from progressing to that level.
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
2, 4, 6, 8
What’s next? Is it J?
you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
The end goal here is to fulfill as many of your desires as possible and label it under sexual freedom and liberation. It’s to continue to chase your desires and say there is nothing wrong about it while at the same time breaking apart the family unit.
Human conscience.
Care to explain? I’m not sure what your belief system but many atheists will believe in conscience while not believing in God which is so ironic. Conscience is something you can’t see or measure under a microscope. We don’t even know what it is and where it came from but we will say that it exists because we can see the effects of it while at the same time disbelieve in God’s existence, the One who created all of existence in the first place.
It also entraps them because to say you don’t believe in conscience is like saying you don’t exist.
Like the baseline human aversion to harming others
Any evidence for that? In Islan we call that the fitra. The natural disposition that God placed in our souls. Every baby born, is born upon the fitra, the innate human nature . However this can be changed or corrupted due to people’s environments and people begin to accept immoral acts. Case in pont about homosexuality. It is goes against the fitra.
Your reasoning is circular. I can say anything and you’ll call it evidence for God. It’s absurd.
How is my reasoning circular? Can you explain how the universe/creation/existence started? There must be an initial force or power to place these things in motion. The universe wasn’t created in vacuum. If you think that, then I think the only one absurd is you because you are saying something can come from nothing.
The conscience is an evolutionary adaptation for the social species, giving the individual an aversion to harming others. No god needed.
What is the evidence for that? These are just theories you are posing but none of them can be proven scientifically. Like I said, you can’t measure the conscience under a microscope. You can’t even interact with it. Heck, scientists and philosophers can’t even agree on what the defintion is and what it entails.
Says the people that say that trans men have no advantage in women’s sports? I think you’re projecting here.
What data is there to prove that? Nothing. Even if that were true, I would be glad that they don’t get hoes that sleep around with other guys.
That is funny coming from the folk that support MAPs.
Straw man. I never said trans men have no advantage. Keep to the topic at hand, rather than trying to go on a tangent. It’s transparent, and many will assume you’re doing it because you know you can’t win the argument.
Conservative guys complain about women not wanting to date them. People date people they share values with.
Assuming non-conservative women are all ‘whores’ who sleep around is incel nonsense. If they’re choosing not to date conservative men, a large proportion of men, if anything they’re being selective. The opposite of being promiscuous. Data also suggests young women have less sex than previous generations. Most sex happens in long term stable relationships.
If you assume the rest of us know what a MAP is, you’ve likely spent too much time in an echo chamber. It’s pretty weird if I’m honest, like if someone mentioned a scientology term and assumed average people knew what they were talking about.
But you’re not happy about it, are you? Be honest with yourself. You wouldn’t call them whores if you were happy about it. You would live and let live.
Brought it up because you talked about logic and I was making a point out there that most liberals believe this is the case.
I agree. I don’t have any problems with people choosing to stay with who. Shared morals and values are the main reason couples stay together.
That is complete nonsense. The average young woman has more pre-marital sex today with multiple partners than any previous generation. No matter where on the political spectrum.
I’m pretty sure you guys know what MAPs are. If not you can look it up. They’ve been trying to be a part of the LGBT community for quite a while. Because they know their perversion will likely be accepted under the guise of ‘gay rights’. Sooner or later they will be accepted in this community. Because this whole thing is a slippery slope. Never seems to end.
Reason I called them hoes was because pre-marital relationships are haram. Regardless if it’s a man or woman.
It’s a simple fact that young women are having less sex:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/health/young-americans-less-sex-intl-scli-wellness/index.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066
If I google MAP I don’t get any relevant results. assuming you mean paedophiles, the idea that the gay community condones paedophilia is a myth:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/30/fact-check-lgbtq-community-rejects-false-association-pedophiles/5462805002/
Also, if you’re a muslim as your username suggests, and given we know Mohammed was a paedophile by modern standards, you should perhaps spend more time worrying about your own community.
Christian conservatives are very similar. They also obsess about the gay community harbouring paedophiles, while ignoring rampant child sexual abuse within the church.
Applying ‘modern standards’ to history is called Presentism. Women back then were more mature at a younger age and developed much quicker due to the harsh circumstances. Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) was an adult when Muhammad (ﷺ) consummated the marriage.
An ‘adult’ is different in every country today. The age of consent can be 18, 16, 14. Btw, in most european countries it is between 14 and 16. Austria for example has age of consent at 14. Funny enough, most Muslim countries have it between 16 and 18.
You are a giant hypocrite.
Explain how?
Claiming the LGBT support paedophiles, while you’re justifying fucking a child.
It’s just projection.
How am I justifying fucking a child?
If your definiton of child is anything below 18, then you need to step outside for a little bit. Every country has a different number for what they call “adult”. Heck even the states within the US can’t agree on that.
I was explaining how the definition of adult is always changing for different cultures and different times. The baseline in Islam is that if a person reaches puberty, they are an adult.
Aisha was likely 9-10 when she had sex with Mohammed. That’s not me, that’s plenty of Muslim scholars. It likely isn’t a coincidence that child marriage is prevalent in the Musim world to this day.
Of course, like most religions, people simply ignore the bits or facts they don’t agree with even if they claim to be literalists. That’s just religion. Different flavour, same soda. Obviously you won’t agree with me on that, but we don’t need to agree on that. Just tolerate that different views on this exist.
What should be obvious, is that it would be entirely unfair to judge all Muslims by the paedophiles among you, and the higher prevalence of child marriages in current day Islam. I’ll leave that to Christian conservatives.
But it is a bit much when devout Muslims like you then decide to complain about the gays and claim they’re paedophiles. Sure, find gay sex icky, but these are invariably grown men engaging in consensual sex, from a community that has repeatedly denounced paedophilia, which if anything is far less deviant than you like to imagine. Rich gay businessmen aren’t out there marrying 9 year old cousins.
So you’re saying that it didn’t happen, but if it did she was ‘mature for her age’.
When you claim to hate gay people because they’re paedophiles, without evidence of this being prevalent, but then make excuses for paedophilia and rampant child marriage within your own community, it becomes pretty obvious you hate gay people because they’re gay and don’t actually care about age inappropriate relationships.
Obviously, this is going to annoy you, so we’ll leave it at that.
But do try to remember that tolerance goes two ways.
Never once denied Aisha’s (May Allah be pleased with) age that she was 9 years old when Muhammad (ﷺ) consummated the marriage. I’m not picking and choosing. I’m saying at 9 years old she was an adult because of her circumstances. There is no blanket age for what an adult is. If a person reaches puberty then by Islamic standards they are an adult.
I’m using the pedophile arguments against you because by your standards anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Not because I necessary believe that.
You’re right, my distain towards gay people that promote their gay nature to the public is because it goes against the Quran. If a Muslim is gay for example, it is a test from Allah for them to keep these desires to themselves and seek help through therapy or asking Allah to keep them steadfast.
You might say that it is unfair because straight Muslims can fulfil their desires through marriage but gay Muslims can’t. My response to that is that Allah tests different people with different tests. A rich person can be tested with their wealth and a poor person can be tested with poverty. The wealthy person must use their to give charity and use it in the cause of Allah. The poor person must bear patience with the poverty they face. Same way the gay person must control these desires and can have more time to worship Allah whereas the straight person must bear the responsibility of taking care of the family.
If you actually invest time in researching the different religions, you’ll realize that the only religion with a perserved divine book is Islam. If you want to discuss more about that, I’m happy to give more info as to why. So no, not all religons are the same with different flavors just because on the surface it looks that way.
I refuse to accept that you believe supporting paedophiles is a position LGBTQ people hold in any capacity
You can only be pretending to believe that
It is so absurd
I am not trolling. It is the next level LGBT will take it to. First it’s homosexuals, next is pedophiles, soon it will be incest, and maybe even bestiality might be justified. The LGBT agenda at its core just wants to promote degenaracy and break the family structure.
Is it really the next step? Based on what?
Because there is no limits set in place. There is no morality or ethics to base off of so what is there to stop this from progressing to that level. If you claim that they do have a set of morals and ethics, what are they based off of? Arbitrary individual assessment? Whatever the majority says? What would that measuring stick be? And is that measuring stick objective?
Yes, there are.
The fact that they are unrelated and not in any way a logical progression. What makes you even think thete is a “next step”? What’s the plan, the end goal for The Gays?
2, 4, 6, 8
What’s next? Is it J?
Human conscience.
Like?
The end goal here is to fulfill as many of your desires as possible and label it under sexual freedom and liberation. It’s to continue to chase your desires and say there is nothing wrong about it while at the same time breaking apart the family unit.
Care to explain? I’m not sure what your belief system but many atheists will believe in conscience while not believing in God which is so ironic. Conscience is something you can’t see or measure under a microscope. We don’t even know what it is and where it came from but we will say that it exists because we can see the effects of it while at the same time disbelieve in God’s existence, the One who created all of existence in the first place.
It also entraps them because to say you don’t believe in conscience is like saying you don’t exist.
Like the baseline human aversion to harming others
Your reasoning is circular. I can say anything and you’ll call it evidence for God. It’s absurd.
The conscience is an evolutionary adaptation for the social species, giving the individual an aversion to harming others. No god needed.
Any evidence for that? In Islan we call that the fitra. The natural disposition that God placed in our souls. Every baby born, is born upon the fitra, the innate human nature . However this can be changed or corrupted due to people’s environments and people begin to accept immoral acts. Case in pont about homosexuality. It is goes against the fitra.
How is my reasoning circular? Can you explain how the universe/creation/existence started? There must be an initial force or power to place these things in motion. The universe wasn’t created in vacuum. If you think that, then I think the only one absurd is you because you are saying something can come from nothing.
What is the evidence for that? These are just theories you are posing but none of them can be proven scientifically. Like I said, you can’t measure the conscience under a microscope. You can’t even interact with it. Heck, scientists and philosophers can’t even agree on what the defintion is and what it entails.