Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[goraya15]

One copy/paste job from a site that even you admit is anti-gay is not sufficient. :no:

I merely gave one example, I am not writing a report here. And I did add another site, which was pro-gay, sort of to balance it out, show that both sides hold the same general view. Do a bit of research yourself, there's a tonne of literature out there supporting my view.

 

[Bathsheba]

I, personally, find it very interesting that in this day and age, the AIDS virus has been proven to have stemmed from homosexual behaviour and is almost exclusively transmitted through promiscuous and homosexual behaviour. Just an observation...

As in my original post in red, I clearly mentioned that AIDS (i.e. the HIV virus) originally STEMMED from homosexual behaviour. I merely reworded it in my next post, so I didn't come up with something new.

I haven't said anything wrong, I merely stated a fact that most early HIV and AIDS patients were homosexuals, practically exclusively, and from there it spread to the general promiscuous public.

Maybe you don't realize what your sentence structure is conveying. The bit highlighted in blue is obviously wrong and was not conveyed again when you reworded your statement. Additionally, your first statement refers to homosexuals in "this day and age" and your second statement refers to "most early" homosexuals. The meaning between the two statements is not the same.

 

[MoonWater]

Hmm...another atheist vs. religion discussion. Where to start. Well, let's say the only concrete proof that God exists, without a shadow of a doubt, would be if he revealed Himself to you and conversed with you, or sent you a true dream. Been witness to true dreams, heard about the converse, and am convinced that God exists through all the help I've seen him give to me, my family and those who serve Him.

As for true dreams and converse of my own....still working on it, but I am still very young...so hopefully, still got a few years to work on it

Even that could be dismissed as hallucination. So it does not constitute "concrete proof". The only way to do that would be for God to suspend one's disbelief and THEN converse with him. Trying to talk to someone who doesn't believe you exist is about as effective as talking to a brick wall.

 

[Storm]

I merely gave one example, I am not writing a report here. And I did add another site, which was pro-gay, sort of to balance it out, show that both sides hold the same general view. Do a bit of research yourself, there's a tonne of literature out there supporting my view.

They do not hold the same view. Yes, in the US and UK, gay men are particularly affected. That is NOT the same thing as being the source of the epidemic.

 

[goraya15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
I believe I have sufficiently backed up my claim, with reasonable proof, that early large scale spread of the HIV virus, namely human to human spread of it, was in a large part due to homosexual activities, which is why I said the AIDS virus stemmed from homosexual behaviour. Nothing so sinister or twisted about it, just a fact.

You gave one source with one study. And it is well known in the scientific community that a study is only valid if subsequent studies render the same results. Plus you still have yet to address the other issue I brought up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonwater
You left out the rest though. It was first REPORTED in homosexuals, shortly after it was reprted as being found in haiten(?) immigrants, and the fact that the research also said that those who were reported also had histories of drug abuse or some other such thing. And there's the fact that there are numerous other STDs out there few if any of which would have started in the homosexual community. Besides if your going to use disease to condemn homosexuality then surely you must realize then that that only furthers the case for FEMALE-FEMALE sex as that is the safest in terms of being the lowest risk for sexually transmited diseases. If having a disease makes something bad then heterosexuality is the worst as it is responsible for the creation and spread of nearly all STDs(AIDS being the one possible exception though that is debatable) and Lesbian sex is the best as it carries the lowest risk of STDs.

Would you care to address these factors?


Hmm...you seem to ask me for more references for my work, then ask me to refute a claim that doesn't have any scientific references included in it whatsoever.
But, what the heck...

heterosexuality is bad? Seems you are against the continuity of the human race my friend.

And most std's do spread in heterosexual couples as much as in gay couples, at least to my knowledge. But how many of those are lethal, like AIDS? The Qur'an also mentions that the people of Lot were sexually "loose", so to speak, but God only destroyed when when they exceeded all bounds (it's here that homosexuality is mentioned).

Lesbian sex is the best? Come on, even if it does have less chance of STD's and AIDS, it still falls much shorter then the chance of STD's and AIDS in the concept of matrimonial only-sex proposed by the Holy Quran, which is 0%.

 

[goraya15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
I, personally, find it very interesting that in this day and age, the AIDS virus has been proven to have stemmed from homosexual behaviour and is almost exclusively transmitted through promiscuous and homosexual behaviour. Just an observation...

As in my original post in red, I clearly mentioned that AIDS (i.e. the HIV virus) originally STEMMED from homosexual behaviour. I merely reworded it in my next post, so I didn't come up with something new.

I haven't said anything wrong, I merely stated a fact that most early HIV and AIDS patients were homosexuals, practically exclusively, and from there it spread to the general promiscuous public.

Maybe you don't realize what your sentence structure is conveying. The bit highlighted in blue is obviously wrong and was not conveyed again when you reworded your statement. Additionally, your first statement refers to homosexuals in "this day and age" and your second statement refers to "most early" homosexuals. The meaning between the two statements is not the same.

There is no contradiction. Read it carefully and you will see...
I, personally, find it very interesting that in this day and age, the AIDS virus has been proven to have stemmed from homosexual behaviour and is almost exclusively transmitted through promiscuous and homosexual behaviour. Just an observation...

In this day and age (these days), WE HAVE PROVED (PROVED) that the AIDS virus STEMMED (or began, started, was first spread) from homosexual behaviour (started through early homosexual behaviour).

It could not be more clear.

 

[goraya15]

Even that could be dismissed as hallucination. So it does not constitute "concrete proof". The only way to do that would be for God to suspend one's disbelief and THEN converse with him. Trying to talk to someone who doesn't believe you exist is about as effective as talking to a brick wall.

Hmm...you speak about God as if he is some kind of person who is at your doorstep ready for YOU to initiate conversation with HIM. It is the other way around my friend. God believes we exist, and in the Holy Prophet's Ahadith we learn how God loves us more then our mothers.

And about hallucinations...not possible. If a person consistently receives accurate dreams about future events or if he receives clear verbal revelation about events to happen or outcomes no man could perceive, then it is only logical to conclude that he must be getting him information from a reliable source, one greater then man, who can foresee things, control things and know things that man cannot.

 

[MoonWater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
I believe I have sufficiently backed up my claim, with reasonable proof, that early large scale spread of the HIV virus, namely human to human spread of it, was in a large part due to homosexual activities, which is why I said the AIDS virus stemmed from homosexual behaviour. Nothing so sinister or twisted about it, just a fact.

You gave one source with one study. And it is well known in the scientific community that a study is only valid if subsequent studies render the same results. Plus you still have yet to address the other issue I brought up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonwater
You left out the rest though. It was first REPORTED in homosexuals, shortly after it was reprted as being found in haiten(?) immigrants, and the fact that the research also said that those who were reported also had histories of drug abuse or some other such thing. And there's the fact that there are numerous other STDs out there few if any of which would have started in the homosexual community. Besides if your going to use disease to condemn homosexuality then surely you must realize then that that only furthers the case for FEMALE-FEMALE sex as that is the safest in terms of being the lowest risk for sexually transmited diseases. If having a disease makes something bad then heterosexuality is the worst as it is responsible for the creation and spread of nearly all STDs(AIDS being the one possible exception though that is debatable) and Lesbian sex is the best as it carries the lowest risk of STDs.

Would you care to address these factors?


Hmm...you seem to ask me for more references for my work, then ask me to refute a claim that doesn't have any scientific references included in it whatsoever.
But, what the heck...

heterosexuality is bad? Seems you are against the continuity of the human race my friend.

And most std's do spread in heterosexual couples as much as in gay couples, at least to my knowledge. But how many of those are lethal, like AIDS? The Qur'an also mentions that the people of Lot were sexually "loose", so to speak, but God only destroyed when when they exceeded all bounds (it's here that homosexuality is mentioned).

Lesbian sex is the best? Come on, even if it does have less chance of STD's and AIDS, it still falls much shorter then the chance of STD's and AIDS in the concept of matrimonial only-sex proposed by the Holy Quran, which is 0%.

I'm not saying one is better than the other based on my personal preferance but based on your very own logic. If homosexual sex is bad because of a disease then heterosexual sex is even worse as it is responsible for more diseases, lethal and non-lethal, and lesbian sex is the best since it carries the least risk. The matrimony idea only works if both persons are free of STDS. If one has an STD then the other is just as likely to get having sex with that person whether they are married or not. However with lesbian sex one is less likely to pass on an STD if they have one. Making sure everyone has sex within the confines of marriage won't stop the disease from spreading. What will stop it is being responsible, getting tested, and making sure you get treatment if you have an STD and taking the necessary precautions to help avoid spreading it to other people.

And once more your statments make it seem as though you would support same sex marriage. Do you?

 

[MoonWater]

Hmm...you speak about God as if he is some kind of person who is at your doorstep ready for YOU to initiate conversation with HIM. It is the other way around my friend. God believes we exist, and in the Holy Prophet's Ahadith we learn how God loves us more then our mothers.

I said "talking to a person who doesn't believe you exist" not "talking to a person you don't believe exists". There's a big difference.

And about hallucinations...not possible. If a person consistently receives accurate dreams about future events or if he receives clear verbal revelation about events to happen or outcomes no man could perceive, then it is only logical to conclude that he must be getting him information from a reliable source, one greater then man, who can foresee things, control things and know things that man cannot.

So psychics are proof of God

 

[goraya15]

They do not hold the same view. Yes, in the US and UK, gay men are particularly affected. That is NOT the same thing as being the source of the epidemic.

I am not speaking of being affected. I am speaking of the initial large spread transmission of the virus in the population. It is widely regarded to have been initially spread through homosexual activity, then through promiscuity.

The Qur'an speaks of punishment meted out for sexual carelessness:

[7:81] And We sent Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do you commit an abomination such as no one in the world ever did before you? [7:82] You approach men with lust instead of women. Nay, you are a people who exceed all bounds.' [7:83] And the only answer of his people was that they said, 'Turn them out of your town, for they are men who take pride in their purity.' [7:84] And We saved him and his family except his wife; she was of those who stayed behind. [7:85] And We rained upon them a rain. Now see, what was the end of the sinners.
As rain first strikes the highest trees, then quickly makes it's way down to lower plants and shrubs and roots, so do I believe that God first punished the people who transgressed the most, then quickly sent that rain onto the lesser transgressors.

In my eyes, this means first AIDS was spread in the persons who transgressed (sexually) the most (mainly homosexuals) then spread the rain onto those close behind them (promiscuous and other people loose sexually).

 

[Bathsheba]

heterosexuality is bad? Seems you are against the continuity of the human race my friend.

You are missing the point, the argument isn't "heterosexuality is bad."

Even if homosexuality was responsible for HIV (a ridiculous claim), it is foolish to conclude that homosexual sex is bad because the virus was transmitted between homosexuals. We don't conclude that heterosexual sex is bad because heterosexuals transmit HIV. Biology is neutral on the good/bad dichotomy. Your argument reminds me of the time when people thought blood letting would cure you of disease.

And most std's do spread in heterosexual couples as much as in gay couples, at least to my knowledge. But how many of those are lethal, like AIDS?

Are you aware of which populations are dying the fastest from AIDS? Again, it is utterly foolish to conclude that homosexual sex is bad because AIDS kills, the biology just doesn't give a flying duck.

The Qur'an also mentions that the people of Lot were sexually "loose", so to speak, but God only destroyed when they exceeded all bounds (it's here that homosexuality is mentioned).

Oh, nice, now we see that God created HIV to punish the homosexuals. Did god create myocardial infarctions to punish senior citizens? How about childhood leukemia, was god ****** off at kids for not sharing their toys with other kids?

Lesbian sex is the best? Come on, even if it does have less chance of STD's and AIDS, it still falls much shorter then the chance of STD's and AIDS in the concept of matrimonial only-sex proposed by the Holy Quran, which is 0%.

Clearly the Quran lacks imagination, if lesbians practiced the concept of matrimonial only-sex in the same manner as heterosexuals practiced the concept of matrimonial only-sex then they to would (using your logic) have a 0% chance of STDs and AIDS.

Dude, the virus doesn't care about your religion.

 

[goraya15]

I said "talking to a person who doesn't believe you exist" not "talking to a person you don't believe exists". There's a big difference.

So psychics are proof of God

I merely attempted to explain that God does believe we exist since he loves us more then even our mothers.

and 2, psychics are a scam. They do not perceive anything genuine, nor do they do it on a consistent basis. Besides, most psychics don't believe in God, or don't have a close relationship with Him, so why would God favour them with true dreams, confirmation and acceptance of their prayers?

 

[.lava]

So you've remained exactly the same your whole life? You haven't changed at all except maybe to grow a little taller?

I think you mean a person can't change WHAT they are. People change WHO they are all the time. If no one could change WHO they are then bad people would not be able to turn good and vice versa and there are numerous examples of both happening.

i am saying we were equally innocent when we were born. we were given same tools. none of us knew anything. now, we do.

if someone kills a man and if i judge him for his action that would be 'me' saying that i would never kill. yet in certain circumstances i might. maybe for different reasons but everyone could. it could even happen accidently.

it was said that the one who judges with greed would do the same action. how do you say...what goes around comes around??

 

[goraya15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
heterosexuality is bad? Seems you are against the continuity of the human race my friend.

You are missing the point, the argument isn't "heterosexuality is bad."

Even if homosexuality was responsible for HIV (a ridiculous claim), it is foolish to conclude that homosexual sex is bad because the virus was transmitted between homosexuals. We don't conclude that heterosexual sex is bad because heterosexuals transmit HIV. Biology is neutral on the good/bad dichotomy. Your argument reminds me of the time when people thought blood letting would cure you of disease.

Clearly, you are misconstruing my prior claim. I merely said that homosexuality was the vehicle through which early mass spread of the HIV virus in the human populous was initiated.
Also, you suffer from a logical fallacy in which you think the object is bad simply because of it's existence. My case in point is heterosexuality. When practiced properly (i.e. in an islamic context of marriage only), then there is no problem with it (no disease).
On the other hand, you are right to use that point of view for homosexuality, as it is unnatural, as stated in the Qur'an, and leads to disease. Living in unsanitary conditions is also unnatural; it encourages disease, a proven fact. Why is the same thing so hard to accept in the case of homosexuality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
And most std's do spread in heterosexual couples as much as in gay couples, at least to my knowledge. But how many of those are lethal, like AIDS?

Are you aware of which populations are dying the fastest from AIDS? Again, it is utterly foolish to conclude that homosexual sex is bad because AIDS kills, the biology just doesn't give a flying duck.

Aids kills. Before homosexuals spreading AIDS in the general populous, no lethal, widely known STD's. And which population is dying fastest, please enlighten us.
And if you please, use percentages, and you will see that homosexuals have a far higher death rate, as percentage wise they have a far higher infection rate as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
The Qur'an also mentions that the people of Lot were sexually "loose", so to speak, but God only destroyed when they exceeded all bounds (it's here that homosexuality is mentioned).

Oh, nice, now we see that God created HIV to punish the homosexuals. Did god create myocardial infarctions to punish senior citizens? How about childhood leukemia, was god ****** off at kids for not sharing their toys with other kids?

Hmm...you seem to be getting a bit hostile. Disease in general and the topic of why God allows suffering, child deaths, etc, is a subject for another thread. We are speaking here of homosexuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
Lesbian sex is the best? Come on, even if it does have less chance of STD's and AIDS, it still falls much shorter then the chance of STD's and AIDS in the concept of matrimonial only-sex proposed by the Holy Quran, which is 0%.

Clearly the Quran lacks imagination, if lesbians practiced the concept of matrimonial only-sex in the same manner as heterosexuals practiced the concept of matrimonial only-sex then they to would (using your logic) have a 0% chance of STDs and AIDS.

Dude, the virus doesn't care about your religion.

First of all, no they wouldn't. I am absolutely sure that more diseases would spring up if this became a wide spread practice. And if you don't believe that, believe this:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There is a misconception among health care providers and women themselves that lesbian and bisexual women have little or no risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). This myth is fueled by the lack of reliable studies of STD transmission in these communities. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In fact, the risk of STD transmission between women varies significantly depending on the STD. Herpes, HPV (genital wart virus), and bacterial vaginosis are transmitted fairly easily between women during sex. HIV, hepatitis B, gonorrhea, and chlamydia are much less likely to be transmitted--the risk is low but it is still possible.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/lbstd.htm[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I'll give you a point in saying the article does say although there has been very little research on the subject, but it seems lesbians have a low chance of contracting the virus.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Secondly, if lesbians practiced matrimony only sex, then there would be no children for the propogation of the specied, and humanity would die out. Artificial insemination would just cause the social fabric of people as we know it to rip apart. All in all, an unfeasible idea, especially given the fact that I don't think any lesbian to date has ever waited till marriage to "do the deed", so to speak.
[/FONT]

 

[MoonWater]

I merely attempted to explain that God does believe we exist since he loves us more then even our mothers.

And I was just making the point that whether or not God believes in US wasn't the issue

and 2, psychics are a scam. They do not perceive anything genuine, nor do they do it on a consistent basis. Besides, most psychics don't believe in God, or don't have a close relationship with Him, so why would God favour them with true dreams, confirmation and acceptance of their prayers?

True but then something similar could be said about prophets and prophecies. The fact that they tend to speack so generally that it would be a simple matter to interpret them as predicting the future. Perhaps it would be better phrased as saying that you seem to think one must be able to predict the future in order to have proof of God. But I've been able to prove to myself at least that Gods exist and never once have I "predicted" the future.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As a matter of fact, Luke has stated quite clearly that he's opposed to same-sex marriage. My point, though, is not exactly that Luke is a bigot; my point is that is that opposition to full legal equality for homosexuals is a form of bigotry.

I completely agree with you.

Intolerance need not be utter intolerance to be bigotry, and intolerance so strong that it demands to be the law of the land definitely qualifies. Nobody is demanding that the law force people into same-sex marriages. Nobody is demanding that the law force religious groups to sanction same-sex marriages, or even allow to homosexuals to be members of their groups. However, the other side is demanding that we be excluded from equality under the law. That's bigotry, plain and simple.

I agree with you that the dictionary.com definition is inadequate and thus my semantical point about the use of the word 'bigot' was not valid. You are right, I was wrong.

The reason I looked up the definition of 'bigot' was simply to be sure that I understood the precise meaning of your question, so that I could answer it precisely. I hastily accepted a poor definition of the word which lead me to erroneous conclusions about its proper use.

This isn't about whether bigots are always and in every circumstance hateful psychopaths. Nobody said they were.

However, you don't have to be a violent psychopath to be a bigot. Otherwise kindly bigots are "simply ignorant" and "mistaken in their reasoning" precisely because they're bigots.

.............

I'm not ashamed to tell you that I'm 47 years old, and my patience is exhausted. How patient do you think you'd be, thirty years from now, if religious bigots had always prevented you for having full equality; if you and Ceridwen decided to marry but were still prevented from marrying when you were old enough to be grandparents?

........

I am frankly, sick and tired of people telling me to patient. I'm sick and tired of well-meaning liberals who think it's acceptable if Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are compelled by politicians pandering to religious bigots to live all their lives as legal strangers and to die as legal strangers. And I'm sick and tired of being told I must understand that religious bigots are really warm, loving, wonderful people, they who insist that Del and Phyllis must be compelled to live and die as legal strangers, that John and I must be compelled to live and die as legal strangers.

........

It's easy to sit in a position of privilege and say that people who are denied equality should be patient and understanding. It's way too damned easy.

MidnightBlue,

Thank you for your eloquent, informative, and moving response. It reminds me in many ways of Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ (if you’ll accept the lofty comparison). I cannot pretend to understand what it would be like if I were not allowed to marry the person I love. I cannot pretend that my sense of injustice or urgency is as powerful as yours.

All I can say is that I have long sympathized with the righteous outrage of homosexuals, including some whom I have known personally, whose basic human rights and dignity have been denied. You have given me “frubals” in the past for some of the posts I’ve made in this forum defending gay marriage. (Here’s a post I wrote two years ago: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...olitician-removed-political-7.html#post276283 ).

I am very sorry that what I’ve said on this thread has exacerbated you. In fact, I feel downright ashamed of myself, that my words have had a similar effect on you as the ignorant anti-gay rhetoric that we see all over the internet and on this forum. Is it possible that I have said something as inane and venomous as that? If I have, I want nothing more than to understand where I went wrong, apologize for it, and quit wasting your time as you try to reason with those who are genuinely against same-sex marriage.

That said, I think the meaning of my posts has perhaps been misunderstood. Originally, I simply made a distinction between believing homosexuality to be a “sin” according to one’s personal faith, and believing homosexuality to be “immoral” on par with theft and sloth.*** I also said, in reference to people who are against gay marriage: “such a person does not necessarily hate homosexuals…some of them are simply ignorant of facts or mistaken in their reasoning.”

It seems that some of your objections do not apply to anything that I actually wrote. I do not understand why you bothered to ask me the three questions about discrimination/bigotry, and I invite you to have another look at my answers. I agree with your statement: “This isn't about whether bigots are always and in every circumstance hateful psychopaths. Nobody said they were.” Indeed, I didn’t suggest otherwise, and I’m confused as to why you bring it up. I did not suggest that “religious bigots are simply warm, loving, wonderful people”. I didn’t say that homosexuals or gay-rights supporters should be “patient and understanding”. These statements go quite beyond the modest observations I made in my previous posts.

You claimed: 'Otherwise kindly bigots are "simply ignorant" and "mistaken in their reasoning" precisely because they're bigots'. This is certainly true much of the time. The bigotry of some makes them willfully ignorant, or entices them to accept specious reasoning that supports their already-established bigoted sentiments. These people must be persuaded to be genuinely open-minded about the issue before they can make fair judgments about it.

But sometimes, a lack of compassion, or a demeaning view, or a belief in unequal treatment is due to ignorance of facts/ideas or mistakes in reasoning. For most of human history, slavery and the subjugation of women were embraced, yet surely all the intellectuals of the past who condoned these practices could not be called “bigots”. Surely if Thomas Jefferson and many others had access to the body of knowledge and reason that we have today, they would have rejected the ‘bigoted’ notion that blacks are less intelligent/moral than whites or that women are less fit to lead than men. Conversely, if you or I had been born as white males in colonial America, it is likely we would have succumbed to the seductive reasoning—supported by the “common knowledge” of the time—that lead many intellectuals to conclude that full legal equality does not extend to blacks and women due to their lack of mental and moral equipment (as is the thinking about the legal status of animals).

It is sometimes the case that a ‘bigoted’ view is the result of an open mind having not yet been exposed to the appropriate arguments or facts, or an open mind having not yet understood them. That is all I am saying.

***It is my hope that religious Americans will embrace this distinction, and come to accept legal/social equality for homosexuals in the same way that many of them have come to accept the equality of people of other faiths. I can see how one might argue that this strategy is doomed to fail, but whether it is a good “strategy” or not, it is a distinction that is real and ought to be recognized, i.m.o.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmm...another atheist vs. religion discussion. Where to start. Well, let's say the only concrete proof that God exists, without a shadow of a doubt, would be if he revealed Himself to you and conversed with you, or sent you a true dream. Been witness to true dreams, heard about the converse, and am convinced that God exists through all the help I've seen him give to me, my family and those who serve Him.

Why would we say that?

In any case, I don't need proof. I'll settle for mere evidence.

My point, goraya, is that you made these statements as if they were facts. They're not; they're your opinion, which you're certainly entitled to. What you're not entitled to is to present them as fact.

As for true dreams and converse of my own....still working on it, but I am still very young...so hopefully, still got a few years to work on it

true dreams? What is that? Who cares? I don't use my dreams for evidence of anything else. How about this: You pray to your God for people to recover from illness, and then we'll see whether any more do than if no one prays for them. How does that sound?

 

[Autodidact]

Lesbian sex is the best? Come on, even if it does have less chance of STD's and AIDS, it still falls much shorter then the chance of STD's and AIDS in the concept of matrimonial only-sex proposed by the Holy Quran, which is 0%.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Lesbian safe is safer than straight sex. Promiscuous lesbian sex is safer than promiscuous straight sex. Exclusive lesbian sex is safer than exclusive heterosexual sex. Clearly, God has blessed us lesbians, and all women should immediately stop having heterosexual sex, because it is cursed by God. This will have the additional benefit of reducing overpopulation. If you don't like this logic, stop using it; it's a bad argument.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmm...you speak about God as if he is some kind of person who is at your doorstep ready for YOU to initiate conversation with HIM. It is the other way around my friend. God believes we exist, and in the Holy Prophet's Ahadith we learn how God loves us more then our mothers.

Once again you state your personal opinions as though they were facts. If you want to establish that God loves me, you first have to establish that there is any such thing. Until you do that, you should put "I believe" or "In my opinion" in front of statements such as this.

 

[Autodidact]

If I understand you correctly, Mr. Spinkles, I think I agree with you. Some religious people think homosexuality is a sin. This would be of no interest to anyone else, if they did not try to base public policy on this belief. It's analogous to eating pork. Muslims and Jews believe it's a sin, but they don't try to outlaw it (in the U.S.) They just don't eat it. If you think gay sex is a sin, don't have gay sex. It has no bearing on anyone's life who does not share that belief.

The worst cases are those who engage in gay sex while condemning it as sinful. Get it together and clean your own backyard; I can take care of mine just fine.