

Islam and homosexuality

Straight but narrow


See article

Readers' comments


Nightscroft Squire Maldunne

Even more backward than islamic attitudes regardimg homosexuality is the prohibition against free speech in England. Dispersing non-pc leaflets is a jailable offense?

Really, every society has a different definition of hate speech, a lot of what is acceptable in the West would fall under that defition in India or most of Asia. Jail for denying holocaust or the Aremenian genocide? Really, lets also put them in jail for denying man landed on the moon or preaching creationism or even god. Let's face it, there are issues free-speech that every society has to negotiate and feels really strange and stupid to others. How far is too far? That will always be a debate so lets be civil about it.

WishnutMerkins in reply to Cloudwarrior

Any free speech can be interpreted as hate speech. The West protected Salman Rushdie in the name of free speech while the Middle East saw his Satanic Verses as hate speech. Rushdie's former body builder wrote a book on Rushdie, describing the latter as a tight-fisted mean employer who treated his driver, security guards (free from teh British exchequer!) and other employees badly. For Rushdie, free speech was a one-way street. Not so for the British judge (God bless the tribe!) who ruled that he was not concerned about what Ron Ryans (the body guard-author) recalled about Rushdie's behaviour and how he interpreted it was not his concern. Read the story in vishumenon.wordpress.com.

Free speech is not something that is subjective. You either have it or you don't. Unfortunately it seems that in England they do not.

Tolerance is a two way street my friend. By denying someone the right to express their views, no matter how distasteful or loony they may be, you degrade your own moral standing.


Besides, the crazies just make things more colorful. Are you really concerned that these nuts are winning converts to the cause of Islamic anti-homosexuality?

VLCC in reply to Cloudwarrior

What type of hate speech are you referring to? I agree incitements to violence shouldn't be allowed but drawing a cartoon lampooning a long dead religious figure strapped to a bomb is absolutely fine.

Actually you will find that in England we have a law,created and voted on by the representatives of the nation,which says you may not make statements that incite hatred against any group of people who are,in our society,part of our community and very welcome to it at that. Hate speech is not free speech.

I take it then that where you live you are free to say as you wish about the next person?
No thanks,I happen to agree with the laws of England and they suit me just fine. Those fellows clearly were not up to living in a just society - they therefore deserve their jail sentences for breaking the law. They'll probably have their first homosexual experience in prison while they're there :) If they haven't yet before that ;)

I think they thought that they were living in a free society. They were obviously mistaken. I'll take a free society over a just one any day.

You never know, one of these days you may find yourself on the wrong side of the majority opinion and be put in jail for your beliefs.



Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance is not an excuse.

Now you might consider the following passages to be acceptable:















This long winded really only contains two ideas worth addressing. One is the false analogy you made comparing the devoted propogation of a slander against one single individual to the expression of an opinion regarding propper moral behavior(mind you I in no way share these opinions). The second was the notion that people should be held accountable if their free speech causes harm to others, like in the case of yelling fire in a theatre, which is also a false analogy. A reasonable person is expected to rush from a theatre if someone yells fire. I do not believe homosexualitty is like a fire, in that it is not an imminently threatening catastrophe. No reasonable person could be expected to upon hearing calls of "gays are the ultimate evil and should be killed" to immediately kill gays , and thus if someone were to hear these calls and subsequently commit violence, it cannot be reasonably construed that the cause of that violence was the "hate speech.", but should be recognized that the perpetrator of the violence was a deranged individual to begin with. By your logic, Salinger should be held responsible for John Hinkleys assasination attempt.

The westborough baptist church has been promoting, or preaching or whatever it is they do much lomger than those muslimsn, and as i am aware no one has been convinced to commit violence against gays. The greater evil here is limiting freedom of expression, no matter how distastteful, and that is something that should not be done in a just or free society.


One scenario of God's Will is that the deviant Westerners will need to repent their Sinful ways or else the Wahhabi Talibs will inflict pains unto you.

Cloudwarrior in reply to happyfish18

Happyfish18, are you in the closet?

I mean, you have commented on this article more than anyone else including me and I'm a happy and out gay man.

Sorry but I'm not going to repent for being a deviant Westerner (generalise much?) but it is so damn fun!

Gotta go and deviate!

WishnutMerkins in reply to happyfish18

At the moment Sunnis are inflicting pain on Shias, both on Ahmadiyas, and Shias on Sunnis; drones on the whole lot, and if all that's not enough, nature inflicts floods earthquakes and starvation on the faithfhful without letup. The West, on whose economic problems you rejoice(which are nothing as compared to the problems in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan - needs to send arms (so you can continue to fight each other) and food (so that you can stay alive to fight each other). Wahhabi Talibs (whatever that might be) might inflict pain on the West on a distant unknown day, but that Talibs is already doing that to your nations. As the Holy Quran says, will you not understand?


Why does the article not mention the Pashtun sick culture of pedophilia?


Spectacularj1 in reply to gdpbull

THis is widespread throughout the entire region.


HyunSmith in reply to Spectacularj1

polygamy is part of it but the article explains, the lack money to afford marriage and the separation of men from women contribute more.

I currently live in Afghanistan and see this widely and openly happening, it occurred less under the Taliban but since GIRoA has come into power it is much more widespread.

It's cultural and goes back to the pre-Islamic era. That belt of Central Asia was also the seat of Greek empires surving on for centuries post-Alexander and the practice appears to be quite similar to the practice of the Ancient Greeks.

Right on.
Bactria(Afghanistan) was more Greek than Parthia(Mesopotamia).
Free people, these Greeks were.
I remember a book by Joachim Fernau "Roses for Apollos".Unfortunately you can find it in German, French and Spanish but, interestingly enough, not in English.


I don't understand where atheists get their concept of right and wrong from... If they have no hard and fast rules, do they just follow whatever society deems to be acceptable, and assume that everything that previous generations held to be right or wrong, and doesn't agree with the current notion of right and wrong, is nonsense? I can understand this approach making sense in subjects like science, where advances are commonplace, but I haven't seen any remarkable achievements by atheists in terms of ethics (i.e. they aren't improving with time), and I don't see any hard and fast method for their approving or disapproving of actions. At least Muslims did have a very accomplished society in the moral regard, at least for the first few generations after the sending of the prophet. By the fourth generation, the influence of the prophet began to fade away, and now, long after even that, people try to use the current actions of Muslims to criticize Islam, when most Muslims are Muslims by name and not by action. I mean, seriously, what sort of methodology can someone use to approve homosexuality, which they can't use to approve of a 15-16 year old person willingly providing child pornography?

defaultpennamehere in reply to Namens

Atheists like myself derive right and wrong from the basic idea that living, breathing, feeling, thinking, conscious organisms deserve certain rights. From there you can develop secular humanism.

Now, it's an interesting question on where the development and enhancement of ethics comes from. I mean, I'm sure that you would agree that a world free from slavery, segregation, stoning for adultery and apostasy and working on the Sabbath has come a long way. However, this improving "Zeitgeist," as some call it, hasn't been derived from religious works. Rather, it's the secular development of ideas. People then tend to twist the words of their religion to support their version of morality.

If you were to ask someone why murder was wrong, it should be easy to give an answer that isn't "because my holy book says so." Likewise, it should be easy to say why a widow should not be forced to burn on their husband's funeral pyre.

As for the age of consent issue, it's the exact same logic we have for setting the voting age and drinking age. It certainly isn't a Biblical issue, since we know back then people married off their daughters at a much younger age than is acceptable now!


I have to say I agree with you. The vast, vast majority of people get their ethics from gut instinct. This works most of the time but leads to silly (and sometimes dangerous) contradictions. I think when you claim to have the word of god on your side, however, you shut yourself off to criticism, whereas atheists are not in principle. Nonetheless I have met many radical peers who are, say, Marxist atheists and frankly have never really critically thought before.

The world would be much better off if we were rational about our beliefs, rather than followed religious, political, or philosophical dogma.

gdpbull in reply to defaultpennamehere

"freedom from ... stoning for adultery and apostasy and working on the Sabbath ... hasn't been derived from religious works"

Jesus, coming upon the imminent stoning of an adulteress by a crowd of men said "any among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone". They all dropped their stones and walked away.

He also spoke against the harsh rules against working on the sabbath.

The Pharisees (religious leaders) said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Jesus replied "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

defaultpennamehere in reply to gdpbull

So Christians ignore the OT? Funny, I thought that was where Young Earth Creationists and homophobes got their information. Meanwhile we all know that Jesus had no problem with slavery and fully expected it to continue.

Namens in reply to defaultpennamehere

I'd like to thank you for your civilized replies. I do have a few ideas that I want to express, and points that I want clarification for.

I realize this is a long post, so the take home message is this: A religious person is not necessarily mindless, and moral anchoring, and motivation to do good and avoid evil are weak when one doesn't believe in a just God.

-So what is the logic for the age of consent issue? It seemed arbitrary to me because it was moved from 21 to 18 in some countries, and a 17 year old can be more mature than a 19 year old, and of greater intellectual capacity. Other similar things in this category would be: Why is polygamy not allowed with mutual consent, while many other types of sexual behaviour are, including but not limited to: bestiality, homosexuality, infidelity, and so on.

-As a religious person, I don't consider myself to be mindlessly accepting the morals taught in the holy book of my parents. I believe that as humans, we couldn't have been generated from inorganic material because I can't think of a feasible mechanism for the generation of an organism capable of reproduction from inorganic material, and I believe that the religion of Islam is the true one, because the Quran mentions things that could not possibly be known at the time, and because of my failure to find a mistake within it, even though many have tried before me, and even though it should have a mistake if written by a man.

-After understanding the above, one will understand that the reason it seems religious people shut themselves off from criticism is because the wrong things are being criticized. The religious person is following something they have found to be solid, in place of the gut instinct of others, and if one wants to criticize, then they should criticize the Holy book, not on a moral basis, but on a factual basis. This would destroy the religious person's base, and thus, any moral branches stemming from that base would also be removed. I have not seen anyone do this to Islam, but I have seen lots of people try to attack the moral part of the religion, which, as you should understand now, is ineffective.

-Many of the things which Islam is criticized for, are not actually black and white. The husband feels wronged when the wife cheats on him, and going back to the basic idea that living, breathing, feeling, thinking, conscious organisms deserve certain rights, doesn't the husband deserve the loyalty of his wife, and after the swearing of an oath, and perhaps any gifts and economic assistance he might have given her (although the wife is not always the benefactor), and he himself was loyal? If so, should the wife be punished for her infidelity? If so, what kind of punishment? What kind of moral ground will you use to decide the punishment? It's not black and white, really. Punishments should also have a deterring factor, and Islamic punishments are much better deterrents than conventional punishments, as seen in history.

-A person who doesn't believe that every person will eventually receive justice, will not be motivated to act according to what is right. From my observations, the motivation for an atheist to do good stems mostly from two things: the first is that if some evil is considered acceptable, it might harm him too eventually, and thus you don't want to legalize killing because it might come back to haunt you. The second is the good feeling that we get inside when we do something good. This is a well known feeling, but its problem is that it is weak. When a person has a choice between being poor and feeling good, and being rich and feeling bad, they tend to choose the latter, and the exceptions are rare. This is because their morals don't have material backing, and thus they believe that in a material sense, the latter choice is better for them.

defaultpennamehere in reply to Namens

What an excellent find after a long day, an intelligent religious person interested in other viewpoints! It's late, so I'll try to be concise.

1. On age of consent, my point was indeed that it's fairly arbitrary. One doesn't really think that all at one's 18th birthday there is a drastic change in maturity, or that no 17 year olds are perfectly capable humans. But we do need some way to protect children, so by necessity we draw a sharp legal line. My point was that it wasn't handed down from on high or based on any kind of absolutism. But that doesn't mean it's *totally* arbitrary. Most agree that children should not be wedded off or taken advantage of, and even though it's secular logic and varies by country doesn't mean we should dismiss it as meaningless. It's actually extremely useful.

2) I have heard the exact same logic used to promote Christianity and dismiss Islam. I hate to say it, but I'm certain that you are (inadvertently!) biased in your judgements. Trust me, it's very very hard to find problems in something you were taught was normal. http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#external lists a few "errors." I think some of those are at least as forgivable as anything Christians ignore, and at least one was clearly meant as a metaphor, but anyway. They're there if you're objective enough. That site also lists places where the Koran contradicts itself.

On that same point, just because you can't imagine a way for life to begin doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally. There are lots of good theories, and pretty good evidence for the RNA World hypothesis. But I truly appreciate your openness to look to reason, even if the answers don't seem satisfactory to you.

3) I have tried, many many many times, to point out to people the flaws in their religions and why it's irrational. I am totally with you in saying that arguing about the morality of religion is tangential compared to arguing about the facts.

4) Absolutely the each partner in a relationship deserves honesty, trust, respect, loyalty. In keeping with this, no spouse should be able to hold the threat of physical violence over the other. If one cheats, the punishment is obvious - you should lose your partner or work it out. And probably feel guilt. But in a civilized society, we certainly wouldn't do any of the things the Koran describes as appropriate. Now, I'm well aware that historically the Koran was actually quite progressive, and also that marriage was a completely different, purely functional institution.

But for the sake of human rights, doing something immoral or damaging to interpersonal relationships should not be "punished," and especially by the government. That is, no lashes for adultery, or being mean to someone, or having a falling out with you brother, or not calling that girl back. There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't do bad things, and the threat of punishment is a terrible reason to be a good person.

5) Most people try to be good. This is regardless of their religion. And I know that most religious people are good not because they want an eternal reward or fear punishment. I mean, would you murder someone if you wouldn't be punished? Would you still help the less fortunate even if you weren't rewarded later?

Now, I'm not sure, but it seems plausible that religious people are willing to give more if they sincerely believe they will be rewarded. But there are plenty of humanitarian people who aren't religious. I became vegetarian because I sincerely care about the health of the planet and the price of food in India. For my birthday I want money donated to the most cost-effective charity I found. Why? I know I won't get anything out of it. And if anything I'm constantly depressed by how little I can do, rather than "feeling good."

What's the motivation? To be a good person I guess. Do we really need a better reason?

Cheers and best to you.

From the Arab Land in reply to Namens

"Gut instinct" is cultural. There are / were societies where incest, Cannibalism, matriarchy, wife-kidnapping are normal and not considered strange and make good common sense. In the middle ages when lifespans were shorter a teenager would be a married woman / widow, whatever, Romeo's Juliet was just 12 and he not much older. Societies such as the Chinese, Mongols which have are merely spiritual and atheist clearly show society doesn't need religion to be narrow, bigoted, violent or even just, noble etc. As an atheist, a humanitarian approach to life is just as philosphically sound are a neitzhian self-serving one, just as a religious community has moral and immorals people. Religions themselves redefine and modify their concepts to fit as societies morph.

The end truth is thus I guess: "people are people" driven by different personal drivers and regardless of the paradigm they operate under they will either conform or deviate. Good is relative. What is good for me/society may not be good for you/society and so the question is how do we negotiate this and make it work. Religion is one source, and no doubt without it someone codify and collage alternative philosphy because of a need of humans to organize knowledge.. aka confucios or lao-tzu.

Religion, creed, race, culture, nationalism or anyother ism, tey carry equal blame. People will divide themselves and compete and then things can get a bit extreme and out of hand.

jvictor1789 in reply to gdpbull

Sure,and then came Matthew 5:29


Not to speak of your sinful right arm, oh sinful watcher of the Forbidden Web Pages.

Good points, Arablander.

All man-made limits are by definition artificial,and change as societies change.

E=mc2 is a natural law.Sexual mores are just artificial covenants, sometimes useful, sometimes useless,often bothersome, but always one step away from being objectively indefensible.

Namens in reply to defaultpennamehere

After reading your post, I'll say the following things: A lot of it makes sense, but there are some points which I do not quite agree to. Which is normal, we can't expect everyone to agree about everything, of course. But here we go:

-I'm not saying that you should dismiss the concept of an adult being different from a child. I'm saying that the method used to distinguish a child from an adult is arbitrary, and that this is the same method used to make homosexuality a bad thing one year, and a natural thing the next year. So when everyone thinks that homosexuality is a bad thing, Islam is not criticized for condemning it, and when it is considered to be natural, it is. Similarly, the same thing happens with polygamy, execution of murderers at the request of the murdered person's relatives, and so on. This is not a hard and fast moral system, and it is continuously changing, and it is a system which has been used in the past to justify heinous crimes which everyone would agree is horrible nowadays.

-But anyways, as we agreed, morals are a tangential issue, since there is no unanimously accepted standard to distinguish right from wrong. As for the facts, you pointed me to a webpage with over a hundred claims. However, for the sake of brevity, if you would point me to just a few claims which you find most convincing, I will show you why I believe that they don't really hold water.

-There are lots of theories about how life started, but from what I've seen, the probability them actually being true seems to be quite slim, especially compared to the probability of the existence of a God. There are many philosophical arguments for the necessity of the existence of a God, and I believe that I should base my judgment on what I deem to be most probable, and not reject the supernatural just because it is supernatural.

-I don't expect you to accept that the rulings of Islam are just. I expect you, however, to accept that claims that they are unjust cannot be objective, since atheism does not have a unified, consistent system to judge whether a certain behaviour is good or bad.

-I don't claim to defend religion in general, I only defend Islam. Just thought I should mention that.

-Atheists do good because of feelings ingrained withing them that push them to do good and push them away from doing evil. These feelings conflict with natural desires. They also conflict with what you intellectually believe to be in your best material interests, and you said "I know I won't get anything out of it". Practising Muslims (of which there are very few today) also have the same feelings, and the same conflicting natural desires. The difference is that, in the long term, they believe that whatever good they do is better for them than if they didn't do it, and this makes a big difference, and if you look at the first three generations of Muslims, where practising Muslims were prevalent, then you would see that it was free from many of the social ills seen commonly today. It's hard to do good for the sake of doing good, without any recognition or reward, when you're an atheist. It just doesn't balance out in your mind, or that's how it appears to me, at least.

defaultpennamehere in reply to Namens


1) I think we're agreeing that there is not absolutism, that is, that things change over time. And it's a good thing too because people used to do horrible things to each other and that was normal. Meanwhile, what we have now has lots of room for improvement. And that being arbitrary isn't a bad thing.

2) This looks like a slightly better website. http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/history_errors_koran_1.htm
I'd just pick the first three.

3) Given the time span of the Earth, and how large it is, the existence of life shouldn't be considered slim. I could go into the anthropic principle, and why positing a complex supernatural being defies the scientific method/Occam's Razor, but I'm sure it's beyond the scope of TE's comments thread.

4) I don't have "objectivity" in the sense that there are absolute rules handed down from above that make things good or bad. However, given the things I mentioned the rights conscious beings deserve, we can then make objective statements about whether or not some action or policy is better. That's really pretty consistent. I have refused to be one of those extreme cultural relativists who won't condemn honor killing, women's faces being burned off with acid, female genital mutilation, etc. These things are objectively immoral. And I'm using the term "objectively" in the same sense that we use it to say that "objectively the Sun is larger than the Earth." In principle, nothing is absolutely known, but we are so sure of it that it's silly to constantly add "but there is an extremely small chance that everything I think I know about reality is false."

5) Although saying religion makes people act better doesn't make it true, I'll address it anyway. If we look at religiousity and crime, we see no connection. But if we do say that religious people get a little bit of extra willpower to be good, I'm positive that this is canceled out at a macroscopic level by all of the damage of religion. All of the hate, wars, suffering, and damage caused by religious-blinded thinking (abortion, homophobia, faith-healing) makes religion, on balance, a problem.

Namens in reply to defaultpennamehere

Ok, that's quite a lot to address. But I'm happy that it's still a civilized conversation. I'll try to address your points to the best of my ability.

I've looked at your website, and I'll try to give you some answers. The first three are the focus.

As for the first point about Abraham having not gone to Mecca, I think that it's a kind of wishy washy argument. This is more of a matter of trusting in what God said, and no one can really prove nowadays where Abraham was or wasn't. It's not strange that Muslim sources would contradict Christian and Jewish ones, and can't be used as an argument to refute its authenticity.

The second point about Alexander the Great. I will just quote another source on this one. It's not a very long read, and is mostly on topic. You have to note that this quote was addressing a Muslim, and not a non-Muslim, and thus might contain some material that you might find kind of offensive. If you could just limit yourself to understanding the reasoning, and not being affected emotionally, then go ahead and read it. Otherwise, don't read it, as I really want this to remain a friendly conversation: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/22029/debate

As for the third point about Gog and Magog, one can't say that something doesn't exist because they can't find it... If they don't even know what the gate looks like, maybe they found it and they just don't know. Perhaps they're expecting some grandiose structure when it simply looks like a natural structure. Either way, it's a wishy washy type of argument, and what I want is something solid.

So that's the answer to the first three points, and if you see any in particular that you find to be very strong, I can address that too.

Now, I would like to reiterate that I am not defending religion in general, and am only defending Islam in it's pure form. I am not defending the actions of Muslims today. If a Muslim does this or that, and it is not in conformance with Islam, I have no interest in defending him. If a christian does this or that, I have no interest in defending him. And so on. In the same manner, if an atheist does something not conforming with atheism, I'm sure you're not interested in defending him either. Thus, all of the hate, wars, suffering, and damage caused by religious-blinded thinking is not of concern to me, as I believe that most religions are similar in their evil to atheism. If one religion is true, the rest are automatically false in everything that contradicts the true religion, and thus, due to the vast number of religions, most religions will by necessity be corrupt.

There are two things: knowing the religion and practising it. Some do the latter and not the former, and make Islam look bad. Some do the former and not the latter, and that also has a bad effect. Some do neither. And the ones that do both are very rare.

I have read the rest of what you wrote, and have understood it, and do have things to say about this or that statement, but let's leave that aside, and end the debate.

All I want you to take away from this is one thing: That Islam has it's arguments, and it's proofs. It's actually the fastest growing religion, if you'd believe it. If you just kind of understand where Muslims are coming from, and don't label them all with the same brush, considering all of them to be blind to reality, then that is enough. If you just learn to separate between the actions of Muslims today, and Islam as it was revealed, that is enough. Seriously, I don't need you to accept Islam as a true religion or anything. I just want you to understand how we came to our conclusions.

Now I'm actually going to be busy studying for exams for the next period, and I'm sure you have objections to what I wrote, but if you could find another reputable Muslim source to address them to, then I would be relieved. I'd like to end this conversation with no animosity, and best wishes to you in what you do!


Mohamed preached 600 years after Christ was supposed to have done likewise, and indeed even today the followers of the latter are six centuries ahead of those of the former.


Dealing with homosexuality is one of the many crisis of islam. Christianity was lucky enough to have Voltaire but Islam has not produced its Voltaire yet. We have Rashdies,Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tasleema Nasreen, Wafa Sultan and Lesbian hero like Irshad Manji who are standing up againt oppression, bigotry and bullying in the name of Islam. But they have formidable opponents with huge oil money (desert islam) and misinformation(interpretations) in their side. Political Islam is on the rise everywhere and no one in the islamic world bothers to sitdown and discuss about its crisis. They have a huge mentality of being a "victim" with a "glorious past" along with self-pity and self-loathing...toxic combination.


The question of whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong is a theological matter that should be left to religious scholars. As for whether homosexuality should be ALLOWED, that should not be in question. For a free society the only answer is: yes.

HyunSmith in reply to WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

I agree in a free society ones preferences should not restricted as long as those preferences do not harm others

The problem with the west is that instead of appealing to reason and pragmatism on many issues they instead appeal to emotion and idealism, creating irrational arguments based on emotion to convince people otherwise.

Frankly this is the one good thing about the rise of China and Islam, for too long the West has had its head in the clouds of idealism neglecting the practical and reason. Finally they will have come back down to reality or get bypassed and left in the dustbin of history.

Nor is any society really free if there are rules restricting any type of behavior.

Wether a free society is a desirable society is another matter of contention that ties in with the dgree of freedom as well. I mean borders that define a country are themselves anti-freedom.


i am quite sure my comment will be deleted, but i will make it:

it is good to see that there are some countries that refuse to bow down to the gay agenda.

let each country decide its own laws. if gay people do not want to live in a country that forbids them, move somewhere else.

there are still people in this world who would be dumbfounded to comprehend what a man would be doing with another man.

live your life, gay people, and stop trying to force it on all others who are not like you.

Sydney83 in reply to mahagwa

It is not that they are trying to force their ideals onto others...they are trying to live their lives. But when they are forced to not be who they really are or face death penalty is that really a life. They should be allowed to live as they want (their choices do not harm others)

AlfredYWong in reply to mahagwa

I don't think that unpopular minorities in a nation should have no option other than changing their beliefs/behaviour, or moving somewhere else. Homoesexuals are as much citizens as heterosexuals, and should have the right to live in their own country without having their behaviour suppressed by a majority that doesn't agree with them.

To your last sentence: I would think rather that it is the people who stone homosexuals who are forcing their lifestyles on others.

From the Arab Land in reply to mahagwa

Making them leave their home for any reason is wrong. Now if gays were coming in from somewhere else and colonizing and settling your land and remaking the indigeneous society I'd agree with you. If however they are your son's and daughters, then the real challenge is how do make space for them in your society.

From your perspective I guess you would need to work harder to find a way to "cure" it.

Bri_M in reply to mahagwa

Actually, many of the most intelligent LGBT people do leave places that oppress them and go elsewhere. They create new jobs, stimulate the economies of the countries that accept them, and generally contribute greatly to the development of humanity.

This is one reason why places like California and New York economically outperform places like Alabama and Mississippi, and why so many countries that have dreadful economic prospects -- from Belarus to Zimbabwe -- also have powerful institutionalized homophobia. Countries closed to the rights of gay citizens are also closed to innovation, new thinking, and individual rights for all people and trend towards poverty, kleptocracy, and stunted development.


Animals don't have a man-like conscience in order to allow us to talk about a consenting sex partner. Comparing homosexuality to bestiality or incest makes no sense. As for sex with relatives, there is no "relativesexual" person in the world. Someone can only show heterosexual or homosexual interest upon someone else who happens to be his/her relative. That's an entirely different situation. Incest is an attitude, not a way of being (as heterosexuality or homosexuality or bisexuality). In traditional - and correct - penal law studies, one can only consider attitudes as crimes, not mere thoughts and even less so types of personality or ways of being. That's reason enough for why homosexuality shouldn't be a criminal matter. Nobody will be able to show exactly how homosexuality is closer to incest, zoophilia and pedophilia than to heterosexuality, because it clearly is not.

One may find homosexuality "ugly" or "weird", and that's fine, because everyone's entitled to an opinion. However, one can never say exactly why homosexuality should be held as a "disease" or a "crime", precisely because everybody knows that the partners involved in homosexual relationships don't get harmed in their rights and integrity (instead of what may happen in the case of pedophilia, bestiality and, yes, incest, because there is an inherent biological danger and psychological pressures involved in that).
















jvictor1789 in reply to Cloudwarrior

"straight but narrow"


"Turn or burn"







Just tell them you work for a Mexican Drug Cartel



"Eating shellfish...is a lesser abomination than homosexuality."

Stick to eating Seahorses and sequentially hermaphroditic starfish.



"...hair trimmed... How should they die?"







You are welcome.For donations click here.


The discussion seems to broadly confirm Joseph Nye's words that there doesn't exist something like a "clash of civilizations", it is basically a struggle between moderates/liberals and extremists all over the world. When I was brought up, I was told by my parents that it is none of my business what consenting adults do or don't in that aerea. In this regard I don't understand why gays frequently are pressured to "out" themselves, I guess in the whole West, but certainly in my country. What has that to do with anything? With christian and moslem exstremists gaining ground, liberals and moderates should loudly voice their defiance, which I have hereby done.



philamisan in reply to nigatu

Not natural? Why not?

Sorry... after all, if it says somewhere in the Bible that homosexuality is unnatural then it must be true. Good thing the authors hadn't been over to the "not-promised" land of North America and caught a few male Bison going at it eh...?

king of bats in reply to nigatu

Bible also says that rich people go to hell and talks far more of God's abhorrence of economic inequality and social injustice than homosexuality.

Why don't conservatives ever talk about that?

rog3r in reply to nigatu

>How can homosexuality be considered as natural?

Because there are many examples of it in nature, not only among humans, didn't your God create the animals as well? Surely he must have had a reason to make some of them homosexual? Just because you don't understand that reason doesn't make it unnatural

mahagwa in reply to nigatu

i agree with you...homosexuality is not natural...homosexuals cite some study that was conducted that 'proved' that there is a 'probability' that homosexuality was an acquired trait. problem is, that study was flawed and was never succesfully validated via peer review...yet homosexuals hang on to this tiny little thread.
Up until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Society (not sure the exact coinage) considered homosexuality a treatable mental condition, and had succesfully treated many a homosexual. They were pressured to de-classify homosexuality as a mental desease.
All in all, the gay lobby has applied tremendous pressure on various facets of society to garner acceptance. it is an insult (to me as a black man), that they dare compare their 'struggle' to what black people had to undergo during the civil rights movement.
at the end of the day, homosexuals are vain and very self centered. marriage (between a man and a woman) is the coming together of two people to give themselves to each other and bring forth into the world children (as god said, be 'fruitful and mutliply'. two men can not multiply; two women can not multiply...add to this the promiscous nature of the homosexual lifestyle and one wonders if homosexual acceptance would not spell the end of western civilization.
to those who claim 'animals are homosexual', hence it is natural...i beg to differ. homosexual animals are an aberration, not a norm. they are 'freaks of nature'

Cloudwarrior in reply to mahagwa


"at the end of the day, homosexuals are vain and very self centered"

Wow such a massive generalisation. You have met every homosexual on the planet. Even I (as a proud poof) don't genearlise like that!

Last time I checked, making massive generalisations about a race... of say African origin... was racist, but you consider doing it to other people acceptable.

As a gay male I am more tolerant and accepting of other people's differences than you as a black male are.

Buz600 in reply to mahagwa

If marriage is to bring forth children ... then is your religion against my being married? You see, they had to remove a tumor when I was a teenager which resulted in me becoming sterile. No wriggle room on that - I enjoy trying, but it is physically impossible for me to concieve, an even with science and petri dishes ... I cannot carry a child. Practice, but no procreation. I cannot "multiply". Am I an aberration?
Furthermore ... have you been to a farm recently? Do you know almost all cows mount other cows when they are on heat? (I guess horny cows are lesbians). So are most cows freaks of nature?

Bri_M in reply to nigatu

"How can homosexuality be considered as natural?"


Interesting observation from the above link:


So, to answer your question, homosexuality is so natural that it's found in a staggering array of species throughout nature, of which homo sapiens is just a small component.


I really dont care whether homosexuality is a choice or whether its forbidden in very old books.

Countries and people who start persecuting and killing others based on the flimsy charge of with which gender they had intimate relations surely won't stop there.

Once you get people to think homosexuality must be punished by death, its not very difficult to get them to accept that critizising your ruler or your religion is an equal offense.

Unfortunetly, most of the traditional gay-right campaigners in most European countries dare not to speak out against the most recent threat, based on ideological blindness. Homosexuals in Europe have been abandoned.

happyfish18 in reply to Zhouzhou_1

Fundamentalists like to impose the Shariah laws which are more suited or used in the Medieval age and which is the cause of so much conflicts and unhappiness with religions.

Personal prayers will be better for those who want to change their sexual orientation.

Zhouzhou_1 in reply to happyfish18


HyunSmith in reply to Zhouzhou_1

because a lot of people really like having sex, and sometimes it doesn't matter with what or who.

I think part of this disbelief stems from many peoples own sexual naivete and ignorance, I've found though many men brag, the ones who can afford or have the skills to experience a truly diverse sexual life is very limited.



But it was a choice after all.




'More gay men have had sex with a woman that straight men have had sex with a man'????????


How about?... More men have had sex with both men and women than men who have only had sex with women, or men who have only had sex with men, or men who have never had sex with man or woman

You are assuming, Cloudwarrior, there are categories of 'gay man' and 'straight man' to start with...

Many men enjoy gay sex much as they enjoy a game of football on a Saturday afternoon... They live for the game, but it's still only a game... But it adds zest to wife and work and homelife

Which may apply to you, CW... It is only your thought life that is aberrant

Nobody is gay or straight but thinking makes them so

Oh Happyfish18 thank you for proving so many people on here right!

And Great Uncle Clive - I hate to burst your bubble mate, but it is you that is making an assumption. If you enjoy gay sex as much as you enjoy football then I can only assume you are bisexual or straight with a fetish perhaps(?) - more power to you!

My lifestyle is not a game. I do not equate the enjoyment of sex with that of watching or partaking in a sport - if you do then I am not going to tell you you are wrong, faulty or aberrant. If having sex with men adds zest to your wife (weird), work and homelife then more power to ya cowboy. I don't need to add zest to my life as my life is zestful to begin with and never a game.

I am Gay. That's right with a big ol' G in front of it! Not straight, not bisexual, not confused and have been gay since the hormones started kicking in with puberty.

You might like to make this into some sort of intellectual argument, but it is not my mind but my entire body that is responding when I am having sex with another man. It is part thought, part emotion, part chemical and part primal - all together that makes me gay.

My partner wasn't chosen because he was perfect or what I was looking for, but because for some reason the part of my mind that isn't ruled by intellect was attracted (addicted even) to him.

There is a reason I don't fall in love with women or even lust after them - if you could chose such a thing then everyone could be gay or straight depending on what day it was.

Being gay doesn't define who I am other than when I am having sex. For all intents and purpose my life is pretty much the same as any straight guy's.... well except you perhaps.


One issue that homosexuality makes visible is struggles in various societies. Desires are facts everyone has to deal with. Who gains what from controlling how other people handle their desires? Who is trying to control whom, and for what purposes?

Oblivious Comet

Jesus had just been an abstract being to me before I got into Uni. The only knowledge I had about him was that he was someone powerful and amazing in a book called Bible. It’s suffocating to say, but most Chinese people do not have a religion. Because of no religion, I had a tough time. Well, maybe many people don’t put their faith in any religion, and I know some of you don't even believe in god, and in the power of prayer, that's ok. To teach each own. But you've got to believe in something, something more than you can touch, taste or see (because life is too hard to go through it alone without something to hold onto and without something sacred). But, recently, I found that my god is kind of different comparing to others:
Incident 1: When I was a sophomore, I met a lesbian in our english class. I have to say she is kind of arrogant and slutty, but her english is stunning. One day, our teacher Natalia told us that we should prepare a speech about religion, then that lesbian girl made an enormous rhetorical one. I can’t well remember all of her words (partly because my english sucks.), but I remember her attitude towards God made me think a lot. She said: “To me god is kind of like Santa Claus for adults, and I think he is a jerk. I mean he makes me gay and then has his followers going around telling me it’s something that I chose, as if someone would choose to be mocked every single day of their life. And you know what, I only love my real dad, because he is the one who supports me and protects me from being hurt by others—those so-called guardians of morality”. I do not hate gays at all, because I have many gay friends. Most of them are kind and stunning, the only difference between us is their sexuality. I once invited one of my gay friends to come to our church, but he refused. He said: “The only reason I don’t go to church is because most churches don’t think very much of gay people”. That shocked me. I thought the door of church is always open to everyone, because all of us are God’s kids, so He would never abandon the minority of us. I can’t imagine my father would send me to the hell just because of something like sexual orientation. It is the first time that I felt so lost and unhappy. There is a Reading Bible party in our university, and once I was a member of it. To be honest, this reading party is not fun at all, it is just like other stupid student parties, or worse, because it only preaches God’s kindness to those Puritans, and denies admissions to all applicants who are gay. Generally speaking, none of them in that party really cuts the mustard according to their standard of behavior, but they think they can still call themselves KIDS OF GOD, because they are not gay. That really makes me think, is this God the one that helped me so much and gave me confidence to live in this stinky and miserable world?
Incident 2: As we all know, terrible Terrorism striked Scandinavia last year. The 32-year-old gunman opened fire on scores of teenagers gathered for a political camp and made a powerful bomb explosion that killed 8 people. He is a believer in god. I wonder what did he learn from the Bible---How to wreak havoc in this world? Or pretending to be righteous envoy that sows seeds of hatred? Mr Breivik’s hatred has stunned all of us, and we all should meditate. Who is the real god? What does he approve of and what does not? I know some people will laugh at me and reckon that I have no qualifications to talk about god .Yes, I can’t even finish my Bible reading class, and I don’t go to church every weekend, but I do know one thing---there is only one word in the Bible, and that word is called LOVE. Love is the most powerful weapon that god gave us, the only prescription to cure our inherent sin. What I don’t like seeing is people using J-money to cramp everybody else’s style, because it seems to me that true spirituality is about enjoying the life that we’ve been given, and about learning how to love the world. I don’t believe in some churches and some fathers, because I know that god’s love is great and endless, he will never teach anyone to hate or to discriminate. No one can close the door that god gave us to get closer to him. No matter what you are, atheist,pagan, or gay, as long as u have love and faith in righteousness in your heart, you deserve the love from god. From now on, I will read more and try my best to find my own god. And to some believers, a religion is a seed of love that you should bring to other people, not a weapon for you to become a dictator. No matter how openhearted or honest your dissents, they are going to the hell. May I ask you who gave you this power to judge people and call them sin-makers? While you are doing this, you make your own sins.
The road of searching for god is long and tough, and to different people, It has got different meanings. But remember. As long as you have love in your heart, you can find him someday in the future.

Taoism has the King of Heaven to whom most Chinese will pray to.
Just FYI,Taoism has evolved from monolatry into polytheism in the past few decades.To different denominations there are different theogonies,namely there's no such a thing called "unified Taoist theogony".The king of Heaven you talked about,in my opinion,is 玉皇大帝.But to be honest,he is not the imperator.The real imperatorS should be 三清四帝,all 7 gods.
Most Chinese people don't have a specific religion.Maybe after the Cultural Revolution,most of them were forced to give up their faith,considering religion was equal to superstition and counterrevolution at that time(but now The Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom has created an atmosphere where religion can flourish ).People who believe in Buddhism in China definitely outnumber those who believe in Taoism.And there are bunch of believers who fancy Abrahamic religions.Well,at least 2 of them——Islamism and Christianism.But still,most Chinese people are atheists,their ID card can tell you that.

Humm,about this I strongly agree with you!
I think the essence of religions should be love,not hatred.I'm just trying to explain that the absence of religions really harms our nation.Some of us don't believe in karma or the Judgemental day,so they dare to do something very cruel and irrational without hesitation.

OZ - man


HyunSmith in reply to OZ - man

So basically you're bigoted against Muslims,
I swear liberal Westerners are the most closed minded/ignorant bigots in the world.
No wonder the middle east and China despise your hypocrisy
I would suggest you get used to it, because despite the West efforts to try to dominate and force cultural change/genocide on the world of Islam and China it has not worked, and eventually China and the Muslim world will eclipse your culture and consider your values backward and barbaric.

OZ - man in reply to HyunSmith

All religious fanatics are bigots. Im an atheist who couldn't care less about imaginary beings and afterlife. However, I do appreciate that people are believers. Yes. I'm bigoted onto those are bigots themselves. No hypocrisy there. Note: I did say fundamentalists and not Islam itself. I have friends from all religious backgrounds including muslims, but they are however tolerant believers. Take a rest and leave your polemic 'in the closet'.

king of bats in reply to happyfish18

Including economic inequality and social injustice as stated in the Book of Ezekiel.

And yet, I've never seen a protest sign on Wall Street saying God Hates Billionaires (as Jesus himself said according to the book of Matthew).

Why don't fundies ever talk about the sins of greed and materialism?

salt_light in reply to greatmongo

Read Genesis chapter 19 in the Bible, it says - It is very clearly written that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality, which is sin, it is as bad as worshiping other gods, worshiping other gods does not only means worshiping gods other than the GOD who created the heavens & the earth but worship of self,& our own fleshly desire etc. outside of GOD's purview. GOD does not hate homosexuals but loves them as much as HE Loves each one of us that HE sent HIS only son whom we call Jesus Christ to die on the cross for me\you\homosexuals, that we may be saved. but GOD certainly hates the character\act of homosexuality as much as HE hates murder\killing or lie etc, HE is always waiting with arms open wide to welcome us, only if we turn back from the wrongs we do. also we humans are no one to judge but practice mercy, tolerance, forgiveness, patience and love, judgment belong to GOD,but because HE is just, and is very patient with the mankind because HE does not want that any of us should perish,for there is going to be a judgment, and this same Jesus whom people crucified, but who is alive will be seated on the judgment seat to judge..so lets collect ourselves & also help others, that none of us perish for eternity..

Gen 19:1 - The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.Gen19:2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." Gen 19:3-But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.Gen 19:4-Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.Gen 19:5-They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."Gen 19:6-Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him.Gen 19:7-and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.Gen 19:8-Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."Gen 19:9-"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.Gen 19:10-But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.Gen 19:11-Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.Gen 19:12-The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,Gen 19:13-because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."Gen 19:14-So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
Gen19:15-With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."Gen19:16-When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.Gen 19:17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"Gen 19:24-Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of heaven. Gen 19:27-Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD.Gen 19:28-He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.Gen9:25-Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.

Molewood6 in reply to OZ - man

OK, but the Prophet moved from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD, so you could say Christians have 622 years' start on Moslems. The current Islamic year is 1433 AH. If we say e.g. the Reformation started with Martin Luther and his 95 Theses in 1517, we could say Islam still has 74 years to go. If we look at the Age of Enlightenment and the publication of Diderot's Encyclopédie, which was launched in 1751, Islam has some 318 years to go. Obviously this is no excuse for Moslems to drag their feet; rather they should learn from our (Westerners') experience and not waste hundreds of years inventing the wheel a second time.

Bri_M in reply to king of bats

"Why don't fundies ever talk about the sins of greed and materialism?"

They're too busy trying to decide whether to vote for the moral crusader in his third marriage (Gingrinch, adultery) or for the moral "pro-life" crusader who wants to outlaw contraception but who also promises to bring war and death to Iran if it doesn't fall into line (Santorum).

Because nothing says "morality" like killing people.


Westerners want people to believe idealistically that homosexuality is not a choice, while the middle east realist openly practices it and acknowledges it is a choice.

Middle Easterners who have had sex with other men that are happily married, find it odd that the west believes human sexuality is unchanging and set in stone.

Sexuality like many things in life can not be idealistically/religious set in stone for Every Single person, not everyone is the same, stereotyping and predeterminig this for people reeks of medieval mysticism and irrational-ism.

Has the West progressed so far in its Idealism that it has finally abandoned its reason from the age of Enlightenment and can only now see what it wants to believe?

Surely the state of reason is in a state of decline in the west and a society that will soon follow.

greatmongo in reply to HyunSmith

Decline of the West?






greatmongo in reply to happyfish18

Keep listening to what the catholic church tells you...

After all it worked out so well for Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium.....

The rich stay rich, powerful stay powerful.

Look UK lost almost all the colonies and still it is much richer than almost any place on earth.

Why should the muslim countries get rich? Just because the west is weak? Nope... you get rich because you work hard, educated yourself and save!!

And only in Turkey you can see this type of thinking!

rubber duck in reply to greatmongo


But they have children which the European and WASP Americans don't have. Both will be outbred in a few decades. As a bizarre twist of reason, they even cheer and promote their own demise with the cult of homosexuality (among else).

greatmongo in reply to rubber duck

Not necessarily...

Europe does not need uneducated emigrants for simple manual jobs. We did in the 70s, not more...

Please remember that with the technological advancement people themselves matter less and less.

Want an example?

Israel! IDF is beating you for over 60 years despite being outnumbered around 1:100 if you count all neighboring countries.

I think Europe will do well without massive emigration.

That being said I really hope that with the new revolutions the muslim countries will change for the better. Definitely the potential is there and the likes of Tunesia, Libya, Lebanon or Syria have long standing connections with Europe and should continue to strengthen them.

rubber duck in reply to greatmongo

IDF is beating "us"? Who? I'm European, buddy. Sorry to disappoint.
The demographic challenges Europe and "white" America is facing are too obvious to deny, aren't they?
To this end, you couldn't come up with a worse example. Israel already has a very acute manpower issue (they always had) and soon the Israeli Arab population will reach a momentum forcing Israel to choose between remaining a democracy, where the majority of voters are Muslim Arabs, or become a theocratic Jews-only state.
Fact is, a human society can work perfectly well without human and civil rights, but can't exist without procreating itself. Now, we have all kinds of rights in the West but the future generations are being raised elsewhere.
It would be foolish to blame the cult of homosexuality for this, but it would be equally foolish to deny it's part of our problems in Europe. When all the gay people, so self-confident and self-righteous now, will be kicked around in their old age by a youth of Middle-Eastern origin who don't give a damn about gay rights, they will understand.

HyunSmith in reply to greatmongo

Islam as a cultural force in the world is on the rise and has been for while, it is the fastest growing religion and is coninuously expanding in Europe and the US and its influence spreads exponentially, though it might not be agreeable to you it is a fact.

There will inevitably be a larger clash of cilizations, the west has tried to slow this down by trying to spread its values, but ultimately even in the Arab spring we see the muslim world adopting its own ways and rejecting those of the west as we also see in China.

As much as you would like the world and history not to change, I can assure you the only thing constant is change, and now at this moment in history the West and its liberalism are in decline while the middle easts values and Chinese values are on the rise.

As a westerner this saddens me, but I am a realist unlike many of my fellow westerners who are Idealist and are blind to the realities of the world and how to or willing to adapt, because of this close mindedness, I know the world I grew up in will no longer be in another 20-30 years.

HyunSmith in reply to HyunSmith

Yes muslims are outbreeding westerners
Yes China, Korea, Japan are out innovating westerners

Thus we see two seperate paths of two rising civilizations that are outrunning the West.

In the Western tradition I find it unreasonable that ones freedoms, prefrences should be limited wether that is sexual, economic or social. But in the grand scheme of things Nature and history ultimately chooses the practical. It is good to be Idealistic (as it can spawn innovation), but doing so at the cost of praticality breeds decline and deteoration.

Culture is technology and cultures that developed monogamous longterm familial bonds that encouraged development and high investment in children won out over polygamous societies, the West social liberalism has created a framework and perfect storm of conditions where the potential for High investment and development of the next generation is difficult, really when the west cannot produce a generation of children that cannot take care of themselves (helicopter parents, nest children), incapable of filling the skilled jobs required to grow the economy, and fail at learning (highest HS dropout rate,lowest rate of STEM graduates, lowest scores on standardized test) then we know that liberal idealism has finally won out over practicality.

This then spells out the doom of our obsolete culture (techonology)

HyunSmith in reply to HyunSmith

Interesting that the reaction of gay supporters to a reasonable discussion/dialectic on the rise of other cultures in the context of homosexuality is insults, ridicule and xenophobia

If there is one thing that is constant, its human nature and our intrinsic prejudices to other ideas and thoughts.

greatmongo in reply to HyunSmith

"Yes muslims are outbreeding westerners
Yes China, Korea, Japan are out innovating westerners"

I am hearing about Japan passing USA on per capita base from 1980.... NEVER happened.

Name one company that became big in Japan in last 10 years!! All of them are weird giants with links to the state. Same in China..


The fastest growing religion in the West is Mormonism....

But what matters is not the speed is the quality. Show me the converts out of middle class, out of college professors...it is almost zero... the growth is purely through emigration.


I live in China and what I see is everybody adopting western values. People dress, think, educate and date in a western way. The approach to sex in the developed part of China is practically identical with the West.

What is a difference today between a young girl from Shanghai and New York?

I see none...

greatmongo in reply to rubber duck

1. sheer numbers are not everything.

I know well the situation of Turks in Germany. And despite lots of prejudice many young Turks feel German.

And among the 20-30 years old really Islam is not much more important than Catholicism and Protestantism for their whiter compatriots.

So I would say that the adaptation is going very well and very fast.

Please bear in mind that there were no terrorist attacks in Germany or France despite 10% of the population being muslim.

2. You have some good points on Israel. Definitely the state must also welcome Israeli Arabs and make them feel like they are better of in Israel than anywhere else. The truth is that as far as the economy and level of living is concerned Israel beats any other country in the region.

Also remember that many very religious jewish communities also have extremely high birth rates.

3. I doubt gay people have any influence on the demographic. There are still plenty unwanted children, not everyone has to give birth. They might also adopt...

To sum up I think in the next 30 years we will see a gradual absorption of the muslims into broader European societies. At the same time some of the muslim countries (Turkey, Tunesia, Lebanon, Libya) will become much pro western.

Please remember that religion grows best among the poor. Freed from autocratic and cleptocratic regimes Arabs will get richer and will get less religious.

happyfish18 in reply to greatmongo

As prophesied in the Bible, God will finally be so angry with the West infractions and will therefore destroy them for their conceits and arrogance that they do not need God or Religion.
Will it be the Clash of Civilisations started by the Western avarice or Natural Catastrophes in the West?
Nobody can know what God has in his mind but the year Nostradamus predicted is 2012.

greatmongo in reply to happyfish18

If you look at the world the west is pretty much free from all the natural catastrophes... they mostly happen in Africa and Asia...

I still put my bet on the west surviving and you can do what you wish...

happyfish18 in reply to greatmongo

Never say never. The US economists will tell you that Financial tsunami always happen in Asia, never in the West but now the biggest has happened...Where?
Beside that,
s) the Biggest super volcano is in the US.
b) The most active fault-line is in the US.
c) The Comet can fall from the sky - the biggest near Mexico
God work in a mysterious way. Of course with our Blessed mother's intercession, the West can be spared from God's anger. As they fall into sins, our Blessed Mother will help them to quickly return to God.


I find it interesting that the two rising cultural/civilization superpowers (Islam/China)

Have adopted some western institutions (limited democracy, capitalism), but have ultimately rejected the liberal/idealist/progressive culture of the west.

It was always hubristic to think that western liberal/idealist values are universal, ultimately with the decline of the West and the rise of Islam and China, these liberal idealistic values will be exposed for what they are, irrational, unpractical.

dmitry888 in reply to HyunSmith

Liberal ideas are product of progress made by people and society as a whole, and as everything else it will be copycatted in China and Arab world is on it's way already,

Is some way Liberalism is some sort of semi-religion like Confucianism, and people practicing liberty, peace, cooperation, kindliness etc, in my view are closer to God than some hatred bigoted practitioners who justify violence just because there is a clause in a Book while totally violating core Teaching

greatmongo in reply to HyunSmith

I live in China and it is extremely diverse...

If you look at Beijing or Shanghai you can see plenty of people thinking and acting like westerners. Watch the same shows, dress the same, go vacation in the same places....

The more west you go in China the more underdeveloped and backward it is...

At the end western ideas of cooperation, rule of law and free enterprise will win because they are superior...

Just look at Dubai which wanted to be like New York. You simply can not have creativity without freedom and rule of law...


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The Economist on China: Weekly round-up
Analects 1 hrs 21 mins ago
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43


Products & events