Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 329

Thread: New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam

  1. #261
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Three questions:

    (1) Is there anything inherently wrong with a man taking 5 wives?

    There is nothing inherently wrong with a man taking multiple wives. There's no denying that men are designed to take up more than one lifelong companion. In Islam one is allowed to take up to four wives provided he can take care of all them and communicates with, loves, and provides for them equally. The point is most men aren't up for the job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    (2) Is there anything inherently wrong with polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands)?

    In case of polyandry it is the nature of the woman that is against her. A woman who commits polyandry is usually looked down upon in society. Most women do not want to have multiple husbands.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I hypothesize that social acceptance of polygamy leads to increased misogyny and ultimately reduced legal equality for women. Whether that is wrong is a matter of personal opinion. But, that's viewing things at the social level in particular societies. There may not be anything wrong at all with polygamy/polyandry/swinging etc... if that's what people want to do. So, I wonder: Why did the Chinese ban polygamy? If there's nothing inherently wrong? Why ban it? I suppose Chinese probably noticed that (at the time) polygamy went hand-in-hand with misogyny and it's probably why they made it illegal - following the introduction of Communistic philosophy to the Chinese people. However, who knows, in a Communistic Chinese Utopia polygamy and polyandry may be perfectly normal and in no way lead to a generalized misogynistic behavior It's ideas like this that tell us that the notion of a Penultimate Perfect Ideology is not only very shortsighted but is misleading. Acting in a certain way in one society may not be the same as acting in the same manner in another. Societies change along with people's attitude.
    You hypothesize wrong social acceptance of polygamy does not lead to mysogyny and reduced legal equality, violation of women's rights does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    But, yes, sure, in a free society adults should be able to choose the relationships they engage in.

    So what's the problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    (3) Is there anything inherently wrong with homosexulaity?

    There is something inherently wrong with homosexuality men and women are not designed to be same sex sexual partners and they are also not reciprocal partners in a same sex relationship.
    Last edited by Big Chiller; 07-28-10 at 06:11 PM.

  2. #262
    Encephaloid Martini (Q)'s Avatar
    Posts
    19,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    In Islam one is allowed to take up to four wives
    That's why Islam is for misogynists and not for men with morals.

    A woman who commits polyandry is usually looked down upon in society. Most women do not want to have multiple husbands.
    More misogynist hate-filled garbage.

    So what's the problem?
    You just outlined the problem. Islam and the misogynist mindset.

    There is something inherently wrong with homosexuality men and women are not designed to be same sex sexual partners and they are also not reciprocal partners in a same sex relationship.
    And, yet we find that homosexual relationships are ones where the participants love and respect one another, while the Islamic misogynist beats the hell of his wives and treats them like cattle.

  3. #263
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    There is something inherently wrong with homosexuality men and women are not designed to be same sex sexual partners....
    What's wrong about it?

  4. #264
    Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Ja'far at-Tahir's Avatar
    Posts
    612
    I'll adress other posts later, I just wanted to comment on this for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q) View Post
    That's why Islam is for misogynists and not for men with morals.
    This is pure bullshit and you can sit here and use the same terms as the others but really, you haven't offered one single argument against anything so really you're just riding their coat tails and I am also willing to bet you couldn't even debate this topic, at all. In other words, shut up, adults are talking.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man having four wives. Should adults not "be able to choose the relationships they engage in," in a "free society"? Wouldn't this include polygamy? There is nothing inherently misogynistic about the practice of polygyny despite how it may be incorrectly practiced by the Mormons in America. Does a man have a limit on how much he can love? Does a women? If 5 consenting adults agree to enter in such an arangement, what is misogynistic about this? I would like for all those whom are against this practice to fully demonstrate the inherent misogyny that allegedly exists in the practice of polygamy. I also do not want arguments from abstractions. "It's um misogynistic and can't be done under um in um free societies." That's not a valid argument.

    More misogynist hate-filled garbage.
    He may be wrong but I wouldn't classify it as "misogynist hate-filled garbage."

    You just outlined the problem. Islam and the misogynist mindset.
    No, he didn't. Not at all. It's a valid argument, if in a "free," society adults can engage in whatever relationships they so choose (which apparently both you and Michael agree on this) then why can't they engage in a polygamous relationship? If in a "free," society (whatever that means) people can engage in whatever form of relationship either sexual, emotional or both, then polygamy should be allowed as it is a relationship that consenting adults can and do consciously enter. There is nothing inherently misogynistic about it.

    And, yet we find that homosexual relationships are ones where the participants love and respect one another, while the Islamic misogynist beats the hell of his wives and treats them like cattle.
    So, domestic abuse doesn't exist within the homosexual community? They live in bliss-filled paradise unlike the rest of the world? No, domestic violence exists everywhere among all groups and among all nations to deny this is not only naive but willfully stupid. Domestic abuse exists everywhere I could just as easily say "while the Atheist misogynist beat the hell out of his one wife." Trying to make an argument around a popular Western stereotype seems pretty bigoted to me, way to be hypocritical, good job. Don't worry, maybe you'll luck out and someone will argue for you.
    Last edited by Ja'far at-Tahir; 07-28-10 at 02:36 PM.

  5. #265
    Encephaloid Martini (Q)'s Avatar
    Posts
    19,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Ja'far at-Tahir View Post
    In other words, shut up, adults are talking.
    Ah, poor baby, just can't deal with your psychotic religions garbage and you have to tell others to shut up to soothe your misogynist ego. LOL!

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man having four wives. Should adults not "be able to choose the relationships they engage in," in a "free society"?
    There's no freedoms in an Islamic society, pal. You should know that.

    Wouldn't this include polygamy? There is nothing inherently misogynistic about the practice of polygyny despite how it may be incorrectly practiced by the Mormons in America. Does a man have a limit on how much he can love? Does a women? If 5 consenting adults agree to enter in such an arangement, what is misogynistic about this? I would like for all those whom are against this practice to fully demonstrate the inherent misogyny that allegedly exists in the practice of polygamy. I also do not want arguments from abstractions. "It's um misogynistic and can't be done under um in um free societies." That's not a valid argument.
    It's always great entertainment to see the Islamic mindset at work trying to justify their barbarism. LOL!

    He may be wrong but I wouldn't classify it as "misogynist hate-filled garbage."
    Of course, YOU wouldn't.

    If in a "free," society (whatever that means) people can engage in whatever form of relationship either sexual, emotional or both, then polygamy should be allowed as it is a relationship that consenting adults can and do consciously enter. There is nothing inherently misogynistic about it.
    Except this comment of course made by your brethren misogynist: "A woman who commits polyandry is usually looked down upon in society"

    So, domestic abuse doesn't exist within the homosexual community? They live in bliss-filled paradise unlike the rest of the world? No, domestic violence exists everywhere among all groups and among all nations to deny this is not only naive but willfully stupid.
    Hilarious. No one said anything about domestic violence. I'm talking about the misogynist mindset of Muslims and how their wives are treated according to your psychotic religions dogma. Perhaps, it's "willfully stupid" of you to change the subject to domestic violence?

  6. #266
    Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Ja'far at-Tahir's Avatar
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q) View Post
    Ah, poor baby, just can't deal with your psychotic religions garbage and you have to tell others to shut up to soothe your misogynist ego. LOL!
    Number one, I don't have to tell anyone to shut up nor do I think by doing so it would make you do so, despite my wishes but ultimately, I don't care whether or not you talk however you're not bringing anything to the table. I also, would like for you to prove to me how I'm the least bit misogynistic. Explain this to me. Put down this pretentious Western bravado bullshit you have going and explain to me how me or my views are misogynistic. Until you do this, you're just throwing out words of which I don't think you even fully understand.

    There's no freedoms in an Islamic society, pal. You should know that.
    I have yet to be proven wrong by anyone thus I would say that's debatable.

    It's always great entertainment to see the Islamic mindset at work trying to justify their barbarism. LOL!
    How about you prove to me that polygamy is barbaric or misogynistic? Until you do, you have no argument and are just spouting off unsubstantiated bullshit. It's easy for you to make up shit but how about you prove it.

    Except this comment of course made by your brethren misogynist: "A woman who commits polyandry is usually looked down upon in society"
    That has nothing to do with polygyny nor polygamy, in general. It only has to do with polyandry of which isn't being discussed. You're claiming that polygamy is inherently a misogynistic practice this would imply that you are talking about specifically polygyny. It's up to you to prove just how is polygamy/polygyny inherently misogynistic. Using this quote isn't a valid argument nor do I necessarily agree with the quote.

    Hilarious. No one said anything about domestic violence.
    Really? According to this quote, by you, you are talking about domestic violence.

    while the Islamic misogynist beats the hell of his wives and treats them like cattle.
    I'm talking about the misogynist mindset of Muslims and how their wives are treated according to your psychotic religions dogma.
    Monogamy is actually the standard in Islam however polygamy is also recognized as a form of relationship that Muslim consenting adults can enter. Also, find it odd and funny how you, a Western non-Muslim male, can comment with apparent authority on how Muslim men treat Musilmas. Until you can prove your claims and back your shit up, you're just spouting off hate and ignorance though I'm not really that surprised.

    Perhaps, it's "willfully stupid" of you to change the subject to domestic violence?
    I didn't change the subject.

    It appears to me that this is just another case of White men trying to save those poor oppressed brown girls from us barbaric, savage brown men.
    Last edited by Ja'far at-Tahir; 07-28-10 at 05:50 PM.

  7. #267
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    What's wrong about it?

    You read the post right...?

  8. #268
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,429
    Yeah. What's wrong with it?

  9. #269
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    I've already said what's wrong with it in the post if you want to ignore that I can't help you.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    There is nothing inherently wrong with a man taking multiple wives. There's no denying that men are normally designed to take up more than one lifelong companion. In Islam one is allowed to take up to four wives provided he can take care of all them and communicates with, loves, and provides for them equally. The point is most men aren't up for the job.
    OK, but you didn't answer my question which was: Is there anything immoral with men taking 5 wives (we'll say the ones who are "up to the job"?


    In case of polyandry it is the nature of the woman that is against her. A woman who commits polyandry is usually looked down upon in society. Most women do not want to have multiple husbands.
    Polyandry is the nature of some women. Polyandry is perfectly normal in some societies.
    You didn't answer my question, again. Is there anything immoral with women taking multiple husbands?

    You hypothesize wrong social acceptance of polygamy does not lead to mysogyny and reduced legal equality, violation of women's rights does.
    I think the correlation is strong. So did the Chinese.

    The fact is Islamic societies are still, after 1500 years Islam, some of the most misogynistic and have some of the worlds worst record on female legal equality in the entire world. You do know from Japan and China to Brazile and Canada everyone in the world thinks of Islam as misogynistic and horrid on female human rights? That's a simple fact. Now, get this, the Chinese had Communism (a very flawed and far from perfect ideology) for only a matter of 10 tiny little years. Only 1 decade. Yet, Chinese Communist females acheived more legal equality in a few years than Muslims females did over the course in 1500 years!! What does that say about female legal equality in Islam? I'd say it surely wasn't a priority.

    How would you explain the rapid success of Communism compared with the pitiful progress (hell more like regression) of female legal equality under "Islam"?
    (note: please don't say something like: It's all the USA's fault, of the CIA did it.... OK?)


    There is something inherently wrong with homosexuality men and women are not designed to be same sex sexual partners and they are also not reciprocal partners in a same sex relationship.
    Actually the scientific evidence suggests this is not the case. Homosexual men are born with female anatomical brains. The same is true of homosexual females, they have a male anatomical brain. This can be objectively measured using an fMRI. There is no room for human error. A machine can actually make the measurement. Not only that, but its very easy to change rat sexual behavior and sexual preference - rat sexual identity can be easily reversed chemically in male and female rats after birth. Those findings are published and have been repeated many times. There is no scientific controversy.

    Human sexual preference is determined before birth.


    So, now that we know there is a scientific and physical bases for homosexual behavior and their brains are indeed designed to be same sex sexual partners - do you still think it is immoral.
    If so, can you explain why you think homosexuality is immoral?



    (It should be noted that SAM is a Muslim and she says homosexuality is Islamic)
    Last edited by Michael; 07-28-10 at 06:48 PM.

  11. #271
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    I've already said what's wrong with it in the post if you want to ignore that I can't help you.
    "Not designed"? What does that mean?

  12. #272
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Actually the scientific evidence suggests this is not the case. Homosexual men are born with female anatomical brains. The same is true of homosexual females, they have a male anatomical brain. This can be objectively measured using an fMRI. There is no room for human error. A machine can actually make the measurement. Not only that, but its very easy to change rat sexual behavior and sexual preference - rat sexual identity can be easily reversed chemically in male and female rats after birth. Those findings are published and have been repeated many times. There is no scientific controversy.

    Human sexual preference is determined before birth.


    So, now that we know there is a scientific and physical bases for homosexual behavior and their brains are indeed designed to be same sex sexual partners - do you still think it is immoral.
    If so, can you explain why you think homosexuality is immoral?



    (It should be noted that SAM is a Muslim and she says homosexuality is Islamic)

    Where is the physical basis for homosexuality the human body is either one gender or another.


    SAM said she is an unorthodox muslim which is not a bad thing at least she said she is muslim, she probably doesn't knowingly do things contrary to Islam.
    Last edited by Big Chiller; 07-28-10 at 07:33 PM.

  13. #273
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,429
    Actually, even gender is a spectrum of traits, both physical and psychological. Homosexuality is the result of a genetic trait that in most cases causes increased heterosexual motivations. That is why it survives in the gene pool. Therefore, since it's genetic, it must be from God (assuming you believe in creationism).

  14. #274
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Actually, even gender is a spectrum of traits, both physical and psychological. Homosexuality is the result of a genetic trait that in most cases causes increased heterosexual motivations. That is why it survives in the gene pool. Therefore, since it's genetic, it must be from God (assuming you believe in creationism).

    Which obviously doesn't change the fact that human bodies are one gender or another, come on.

  15. #275
    Big Chiller,

    Firstly, please answer the questions I posted. They are specific and only ask for your opinion (that is, I'm not asking you to do research but just what you think and why you think it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    Where is the physical basis for homosexuality
    The brain of course.

    the human body is either one gender or another.
    Actually no, it's not.

    There are:
    - Genetic Sex
    - Phenotypic Sex
    - Brain Sex

    Humans can have a genetic sex of XY (male), look like a female physically (phenotype) and have a sexual orientation to a man, a woman, or both or neither.

  16. #276
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Big Chiller,

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    Where is the physical basis for homosexuality

    The brain of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    the human body is either one gender or another.

    Actually no, it's not.

    There are:
    - Genetic Sex
    - Phenotypic Sex
    - Brain Sex

    Humans can have a genetic sex of XY (male), look like a female physically (phenotype) and have a sexual orientation to a man, a woman, or both or neither.

    A human with a genetic sex of XY (male), is supposed to have male sex organs and one with a genetic sex of XX (female) is supposed to have female sex organs so what you've said hasn't made sense.
    Last edited by Big Chiller; 07-28-10 at 07:40 PM.

  17. #277
    Registered Senior Member Big Chiller's Avatar
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    OK, but you didn't answer my question which was: Is there anything immoral with men taking 5 wives (we'll say the ones who are "up to the job"?

    No. Though how many women can a man manage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Polyandry is the nature of some women. Polyandry is perfectly normal in some societies.
    You didn't answer my question, again. Is there anything immoral with women taking multiple husbands?

    I don't know if polyandry is immoral, but I do know it's odd to the nature of the woman and most women don't want to commit polyandry.

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    A human with a genetic sex of XY (male), is supposed to have male sex organs and one with a genetic sex of XX (female) is supposed to have female sex organs so what you've said hasn't made sense.
    I don't know if I'd say "supposed to have" but yes, normally that is the case. However, that's not always the case. Sometimes people are born XY and are female physically. Even they wouldn't know they are XY and would assume they were XX.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Chiller View Post
    No. Though how many women can a man manage.
    Is it moral for some men to have 4 wives?

    I don't know if polyandry is immoral, but I do know it's odd to the nature of the woman and most women don't want to commit polyandry.
    Most women (including Muslim women) do NOT want a man to have other wives. Yet, you just said it was moral to do so.

    Why do you think it's moral for a man to have multiple wives but are not sure if a woman can have multiple husbands?
    Last edited by Michael; 07-28-10 at 08:34 PM.

  20. #280
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,429
    That's another thing, why doesn't the Bible ever mention hermaphrodites? Isn't that proof of the imperfection of our creator?

Similar Threads

  1. By superrubbish in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 09-20-09, 09:10 AM
    Replies: 39
  2. By Atom in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 11-20-07, 07:05 PM
    Replies: 171
  3. By S.A.M. in forum About the Members
    Last Post: 09-26-07, 04:43 AM
    Replies: 106
  4. By spidergoat in forum Chemistry
    Last Post: 09-11-07, 04:12 PM
    Replies: 8
  5. By WildBlueYonder in forum History
    Last Post: 11-26-06, 09:14 PM
    Replies: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •