Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Pat Condell: Hello Saudi Arabia

56 comments:

max said...

I'm not sure why you continue to post this guy on your site. He's hateful and hates everyone, muslims and christians alike. He just looks angry all the time. Maybe he needs a hug?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Maax.

Have you ever heard the expression, "dont throw out the baby with the bath water"?

I bet it would be hard to find anyone that agrees with everything you think and say. That doesnt mean that a lot of what you have to say does not have value. If we only listened to or communicated with people that agreed with everything we thought then we would not or could not learn from others. And what he Pat has to say about a lot of issues are spot on. So take what you agree with and disagree with what you dont. But dont be like the Muslims and not listen because he doesnt agree with you 100%

Assyria_Lost said...

I would agree with pretty much all his comments except for the part where he’s actually encouraging homosexually.

Traeh said...

Some great lines in that video. And the guy has incredible guts. I don't agree with everything he says, but in his videos he often manages with wonderful turns of phrase to tell Islam exactly what's wrong with it. Very unusual courage. Isn't he in the U.K.? That's not an easy place to tell the truth about Islam. In fact, I wonder why he hasn't been arrested by the PC police or killed by a supremacist Muslim.

cornholio said...

I notice he had to throw out a gratuitous insult to Christians, probably in the delusional desire to be even-handed.

Once islamonazis take over his pitiful, amoral island, him and the rest of the atheists will be crying for the days when they thought Christianity was the problem, because mercy to unbelievers, even atheists, isn't part of the islamic faith.

dstewart said...

Search 4 Truth

That's just it. The question is whether it even has any value being simply an angry diatribe by a guy who probably hates the core beliefs of who actually posted it here. There's not really much reason in what he says either, and shows EXTREME prejudice when he suggests that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, why? Because there can't be anything wrong with the GREEKS?!? Sure, they have a great legacy, but they were also masters of genocide, racism, slavery, much of what is detestable about Muhammad's teachings. I suppose there's nothing wrong with religion because the Greeks were religious too, right? Not according to this guy... Having said that though, if something he says resonates, then you have a right to post it... But for the same reason max said, I just don't think he really resonates with your average Christian. I do think there's value though in showing a non-Christian perspective.

Anyway, that's my honest opinion.

dstewart said...

By the way, my comment about the Greeks was not meant to address the homosexuality issue, but to say that it seems kind of fishy to me that he appears to be using ancient Greek culture as the rule by which he judges ancient Arab culture, Islam.

apran said...

Seems like a lot of people are losing their objectivities when they are criticizing something they don't like. Islam is ugly, bad and evil, no doubt about it. And Saudi Arabia is indeed a bad and evil country, but I doubt if it can be called as the capital of gays, and every male there has engaged in homosexuality.

I agree, Pat Condell also is encouraging homosexualism. And I think, homosexualism is wrong.

crujjy said...

You keep posting bigoted atheists on this site. I think he's got a couple of valid points, but maybe it would be better to just learn things from him and post them here? Militant atheists drive away Christians and Muslims won't listen to someone who angrily insults them with every word, especially when its a really infamous one.

Foolster41 said...

The thing is, while Condell is one of the "all religion is bad" mailitant athiests, he at least actknowledges that islam is the worst, and doesn't try to equate the horribleness in Islam with Christianity (which is completely dishonest). While I disagree wiht manyof the things he says (mostly not contained in the videos posted here), this makes Pat Condell, FAR AND AWAY better than many of the athiest spokes people out there such as Dawkins, Pen & Teller, etc.

cornholio said...

I agree w/Foolster41, the dishonest, cowardly atheists like Penn & Teller are much worse because their criticism of Christianity and Judaism is a poor joke in comparison to the atrocities committed and being committed in the name of Islam.

I found his assertion that Soddy Barbaria is the gay capital of the world to be laughable. Like Riyadh is anything like gay Paree.

gabriella oak said...

I like Pat Condell, he has a wonderful turn of phrase. I think some of the commentators here have slightly misunderstood the context of what he is saying regarding homosexuality in Saudi Arabi.

I think it is well known that homosexual practices are rife in the Kingdom due to the lack of access to women. In fact, there is almost certainly a tacit acceptance in some quarters. In the same way that there is a tacit acceptance that rich or middle class Saudi men can rape their foreign maids. He is simply pointing out the hypocricy of these men who condemn and seek to punish homosexuals whilst indulging in homosexual acts themselves.

We have a form of homosexual marriage in the UK called a 'civil union' and whilst many Christians may disagree with it, one can hardly expect an athiest like Pat Condell to consider homosexuality a sin. He is not 'encouraging' homosexuality - he merely accepts it.

In any case, I agree with Traeh. PC is indeed a very brave man who speaks out according to his personal beliefs, and more importantly, believes that right sould be extended to everybody. That's what matters, imo.

cornholio said...

@Gabriella

I disagree, Pat, like most brain-dead atheists regularly tries to paint all "Abrahamic" faiths as being as bad as Islam (an argument of false equivalence, particularly NOW, in the 21st century). Just because some narcissistic, psychopathic pedophile, slave owner and mass murdered tried to co-opt Judaism and Christianity by calling his "faith" Abrahamic doesn't make it so.

Search 4 Truth said...

While I agree appealing to the Greeks as a final authority is preposterous. But that just proves my point. I dont agee with everything he says. I dont agree with homosexuality. But I dont hate homosexuals nor do I wish them any harm. Where he is pointing out that they KILL them for being homosexual.

I think many of you are missing the point. Our civilized societies allow us to condemn and criticize behavior and even speech. But not criminalize it.

And there in lies the difference.

And if you did a little research about the S.A. culture you will find that men hold hands and walk in public and homosexuality and especially man, boy child molestation is rampant. Because they have NO access to women. Also incest is particularly high. Any sociologist will tell you this is the result of Islamic culture where women are kept as property and jailed in their homes and no permitted to leave without a male relative!

Islam is the most backward fascist, bigoted misogynistic ideology on the planet. And I despise it with all of my being. It is of Satan himself!

max said...

Have you ever heard the expression, "dont throw out the baby with the bath water"?
Search4truth? I can see your still searching by defending this guy...
I really can't take anyone serious who thinks it just okay to be homosexual. It's bad enough he's got the weird accent, but to say the greeks were alright for having sex with other men is sinful and against everything my God teaches. Everything he say's is hateful and he really needs to take a look at his life and stop pointing his finger at everyone else.

Assyria_Lost said...

"We have a form of homosexual marriage in the UK called a 'civil union' and whilst many Christians may disagree with it, one can hardly expect an athiest like Pat Condell to consider homosexuality a sin. He is not 'encouraging' homosexuality - he merely accepts It."

Apparently they don't seem content with with Civil union partnership any more and are now pressuring the government to impose gay Holy matrimony to be conducted in Church. This is where I draw the line.

Cranky White Woman said...

I like Pat Condel...he supports Israe's right to exist. He doesn't hate Judaism or Christianity -- just doesn't believe in God -- but he hates Islam. I hope and pray Pat will one day come to know Jesus Christ as his lord and Saviour.

dstewart said...

Search4truth,

You miss MY point. Our "civilized societies" are influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics, the source of which Pat Condell hates. I was pointing out that his worldview is bankrupt to make moral judgements shown by his apparent need to judge the product of the ancient Arab civilation, Islam, by a supposed superior civilization, the ancient Greeks, as a rule, even though the Greeks oppressed women and limited "access to them" (whatever that means), had no rights for slaves, practiced pederasty with boys, etc. And what on earth are you talking about this stuff being caused by no access to women?!? Are you a Christian (I thought you were), and yet God expects us to be able to control ourselves until marriage... So the reason they molest boys is because they can't molest girls? I think it's more complicated than that...

gabriella oak said...

@ Cornholio

I post regularly on a 'general' public website where religion is regularly brought up as a topic - mainly by atheists who like to mock - so I understand your frustration. It drives me mad when some ignoramus chants ( and they always do, lol ), " All the Abrahamic faiths are as bad as each other "
I myself am agnostic but I don't let such nonsense go by. However, Muslims themseves describe their faith as Abrahamic, so I'm not sure you can expect atheists or people from a non-Abrahamic faith not to.
I know Pat Condell has made some rather sweeping and unfair generalisations about Christianity, but the last couple of years he has concentrated his not inconsiderable efforts on exposing Islam. I don't think he believes for one moment that all the Abrahamic faiths are the same. He knows what Islam is, and he is brave enough to say so.


@Assyria_Lost,

Not quite.
There is a movement to have civil unions put on the same legal footing as traditional marriage. This would also enable gay couples to have a full marriage ceremony in a church if the vicar is willing. No-one in a church/temple/mosque will be under any obligation to perform a marriage service for a homosexual couple.

Admittedly, if this legislation goes through, then I have no doubt whatsoever that the more militant gay groups will almost immediately call for 'more'. However, I truly believe the vast majority of people in the UK will reply 'enough'.

Search 4 Truth said...

LOL! WOW Max.

The weird accent? Did you ever consider maybe you have the weird accent? At least you would to many of the Christians who post on this blog. Your the authority on what is the proper accent and what is weird? LOL!

He has the right to his opinion. Maybe he does think homosexuality is ok. Thats his right. And if he heard you speak he would think you sound weird. I cant believe I am responding to such ridiculous assertions and prejudice. You are not going to find many people who are on the same side of every issue as yourself. And if you isolate yourself to only those who do, you will be a lonely small minded bigot who cannot reach others with the message of Christ. You will be preaching to the choir!

I can't believe I have to say these things. I thought it was common sense!

Grant Kelly said...

David, is it me or is this comment section filled with mind numbling stupid christian fundamentalists?

Try teaching them how to reason sometime.

The hatred for the Atheist is taking over their rational mind.

crujjy said...

Pffttt. I'm not fundamentalist. I just don't like this guy, and he says a lot of unnecessary things with the necessary, like when he said that one of their exports was sand. I'm just stating he might drive away Christians and Muslims, and since this entire conversation has been about him instead of Islam, I might have a point. Also some advice from a "mind numbling stupid" Christian, you mispelled "mind-numbing." Its all good though. You know we love you.

Traeh said...

Calling yourself a Christian is not a guarantee that you are a more compassionate and decent person than an atheist. It depends on the individual. Someone may think himself a Christian, but what if at bottom he's actually more of an atheist than some people who think themselves atheists? And what if some who think themselves atheists are at bottom more Christian than some who imagine themselves to be Christians? We often see through a glass darkly, and in the end some of those who think much of themselves may be brought lower than they expected, while some of those who seemed to be lower may be brought higher than we expected. A modicum of humility toward those with whom we disagree is common sense.

dstewart said...

And Grant Kelly comes with the argument ad hominem to prove why the Christians are wrong... Personally, I'd love to have David or anyone else smarter than me at this to teach me how to reason.

Besides that, having a strong opinion about whether PC's views really make sense on a Christian apologetics site is hardly hateful. If that's your standard of what constitutes "hateful", you might as well admit that they're right about PC and therefore not mind-numbingly stupid at all for saying so...

*smoke bomb* *vanishes*

Assyria_Lost said...

No-one in a church/temple/mosque will be under any obligation to perform a marriage service for a homosexual couple.

Once it becomes legal it will become an obligation and any Church that does refuse will inevitablely be sued, that would leave the church will only one option which is to close down if it does not wish to comply.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069426/Church-offer-gay-weddings-Camerons-plans-given-ahead.html

cornholio said...

@Grant Kelly

Don't like Christians?

MOve to:

i. Pakistain
ii. Soddy Barbaria
iii. Iraq
iv. Iran
v. Indonesia
vi. Somalia

and you'll never be bothered by Christians again. Or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Bahais, or Jews.

So pack it on up cowboy! Your paradise awaits!

Flux Cap said...

I see in Saudi Arabia the "utopia" muslims have for the rest of us. Basically to live in a backward repressive regime. Yeah, one that is stuck in the 5th century and has no rights for women.

D335 said...

I do not know where to put this up,.... well heads up...

Indonesia this last week,
a huge riot, a show of Islamic force for nearly a week, clashing with the residents of Jrebes, Solo, central Java Indonesia.

The local police chief has told that HE GAVE PERMISSION for the Islamic Force to perform A SHOW OF FORCE to avoid futher bloodshed that has happened recently, killing geriatrics, poor locals, and innocent bystanders.

The reason of the riot as told by the police were personal disagreement between two ex-convicts who were released and each went on their own way.

As numbers of untold victims did not show on local news, I heard people were slashed, killed while the police let loose hundreds of men running rampant destroying the city.

To those who can read "bahasa Indonesia" here's the link. I hope more link coming from AP or outside journalists also.

http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2012/05/05/20093023/Polisi.Memang.Biarkan.Massa

Lucas said...

We can see that this guy is a fraud because, of all the victims of islamo-fascism, he never mentions the fact that the group who suffers the most are the Christians.

You do the search. Try to find a single video where he says that Christians are killed by muslims.

cornholio said...

@Lucas

You have hit on the EXACT reason I despise amoral atheists. They NEVER have anything to say about muslimes slaughtering and persecuting people of other faiths. I've personally heard a morally retarded atheist tell me Christianity is just as bad in his pitiful attempt to defend islamofascism.

BTW, you should realize that it's not just Christians who are slaughtered and persecuted by muslo-nazi apes. The Sikhs and Hindus of Bangladesh and Pakistain have suffered for centuries at the hands of the muslo-nazi apes and the upper bound on the number of Hindus and Sikhs slaughtered by muslimes in the Indian sub-continent is 100 MILLION.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ dstewart

I think your still missing my point.
I contend that Judea christian values are what influenced our constitution and the Bill of Rights. What am i talking about that many of these things are caused by no access to women? I am talking about common sense and social sciences.

What I am saying is that access to male female relations, non sexual male to female relations, makes it more likely that men will have sex together and that men will have sex with male children. It is common sense. Thety can only have close relations with other men. Hence leading to sexual relations. If the bounderies are as such where men and women can speak and be in social situations were they are equalks it is less likely that rape will occur and the boundaries will be respected.

When a Muslim man sees a woman who is out in society and doesnt have a male companion with her he sees her as prey. I dont. Do you? You have to delve into this a little deeper than your surface reactions.

Integration of men and women in society where women are not perceived as a piece of meat or property is what judea Christian values are about. And so is the constitution and the Bill of Rights! Not sharia!

betwixt said...

@Search 4 Truth

If I may add to your point: In non-Sharia'a- compliant societies, the mere knowledge that one is free to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex, if one chooses, is itself a deterrent to homosexual relations between otherwise heterosexual guys. It's human nature to rebel against unnatural suppression of very human urges. Just the idea that one can but doesn't have to saves a lot of people from engaging in activities that they would naturally find repugnant.

It is ironic that in a very "religious" society as KSA, the Saudies are too insecure about the moral judgment of their own people; they feel the need to employ the religious police. What good is Islam then, except as a tool to judge and oppress Muslims and non-Muslims alike? Why should anyone bother to be a Muslim if there is no confidence that faith in Allah will also make one a better moral judge of one's decisions about sex outside marriage?

-----

With regards to physical contacts between guys (e.g. holding hands in public), I don't necessarily see this as "homosexual". I come from the Philippines (a Republic) where it's natural for close straight, male friends to do this.

dstewart said...

Search4Truth,

OK, I meant to leave the last comment, but you really did miss my point. "I contend that Judea christian values are what influenced our constitution and the Bill of Rights." I can understand this sentence 2 ways. Please clarify if you meant that you disagree that the US constitution and Bill of Rights were influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics. They clearly were, just as the British heritage of the founders of the US and Canada (my home) was soaked in it. My point from the beginning is that even western atheists' moral sensibilities are influenced not only by the atheist's worldview, but largely by Judeo-Christian ethics (whether they like it or not), that atheism alone has no absolutes to refer to in making moral judgements.

Case example: I am a virgin by choice. I had tempting opportunities to give that up, but I never did for the sake of my future marriage (if I find someone that is...). I HAVE access to women, and yet I remain celibate. People are able to control their urges. To say that homosexuality is CAUSED by no access to women is not common sense. Rather, it is common sense that men can control their urges or get hooked up with a wife (and it's my understanding that they marry younger). It's just as much common sense that people with no access to single women would necessarily commit adultery, or an unattractive guy with no access to willing women would necessarily commit rape. Nor do I believe your claim that it's social science. Just because a social scientist with an axe to grind says it, doesn't make it established scientific fact, and you have yet to quote even one social scientist who doesn't have a liberal axe to grind to agree with you. However, with the academia nuts we have today who believe humans really CAN'T control themselves, I don't think that it would be difficult.

Buildup of sexual tension in males is not limitless. If you've ever had a nocturnal emission, you've successfully reached it!

If you're going to retreat to saying that you only meant no access to women as an influence to what would have already been sinful behaviour according to even Christian values, then I would agree with you, but then your point doesn't really make sense. Anything they would have done with women, but do with boys instead is still wrong by our standards. Contrary to many peoples' beliefs, homosexuality is NOT the worst of all sexual sins. There is nothing in the Bible that says this.

One last note: I find it unlikely that ANY scientist would think it established that no access to women is a CAUSE of homosexuality beyond being an influence in the sense that women are replaced with boys and other men. This IS something I have actually researched extensively. Even those who are willing to attribute social causes of homosexual behaviour tend toward seeing it develop as a LACK of relationship with other males (particularly fathers), and replacing their relating with women and girls, not because a lack of relating with women and girls and being around only men. We're still talking about people who can arrange to be married after all (for you too, Betwixt)!

dstewart said...

There are other possible explanations for the increase in homosexuality that may not be immediately obvious. I know a couple of Saudis. I think I'll ask them about cultural norms and do a little thinking. I just don't buy that overly simplistic common sense explanation because it doesn't make sense to me.

betwixt said...

@dstewart
You mentioned me in your comment, but I'm not sure what point you're addressing in what I said. I never said that lack of access to women in societies, like the KSA, necessarily causes men to engage in homosexual behaviour. Human nature is not as simple as that. I don't know where in my statement you deduced that I hold such a position. It certainly is an influence, as much as the other influences that you mentioned are.

Search 4 Truth said: What I am saying is that access to male female relations, non sexual male to female relations, makes it more likely that men will have sex together and that men will have sex with male children.

From what I understand from his statement, S4T is thinking along the lines of the "Lord of the Flies". Access to willing men makes it easier to think that it's okay to have sex with them, even if it only lasts for as long as the urge is satisfied. It is even easier to accept it as normal when "everybody else" is doing it. That's the point I get from S4T's comment, and it's the point I agree with.

Search 4 Truth said...

dstewart

I dont think I said it caused homosexual activity. But it is a result of non contact. It is well known and common sense that when men are not able to have contact with women, sexual or non sexual, it will result in homosexual behavior! Think of prisons. I cant believe I have to defend this position.

Secondly you have to prove that all social scientists have axes to grind.

Yes they can arrange to married, if they can afford to pay the price of the bride. Which leaves people of lower status wifeless.

The Indian town of Mehsana’s got a bit of queer problem: there are far more men than women. And, according to the Times of India, many of Mehsana’s sexually and socially frustrated men are taking to the boys:
The 2001 census ranked Mehsana as the district with the worst skewed sex ratio of just 801 women per 1000 men. The after effects are being seen now, with the north Gujarat town witnessing a marked increase in gay activity.
All thanks to the dearth of eligible brides because of rampant foeticide over the years. Trends show that many affluent Mehsana men in their 30s are now wining and dining gays from Ahmedabad.

“While homosexuality is increasing everywhere, in the case of Mehsana the skewed sex ratio could be fuelling this trend further,” says sociologist Gaurang Jani.


Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/lack-of-ladies-leads-to-gay-love-20080715/#ixzz1uIsYRsMc

I really cant believe I am having this conversation. Sorry, your just plain WRONG!

dstewart said...

Betwixt,

Here is the statement that threw me off. I'm sorry if I misunderstood it: "the mere knowledge that one is free to have sexual relationships with the opposite sex, if one chooses, is itself a deterrent to homosexual relations between otherwise heterosexual guys." I was addressing this in my post because Saudi men do have access to a woman once they are married, and they marry much younger than here in the west these days.

dstewart said...

Also, my difficulty with the portion you quoted was that it only makes what would otherwise still be sinful heterosexual behaviour by both Christian AND Muslim standards into homosexual behaviour. I.e. if these men with no access to women molest boys, then what would they have done with females if they DID have access to them keeping in mind that they DO still have potential access to marriage? I don't think you'll argue that females are more tempting to males than other males.

dstewart said...

I'm saying that there's probably more to it than simply no access to women. For example, I have a huge suspicion that the acceptance and practice of polygamy, and the overall degradation of women have a lot to do with it. E.g. the Greeks' low view of women had a lot to do with why sex with boys was accepted.

dstewart said...

And... he points to queerty. I expected a liberal source, but that was a little much. I wonder, is that daily reading for you? JK! I don't have to prove that ALL social scientists have axes to grind. The burden would be on YOU to show that all social scientists accept this overly simplistic explanation without discrimination. Even if EVERY social scientist says it, there still has to be reasonable argument for them to believe it.

Liberals love to make these kinds of arguments because it gives them grounds to say why Judeo-Christian ethics are outdated, that people are really harming themselves with sexual repression, etc. But when you examine these arguments critically, they aren't really common sense, just repeated ad nauseum. That's why I'm saying that we should examine if there's more to the story.

Look, if your point is that otherwise sinful behaviour according to both Christian and Muslim standards is made into homosexual behaviour because these men would not choose to follow their moral sensibilities and control their urges even if they had access to women anyway, then I don't know why you're arguing with me. We should stop now in that case! However, the reason I addressed it was because it didn't seem like that was your point. What are you trying to show? What is the point? It seemed to me like your main point was about the hypocrisy of causing people to engage in sexual behaviour that would then be called "sin," that the Saudi men would not be so promiscuous if not for the fact that it's harder for them to meet females. THAT'S the part of the logic that I think is nonsense and has better possible explanations.

"When men are not able to have contact with women, sexual or non sexual, it will result in homosexual behavior!" - Nonsense! People don't become promiscuous just because there aren't any girls around. To make my point clearer, just remove the "homo..." Is it still true? Is it still common sense? This is the part of your logic I have a problem accepting. Prison statistics show nothing against what I've pointed out. It seems you misunderstand my point if you think they do.

No access to women alone is at most as much of a cause of increased homosexuality as Qur'an burning is of Islamic killing sprees.

dstewart said...

"I cant believe I have to defend this position."

Search4Truth, please tell me why you MUST defend this position. Why can't you just let me be plain wrong?

Search 4 Truth said...

dstewert.

qweerty is just the blog it came from. I was referencing the sociologist who is NOt a writer for qweerty.

LOL! Now you are attempting to demonize me and imply that I am a homosexual. No i am not. I Googled the topic and thats what came up. And if you went to the site and read the source it would reveal to you that it was taken from another source. Here you can find the same quote. It was not written by the people at queerty. Your tactics remind of dishonest Muslims.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-07-15/ahmedabad/27936217_1_ahmedabad-mehsana-guest-houses-gay-activity

http://www.infoahmedabad.com/2008/07/sans-females-men-go-gay-in-mehsana.html


The sociologist is not on the pay roll of the gay site. I understand in order for you to try and discredit me you have to imply I am gay. Thats what Muslims do all of the time. Instead of refuting the facts they attack the messenger! It's quite pathetic.

I am not saying what you are saying I am saying.

I am saying that when there is a lack of access of women, for men, homosexual relations will increase. Regardless if the people are of any religion. Because it is human nature. You want to dismiss human nature.

You keep repeating the same things. No it doesnt, no it doesnt. But you cant bring any evidence to support your position.

Denial is not an argument. It is a state of fear.

Many Heterosexual men who are in prison for long lengths of time will resort to homosexual behavior! It's a fact. And you can scream from the rooftops all you want NO< NO< NO! It wont change the facts.

Denial and insults are not evidence.

I wonder why this bothers you so much? And prove this assertion please.

"No access to women alone is at most as much of a cause of increased homosexuality as Qur'an burning is of Islamic killing sprees."

How did you reach that conclusion? Where is the evidence?

I could do the same thing. But then I would also be wrong.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Dstewert

I guess the People of Saudi Arabia are incorrect as well. Seems they are repeating what i said. Where is your evidence to your assertions. Here is part of mine!

In Saudi Arabia, “It’s easier to be a lesbian [than a heterosexual]. There’s an overwhelming number of people who turn to lesbianism,” Yasmin said, adding that the number of men in the kingdom who turn to gay sex is even greater. “They’re not really homosexual,” she said. “They’re like cell mates in prison.”

This analogy came up again and again during my conversations. As Radwan, the Saudi American, put it, “Some Saudi [men] can’t have sex with women, so they have sex with guys. When the sexes are so strictly segregated”—men are allowed little contact with women outside their families, in order to protect women’s purity—“how do they have a chance to have sex with a woman and not get into trouble?” Tariq, a 24-year-old in the travel industry, explains that many “tops” are simply hard up for sex, looking to break their abstinence in whatever way they can. Francis, a 34-year-old beauty queen from the Philippines (in 2003 he won a gay beauty pageant held in a private house in Jeddah by a group of Filipinos), reported that he’s had sex with Saudi men whose wives were pregnant or menstruating; when those circumstances changed, most of the men stopped calling. “If they can’t use their wives,” Francis said, “they have this option with gays.”

Gay courting in the kingdom is often overt—in fact, the preferred mode is cruising. “When I was new here, I was worried when six or seven cars would follow me as I walked down the street,” Jamie, a 31-year-old Filipino florist living in Jeddah, told me. “Especially if you’re pretty like me, they won’t stop chasing you.” John Bradley, the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis (2005), says that most male Western expatriates here, gay or not, have been propositioned by Saudi men driving by “at any time of the day or night, quite openly and usually very, very persistently.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/5774/

Search 4 Truth said...

And why cant you just be plain wrong and continue to spew your nonsense? Man you are just like the Muslims I speak to. \\


you make assertions without substantiation.

You attempt to demonize me instead of disproving me.

You use logical fallacies.

And your a Hypocrite!

Are you a Muslim?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ dstewert

OOPS! Another article that reinforces what Pat Condell and I have said.

According to Western Resistance, one of the reasons that a large segment of the Saudi population engages in homosexual acts is that it's frankly easier to mingle with members of the same sex in the highly restrictive and oppressive regime--


http://voices.yahoo.com/homosexuality-rise-saudi-arabia-317331.html?cat=7

Search 4 Truth said...

@ dstewert

in fact, here is a list of sources that Pat Condell may have used to present the case for this video!

Kingdom in the closet
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/5774/
Saudi Arabia is 'biggest funder of terrorists'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-is-biggest-funder-of-terrorists-2152327.html
Wikileaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
Saudis fund sale of children trained as terrorists and suicide bombers
http://undhimmi.com/2011/05/23/saudi-gulf-states-fund-sale-of-children-trained-as-terrorists-suicide-bombers/
$100 million donated to radical Islamic schools
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/100m-donated-to-islamic-schools-2287823.html
Saudis export anti-Christian and anti-Jewish textbooks across the world
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=268755
Saudi high school textbook preaches hate
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3335/saudi-high-school-textbook-preaches-hate
Saudi school lessons in UK concern government
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11799713
Saudi woman executed for practising 'sorcery'
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/saudi-woman-beheaded-for-practising-sorcery-157345
Sudanese man beheaded in car park for being a 'sorcerer'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055636/Sudanese-man-beheaded-Saudi-Arabia-car-park-sorcerer.html
Wikileaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-cables-saudi-princes-parties
Saudi Arabia bans 'gays, tomboys' from schools
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-arabia-bans-gays-tom-boys-from-schools-2012-04-16-1.454017
If women are allowed to drive there will be no more virgins and everybody will turn gay
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068810/Saudis-fear-virgins-people-turn-gay-female-drive-ban-lifted.html#ixzz1fLJAfe3r
Gay Saudi prince jailed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8075427/Gay-Saudi-prince-jaile.html
United States denies asylum to gay Saudi diplomat
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=245358
Saudi clerics challenge jobs policy for women
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5irDk4IKFpmvRfl9fMCE2VwabyFrw?docId=CNG.90fcc3fb8fe0939f953755a219011833.d91
Saudi women and men sentenced to flogging and prison for mingling at party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/7848077/Saudi-women-and-men-sentenced-to-flogging-and-prison-for-mingling-at-party.html
Saudi Grand Mufti OKs marriage for ten year old girls
http://www.theworldobserver.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3209:saudi-mufti-okays-marriage-for-10-year-old-girls&catid=54:around-the-world&Itemid=188
Women in Saudi Arabia
http://emajmagazine.com/2012/03/08/saudi-women's-day/
Is an oil agenda driving the IOC's attitude to Saudi Arabia?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/is-an-oil-agenda-driving-the-iocs-attitude-to-saudi-arabia-et-al.17090182
Politics of Saudi Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia
Living in Saudi Arabia - who would want to?
http://ukinsaudiarabia.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/living-in-saudi-arabia/

Search 4 Truth said...

@ dstewert

Heres a video you should check out.

Where are all the women at? Oh yeah, they are locked in their homes! So who are they going to dance with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk1HpUkZA8s

dstewart said...

"I was referencing the sociologist who is NOt a writer for qweerty." - Good, and that scored you points with me. I'm still a bit skeptical however. It was easy to tell that you just googled it since I wouldn't expect QWEERTY to be daily reading for a Christian. I was expecting something more substantial however, like a book reference since you seemed to know something about the subject pretty well making sweeping claims like "every social scientist." Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to win an argument. If you know something I don't, show me! I simply don't follow the logic of your argument. E.g. In one of my first comments on this sblog, I asked if honour killing was really condoned in Islam since I had read in Sahih Bukhari not to kill your children, but then David Wood responded with a reasonable argument that I could accept. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not common sense to me. If you show me something substantial, I'll change my mind.

"Now you are attempting to demonize me and imply that I am a homosexual." - Do you KNOW what JK means?!? I've read my fair share of QWEERTY, and I'm not gay either. Relax.

"Instead of refuting the facts they attack the messenger!" - I think you're winning this contest. I did after all present my objections to the logic without attacking you (Unless you're referring to above which is not actually an attack).

"Your tactics remind of dishonest Muslims." - What "tactics?" I'm just asking questions and stating my objections hoping you can clarify something for me.

"I am saying that when there is a lack of access of women, for men, homosexual relations will increase." - I don't dispute this. I'm just skeptical that it is not only replacing some other behaviour that both Islam and Christianity would call sinful.

"You want to dismiss human nature." - No, I don't. I simply want to defend that it is both possible and perfectly fine for one to practice self-control and to be expected to maintain chastity out of wedlock. According to the Bible, human nature inclines us toward sin. I have no problem as a Christian denying certain aspects of my nature (i.e. the "flesh"). If anything, gender segregation (which I definitely do NOT support for other reasons), would, according to basic intuition, make it EASIER for unmarried men to remain celibate.

"You keep repeating the same things" - Because you assume I should just see it like you do by now, but I don't! I'm just being honest. What's wrong with asking for more clarification if it's with all honesty? Isn't that what searching 4 truth is?!?

"But you cant bring any evidence to support your position." - I offered my objections to the logic.

"Denial is not an argument. It is a state of fear." - This clear ad hominem attack is just plain wrong. As if I'm afraid to admit that there's one more bad thing to attribute to gender segregation, which I already hate. I just want to be properly convinced first.

"Many Heterosexual men who are in prison for long lengths of time will resort to homosexual behavior! It's a fact. And you can scream from the rooftops all you want NO< NO< NO! It wont change the facts." - I didn't dispute this fact, but I also admittedly didn't give a reason why I find it unconvincing.

"Denial and insults are not evidence." - Right! But I only deny it because I'm not convinced. And again, I didn't mean to insult you.

"I wonder why this bothers you so much?" - It doesn't. Although, I am a little concerned about the ad hominems that have started to come my way.

dstewart said...

"No access to women alone is at most as much of a cause of increased homosexuality as Qur'an burning is of Islamic killing sprees." - Sure, I'll make a simple argument for this trying to use the same logic for both the homosexuality issue and the Qur'an burning:
1) Actions can only be condemned if they are done by free will.
2) If an action is committed by free will, the root cause is the person's choice.

Qur'an burning:
3a) Although Muslims are strongly influenced by religious indoctrination and their societies to break out in violence, it is ultimately their choice to do so.
4a) Therefore, Qur'an burning is not a cause of Islamic violence.

Sexuality:
3b) Although a person's sex drive combined with gender segregation directing that person's sex drive only toward the same sex tempts a person to commit a homosexual act, the act is itself that person's choice.
4b) Therefore, homosexual acts are not caused by sex drive and gender segregation.

* I will add a bit about sexual orientation in the Old Testament in order to add to my point.

Homosexuality in the Old Testament:
3) If an act is condemned by God, that act is a person's choice.
4) Male homosexual acts are a capital offense according to Mosaic law.
5) Therefore, male homosexual acts are a person's choice.
* 6) Sexual Orientation is not a choice
7) Although a person's sex drive combined with sexual orientation directing that person's sex drive only toward the same sex tempts a person to commit a homosexual act, the act is itself that person's choice.
8) Therefore, homosexual acts are not caused by sex drive and homosexual orientation.

* Many fellow Christians will argue with me on this point, but this really IS something that is accepted by ANYONE who works with gays and lesbians.

BTW, Search4Truth. Like I said, I'm not trying to win. I'm just worried about the implications of saying homosexual behaviour is sinful is hypocrisy if you make the conditions for it. I don't believe God was a hypocrite, and I wanted to voice that to ensure that we as Christians are being consistent. If it's really bothering you this much, and you think I'm attacking you, then I'm not going to post on this anymore...

*smoke bomb*

dstewart said...

Search4Truth,

How did you get all those references so fast? Did you get them from a website? If so, please send me the link to that so I can bookmark it and read them later.

dstewart said...

"you make assertions without substantiation." - I was skeptical and raised objections i thought were pretty reasonable to YOUR assertions.

"You attempt to demonize me instead of disproving me." - No I don't. I like you (no lies).

"You use logical fallacies." - I'm an engineer-in-training, not a philospher, and i have no formal logic training. I'd be surprised if I didn't make a mistake, but I'm willing to learn from them.

"And your a Hypocrite!" - I... don't... know... what... to... say... to... this...

"Are you a Muslim?" - Only in the sense that I submit to God. OK, this is a joke. I'm smiling! :D Want proof? OK! Muhammad was a pedophile, sociopath, oppressor, racist, liar, false-prophet. Would a Muslim say that? (Believe me, it's not taqiyya (splg?))

Search 4 Truth said...

@ dstewert

No Actually I didnt see the JK. Or I wouldnt have responded in the manner I did. OK. All social scientists may have been to broad a statement. How about all known social scientists that I have ever heard speak on this topic. Now where are your social scientists that counter it.


" I simply want to defend that it is both possible and perfectly fine for one to practice self-control and to be expected to maintain chastity out of wedlock."

Where on earth was this ever the argument. And where did i ever disagree with this assertion? It seems to me now your changing the topic of the discussion.

If this is all your trying to do say then you have no disagreement from me. How could I disagree with such an ambiguous statement!~ Of course it is possible!

But thats not nor was it ever the argument!

It was that homosexuality increases when women are less available.

I didnt see any logical objections! All I saw was dismissal. Like this!


""When men are not able to have contact with women, sexual or non sexual, it will result in homosexual behavior!" - Nonsense! People don't become promiscuous just because there aren't any girls around. To make my point clearer, just remove the "homo..." Is it still true? Is it still common sense? This is the part of your logic I have a problem accepting. Prison statistics show nothing against what I've pointed out. It seems you misunderstand my point if you think they do.

No access to women alone is at most as much of a cause of increased homosexuality as Qur'an burning is of Islamic killing sprees."

this wasnt even an accurate assessment of the argument.

I never said that promiscuity rises when women are not available.

I said homosexual acts rise when women are not avaiable.

And this isnt even an argument! It's just denial.

Search 4 Truth said...

Sexuality:
3b) Although a person's sex drive combined with gender segregation directing that person's sex drive only toward the same sex tempts a person to commit a homosexual act, the act is itself that person's choice.
4b) Therefore, homosexual acts are not caused by sex drive and gender segregation.

This makes no sense at all.

Only toward the same sex? There is no other outlets available! You are making presuppositions here.

sex drive and gender segregation does lead to more homosexual behaviour

You just making denials again!

All you are doing is making assertions without evidence

I am the one who continues to present the evidence from the people who live in this situation. And the social scientists who concur.

And all you do is say NO!


Read what you posted and then tell me how you reached these conclusions.

Your just denying the evidence and making assertions without any evidence to support your assertions! This is preposterous!

Read!


Sexuality:
3b) Although a person's sex drive combined with gender segregation directing that person's sex drive only toward the same sex tempts a person to commit a homosexual act, the act is itself that person's choice.
4b) Therefore, homosexual acts are not caused by sex drive and gender segregation.


Now where is the evidence for your assertions! This is ridiculous! LOL! Your just making claims. Where you get the evidence for your claims is unknown! But I am the one who presented evidence! And you keep saying NO!
Thats the extent of your rebuttal! NO!

Search 4 Truth said...

I know your not a Muslim! I was just making a joke, and I forgot the JK! LOL!

I like you to. But it seems that I present evidence and you deny the evidence but dont bring any evidence to support why your denying it.

I know several gays and lesbians. They are not family but they are like family to me. A boy my daughter went to school with was kicked out of his home when he came out in high school and I took him in. And I still see him to this day and he calls me Father.

I am sorry if I came off a little harsh! Please accept my apologies. Peace and love! I should read everything more closely and slowly. I tend to respond to things as I read them and dont take them entirely into context. And I didnt see the JK!
Peace!

dstewart said...

S4T: "Where on earth was this ever the argument. And where did i ever disagree with this assertion? It seems to me now your changing the topic of the discussion."

I think we may have found the root of our misunderstanding. This is what I said in the beginning, and my position has been consistent throughout the discussion.

Me: "... being caused by no access to women?!? ... and yet God expects us to be able to control ourselves until marriage... the reason they molest boys is because they can't molest girls?"

By "this stuff" (maybe I should have been more clear) are the reprehensible behaviours (as you said, "man, boy child molestation") that would have been wrong had they been directed to either sex. This was my position from the beginning as I just showed and it has not changed (though sometimes I feel like I may have lost focus of the subject). I ask a lot of questions. I like to KNOW things so I'm not swimming around in gray areas. I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational sometimes.

PS: The gay issue affects me too, and I just get peeved when I think that people who call themselves Christians and don't keep chaste themselves judge their friends for identifying as homosexual. In reality, it's the same sin.

OK, I'm done now.

cornholio said...

Saudi LGBT rights article (from wikipedia)

It is unclear how many people have been executed for sodomy. Some of the official news reports on persons convicted of sodomy seem to provide conflicting opinions.

In 2000 the Saudi government reported that it had sentenced nine Saudi men to extensive prison terms with lashing for engaging in cross-dressing and homosexual relations.[3] That same year the government executed three Yemeni male workers for homosexuality and child molestation.[4]

In April 2005, the government convicted over a hundred men of homosexuality, but none were sentenced to be executed. All those men were given prison sentences with flogging because they were at a private party that was either a same-sex wedding ceremony or a birthday party.[5] Yet, not long after a gay foreign couple was sentenced to death for homosexuality and allegedly killing a man who was blackmailing them for homosexuality.[citation needed]

In May 2005, the government arrested 92 men for homosexuality, who were given sentences ranging from fines to prison sentences of several months and lashings. Likewise, on 7 November 2005 Riyadh police raided what the Saudi press called a "beauty contest for gay men" at al-Qatif. What became of the five men arrested for organizing the event, is not known.[6]

In October 2007, British human rights activists protested recent reports that the Saudi government was sending British mosques material urging the killing of gays and subjugation of women.

Persons caught living in the kingdom illegally, are often accused of other crimes, involving illegal drugs, pornography, prostitution and homosexuality. Several such police crackdowns were reported in 2004 – 2005.[7] Another similar raid in 2008, netted Filipino workers arrested on charges of alcohol and gay prostitution.[8] The Arab News article on the arrests stated, "Gay rights are not recognized in the Middle East countries and the publication of any material promoting them is banned".[8]

International protests from human rights organizations prompted some Saudi officials within the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington D.C. to unofficially imply that their kingdom will only use the death penalty when someone has been convicted of child molestation, rape, sexual assault, murder or engaging in anything deemed to be a form of political advocacy.[9]

In 2010, Prince Saud bin Abdulaziz bin Nasir al Saud was charged with the murder of his male companion while on holiday in London. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to a long prison term. According to the prosecutor, the Prince sexually and physically abused his servant as well as paid other men for sexual services.[3]

A gay Saudi diplomat named Ali Ahmad Asseri applied for asylum in the United States after the Saudi government discovered his sexuality.[4].

Wierd. It looks like foreigners are executed for acts of homosexuality but not the native sons.