Just do a search like crimes per second on google. FBI in 2002 says that a property crime occurs every 3 seconds, larceny every 4.5 seconds, burglary every 14.7 seconds, etc.

So, saying that there is 1010 crimes commited per day is completely off the mark.

We do indeed have 6 billion people on the planet, here's how some of them are living:

Colombia: An armed conflict has been ongoing since 1964, with over 2000 military deaths in 2010 alone.

India: The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is an ongoing conflict between Maoist groups since 1967, known as Naxalites or Naxals, and the Indian government. More than 1,000 deaths for the year of 2010.

Afghanistan: Civil war ongoing, estimated between 600k to 2 million killed and 5 million displaced. Children, both male and female, are sold as prostitutes to feed the families.

Somali, Iraq and Sudan are also in civil war or at the least frequent battles between government and rebels.

Brazil and Mexico are losing the war against drugs in their own capitals, with people dying daily as a result.

North Korea is basically starving, as is a lot of places in Africa.

Closer to Malaysia, there is an insurgency in Thailand and Philippines that is ongoing although violence has dropped. East Timor, Chechnya and Bosnia were at war in the last 2 decades.

Middle East is, according to Amnesty International a great place to be a muslim man, but not any of the following, i.e. a non-believer, a woman, a homosexual, a prisoner or a Jew.

China is not a great place for political dissidents.

The above are just some of the major things going on in the world, all of which is caused by humans. I haven't even touched on crime, perhaps the poor lady who was killed because she refused to let go of her handbag (don't ask me which, there's just too many).

Then there are also the cases where family was killed for insurance, latest one in India where two girls were killed by the neighbour for 50k rupees or about RM3.5k. The dad insured them for something like RM200k each.

Do I have to go on? Drug mules, forced prostitution, slaved labour, child pronography, torture, raping, etc., all of these are happening around the world as a direct result of the brutality of mankind.

Simple, we breed damn fast with no natural predators. Here's one more survey that was just released:

One in three man in South Africa admit to rape.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/2...can-rape-survey

This post has been edited by athlee: Dec 2 2010, 03:27 PM

I think it is called natural / survival instinct. It has little to do with good versus bad. Neither does it have anything to do with religion.

So because some people claim that they have become 'normal' it is evidence that homosexuality are not genetics? On the same note, I can then argue that because some who were heterosexual before and became homosexual means that they were not born heterosexual but became that after some event.

What type of fact is this? If you are sure that this is the fact, do you have any facts or theory to support it?
Reminder: If you are going to use "facts" or "prove" again later, please make sure you provide source and theories as well.

Note:
Look up Kinsey Scale or Kinsey Reports (1948). While not everything in there is fact and the numbers varies, the idea that few people are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual is an accepted fact. A later study by US's National Opinion Research Centre provided a more accurate/conservative figure, but the general idea of Kinsey's Reports are not challenged.

He is probably talking about those courses or camps that are done by some hard core Christians in US. An example is camps operated by Love In Action International Inc, which was operating in the US before it was closed in 2005 by a state Department of Mental Health for dispensing medication without license. Gay activists consider that the camps are tantamount to child abuse. A co-founder, John Evans later stated that the camps led to nothing but depression, shattered lives and even suicide.

SOS

In the same entry above, The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association strongly affirm that "homosexuality is not an illness", "does not require treatment" and "is not changeable." They feel that "gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so," and warn that people seeking conversion therapy may be doing so under pressure from religious groups.

If you wish to talk about proving sexual tendencies using genetics, kindly provide me with the link that says people are born with heterosexual genetics.

I accept the general idea of Kinsey's Reports, i.e. few people are exclusively hetero or homo. I have no stand on the genetics thing, which is something that is both wanted and feared by some gay activists. Wanted because they want to say that they are not unnatural as what most abrahimic religions say, feared for the chance that people will want to 'ensure' that no kids are born with that gene turned 'on'.

As for why this was brought up, well you are the one who asked for facts/theories to support what kakumei said on being born gay.

Like you said, your main point is homosexual got no relation with genetics, and you asked for proof/theories and I replied.

Can you clarify what you just said? Which idea do you doubt and not support? Do you doubt that sexuality is related to genetics or is it the other way round? This is part of what you said:

You state that what kakumei said on sexuality (which he apparently learnt in psychology) as false, asked for facts/theories and I replied.