Gays are immoral, says top Christian

[Pharaoh]

The London Metropolitan Police is to investigate comments about homosexuality made by a British Christian leader.

'HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Christian leader.

He also said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.

His comments were condemned last night by gay rights groups and MPs from the three main political parties, who said that he was swimming against the tide of public opinion.

Speaking about civil partnerships, the first of which took place in Britain last month, he said: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.”

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he replied: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”

I think it's wrong to censor him, whatever happened to free speech?

[Chojin]

Well, that about wraps it up for queers!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Um, isn't there a law in England that if you say something erronious and potentially damaging in public, you can be charged with a crime for it...?

[Emu]

Who's censoring him? They're investigating him because he used his free speech to spew hate speech that borders on speaking his intention to take violent action agaainst homosexuals.

[kahljorn]

This just in, all the smartest people of the world say, "Anti-gay sentiments are stupid and actually lower your iq."

[Chojin]

Pharoah still wets the bed but blames it on the dog, says top Mocker

[kahljorn]

Hamburger salesman accuses Pharaoh of wet patties, and the public opinion coming up at nine.

[mew barios]

gays ok, says top gay

[Pharaoh]

Well I don't necessarily agree with him, but what's actually wrong with what he's saying, is it really hate speech?

[Chojin]

I gots a gumball up my nose, says top Pharoah.

[Emu]

Yes, because he's singling out a specific group of people and attributing a large problem to them specifically. Homosexuality doesn't spread disease -- sex, period, spreads disease. AIDS isn't just a gay problem, and it never really has been.

[kahljorn]

"I think it's wrong to censor him, whatever happened to free speech?"

When you're a political leader or really have any public sway, getting up and saying things that aren't necessarily true or bigoted or anything like that can cause public opinion to change alot-- especially when it's represented as fact which is generally the case with speaking to the public. That's even more immoral than anything gays do, especially when it's based on things that aren't true. I really hope I don't have to explain more on that...

I don't really care either way, though.

[Pharaoh]

"I think it's wrong to censor him, whatever happened to free speech?"

When you're a political leader or really have any public sway, getting up and saying things that aren't necessarily true or bigoted or anything like that can cause public opinion to change alot-- especially when it's represented as fact which is generally the case with speaking to the public. That's even more immoral than anything gays do, especially when it's based on things that aren't true. I really hope I don't have to explain more on that...

I don't really care either way, though.

Yes but he's had a lot of support from his coreligionists. In a letter to the Times signed by 22 representatives of various organisations, they state,

'We are deeply concerned about the breakdown of basic family values and the undermining of the key institution of marriage in Britain today. All Britons, whether they are in favour of homosexuality or not, should be allowed to freely express their views in an atmosphere free of intimidation or bullying. We cannot claim to be a truly free and open society while we are trying to silence dissenting views.'

I agree with that.

[kahljorn]

Okay.

[Emu]

Once again, I ask: Who is censoring him? Apparently nobody, because we're reading about it now.

[Pharaoh]

Well he's going to think twice before repeating that sort of thing. He's had some heavy pressure put on him. He wouldn't want to be labelled a bigot. And I don't think you could call him a bigot when so many of his faith agree with him, they can't all be bigots can they?

[Emu]

Yes?

I don't know if it occurred to you, but just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. Most people believed the earth was flat 2000 years ago, yet it isn't.

Well he's going to think twice before repeating that sort of thing. He's had some heavy pressure put on him.

That doesn't mean he's being censored. When you say something, people are going to argue with it. That's what we call "debate." The first amendment gives you the right to say something, but it also gives others the right to criticize you for it. It's a two-edged knife that's had a bigger impact on the world than anything else over the past few centuries.

[Big Papa Goat]

Wouldn't want people to think about what they say, now would we.

[ScruU2wice]

I thought the top christian would be the pope?

[kahljorn]

"I thought the top christian would be the pope?"

'Britain’s most senior Christian leader.'

Clever word usage.

[ScruU2wice]

The archduke of Canteburry is back from the dead!!! and he's pissed :eek

[Emu]

Meaning he's drunk am i right :lol

[sspadowsky]

gays ok, says top gay

:lol

:love mew :love

[Emu]

I like how the title of this thread implies that Christians can be ranked.

spinning is vital to your health, says top

[Supafly345]

Breaking news

[Pharaoh]

It's interesting that you all consider it to be hate speech, because I somehow made a slight error. Although it shouldn't make any difference, unless you're only against Christian 'hate speech'. He was actually a Muslim leader, who represents moderate Muslims and mainstream Islamic teachings. :lol


'HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Muslim leader.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.

His comments were condemned last night by gay rights groups and MPs from the three main political parties, who said that Sir Iqbal was swimming against the tide of public opinion.

Speaking about civil partnerships, the first of which took place in Britain last month, Sir Iqbal said: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.”

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he replied: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.” '
Link here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1969663,00.html)


'Islam and homosexuals

Sir, In light of the bizarre news that the Metropolitan Police is to “investigate” comments about homosexuality made by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, (report, Jan 12) we, the undersigned, Imams and representatives of various British Muslim organisations, affirm that Sir Iqbal’s views faithfully reflected mainstream Islamic teachings.

The Koran and, we believe, the Bible, together with all the Prophets of God, up to and including Muhammad (peace be upon them all), taught that marriage should be between man and woman, not between people of the same sex. The practice of homosexuality is regarded as being sinful in Islam.

We are deeply concerned about the breakdown of basic family values and the undermining of the key institution of marriage in Britain today. All Britons, whether they are in favour of homosexuality or not, should be allowed to freely express their views in an atmosphere free of intimidation or bullying. We cannot claim to be a truly free and open society while we are trying to silence dissenting views.


HABIBUR RAHMAN
President, Islamic Forum
Europe


ABDUL HAMEED QURESHI
Lancashire Council of Mosques


MAWLANA ABDUL HADI UMRI,
Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, Birmingham


MAWLANA RASHID RABBANI,
Jamiat-e-Ulama, Bradford


MAWLANA MUHAMMAD ADAM,
Bolton Council of Mosques


ABDUL KARIM GHEEWALA
Federation of Muslim Organisations, Leicestershire


MAWLANA BOSTAN QADRI,
Confederation of Sunni Mosques, Birmingham

IMA ABDUL QADIR BARKATULLAH
North Finchley Mosque, London

DR SUHAIB HASAN,
Islamic Shariah Council

MR ZAHIR BIRAWI,
Grand Mosque, Leeds

IMAM DR ABDUL JALIL SAJID,
Council of Mosques, London and Southern Counties

DR MUNIR AHMED,
Islamic Society of Britain

MR AHMED SHEIKH,
Muslim Association of Britain

MR IDRIS MEARS,
Association of Muslim Schools

DR ABDUL FATTAH SAEED,
Al Muntada al Islami, London

DR YUNES TEINAZ,
Regent's Park Mosque, London

DR HAFIZ AL-KARMI,
Mayfair Islamic Centre, London

MR ISMAIL PATEL,
Friends of al-Aqsa

DR MANAZIR AHSAN,
Islamic Foundation, Leicester

DR AHMAD HASAN,
World Federation of Khoja Shia Ithnasheri Muslim Community

MR MUNAWWAR RATTANSI,
Council of European Jamaats

MR YOUSUF BHAILOK,
Former Secretary-General, The Muslim Council of Britain'
Link here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1984362,00.html)

[Immortal Goat]

Bullshit you made a mistake. You wanted to see if our opinion wouild change if we knew it was a Muslim's opinion, not a Christian's. Well, I, for one, do not think any differently. It is his right to say this stuff, as it is a Christian's right, but to do so is publically hateful and a big mistake, due to the backlash it can create.

I didn't fall for the bait. So there.

[Chojin]

Oh well if an arab says it's okay to hate queers I guess that's a whole different ballgame!

[Cosmo Electrolux]

yeah, shit like that keeps me up at night......

[ziggytrix]

Yeah, it's still hate speech, but let's make one thing perfectly clear. The world is not black and white, there are many shades of gray.

This particular example of mild hate speech, while certainly unacceptable in a civil society, is nowhere near as bad as anything at the Westboro Baptist website.

[AChimp]

I think it's really gay that you waste time trying to "trick" people on a message board. It's hate speech regardless of the religion.

[Emu]

Oh shit! My worldview! Crumbling...! What have I done!

It's hate speech no matter who says it. It just makes me think less of you for being a dishonest dumbfuck.

[Pharaoh]

So, if Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the voice of moderate Muslims, publicly airs his views on homosexuality, then it's hate speech even though he faithfully reflects mainstream Islamic teachings?
That means mainstream Islamic teachings can't legally be taught here as it would be hate speech and anyone doing so could be arrested.

[Emu]

Yes, it's hate speech. What do you mean by 'mainstream,' exactly? The views of the people who practice the religion or the views of the heads of the religion? Because I was under the impression that 'mainstream' was defined as the beliefs in general of the people who practice it. And I don't believe such views are mainstream among British Muslims.

[Chojin]

http://www.ioffergames.com/gimg/612077-Chessmaster-8000-PC-Games.jpg

HIS PLAN COMES FULL-CIRCLE!

How are Muslims any more intolerant of gays than Christians?

[Chojin]

SexyWhitePower: oh good fucking show man, way to stick the liberals with the it of their to being. never saw it coming.
PharoahDaddy2000: You know it, man. I am so glad you had that idea, this was the best laugh I've had in years.
SexyWhitePower: oh don't be modesty to accomplishments of yours! i just set it up, you were the executor to knocking of downs!
PharoahDaddy2000: Ha ha, victory is ours together, my friend. How's Sandy doing these days?
SexyWhitePower: steve's fine
PharoahDaddy2000: I didn't say-
SexyWhitePower has signed off.

[Pharaoh]

The Muslim Council of Britain is officially the moderate face of Islam, and the MCB's secretary general, Iqbal Sacranie, has recently been knighted. Anytime there's an Islamist terrorist atrocity affecting Britain they pop up to give the moderate response of mainstream Muslims, the majority of Muslims. Maybe their views are out of touch with younger Muslims, who tend to be either more liberal or much more fundamentalist, but they're supposed to reflect the majority's views.

The Church of England is split on homosexual bishops and same-sex marriages here but it's overall more tolerant of gays and it allows clergy to be gay.

My point, though, is that Christianity gets all the criticism from liberals and Islam is left in peace, even though Islam is much less tolerant. Islam is the main danger to liberal societies and it's about time liberals admitted that.

[glowbelly]

BIGOTS ARE THE PROBLEM YOU STUPID FUCK

like you.

good god how hard is that for you to understand? i don't give a flying freaky fuck what religion you practice. it doesn't matter! you're a bigot! nothing you say really matters

ESPECIALLY ABOUT RELIGION

ya know why?

because you're a BIGOT.

and BIGOT'S ARE DUMB.

there's some of your own logic for you.

maybe now you'll understand.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Islam is the main danger to liberal societies and it's about time liberals admitted that.

ok guys, if everybody admits this, Pharoah might go away.

[Chojin]

Christianity is an equally big 'danger' to acceptance. But what you seem to misunderstand is that the entire point of a liberal society is acceptance, and therefore it isn't about eliminating threats.

Intolerance isn't a religious issue, mongo. Christians have done, are doing, and will do far worse things to gay people than Muslims. Apparently they're trying to catch up. Fantastic, they still aren't 1/10th as bad at being a human as you.

[Preechr]

The Church of England... allows clergy to be gay.

How big of them. God has been doing that for quite a while now.

[Dole]

'HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Christian leader.

He also said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.

His comments were condemned last night by gay rights groups and MPs from the three main political parties, who said that he was swimming against the tide of public opinion.

Speaking about civil partnerships, the first of which took place in Britain last month, he said: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society: stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in.”

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme if homosexuality was harmful to society, he replied: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society, it is. It is not acceptable.

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and, I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”

I think it's wrong to censor him, whatever happened to free speech?

A member of the Muslim Council said something pretty damn similar on R4 a couple of weeks ago, the police investigated and did not press any charges, and Peter Tatchell (of OUTrage)was on R4 the next day defending the bloke's right to say it. So free speech is safe and well, thanks.

[Pharaoh]

The Church of England... allows clergy to be gay.

How big of them. God has been doing that for quite a while now.

You find a gay imam and you might have a point. The last one who tried, in Turkey, was threatened with death.
Link here (http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/europe/supporting%20files/homosexual_imam_prays_for_tolera.htm)

[Emu]

Dole:

It's interesting that you all consider it to be hate speech, because I somehow made a slight error. Although it shouldn't make any difference, unless you're only against Christian 'hate speech'. He was actually a Muslim leader, who represents moderate Muslims and mainstream Islamic teachings. :lol

[Pharaoh]

[quote]
A member of the Muslim Council said something pretty damn similar on R4 a couple of weeks ago, the police investigated and did not press any charges, and Peter Tatchell (of OUTrage)was on R4 the next day defending the bloke's right to say it. So free speech is safe and well, thanks.

Yeah, you're sharp aren't you? Look at the top of this page, pothead.

Do you mean the same Peter Tatchell who said this about it?


MUSLIM LEADER URGED: DROP HOMOPHOBIA

Gay group calls for solidarity against intolerance

London – 4 January 2006

“It is sad to see the leader of the Muslim community attacking the gay community,” said Peter Tatchell of the gay human rights group OutRage!.

“We share a parallel experience of prejudice and discrimination. Victimisation of Muslim people is wrong, and so too is the victimisation of gay people. Instead of sowing division and promoting homophobia, the Muslim Council of Britain should be working with gay organisations to challenge the twin evils of homophobia and Islamophobia.”

Mr Tatchell was responding to anti-gay comments made by the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain on BBC Radio 4's PM Programme, yesterday, 3 January 2006.

Sir Iqbal told the programme that homosexuality is “harmful” and “not acceptable.” He suggested it was immoral and spread disease. Implying that being gay is a sickness, he said homosexuality is linked to “other illnesses and diseases.”

Mr Tatchell expressed concern that the MCB had long campaigned in support of discrimination against lesbians and gay men:

“On every recent gay human rights issue, the MCB has campaigned in favour of discrimination. It opposed an equal age of consent, partnership rights for same-sex couples and the outlawing of homophobic discrimination in the workplace. The MCB also backed the retention of Section 28 and a ban on gay couples fostering or adopting children.”

Resorting to inflammatory language barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the BNP, news releases on the MCB website condemn same-sex relationships as “offensive”, “immoral” and “repugnant”.

“While demanding rights for Muslims, the MCB wants to deny rights to lesbian and gay people – both Muslim and non-Muslim. It sees no double standard or inconsistency in its selective approach to human rights,” added Mr Tatchell.

“OutRage! has written to Sir Iqbal Sacranie several times, urging dialogue to explore our common interest in defending the human rights of both our communities. We suggested working together to eradicate the twin hatreds of Islamophobia and homophobia. Sir Iqbal never replied to our letters.

“OutRage! recognises the shared humanity of all people everywhere. We endorse the MCB's concern about the abuse of Muslims in Palestine , Bosnia , Chechnya , Iraq and in Britain . But our solidarity with Muslims has been repaid with only hostility and prejudice from the MCB.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. How can the MCB expect to secure respect for Muslims when it shows such obvious disrespect to other people because of their sexual orientation?” queried Mr Tatchell.

[Pharaoh]

And, by the way, what's happened to freedom of speech on this forum?
The title of this topic has mysteriously changed, obviously because I'm not a leftie, as there was nothing offensive about it.

And I'm supposed to be the one who's a bigot, intolerant of any opinions differing from his own? Look at yourselves.

[Summourn]

And I don't think you could call him a bigot when so many of his faith agree with him, they can't all be bigots can they?

You'd be surprised.

[ziggytrix]

It's called FREE SPEECH you idiot. You can say someone is WRONG without saying they don't have a right to say wrong things!

Good grief!

[Emu]

You paste that aritcle like he said something bad. Jesus, do you even read what you post?

[Preechr]

I wasn't making a comparison, just a point in jest.

You're trying to say that Christians are a little more accepting of gaiety than are Muslims, in some official sense. The only real difference is that Christianity is making some half-assed efforts toward appearing to be in the beginning processes of acceptance... but only of heterosexual gays and even then only on Tuesdays.

It's sort of like me trying to figure out whether Chojin or Max Burbank respects you more.

You also seem to be trying to make a larger point about the difference in public expectation for the two religious belief systems. Riveting stuff, man. Shocking. We expect a bit more from Christianity than we do Islam. You may be on to something here.

Wait a minnit... I forgot all about freedom of religion... Do you have that in your country? Personally, I can respect any religious belief as long as it is honest belief and practiced faithfully. Much of modern Christian teaching, especially treatment of gays, does not square with the teachings of Jesus. Muslim teaching, contrarily, does reflect the teachings of Muhammed, at least in this instance.

Funny how religions can differ like that.

[Geggy]

Pharoah, you idiot...you're whining about us not giving you the freedom to make hate speech...you DO have the right to make hate speech. We also have the right and the freedom to criticize you. Fucking hypocrite.

[ziggytrix]

On the internet forum moderators have more freedom of speech than regular users. Someone call the ACLU!

[Pharaoh]

Pharoah, you idiot...you're whining about us not giving you the freedom to make hate speech...you DO have the right to make hate speech. We also have the right and the freedom to criticize you. Fucking hypocrite.

What have I said that's hate speech? All I've done is to expose and mock your liberal hypocrisy.
And I don't mind you criticising me, you numbskull, but I think it's out of order to change the title of this topic. I've changed it back now, but no doubt it'll change again. If my words are going to be changed then I may as well be banned, it would be more honest.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It can be arranged.

And by the way, next time you start a thread, bring something to the table, ok? You haven't exposed anything here. The same people who were outraged over the comments b/f you tried to be clever are still outraged now.

The point wasn't even to debate hate speech, or to discuss the view of homosexuality in the muslim community. It was to try to, uh, make liberals admit something.

You're lame.

The guy isn't being charged, but had he been, it seems like it would've been in compliance with British Law, which apparently was just changed (http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=ParliamentaryStoryPage&ItemID=15143324&ServiceID=8&filterid=1&searchid=37654) to protect comedians who say bad things about religion. :lol

The real culprits here aren't the liberals, or the gays, or the muslims, but rather British law. Bitch about that.

[Emu]

Can't we ban him for being a dishonest idiot? With all the shit he accuses "liberals" of, this guy's integrity must be spinning in its grave.

[Dole]

Do you mean the same Peter Tatchell who said this about it?

Tatchell was on R4 defending the right for that guy to be allowed to say whatever the hell he likes. He was arguing for free speech. Just in the same way as he is allowed to comment on the crap thats being said by Iqbal Sacranie.

Both points of view were broadcast, and no-one is being prosecuted for it. So what is your problem exactly?

[Emu]

CRITICISM IS CENSORSHIP.
WAR IS PEACE.
HATE IS LOVE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

[ziggytrix]

His problem is that Muslims are taking over your country and you just DON'T SEEM TO CARE! >:

[Dole]

I live in constant fear that my nation's cultural heritage of alchoholism, football hooliganism, inadequate dentistry and stone-cladding is in danger of being destroyed by these godless parasites.

[Pharaoh]

Do you mean the same Peter Tatchell who said this about it?

Tatchell was on R4 defending the right for that guy to be allowed to say whatever the hell he likes. He was arguing for free speech. Just in the same way as he is allowed to comment on the crap thats being said by Iqbal Sacranie.

Both points of view were broadcast, and no-one is being prosecuted for it. So what is your problem exactly?

I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by 'that guy'? I've only been talking about what Sir Iqbal Sacranie said.

The point is that Sir Iqbal Sacranie is supposed to be the voice of moderate Islam and yet he was almost arrested for hate speech just by reflecting the teachings of mainstream Islam. So what does that say about Islam in our liberal society?

[Chojin]

When you say 'our liberal society', what exactly are you referring to?

[ziggytrix]

He was almost arrested?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The point is that Sir Iqbal Sacranie is supposed to be the voice of moderate Islam and yet he was almost arrested for hate speech just by reflecting the teachings of mainstream Islam. So what does that say about Islam in our liberal society?

It isn't because he was muslim, it's because he made the statement publicly, offended somebody (which you will always do), and it's within your law to prosecute someone on those grounds.

Oh, but btw, HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED!

This is the best conversation about nothing I've ever taken part in.

[Pharaoh]

When you say 'our liberal society', what exactly are you referring to?

I mean Iran, where gays are stoned to death. What do you think I mean?
I'm referring to Britain, of course.

And I know he wasn't arrested but the fact that the police investigated the matter is bad enough, it's like a warning.

I'm interested in the clash between the rights of the two minorities, gays and Muslims. Gays to not have hate speech said against them and Muslims to say what Islam teaches. And how the left doesn't really know which minority to support.

[Immortal Goat]

It IS possible to support both group's rights. Both groups have equal rights to say what they believe, and also to say that they disagree with each other. That isn't the point of this thread, though. You tried to prove something, and you have failed. Now, you're trying to back out saying you were trying to prove something else. Shut up.

[ScruU2wice]

When you say 'our liberal society', what exactly are you referring to?

I mean Iran, where gays are stoned to death. What do you think I mean?
I'm referring to Britain, of course.

And I know he wasn't arrested but the fact that the police investigated the matter is bad enough, it's like a warning.

I'm interested in the clash between the rights of the two minorities, gays and Muslims. Gays to not have hate speech said against them and Muslims to say what Islam teaches. And how the left doesn't really know which minority to support.

No I think he mean is we really can't tell what you mean liberal because you blanket every single comment with mentions of crazy liberals.

[ScruU2wice]

So when a moderate Islamic Imam says homosexuality is wrong and the police investigate him (which they would probably do anyways solely for the fact that he's an imam), it's suppose to be a litmus test for the wickedness of Islam?

Oh well it's a good thing Moderate Christians dance under the rainbows with the queers, because otherwise it might seem like

every religion hates gay people...

[Pharaoh]

Every religion disapproves of homosexuality, that's true.
My point, however, is that leftists always take the side of the minority. That's the basis of all their decisions. It's a simple decision if it's Christians against gays, but if two minorities clash, they don't know what to do, they're lost. You can't support Muslims and gays on this matter, you can only support one.

Conclusion: Leftists are mindless, minority supporting morons.

[Sethomas]

And the right doesn't suffer contradictions? See limited government versus imperialism, moral rigidity versus personal libertarianism, name-dropping of Christianity versus defying everything for which Christ stood? Both sides are invariably going to have to make compromises in their own beliefs as part of a two-party governmental system.

Had I been old enough to vote in 2000, I would have gone for Bush. It being that Bush totally fucked up with countless affairs, I voted for Kerry in 2004. BTW, I'm a fiscal liberal and a moral conservative. How do I fit into your little scheme?

[Dole]

Every religion disapproves of homosexuality, that's true.
My point, however, is that leftists always take the side of the minority. That's the basis of all their decisions. It's a simple decision if it's Christians against gays, but if two minorities clash, they don't know what to do, they're lost. You can't support Muslims and gays on this matter, you can only support one.

Conclusion: Leftists are mindless, minority supporting morons.

You are making absolutely no sense. You are just plucking things out of the air and ascribing them to people with no basis in fact. You seem to credit vast groups of people with even less intelligence than yourself.

[Pharaoh]

And the right doesn't suffer contradictions? See limited government versus imperialism, moral rigidity versus personal libertarianism, name-dropping of Christianity versus defying everything for which Christ stood? Both sides are invariably going to have to make compromises in their own beliefs as part of a two-party governmental system.

Had I been old enough to vote in 2000, I would have gone for Bush. It being that Bush totally fucked up with countless affairs, I voted for Kerry in 2004. BTW, I'm a fiscal liberal and a moral conservative. How do I fit into your little scheme?

Well you don't sound like a typical leftie to me. I'm talking about mindless morons like Dole who would sooner vote for Osama bin Laden than Bush.

Although I haven't noticed any conservative views on moral issues from you. Probably because you know full well that you'll set off all the usual leftist parrots here squawking 'You're a moron/bigot/asshole' at you.

[Dole]

I'm talking about mindless morons like Dole who would sooner vote for Osama bin Laden than Bush.

You know absolutely nothing about me you ludicrous cretin. You are just consistently talking out of your arse and trying to backpedal your way out of it.

[Sethomas]

Well, the reason for that is that the vast majority of moral issues should not be legislated. I see homosexuality as intrinsically sinful, but each person has the right to sin and so it would be pointless to outlaw homosexual relations. For how that relates to marriage, I think that marriage as a civil institution should be abolished and replaced completely with civil unions indifferent to sexual orientation. Marriage is a religious ordeal, and shouldn't be anything more.

As for other areas, I am very much pro-life, but I have been less vociferous about it in recent years on these boards. This is not because I'm afraid of being called a moron--that could be construed as a cross I am to bear--but because of the demographics of the boards would make it pointless. If this were a board prevalent with active theists, then I'd argue against abortion until my lungs burst. But, it's not. I am pro-life because I believe in a god who has endowed bodies with souls, and these souls are represented by bodies from the time of conception. However, it becomes a moot point when dealing with someone who does not believe in the soul. I still think that the argument that life can be destroyed out of convenience is a part of a superstructure that must be overcome, but this will either take a lot of time or will never happen. The best we can do to protect the unborn is to gather majority consensus, and legislate accordingly.

Since this is a thread on homosexuality, I'll add the fact that I believe that homosexual inclinations are mostly a part of genetic disposition and social internalizations. Thus, it is not inherently sinful to be a homosexual, but acting upon ones same-sex orientation with sexual acts is sinful in the exact same regard as fornication.

And seeing how more innocents have died as a result of Bush's orders than those of bin Laden's, I fail to see your point.

[Emu]

Every religion disapproves of homosexuality, that's true.

Actually, it isn't. In many Native American tribes, homosexuals were revered and treasured as powerful shamans with a special connection to the spirit world that heterosexual people could not achieve. They used to be called berdache people, but that term has been replaced by "two-spirit."

These individuals are often viewed as having two spirits occupying one body. Their dress is usually a mixture of traditionally male and traditionally female articles. They have distinct gender and social roles in their tribes. For instance, among the Lakota there was one ceremony during the Sun Dance that was performed only by a two-spirited person of that tribe. (See winkte)

Two-spirited individuals perform specific social functions in their communities. In some tribes male-bodied two-spirits were active as healers or medicine persons, gravediggers, undertakers, handling and burying of the deceased, conducted mourning rites, conveyers of oral traditions and songs, nurses during war expeditions, foretold the future, conferred lucky names on children or adults, wove, made pottery, made beadwork and quillwork, arranged marriages, made feather regalia for dances, special skills in games of chance, led scalp-dances, and fulfilled special functions in connection with the setting up of the central post for the Sun Dance. In some tribes female-bodied two-spirits typically took on roles such as chief, council, trader, hunter, trapper, fisher, warfare, raider, guides, peace missions, vision quests, prophets, and medicine persons.

Some examples of two-spirited people in history include the accounts by Spanish conquistadors who spotted a two-spirited individual(s) in almost every village they entered in Central America.

There are descriptions of two-spirited individuals having strong mystical powers. In one account, raiding soldiers of a rival tribe begin to attack a group of foraging women when they perceive that one of the women, the one that does not run away, is a two-spirit. They halt their attack and retreat after the two-spirit counters them with a stick, determining that the two-spirit will have great power which they will not be able to overcome.

There's also Buddhism:

In Buddhism, the third of the Five Precepts states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct. Among the many interpretations of what constitutes "sexual misconduct" are: sex outside of marriage (a relatively modern idea), sex with another person without the consent of your life partner, or the historically prevalent view that it was limited to describe rape, incest, and bestiality.

No Buddhist school prior to the European Imperialism that began largely around the 17th Century had ever described homosexuality as "sexual misconduct". Traditionally, however, monks are expected to be celibate and restrain themselves from all sexual activity.

Buddhist schools condemning homosexuality for laypersons is a recent development and there is no scriptural basis upon which it is to be condemned. The closest would be a few Buddhists who equated homosexuality to disability or being a transvestite, but there was no condemnation in any sense (see also [1]). Buddhist leaders throughout Asia accepted or even sanctified homosexuality.

Hinduism, being the diverse religion that it is, has sects which approve and those which disapprove:

Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse. This is because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality at all. Currently, the debate on homosexuality within Hinduism is controversial, especially amongst Hindus in countries where homosexuality is viewed by many others as acceptable. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that in Hinduism many of the divinities are androgynous and some change gender to participate in homoerotic behaviour. To this day in modern India there are Hijras, transgendered men who have sex with men. They religiously identify as a separate third sex, with many undergoing ritual castration. However these beliefs about Hijras (Khoosras) are merely South Asian cultural beliefs, rather than Hindu religious beliefs. There is great debate over whether homosexuality is permitted in the Hindu religion.

Daoism:

This has been the traditional view of homosexuality in Taoism, that homosexual acts in it self are not wrong but all men are still required to reproduce. For example, Taoists may have homosexual relations as long as they continue the family tree by having a child with at least one woman. Many modern Taoists who also combine Confucianism have dropped their requirement of heterosexual relations due to medicinal advancements that allow reproduction without such sex, using IVF and/or surrogacy.

Do some fucking research before you open your mouth, please.

How long will it be before he dismisses everything I say for using Wikipedia as a source? Taking bets now, people.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

BTW, I'm a fiscal liberal and a moral conservative. How do I fit into your little scheme?

You don't, but hopefully if you keep it up, you'll make his head pop.



Conclusion: Leftists are mindless, minority supporting morons.


What makes muslims a minority? To my knowledge, Islam is the second largest religion in the world, second only to Christianity with all its sects and divisions (granted, Islam has them too).

Who on this board came across as torn or ashamed for having condemned what this guy said? You're living in a fantasy world, where you are the lonely, heroic conservative being persecuted by all the "mindless" leftists.

Very few people, even on this board, will fit into the cookie cutter you've invented in your mind. The only people with a persecuted minority complex are conservatives such as yourself.

[Pharaoh]

Every religion disapproves of homosexuality, that's true.

Actually, it isn't. In many Native American tribes, homosexuals were revered and treasured as powerful shamans with a special connection to the spirit world that heterosexual people could not achieve. They used to be called berdache people, but that term has been replaced by "two-spirit."

These individuals are often viewed as having two spirits occupying one body. Their dress is usually a mixture of traditionally male and traditionally female articles. They have distinct gender and social roles in their tribes. For instance, among the Lakota there was one ceremony during the Sun Dance that was performed only by a two-spirited person of that tribe. (See winkte)

Two-spirited individuals perform specific social functions in their communities. In some tribes male-bodied two-spirits were active as healers or medicine persons, gravediggers, undertakers, handling and burying of the deceased, conducted mourning rites, conveyers of oral traditions and songs, nurses during war expeditions, foretold the future, conferred lucky names on children or adults, wove, made pottery, made beadwork and quillwork, arranged marriages, made feather regalia for dances, special skills in games of chance, led scalp-dances, and fulfilled special functions in connection with the setting up of the central post for the Sun Dance. In some tribes female-bodied two-spirits typically took on roles such as chief, council, trader, hunter, trapper, fisher, warfare, raider, guides, peace missions, vision quests, prophets, and medicine persons.

Some examples of two-spirited people in history include the accounts by Spanish conquistadors who spotted a two-spirited individual(s) in almost every village they entered in Central America.

There are descriptions of two-spirited individuals having strong mystical powers. In one account, raiding soldiers of a rival tribe begin to attack a group of foraging women when they perceive that one of the women, the one that does not run away, is a two-spirit. They halt their attack and retreat after the two-spirit counters them with a stick, determining that the two-spirit will have great power which they will not be able to overcome.

There's also Buddhism:

In Buddhism, the third of the Five Precepts states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct. Among the many interpretations of what constitutes "sexual misconduct" are: sex outside of marriage (a relatively modern idea), sex with another person without the consent of your life partner, or the historically prevalent view that it was limited to describe rape, incest, and bestiality.

No Buddhist school prior to the European Imperialism that began largely around the 17th Century had ever described homosexuality as "sexual misconduct". Traditionally, however, monks are expected to be celibate and restrain themselves from all sexual activity.

Buddhist schools condemning homosexuality for laypersons is a recent development and there is no scriptural basis upon which it is to be condemned. The closest would be a few Buddhists who equated homosexuality to disability or being a transvestite, but there was no condemnation in any sense (see also [1]). Buddhist leaders throughout Asia accepted or even sanctified homosexuality.

Hinduism, being the diverse religion that it is, has sects which approve and those which disapprove:

Hindu views of homosexuality are varying and diverse. This is because the accepted Hindu religious texts do not explicitly mention homosexuality at all. Currently, the debate on homosexuality within Hinduism is controversial, especially amongst Hindus in countries where homosexuality is viewed by many others as acceptable. Furthermore the issue is complicated by the fact that in Hinduism many of the divinities are androgynous and some change gender to participate in homoerotic behaviour. To this day in modern India there are Hijras, transgendered men who have sex with men. They religiously identify as a separate third sex, with many undergoing ritual castration. However these beliefs about Hijras (Khoosras) are merely South Asian cultural beliefs, rather than Hindu religious beliefs. There is great debate over whether homosexuality is permitted in the Hindu religion.

Daoism:

This has been the traditional view of homosexuality in Taoism, that homosexual acts in it self are not wrong but all men are still required to reproduce. For example, Taoists may have homosexual relations as long as they continue the family tree by having a child with at least one woman. Many modern Taoists who also combine Confucianism have dropped their requirement of heterosexual relations due to medicinal advancements that allow reproduction without such sex, using IVF and/or surrogacy.

Do some fucking research before you open your mouth, please.

How long will it be before he dismisses everything I say for using Wikipedia as a source? Taking bets now, people.

Well so what? Christianity is split on homosexuality too, as I've already said. So you've proved nothing. None of the major religions approve of homosexuality, and they don't promote it like they do with hetrosexuality.

Anyway, I was actually replying to one of your leftist buddies, ScruU2wice, who stated, 'every religion hates gay people...'.
So why didn't you address your reply to him?

[Emu]

Because he was being facetious, you brick of a man. And I've proved plenty. You said every religion disapproves of homosexuality. That's just plain wrong; it's the people within the religion that disapprove, not the religion itself. I'm referring to the religions whose scripture do not even mention homosexuality; it's people bringing in their own distastes and injecting them into their religion as if the religion preaches it, as opposed to a religion like Christianity or Judaism, which explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin in its scripture.

[Kulturkampf]

Who's censoring him? They're investigating him because he used his free speech to spew hate speech that borders on speaking his intention to take violent action agaainst homosexuals.

LOL, what violent intentions towards homosexuals?

Liberals just fabricate bullshit -- "he disagrees with me. I think he's going to get violent so let's use that as our reason to censorship and thought-police."

[Emu]

Typically, when people say things like "x is damaging to society, it spreads disease, etc." that implies that it should be gotten rid of. I didn't say he was going to take violent action toward homosexuals, but what he said sure makes it seem like he would if given the chance.

[Sethomas]

I love conservatives who inadvertently quote a socialist's ideas.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Liberals just fabricate bullshit -- "he disagrees with me. I think he's going to get violent so let's use that as our reason to censorship and thought-police."

1. No charges were brought against him.

2. If they had been, it would've been compliant with British law.

[Pharaoh]

Because he was being facetious, you brick of a man.

Look you moron. I know he was being sarcastic. He said, 'Oh well it's a good thing Moderate Christians dance under the rainbows with the queers, because otherwise it might seem like every religion hates gay people...'

Sarcastically saying that every religion does hate gay people.

[Kulturkampf]

Typically, when people say things like "x is damaging to society, it spreads disease, etc." that implies that it should be gotten rid of. I didn't say he was going to take violent action toward homosexuals, but what he said sure makes it seem like he would if given the chance.

Good call, jerk-off.

"He disagrees with me and used strong words -- he is going to get violent."

Who is the real fascist now?

[Pharaoh]

Typically, when people say things like "x is damaging to society, it spreads disease, etc." that implies that it should be gotten rid of. I didn't say he was going to take violent action toward homosexuals, but what he said sure makes it seem like he would if given the chance.

Good call, jerk-off.

"He disagrees with me and used strong words -- he is going to get violent."

Who is the real fascist now?

Yeah, and he's talking about the leader of Britain's moderate Muslims. He's an Islamophobe.

[Chojin]

Could you two kids stop quoting each other and performing oral sex on each others' posts? It's getting kinda gross.

[Emu]

Because he was being facetious, you brick of a man.

Look you moron. I know he was being sarcastic. He said, 'Oh well it's a good thing Moderate Christians dance under the rainbows with the queers, because otherwise it might seem like every religion hates gay people...'

Sarcastically saying that every religion does hate gay people.

Fine, my mistake. But my point still stands. Both of you need to do research.

[Emu]

Typically, when people say things like "x is damaging to society, it spreads disease, etc." that implies that it should be gotten rid of. I didn't say he was going to take violent action toward homosexuals, but what he said sure makes it seem like he would if given the chance.

Good call, jerk-off.

"He disagrees with me and used strong words -- he is going to get violent."

Who is the real fascist now?

Thanks for the paraphrase, it really captures what I was saying. I'm so glad we have you here to summarize things, or else I'd get confused.

I feel like a douche for invoking Godwin's Law AGAIN, but didn't Hitler make similar comments about the Jews and other "undesirables" in Nazi Germany? Not that I'm comparing this man to Hitler. But what he said invokes similar feelings as to the things Hitler said.

[Kulturkampf]

LOL, we need to do research?

On what?

We're the only people presenting links, quotations, facts. etc. and you guys keep saying "You're bigots and fascists." A few folks provide links here and there, but overall the general composure of our opposition is immature repetitiono f bullshit.

Perhaps the real answer would be to report us to a group, and let them know you hve a hunch we'll get violent and commit a hate crime because we have conflicting ideas and use strong words.

[Emu]

I'm getting kind of confused since you seem to be responding to things that were said a while ago. And I was talking about Phaoroah and Scru, not you. Get down off the cross, please.

Edit: Holy shit, I completely screwed up the spelling of his name. Fuck it, you get the picture.

[Emu]

So, what, are we done?

[ziggytrix]

HE IS THE KING, SAYS TOP CAT!

[Big Papa Goat]

I love it when people say it's hypocritical to not tolerate intolerance.

[Pharaoh]

So, what, are we done?

Yes, thank you for taking part in the experiment. :fu

[ScruU2wice]

Who's censoring him? They're investigating him because he used his free speech to spew hate speech that borders on speaking his intention to take violent action agaainst homosexuals.

LOL, what violent intentions towards homosexuals?

Liberals just fabricate bullshit -- "he disagrees with me. I think he's going to get violent so let's use that as our reason to censorship and thought-police."

yeah It's not like someone ever got dragged to death and tied to a fence in the south for being gay.

I find it simply delightful that neither you or pharoh can never get a post through without mentioning the left and right, and dodging the issue by throwing "liberal lefty nutcase" bomb.

[Frizzurd]

Remember guys it wasnt the voice of the majority that put an end to seggregation in america. Damn right its hate speach. Yes hes free to speak but were free to to call him out for it as well!

[Emu]

Thank you for that helpfully irrelevent comment.

[Kulturkampf]

I love it when people say it's hypocritical to not tolerate intolerance.

It is not an issue of tolerance -- it is an issue of political freedom.

Should people have the freedom to have opinions on homosexuals? Yes!

Should it be okay in a free society for someone to believe homosexuality is immoral and spreads disease?

Yes!

If not, we are looking at Soviet era bullshit:

"Comrade Borishof reports that you have noted a dislike for homosexuals. Homosexuals are members of our new society that dismiss outdated traditional values based on ignorance. Based on Comrade Borishof's report, you will be sent to a re-education facility to learn the glorious values of the great people's revolution."

It is not fascist so much as it is Communist.

[ziggytrix]

Should it be okay in a free society for someone to believe homosexuality is immoral and spreads disease?


The prejudiced belief that homosexuality is immoral is a freedom should be tolerated, but the belief that homosexuality spreads disease is pure ignorance.

FORNICATION spreads disease. If you want to argue that homosexuals fornicate more, and therefore spread more disease, well you'd be wrong, but even were that not so, it doesn't make homosexuality into some sort of pathogen.

[Kulturkampf]

I do say...

It does spread disease much more due to the absolutely enormous rate of fornication amongst homosexuals (note the facts pointing at AIDS and homosexual men).

(cue previous thread)

[Emu]

When you say "enormous," what's your point of reference? Sex among heterosexuals?

[ziggytrix]

And I would encourage you to note that the infection rate among black Americans is currently 50% of the total infected population according to the November 2005 report by the US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is despite the fact that they make up only 12.9% of the American population.

So would you then have me believe blackness spreads disease, you ignorant kunt? If you cannot comprehend that correlation is not causation please don't ever talk about your thoughts on "why things are they way they are" again, because you have the understanding of a juvenile.

[Pharaoh]

According to the black film-maker of a UK documentary, Living with Aids, the reason AIDS is so widespread in Africa, with 6,000 people dying every day, is because it's normal for black people there to be sexually promiscuous. The same reason that AIDS is widespread among gays here.


'Samura made the programme to try and find out why Aids was destroying his continent and after speaking to a number of such men as Joshua came to realise that sexual attitudes played a huge role.

He went further last night, saying that in the pervasive culture, where children start having sex at five, six or seven, 'success [for men] is measured by the number of women they sleep around with' and women 'were disempowered'.

He felt qualified to make the controversial comments, he said, because he had grown up in the same environment where it was normal to be promiscuous. 'The majority of poor people tend to live in single rooms and it is very difficult to have privacy,' he told The Observer. 'We [would] see elder members of the family when they were having sex. I grew up in that setting.'
Link here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1509754,00.html)

And black African immigrants are spreading AIDS to black people in the West.

'The AIDS crisis facing Britain's African community is to be tackled by Ministers amid fears that cultural taboos are hampering the battle against infection.

A quarter of cases of HIV in this country are now among people of African origin, though they form less than 1 per cent of the population.

And doctors are alarmed not just at the rise in immigrant cases, but at the spread of the virus through Britain's settled black community.'
Link here (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1174697,00.html)

[ziggytrix]

Thank you for that unequivocal argument that SEXUAL PROMISCUITY (not HOMOSEXUALITY) is what causes the spread of HIV.