An openly homosexual Imam visits Norway

Marrying one's mother, daughter, sister, pets is not on the menu of people, regardless of whether they are theist or not.
marrying one of the same gender isn't on that menu either, till recent times when homos managed to force it there, and certain others welcomed it through secularism.
i foresee secularism[and of course atheism] will be updating our menus sometime in the near future.

But it would seem as a secular and/or atheist society, we find incest abhorrent and bestiality abhorrent.
:eek:
but why?
Now, you seem to feel that we have sex with our family members and partake in bestiality and went so far as to term it an "earthly delight",
no i feel you're super hypocrites for acting so disgusted of it, when you valiantly defend homosexuality, which upon careful and emotionless examination, would turn out to be identical to to bestiality and incest behavior.
which begs the question.. are you confusing atheists with yourself or your own society when it comes to incest and bestiality?
i'm confused at atheists double standards and hypocrisy.
 
marrying one of the same gender isn't on that menu either, till recent times when homos managed to force it there, and certain others welcomed it through secularism.

"Homos"? Wow.


Shit, who knows? Inbreeding, forcing sex on minors (or even animals) from a position of physical and authoritative superiority, the transmission of interspecies disease - take your pick. It's all such a hideous double standard, isn't it? :rolleyes:

no i feel you're super hypocrites for acting so disgusted of it, when you valiantly defend homosexuality, which upon careful and emotionless examination, would turn out to be identical to to bestiality and incest behavior.

Really? Please define how homosexuality is equivalent to either beastiality or incest.

i'm confused at atheists double standards and hypocrisy.

First, you have to demonstrate that it's them and not you who have the double standards.
 
:roflmao:
ohhh this is precious.
please dear bells, enlighten me about the difference between them.
and make it convincing for say, japanese, whose trend of sibling couples and parent/child sexual relationships are slowly not only rising to the surface, but also trying to get "rights" and social and legal acceptance.

Please excuse me if I ask in all sincerity what the fuck you are talking about.

i mean, if a man can marry a man, then why can't a man marry his mother or his sister?

Sure!

...or his first cousin, maybe? :shrug:

athiest and their lot step in and talk their evolution crap and say "why not?"

Uh, about that, please excuse me if I ask in all sincerity what the fuck you are talking about. Again. Make sure to include the "evolution crap", because my impression from actually being an evolutionary biologist is that it's considered inadvisable, genetically.

so a mother having sex with her child bells...
...why not?

Power imbalance, for one thing? Or is that not an ethical consideration you regularly take into account?

but when the bandwagon doesn't say anything about bestiality, you fail to see its resemblance to homosexuality, and make the mistake of condemning it.

I reiterate my demand from above: define empirically this equivalance. It is not up to Bells to differentiate these things, but up to you to make a connection between them. I recommend some haste, because the argument you're making is extraordinarily offensive.
 
well you're a bit more skilled than others.
Really? Please define how homosexuality is equivalent to either beastiality or incest.



First, you have to demonstrate that it's them and not you who have the double standards.
Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
[/LIST]Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

since ther is no fixed criteria for things that disgust people, we can say it's determined by the masses.
the majority of people is disgusted by homosexuality as much as bestiality. or at least, is disgusted by both.
atheists differ. and pick homosexuality from the rest and say it's normal.
they should explain.
 
Why is homosexuality in this "the rest"? What puts it there? On what basis should I even consider it in the "rest" to start with, that I now need to differentiate it from this "rest"? Or on what basis do these "masses" consider it part of this - I must assume - arbitrary group of behaviours you're discussing?

The burden of proof of the original point is on you, in point of fact.
 
ohhh this is precious.

I wouldn't call you precious. Mentally challenged and a throw back to the neanderthals, maybe.

please dear bells, enlighten me about the difference between them
Enlighten you on the difference between homosexuality and incest between a mother and son?

I mean sure, I can understand that you might have an issue distinguishing the difference between the two if your mother had a dick and not related to you. Does your mother have a penis Scifes? Is she called Dave?

It would normally be at this point that I would call you a retarded runt. But I'll save that for later.

and make it convincing for say, japanese, whose trend of sibling couples and parent/child sexual relationships are slowly not only rising to the surface, but also trying to get "rights" and social and legal acceptance.
What in the hell are you on about?

i mean, if a man can marry a man, then why can't a man marry his mother or his sister?
Ah geez, I don't know. Incest maybe?

And you keep obsessing about the incest issue. Do you want to marry your mother or sister?

this guy married his nintendo DS.
Is that a bit like the guy who was forced to marry a goat?

why can't i marry my sister?
Err because if you are this much of a retard, it is quite likely that your sister carries the same genes as you do and frankly, you should not only be barred from breeding altogether, but also from breeding with your sister and spawning more retards like yourself.

In other words, it would be incest.

Do you want to marry your sister Scifes?

heh, why even bother with marriage, why not just have sex? if we both don't mind, what's wrong with it?
Are we still talking about you and your sister?

you say it's wrong, so please tell me what exactly is wrong with it.
You need to be told what is wrong with you having sex with your sister?

most people see men making love to men like men making love to their mothers.
I am going to take a wild guess here and say that I would imagine most normal people don't sit there and think about their mothers when they have sex, let alone have sex with their mothers.

Just a guess.

athiest and their lot step in and talk their evolution crap and say "why not?"
What lot?

You think evolution is crap?

Awww.. you are precious! I can assure you, at the moment I am figuring you as the missing link and frankly, I can actually picture you as being related to a baboon.

Why not indeed! Of course, when I say that, I mean that in the sense that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and everything wrong with you and your obsession with fucking your mother and sister.

so a mother having sex with her child bells...
...why not?
I think you should be asking why would a mother have sex with her child.

Lets say, God forbid, you actually find a female who is willing to actually let you come within 1 mile of her and lets you touch her and mate with her. And heaven forbid, she finds herself pregnant with your spawn and that spawn ends up being female. Are you saying you're going to be having sex with her? Yes? No? Is it something you would consider?

Do you think it is normal for you to want to have sex with your sister Scifes?

no it says a lot about you.
if the bandwagon says homosexuality is fine, you convince yourself its fine.
Dude, you're the one asking me why you can't have sex with or marry your sister. I think that says more about you than I ever wanted to know.

Does your bandwagon tell you it is normal to feel sexually attracted to your sister or mother?

but when the bandwagon doesn't say anything about bestiality, you fail to see its resemblance to homosexuality, and make the mistake of condemning it.
Do you think it is a mistake that I condemn your desire to fuck a goat or your sister?

You poor thing. How hard it must be for you.. First we condemn your desire to fuck your sister and mother. But then we go and condemn your earthly desire to fuck your pets.

otherwise, tell me why is homosexuality different from bestiality, they both are free to do in their sexual lives what they want, as long as they're not harming others, you disagree and say bestiality is wrong. why bells?
What is the difference between homosexuality and bestiality?

Err could it be that with homosexuality, you have two consenting male humans who aren't related and with bestiality you have a human having sex with an animal that is unable to consent (and as much as you may try to convince yourself otherwise, that goat baaing at you is not consent scifes) and may be harmed by the act itself?

I think that's a fairly big difference, don't you?

marrying one of the same gender isn't on that menu either, till recent times when homos managed to force it there, and certain others welcomed it through secularism.
Homos.. nice..

Again, you want me to explain to you why incest is bad and abhorrent?

no i feel you're super hypocrites for acting so disgusted of it, when you valiantly defend homosexuality, which upon careful and emotionless examination, would turn out to be identical to to bestiality and incest behavior.
You see, you are still wrong.

I would like you to explain to me how homosexuality is the same as you having sex with, say.. your cat?

Apparently you appear to have examined this issue closely and have done some research on it. So I would like you to explain how you having sex with your cat would be the same as you having sex with another human being that happens to be male. Or you having sex with your sister and/or mother.

i'm confused at atheists double standards and hypocrisy.
What double standard?

That we think it is wrong for you to have sex with your sister or your pets?

/Apply calling you a retarded runt here..

:rolleyes:
 
Wow, the bigotry in this thread is nauseating..the more astounding it is that there are Muslims who have enough courage to openly express their homosexual orientation..just thinking about the pressure and the dangers involved with openly expressing your homosexuality in a bigoted Muslim community.. kudos to Daayiee Abdullah for having the courage to stand up against it.
 
From Bells' link:

Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

:D

A resounding blow for the sanctity of marriage.
 
They're married. You immoral anti-marriagists have just got to stop this. Immoral!
 
Boooooo. :mad:

Some people are so intolerant of mixed marriages.

Although one wonders what would happen if he ate the goat.
 
Wow, the bigotry in this thread is nauseating..the more astounding it is that there are Muslims who have enough courage to openly express their homosexual orientation..just thinking about the pressure and the dangers involved with openly expressing your homosexuality in a bigoted Muslim community.. kudos to Daayiee Abdullah for having the courage to stand up against it.

Indeed!

Well said.

GeoffP said:
They're married. You immoral anti-marriagists have just got to stop this. Immoral!
They married after he had sex with the goat.

And he is now a widow.. His wife/goat died shortly after delivering the kid.

The desire to say 'boom boom' here is strong. Must resist...

What is funny is that in the world according to Scifes, as people who see nothing wrong with homosexuals, we should also find Mr Tombe's action normal. Because yes, it is apparently supposed to be normal and acceptable to sneak into your neighbours field and have sex with said neighbour's goat..

Which I think says more about Scifes than I ever wanted to know..
 
I was saddened to hear of the passing of his wife. Plenty more fish in the sea, however.

Although I suppose that having sex with an actual fish is not completely out of the pale in this case.
 
I was saddened to hear of the passing of his wife. Plenty more fish in the sea, however.

Although I suppose that having sex with an actual fish is not completely out of the pale in this case.

Perhaps he'll settle down with a nice blowfish..
 
Back
Top