Everything in this world constantly changes, and if something does not change, it will die. Judaism died 2000 years ago because they didn't want to accept the "New Age" (Christianity). Islam is newer than Christianity so it will probably last a bit longer, but eventually all religions turn into myths.
To be gay and a Muslim
- Thread starter Mr.Spock
- Start date
Everything in this world constantly changes, and if something does not change, it will die. Judaism died 2000 years ago because they didn't want to accept the "New Age" (Christianity). Islam is newer than Christianity so it will probably last a bit longer, but eventually all religions turn into myths.
I wonder: What do modern Hindu and modern Buddhism and Communists think of homosexuals?
I know some Buddhists, like the Dali Lama (at least at one time) thought that it was wrong. But, Thai seem fine with it, so that may be a sectarian difference.
Interestingly, harking back to Kadark's earlier comments "Islam becomes liberalized (losing its traditional heritage)" reminded me of something I heard some Communists say, (Islam is a lot like Communism). Anyway, it was along the lines of preserving traditional Chinese values and part of that was to not accept homosexuals into Chinese culture and as such Communism should also stand against homosexuals because they will undermine all of Chinese values aka let the homos in and the whole house of cards will fall (must be a pretty fragile system huh?)
This is pretty much what Kadark is talking about.
So, we had they Chinese "traditionalists" whose idea was that by maintaining Chinese vlaues they would maintain a great and strong China.
BUT, in reality CHina was a joke. It was a stagnated country trying to livei n the past and move into the future.
Ironically, now that Communists want China to modernize they say that homosexuality is a genetic disposition and should be accepted as such. (They now use this as a wedge against the Dali Lama (he's too old school/superstitious) and interestingly, China IS modernizing and becoming powerful. So, accepting homosexuality has nothign to do with a traditional and strong China. People didn't stop using chop sticks and they are more welathy and healthy and the whole country is doing much better. Not that this has anything directly to do accepting homosexuals, but that was part and parcel of accepting that they can stop living in the past and things will be better.
So, in reality, this doesn't have so much to do with "homosexuals" per say, as it does with the way humans hate change.
Unless you have homosexual feelings AND are taught this is sinful. Now these people aren't really worried about "change" so much as they are hating the fact that they are gay and feel sinful for it.
The fact is history shows that homosexuals are a normal part of a functioning society. They are often the greatest artists, sculptors, playwrights, painters, philosophers, scientists, fashion designers, novelists and musicians. All of the people that Islamic societies have crushed over the ages, oh, a few crop up for sure, but nor where near the numbers that such a large population and length in time should have produced. In this regards Islamic countries remind me of Europe during the dark ages.
I know some Buddhists, like the Dali Lama (at least at one time) thought that it was wrong. But, Thai seem fine with it, so that may be a sectarian difference.
Interestingly, harking back to Kadark's earlier comments "Islam becomes liberalized (losing its traditional heritage)" reminded me of something I heard some Communists say, (Islam is a lot like Communism). Anyway, it was along the lines of preserving traditional Chinese values and part of that was to not accept homosexuals into Chinese culture and as such Communism should also stand against homosexuals because they will undermine all of Chinese values aka let the homos in and the whole house of cards will fall (must be a pretty fragile system huh?)
This is pretty much what Kadark is talking about.
So, we had they Chinese "traditionalists" whose idea was that by maintaining Chinese vlaues they would maintain a great and strong China.
BUT, in reality CHina was a joke. It was a stagnated country trying to livei n the past and move into the future.
Ironically, now that Communists want China to modernize they say that homosexuality is a genetic disposition and should be accepted as such. (They now use this as a wedge against the Dali Lama (he's too old school/superstitious) and interestingly, China IS modernizing and becoming powerful. So, accepting homosexuality has nothign to do with a traditional and strong China. People didn't stop using chop sticks and they are more welathy and healthy and the whole country is doing much better. Not that this has anything directly to do accepting homosexuals, but that was part and parcel of accepting that they can stop living in the past and things will be better.
So, in reality, this doesn't have so much to do with "homosexuals" per say, as it does with the way humans hate change.
Unless you have homosexual feelings AND are taught this is sinful. Now these people aren't really worried about "change" so much as they are hating the fact that they are gay and feel sinful for it.
The fact is history shows that homosexuals are a normal part of a functioning society. They are often the greatest artists, sculptors, playwrights, painters, philosophers, scientists, fashion designers, novelists and musicians. All of the people that Islamic societies have crushed over the ages, oh, a few crop up for sure, but nor where near the numbers that such a large population and length in time should have produced. In this regards Islamic countries remind me of Europe during the dark ages.
the reason that religions condemns homosexuality is because it's unhealthy for two men to have sex. but this doesn't apply to modern society because we have protection and stuff. it's never been unhealthy for two women to have sex, but religions are often also against lesbians because religious people didn't understand why homosexuality was wrong, so they assumed that it would also be wrong for women.
i posted this a few days ago but i think it fits in this thread.
Come on norsefire, argue with one of the highest legal authorites in the country
tell me why hes wrong?
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_14oct06.pdf
Come on norsefire, argue with one of the highest legal authorites in the country
tell me why hes wrong?
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_14oct06.pdf
I get these types of startled reactions all of the time. I, too, used to consider David Duke and his Storm-front brethren as racist, redneck separatists, but I was drastically wrong. They're great people who simply cherish their White heritage, and feel they have the right to express White nationalism without being labeled as racists (let's face it: "White pride" is automatically considered to be a racist movement, whereas "Black pride", for example, is not). They have fantastic taste is politics (the overwhelming majority of them support Ron Paul); they are very anti-war, and disagree with sacrificing their own flesh and blood to satisfy Israel's never-ending bloodlust. They are, for the most part, very educated, and reiterate constantly that they are against racism of all types. I consider them very principled and patriotic people, who are often practicing, knowledgeable Christians.
Kadark
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Kadark, if you stepped foot in a synagogue and argued with even the 12 year old kid. You would lose in any argument.
What a compelling argument, Cheski! It just goes to show you how rewarding centuries of inbreeding can be.
Kadark
They're redneck, racist people who want to separate others.
What about their "right" to beat up people they don't like - i.e. people of other races, homosexual people, women - basically anybody who challenges their self-image (which, let's face it, is so easy to do)?
They're neo-Nazis. Yeah, marvellous.
except when it comes to beating up black people or Jews.
That fits with the anti-semitism. Duh!
Nonsense. Most of them are redneck yokels.
...all the while continually spouting about the inferiority of other races.
They're principled all right. Abhorrently so.
As for patriotism, they're patriotic to the ideal "master race".
[quote... who are often practicing, knowledgeable Christians.[/quote]
To pay lip service to Christianity while simultaneously calling for genocide is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Well, I think we've established one thing here: you don't know a thing about the Storm-front (cursed filter!) members, or of David Duke/Don Black/Ron Paul. Also, they don't "call for genocide", whether or not you've been misled to believe such nonsense. They're peaceful people who want to leave Iraq/Afghanistan, and secure their borders (as any nation would). Visit David Duke's website, for example: on the top of the screen, next to his picture (if I recall correctly), it says, "Support our troops... bring 'em home". If they truly wanted "genocide", then I'm sure they would be delighted to kill Arabs and non-Christians.
Right?
Oh, and thanks for deleting your insulting post, James. I would hate to ban you for insulting other members.
Kadark
Right?
Oh, and thanks for deleting your insulting post, James. I would hate to ban you for insulting other members.
Kadark
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's fits in most Western societies. The real problem is that it doesn't fit Islam.
why should allah care what anyone does with their dicks? he needs to spend a little more time on the real issues, like people suffering and the number of people he's doing such a shit job converting. this criticism applies to the christian god too.
My dads family watched Ron Pauls kids in Texas. He lives in the same town my dad grew up in, and much still lives in. Sure he has the same views on Jews as you?
Insh'allah there will be tongue.
Last edited:
What world are you living in? Gay marriage is illegal almost everywhere, and it's a taboo.
Besides, anything can "fit"; the problem is, is it right?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Not, as far as I know, in most of Western Europe.
And I know it's not illegal in my country.
It's not wrong..
It's legal in three countries. Wow.
Your country also legalized prostitution, which is absolutely ridiculous.
In your opinion.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
True. But, I think most decent people think prostitution, a woman selling her body for sex, and probably involved with the lowliest of society, is wrong. There's a reason being called a slut isn't a compliment.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's illegal in the US.. right ?