Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Progressive America must now figure out how to cope with a basic conflict between two of their greatest sympathies -- LGBTs and Muslims.

Which one is more important to them to defend?

Or is it somehow ok to them to accept that Muslims don't play nice with LGBTs? They'd better figure out their liberal excuses fast because it's all coming to a volatile head now.

Thoughts?

Add guns to the equation if you want to be serious about this

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Which one is more important to them to defend?
An extremist gunning down people in a gay club is neither an exercise of religious freedom nor is it a deceleration of war between two social groups. It's just an idiot causing a scene.

Originally posted by Astner
An extremist gunning down people in a gay club is neither an exercise of religious freedom nor is it a deceleration of war between two social groups. It's just an idiot causing a scene.

At least Arabic Islamic nations treat homosexuals with the death penalty. So you would be incorrect.

It's pretty bad in Jamaica, too. Culture > religion

Liberalism and gay rights dont mix with Islam, so who are the liberals going to side with?

24-hour news cycle (see: fear mongering) has gotten you good

Proof? Or just another one of your baseless claims?

Hilldawg loves to take Islamic Run Countries Money so I am sure she is all for Islamic Religious Law.

The Democrats will be able to replace the Gay Vote with the Islamic Vote.


Sure all the gays will be dead but a Vote for Democrat is a Vote for Democrat

Originally posted by psycho gundam
Add guns to the equation if you want to be serious about this
Indeed. Radical Mulsims would gun down homosexuals, or just throw them of the top of builidings, like they do in Sharia law Muslim countries and... apparently try to do even in Britain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3643379/Undercover-police-officer-recorded-Muslim-extremists-calling-gay-people-thrown-building-secret-ISIS-support-meetings-garden.html

Undercover police officer 'recorded Muslim extremists calling for gay people to be thrown from a building during secret ISIS support meetings in back garden'

An undercover police officer recorded British Muslim extremists calling for gay people to be thrown from 'high buildings', a court heard today.

Five men are accused of addressing or arranging meetings in support of the terror group at a church hall and the back garden of a home in Luton, Bedfordshire, last summer.

The first defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly told one gathering: 'We know that Islam is going to dominate all of this earth.'


Also:


http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/

A majority of Muslims in Britain think homosexuality should be banned as a lifestyle. Almost half of them think homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in schools...

These are not Middle-Eastern radicalized Muslims, mind you, but the ones that live in the Western country that has a long liberty tradition.


In short, for radicalized Muslims (who, according to Pew research presented by Ben Shapiro are, in fact, a majority of Muslims worldwide), gay rights mean nothing.


Your thoughts on the issue?


EDIT: I also sincerely hope your username is not a giveaway of your mental prowess. For the sake of a fruitful discussion, do not handwave the facts as many liberals do.

These are two different issues. Gay rights is a human rights issue. Islam is a religious tolerance issue. Under the Constitution, we are all afforded the same basic human rights. This includes anyone living in this country. We all have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

What you were touching it with Islam is the religious rights issue. And we do have freedom of religion in this country. However, that would fall under the separation of church and state. What this means is that we have a right to worship any God that we want to as long as it does not interfere with the basic rights of another human being. Throwing gay men off the top of roof rooftops is a violation of someone else's basic human rights and cannot be accepted by this government. Muslims are free to hold intolerant beliefs as long as they do not act upon them. In a secular government, human rights will always supersede religious rights. If Muslims want to practice the full extent of the Quran then they should move back to a Muslim country.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
These are two different issues. Gay rights is a human rights issue. Islam is a religious tolerance issue. Under the Constitution, we are all afforded the same basic human rights. This includes anyone living in this country. We all have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

What you were touching it with Islam is the religious rights issue. And we do have freedom of religion in this country. However, that would fall under the separation of church and state. What this means is that we have a right to worship any God that we want to as long as it does not interfere with the basic rights of another human being. Throwing gay men off the top of roof rooftops is a violation of someone else's basic human rights and cannot be accepted by this government. Muslims are free to hold intolerant beliefs as long as they do not act upon them. In a secular government, human rights will always supersede religious rights. If Muslims want to practice the full extent of the Quran then they should move back to a Muslim country.



Some Americans do not believe this a secular government though. They believe it is a Christian government

Originally posted by Lestov16


Some Americans do not believe this a secular government though. They believe it is a Christian government

SO you agree with this?

"In a secular government, human rights will always supersede religious rights. If Muslims want to practice the full extent of the Quran then they should move back to a Muslim country."

Originally posted by Lestov16


Some Americans do not believe this a secular government though. They believe it is a Christian government

It's secular in theory, but the church holds way way way too much power in this country. If Islam had that much power here it would be outright f*cking scary.

I also feel this quote from Teddy Roosevelt perfectly sums up my feelings about this shit with muslims:

"The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels... his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American."

Surtur, How many Christians in our government are killing homosexuals?

Originally posted by Lestov16


Some Americans do not believe this a secular government though. They believe it is a Christian government

America is only considered a Christian Nation because Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. However, that has zilch to do with the framing of laws in America. There is separation of church and state for a reason.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Surtur, How many Christians in our government are killing homosexuals?

None, I was just saying why I think some people think of it as a christian government.

I know, lest is under the impression we kill homosexuals here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
SO you agree with this?

"In a secular government, human rights will always supersede religious rights. If Muslims want to practice the full extent of the Quran then they should move back to a Muslim country."

Yep.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's secular in theory, but the church holds way way way too much power in this country. If Islam had that much power here it would be outright f*cking scary.

Wouldn't call it power. The Church after all, cannot make enforceable laws.

I think a better term in "influence" using it's masses to push their values or protects its interests by lobbying or pressuring (via their voter base) politicians.

But then again, isn't this just democracy in action? SJW's do it. Feminists do it. Environmentalists do it. Every special interest group does it. So why is the Church specifically the scary one? And AFAIK, I mean I'm sure ppl might disagree with the Church's views on gay marriage or abortion, but then again, how scary are those really?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wouldn't call it power. The Church after all, cannot make enforceable laws.

I think a better term in "influence" using it's masses to push their values or protects its interests by lobbying or pressuring (via their voter base) politicians.

But then again, isn't this just democracy in action? SJW's do it. Feminists do it. Environmentalists do it. Every special interest group does it. So why is the Church specifically the scary one? And AFAIK, I mean I'm sure ppl might disagree with the Church's views on gay marriage or abortion, but then again, how scary are those really?

Doesn't it utterly f*cking terrify you that it more or less sounds like you could be describing the mob?

The article is mostly a lie, you can't trust anything from Huff post. I mean have you ever heard arianna huffington speak?

Originally posted by Surtur
Doesn't it utterly f*cking terrify you that it more or less sounds like you could be describing the mob?

Why would it terrify me?

Again, this is democracy in action. Every special interest group lobbies for their values/interests to be pushed. This is just how things are.

I mean the influence of the media FAR FAR outstrips that of the Church.

Should the Church just not advocate for its principles while everyone else is free to do it?

I just find the article hilarious now. Not for the deaths, but for the strange leaps it takes:

"Some victims were killed by domestic partners, others by complete strangers."

So hold on domestic partner means like a boyfriend or husband. But if they hate gays why would they be in a relationship with gays? Is domestic violence now a hate crime?

"But there is a thread of similarity running through the cases as well. According to AVP, around half of the slayings this year appear to be hate-motivated violence. In the case of the transgender victims, many are initially misidentified and mis-gendered by both police and media reports."

Lol wait what? So the cops couldn't even identify some of them as trans people, but random strangers used their trans-gender sensing powers to determine this and commit an act of violence specifically because of trans people?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would it terrify me?

Again, this is democracy in action. Every special interest group lobbies for their values/interests to be pushed. This is just how things are.

I mean the influence of the media FAR FAR outstrips that of the Church.

Should the Church just not advocate for its principles while everyone else is free to do it?

I'm just saying it sounds like you described the mob to a tee.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just find the article hilarious now. Not for the deaths, but for the strange leaps it takes:

"Some victims were killed by domestic partners, others by complete strangers."

So hold on domestic partner means like a boyfriend or husband. But if they hate gays why would they be in a relationship with gays? Is domestic violence now a hate crime?

"But there is a thread of similarity running through the cases as well. According to AVP, around half of the slayings this year appear to be hate-motivated violence. In the case of the transgender victims, many are initially misidentified and mis-gendered by both police and media reports."

Lol wait what? So the cops couldn't even identify some of them as trans people, but random strangers used their trans-gender sensing powers to determine this and commit an act of violence?

Can you point where the 6000 number Lestov is talking about is coming from?

I mean, I did a Ctrl-F and it didn't show me a number higher than 25.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's secular in theory, but the church holds way way way too much power in this country. If Islam had that much power here it would be outright f*cking scary.

I also feel this quote from Teddy Roosevelt perfectly sums up my feelings about this shit with muslims:

"The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels... his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American."

I agree with you here.

Kind of also gets into one of the main flaws of Islam. While Israel and Jerusalem are very prominent in the Bible, they are not as important to Christianity as the Middle East is to Islam. Nowhere in the Bible is pilgrimage to Jerusalem a requirement. In Christianity, one simply needs to be devoted to the faith. In Judaism, one must be devoted to their bloodline, and in Islam, one must devoted to their holy place (the Middle East).

Islam really blurs the line between religion and nationality, just as Judaism blurs the line between religion and ethnicity.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just saying it sounds like you described the mob to a tee.

So you're saying every special interest group = mob?

Tho the feminists being an actual mob may be the scariest thing in the world.

Would make for a good movie, tho.

"The Godmother".

Originally posted by Nibedicus
So you're saying every special interest group = mob?

Tho the feminists being an actual mob may be the scariest thing in the world.

Would make for a good movie, tho.

"The Godmother".

No, but the mob couldn't make enforceable laws or policy either and yet they held a huge sway over their territories at some points. Just because someone can't make laws doesn't mean much when they have great influence over the people who do make the laws.

As for feminists, they are scary for different reasons. They are frightening for the lies they put forth. They lie and lie and lie and if you call them on it they call you a woman hater. They are causing a new generation of people to be raised in a country where they think there is a rape culture and a wage gap and a war on women. The feminists/SJW's represent a different kind of danger.

If I was some naive 18 yr. old female about to go to college I'd be thinking "well just how many times will I get raped this semester, should I take precautions with my professors so if I miss an assignment due to being raped it is okay?"

Yet you're less likely to be raped on a college campus lol. They won't ever tell you that. They want you to be scared. They want you to feel disempowered. It's f*cking weird when a disturbing amount of feminists actually exhibit misogynistic behavior.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, but the mob couldn't make enforceable laws or policy either and yet they held a huge sway over their territories at some points. Just because someone can't make laws doesn't mean much when they have great influence over the people who do make the laws.

As for feminists, they are scary for different reasons. They are frightening for the lies they put forth. They lie and lie and lie and if you call them on it they call you a woman hater. They are causing a new generation of people to be raised in a country where they think there is a rape culture and a wage gap and a war on women. The feminists/SJW's represent a different kind of danger.

Dude. Like I said, that is just how democracy works. And the Church doesn't even have that much influence especially compared to the more vocal special interests groups (with smaller voter bases) for as long as the media backs them (ex. feminists/environmentalists/SJWs). You're throwing around the word "mob" like it has any relevance here. Seriously, that is literally how democracy works.

It is, in fact, just a part of the conservative voter base. Are you going to call conservatives/liberals "the mob" as well?

I really can't see how it's "scary". Scary is when the interests of a tiny minority can run in counter with the well being of the rest of the population and yet they carry tremendous influence (big business mostly) .

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wouldn't call it power. The Church after all, cannot make enforceable laws.

I think a better term in "influence" using it's masses to push their values or protects its interests by lobbying or pressuring (via their voter base) politicians.

But then again, isn't this just democracy in action? SJW's do it. Feminists do it. Environmentalists do it. Every special interest group does it. So why is the Church specifically the scary one? And AFAIK, I mean I'm sure ppl might disagree with the Church's views on gay marriage or abortion, but then again, how scary are those really?

Whatever influence christians have in government is waning at an alarming rate. Secularism and atheism are on a rise in the U.S. Many who identify as christian do not care to actively protest what they view as immoral laws i this country, other than complaining about it in social media. Also, many who identify as christian are beginning to accept controversial topics such as gay rights and abortion. Traditional christian values do not hold sway over legislation like it may have had in the past. This is reflected in the voting habits of the majority in this country. An ultra conservative with christian values will not be electable as President of the U.S.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Whatever influence christians have in government is waning at an alarming rate. Secularism and atheism are on a rise in the U.S. Many who identify as christian do not care to actively protest what they view as immoral laws i this country, other than complaining about it in social media. Also, many who identify as christian are beginning to accept controversial topics such as gay rights and abortion. Traditional christian values do not hold sway over legislation like it may have had in the past. This is reflected in the voting habits of the majority in this country. An ultra conservative with christian values will not be electable as President of the U.S.

Agreed.

I don't see 20%, I see 20. I don't see 6000 or 1200.

Where in this article shows those numbers?

It's not, I'm waiting for him to admit it. And I'm waiting for him to admit our government does not kill homosexuals.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just saying it sounds like you described the mob to a tee. Maybe because....

"Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule." -- Plato.

The Ancients knew their sh1t.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't see 20%, I see 20. I don't see 6000 or 1200.

Where in this article shows those numbers?

My bad
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released

Dumb thread. Islamic rights doesn't mean Shariah law, it means not oppressing Muslims.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dumb thread. Islamic rights doesn't mean Shariah law, it means not oppressing Muslims.
By your definition of rights, which is flawed.

You might want to educate yourself before you call something/someone dumb.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#1


There is a right to do something, to act, a key component of what the notion of rigths mean.

Gays have the right to pursue their lifestyle, but radical Muslims claim the right to persecute homosexuals. Clear conflict of rights.

Sharia Law for Muslims: bad
Homophobic Law for Christians: good

Violating Christians first amendment: bad
Violating Muslims first amendment: good

Violating first amendment to stop terrorism: good
Violating second amendment to stop terrorism: bad



American hypocrisy at work

Originally posted by Stigma
By your definition of rights, which is flawed.

You might want to educate yourself before you call something/someone dumb.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#1


There is a right to do something, to act, a key component of what the notion of rigths mean.

Gays have the right to pursue their lifestyle, but radical Muslims claim the right to persecute homosexuals. Clear conflict of rights.
Nope.

The right to be Muslim doesn't give them the right to oppress other people or force their beliefs on others. Just like the right to being Christian shouldn't allow Christians to enforce their backward beliefs on others.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nope.

The right to be Muslim doesn't give them the right to oppress other people or force their beliefs on others. Just like the right to being Christian shouldn't allow Christians to enforce their backward beliefs on others.
I'm not surprised you missed the point entirely.

Read the entry.

Rights have various categories, one of which is the right to act, pursue your goals, such as "the pursuit of happiness" which is described in the US Declaration of Independance, among many others.

In short, homosexuals have the right to pursue happiness through their lifestyle, radical Muslims claim the right to persecute homosexuals or to act in order to harm them.

See the poll on British Muslims I already posted few times. GG.

What you mean is freedom from persecution, and as of now, it is homosexuals who are persecuted by Radical Islamists.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Sharia Law for Muslims: bad
Homophobic Law for Christians: good

Violating Christians first amendment: bad
Violating Muslims first amendment: good

Violating first amendment to stop terrorism: good
Violating second amendment to stop terrorism: bad



American hypocrisy at work

It's not like that, Lestov. The government could care less about the Christians beliefs. If they cared, many laws that conservative Christians abhor would not have been passed. This country is more concerned with political correctness than anyone's religious Dogma. It's all about human rights and equality under the law. A Christian committing a crime against a homosexual is punishable by law in this country. The government does not care what the Bible says on the matter or the Quran.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Sharia Law for Muslims: bad
Homophobic Law for Christians: good

Violating Christians first amendment: bad
Violating Muslims first amendment: good

Violating first amendment to stop terrorism: good
Violating second amendment to stop terrorism: bad



American hypocrisy at work

It's not hypocrisy because people here don't actually say it's okay for Christians to behave in the way you are suggesting. Nobody said homophobic "laws for Christians" are good.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
It's not like that, Lestov. The government could care less about the Christians beliefs. If they cared, many laws that conservative Christians abhor would not have been passed. This country is more concerned with political correctness than anyone's religious Dogma. It's all about human rights and equality under the law. A Christian committing a crime against a homosexual is punishable by law in this country. The government does not care what the Bible says on the matter or the Quran.

A large majority of the country follow a specific religion, I think they definitely do care. Yes they pass laws Christians do not like, but they still can't 100% shit on them because that represents a lot of support, a lot of voters.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Sharia Law for Muslims: bad
Homophobic Law for Christians: good

Violating Christians first amendment: bad
Violating Muslims first amendment: good

Violating first amendment to stop terrorism: good
Violating second amendment to stop terrorism: bad

American hypocrisy at work

Passages in the Bible =/= Homophobic Law. And countries that would have "Christian Laws" that harm/oppress based on ideology wouldn't be agreed on by the American people either (separation of Church and State and all that). So, no. There is no "homophibic law = good" mentality here. I mean, w/c American majority (seeing as you generalized it as American thing) are you talking about that supports this?

So your entire comparison falls flat at best. Is a complete lie at worst. You just seem to have this utter hate in your heart and it's clouding your perception of people. You just love to generalize and pull shit out of your butt, it's insane.

Seriously.

Oh please. You're talking about generalizing while making blanket statements about the world's second largest religion.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Oh please. You're talking about generalizing while making blanket statements about the world's second largest religion.

And where did I say this? Pls quote me.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Oh please. You're talking about generalizing while making blanket statements about the world's second largest religion.

Some people generalize due to statistics that are well known. On the other hand you can't truly believe there is this "homophobia is awesome and laws against it are good" mentality in this country.

Do you have anything to suggest a large portion of the country is homophobic? Your previous article "proving" a lot of hate crime actually was highly dubious. It just pointed out that some people murdered happened to be gay/trans/whatever.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not hypocrisy because people here don't actually say it's okay for Christians to behave in the way you are suggesting. Nobody said homophobic "laws for Christians" are good.



A large majority of the country follow a specific religion, I think they definitely do care. Yes they pass laws Christians do not like, but they still can't 100% shit on them because that represents a lot of support, a lot of voters.

I agree with what you are saying. The government is not trying to purposely piss Christians off. The Government can't frame laws with religious texts as a guide, however. Laws in a secular nation tend to be anti-christian and anti-islamic in many instances, but that is due to trying to defend human rights in general. As long as the government doesn't directly interfere in church business to force them to accept something they don't agree with, Christians csn be content with that. If a christian is educated in the laws of this country, he/she would know that the government is separate from the church. The government make sure all human rights are adhered to. Many times this can conflict with traditional church doctrine. This is not a theocracy, so christians can't have their cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by Lestov16
My bad
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/december/latest-hate-crime-statistics-report-released

Still nothing about our government killing homosexuals. Where is that part?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dumb thread. Islamic rights doesn't mean Shariah law, it means not oppressing Muslims.

Dumb poster

Nothing in OP mentions or outlines what you are claiming it does.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Sharia Law for Muslims: bad
Homophobic Law for Christians: good

Violating Christians first amendment: bad
Violating Muslims first amendment: good

Violating first amendment to stop terrorism: good
Violating second amendment to stop terrorism: bad



American hypocrisy at work

Proof?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dumb poster

Nothing in OP mentions or outlines what you are claiming it does.

I also find it doesn't seem to be a very very small percentage of muslims that support strict shariah law.

Since he had no answer answer other then to insult, he interjected his own claims

http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/15/after-false-show-solidarity-house-gops-block-lgbt-protections-bill

Yep, the U.S. Government definitely doesn't persecute gays, sure....

But I know what you'll say," it's okay to discriminate against them as long as we don't kill them like Muslims. Since our intolerance is "lesser", that makes it okay"

Where did I say that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not what I said, prove our government is killing homosexuals.

Like I said, you will probably say the discrimination doesn't count because it's not "killing", but clearly the government is persecuting gays

Your saying what you think I'll say..interesting. So putting words in my mouth and counting it as a statement of my own.

Even if I misunderstood you, the fact remains that the government itself is persecuting gays


http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/6/15/after-false-show-solidarity-house-gops-block-lgbt-protections-bill




This is the government supporting discrimination. Or maybe they should just get a job somewhere else. That's how segregation works.

What did you misunderstand, I never said what you claimed I said or thought I said or thought I would say.

I am a straight Christian guy here and I believe gays/LGBT are Americans first. One of my friends is gay and he and few of my other friends went to go see the Dirty Heads together. All must be treated equally without judgment. We shouldn't act like teenagers and think of gays as the spawn of Satan. Stupid laws passed against our fellow citizens and persecution doesn't solve a damn thing.

When religious fanatics whether it be the Westboro Baptist nuts who slander Christianity that preaches forgiveness or those who believe in radical Islam and believe it is their duty to slaughter gays/LGBT are scum. I think this verse says it all:

Proverbs 8:34-36 " . . . ALL THEY THAT HATE . . . love death."

But maybe this will lighten the mood for all of us:
https://youtu.be/bjD_R8kWgNY

WBC is a bad example as the church consists of 13 members. Highly unusual people keep bringing them up.


But the rest of what you said I agree with.

The government doesn't persecute gays. It is private individuals that persecute them. The gov't has bent over backwards lately for them. Gay marriage is now legal everywhere, gays csn serve openly in the military, transgender bathroom laws are in effect in many areas, businesses have been fined for discrimination against them. I fail to see how gays are persecuted by the government.

Well the Gov dosen't want the Gays to have Guns so that kind of is against them.

the gov wants the gays to have gay guns.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The government doesn't persecute gays. It is private individuals that persecute them. The gov't has bent over backwards lately for them. Gay marriage is now legal everywhere, gays csn serve openly in the military, transgender bathroom laws are in effect in many areas, businesses have been fined for discrimination against them. I fail to see how gays are persecuted by the government. And yet gay men are still unable to donate blood, which in the wake of the Orlando shooting is pretty tragic and deeply ironic.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And yet gay men are still unable to donate blood, which in the wake of the Orlando shooting is pretty tragic and deeply ironic.
And yet, you do not comment on the problem that is far more profound, that is Radical Muslim's violence towards gays.

...Which is also bad, as many of you have acknowledged.

On the other hand on the topic of the US govt persecuting gays, this issue has been overlooked.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
...Which is also bad, as many of you have acknowledged.

On the other hand on the topic of the US govt persecuting gays, this issue has been overlooked.
Agreed. Although we need to weight in the seriousness of both.

There is no denying that homosexuals getting brutally killed in the Radical Muslim countries is vastly more tragic. On the other hand, the US remains one of the most gay-friendly countries in the modern world.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And yet gay men are still unable to donate blood, which in the wake of the Orlando shooting is pretty tragic and deeply ironic.

I'm guessing this has to do with risk of aids?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm guessing this has to do with risk of aids?

I thought that too but it wouldn't make any sense. All donations would be heavily screened for AIDS and other diseases.

The ban on homosexuals donating blood may end soon.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117970&page=1

Link says it was ruled on years ago due to fear of aids. I'm guessing they got better at screening blood, but never changed the rule.

Not sure how it's ironic though, it's not like gays need gay blood to live, any blood will do. Gays are a tiny minority in this country compared to non gays so eh, no real irony. Just an outdated law.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm guessing this has to do with risk of aids? That's the story, if a man has has sex with another man in the last 12 months (it used to be if ever), they cannot donate blood. Despite the fact with modern technology, AIDS can be tested for with 99.9% accuracy within 7-10 days of it being contracted, and that as far as I know, no law exists preventing heterosexuals who have had anal sex giving blood.

Originally posted by Surtur
Link says it was ruled on years ago due to fear of aids. I'm guessing they got better at screening blood, but never changed the rule.

Not sure how it's ironic though, it's not like gays need gay blood to live, any blood will do. Gays are a tiny minority in this country compared to non gays so eh, no real irony. Just an outdated law. It is when members of the LGBT community are unable to anything to help those victims of a discriminatory attack (many of whom I assume they are close to), because of discrimination.Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The ban on homosexuals donating blood may end soon.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117970&page=1 Mmm, that's good news. And yeah, these blood banks need all they can get.

Originally posted by Stigma
Agreed. Although we need to weight in the seriousness of both.

There is no denying that homosexuals getting brutally killed in the Radical Muslim countries is vastly more tragic. On the other hand, the US remains one of the most gay-friendly countries in the modern world. Certainly, I'm merely highlighting that govt discrimination is still a problem in the US (and other "gay-friendly" countries for that matter), there is work to be done and we shouldn't be complacent.

Is it really discrimination though? I mean I know you said there is a 99.9% chance they can catch aids, but what if god forbid there was a rare case they didn't? We both know people would be all over them for allowing this to happen.

I'm not saying that makes it right or wrong, just that I don't know if it's as simple as just "we don't like gay people and don't want their blood".

Well discrimination doesn't necessarily mean homophobia is involved, just unfair treatment.

Point being this law its targeting gays specifically. When, as that article also outlines, heterosexuals aren't met with the same or even similar precautions. For example there is nothing preventing a straight man who does anal once every Tuesday with seven different partners from donating blood. Yet a gay man who did it once 11 months ago is a no-no. And while not intrinsically homophobic, it does carry the harmful implication that gay blood is somehow dirty and unclean.

Simply put for it to be non-discriminatory the rule should surely be based off your personal sexual practices, not your sexual orientation. But practically speaking with today's medical advancements should be abolished altogether.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
For example there is nothing preventing a straight man who does anal once every Tuesday with seven different partners from donating blood. Yet a gay man who did it once 11 months ago is a no-no.



If you're doing anal once a week with another guy then you aren't really straight.

Friend, it's possible to have anal sex with a woman.

I know, I guess I interpreted the sentence wrong.

More like you interpreted the entrances wrong.....Anal is an EXIT!

Lol

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dumb thread. Islamic rights doesn't mean Shariah law, it means not oppressing Muslims. And what exactly are "Islamic rights"?

The right to treat woman with less rights then a man.
The right to kill Homosexuals
The right to kill the Infidels

ya know....basic rights.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And what exactly are "Islamic rights"?

The right to go suck a d!ck!!

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The right to go suck a d!ck!!

TnS is a DUCKCIST!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36561731

Turkey: Istanbul gay pride march banned over 'security' concern

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And what exactly are "Islamic rights"?
As I wrote, it means not oppressing Muslims.

Anyone have a link to "radical Muslims killing gays"? I find this disingenuous

Are you looking for instances of multiple muslims killing gays all at one time? Since we kind of just recently had an instance of a solo muslim going to town on some gay guys.

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you looking for instances of multiple muslims killing gays all at one time? Since we kind of just recently had an instance of a solo muslim going to town on some gay guys.

Id like to see whatever examples you have. Homosexuality is common place in middle eastern countries

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you looking for instances of multiple muslims killing gays all at one time? Since we kind of just recently had an instance of a solo muslim going to town on some gay guys. Concerning the Orlando shootings, there are some who question the motives, was it "radical religious beliefs" or "self-hating homophobia" or "mental illness" or a combo of one of more of those or something else.

As it seems the whole "he was an ISIS combatant" some knee-jerk yahoos were clinging onto at first seems faulty. This guy seemingly had no direct ties with ISIS.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
And what exactly are "Islamic rights"?

The rights to not be banned from this country.

Of course, if they're looking for sharia law, they need to go somewhere else, since using the government to institute religious doctrine or using religion to violate civil rights is wrong (unless it's the GOP to allowing job discrimination against gays. That kind of mixing of church and state is acceptable in our Christian nation. Just not MUSLIMS)

I choose Islamic rights.
Gay rights are a pain in the a55

Originally posted by Robtard
Concerning the Orlando shootings, there are some who question the motives, was it "radical religious beliefs" or "self-hating homophobia" or "mental illness" or a combo of one of more of those or something else.

As it seems the whole "he was an ISIS combatant" some knee-jerk yahoos were clinging onto at first seems faulty. This guy seemingly had no direct ties with ISIS.

I think poverty and the Confederate flag caused it bro

Since we're saying all Muslims are potential radical terrorists based on the acts of a few, why stop generalizing there? All whites are potential racist mass shooters based on the acts of Dylan Roof. Yeah generalizing!!

White supremacy is more dangerous than Islam. Islamic terrorists commit attacks that kill thousands. A white supremacist started the biggest and deadliest war in history. Hell, a white supremacist just ASSASSINATED a British government member. Never heard of a Muslim assassinating a US government member.

Shut up

Originally posted by Robtard
Concerning the Orlando shootings, there are some who question the motives, was it "radical religious beliefs" or "self-hating homophobia" or "mental illness" or a combo of one of more of those or something else.

As it seems the whole "he was an ISIS combatant" some knee-jerk yahoos were clinging onto at first seems faulty. This guy seemingly had no direct ties with ISIS.

Wasn't he a closeted homosexual?

Originally posted by Raisen
Shut up

Do you have no factual rebuttal?

ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Wasn't he a closeted homosexual?

Seems so, he visited the gay club as a patron, used gay hook-up sites/apps and apparently had texted dick-pics to potential male sexual partners.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you have no factual rebuttal?

ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)

lestov. quit pm'ing me pics of your anus. i'm trying to have an objective debate here

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems so, he visited the gay club as a patron, used gay hook-up sites/apps and apparently had texted dick-pics to potential male sexual partners.

Well that makes more sense. At least from an outside pov. It explains his failed marriage. I've known alot of homophobia comes from closeted gays.

Originally posted by Raisen
lestov. quit pm'ing me pics of your anus. i'm trying to have an objective debate here

Your lack of objective evidence countering my claim says contrary. Stop fantasing about my anus and debate.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you have no factual rebuttal?

ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)
So what you're saying is that ISIS didn't kill enough people? Sick.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Since we're saying all Muslims are potential radical terrorists based on the acts of a few,
Actually this view is based (at least partially) on Pew Research study, as presented by Ben Shapiro and posted already a few times here.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Wasn't he a closeted homosexual?

The FBI does not think so.

Leave

Despite the obvious relevance of the topic, it's sad to see this particular thread be the framer of the discussion. The scope of an inquiry can shape a discussion, and the adversarial dichotomy in the OP leaves much to be desired as a jumping off point.

I'm headed to a Pride Festival tomorrow to support some friends. Got myself one of Takei's new shirts and everything. Hope you guys have a good weekend.

Originally posted by Digi
Despite the obvious relevance of the topic, it's sad to see this particular thread be the framer of the discussion. The scope of an inquiry can shape a discussion, and the adversarial dichotomy in the OP leaves much to be desired as a jumping off point.


Worthless post cause you can't even man up and join in, stay on the sidelines and out of my threads

Originally posted by Lestov16
Do you have no factual rebuttal?

ISIS Death toll: 18,800
Nazi death toll: 11 million (holocaust alone)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2015

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Worthless post cause you can't even man up and join in, stay on the sidelines and out of my threads

I disagree. Given the importance of this discussion, I consider it to be of paramount importance that the OP doesn't send people running instantly to their corners, rhetoric shields at the ready. Because what am I supposed to do? Choose a side along the lines you've drawn? I would feel morally repugnant in doing anything but disagreeing with the premise (and the wording; even the "vs." would be considered leading the witness in a courtroom).

Violence due to homophobia is an evil, as is religiously motivated terrorism. There are concerning strains of violence toward LGBT not just in Islam - though at this point in history, those grab the most headlines - but from numerous religious sects. I just watched footage of a religious Christian rally from several months back; Ted Cruz was in attendance, and spoke on the same stage as a preacher who openly wondered if eliminating homosexuals could be accomplished. So the violent strains of Islam are a problem; but the issue runs deeper than merely a single religion vs. a cultural movement. And while I've never shied away from pointing out the evils of religion, it a baby/bathwater situation to label an entire religion the issue. And to paint it as such is to create societal unrest where it doesn't currently exist. We need scalpels, not mortars. But the anti-anything camps are all about the friendly fire.

Hopefully that participates a bit more fully in your thread while still sufficiently rejecting your dangerously oversimplified OP.

More bluntly, and back to your post, a demand to stay out of a thread is pointless. This a privately run forum, thus giving you (and anyone else bar Raz) no true ownership over threads.

Nice PC post, guess what though, it means nothing, so thanks for nothing.

Its like reading something you think is going to turn out great, and it ends up being a bunch of hot air.

See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.

Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.

And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.

Originally posted by Digi
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.

Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.

And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.

Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.

Originally posted by Digi
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. We don't need to unpack the intricacies of the topic in a couple paragraphs. I'd be happy to dig in. This is a discussion forum, and a slow-moving one at that. It will be on page 1 for months. But if I'm greeted with insults instead of constructive responses, that will be difficult.

Your last two responses to posters have been to tell people to leave. If you want more than "empty" posts, you're going to have to actually engage someone who disagrees with you, not huffily show them the door.

And PC implies saying something for the sake of the audience. It's what politicians do to get votes and inspire the least amount of hatred. But I have no one to impress here, nor am I running for anything. The term does not apply to my opinion.

Adam and me had a bet, he lost, he is not supposed to be posting here.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.

Ha. Well. I agree, it's probably too diplomatic. But I have to overcompensate a bit so as not to get dragged down when I'm met with such vitriol.

Same issue I have with gun control. I don't really have a side. But the "debate" surrounding it is impossible to penetrate from an undecided standpoint. It's all agenda-laden rhetoric.

But I actually find it interesting when I get pulled onto different teams, so to speak, in debates. So like, I'm an atheist, and have readily contributed to talking about the collective evils of religion, not just on KMC but irl. In most other settings, I would NOT be its defender. And honestly, I'm not sure I am here either. I'm only a defender of those who don't do evil in the name of their religion. Frankly, most religions as a whole can rot for all I care.

But though he didn't specifically call me out on this yet, TI's OP lumps "liberals" together in something of an odd group. I would suspect that, by not openly condemning all of Islam quite enough, I likely hit the prerequisite for being an overly mushy, hand-holding liberal. I actually smiled thinking of that, because of the absurdity of it; that I could somehow be a proponent of irreligion yet a defender of arguably religion's most violent sect(s) right now. I do enjoy being a contradiction.

The Pride Festival I'm going to tomorrow allows firearms. That might not be a case-in-point in and of itself, but I feel like no single cultural group really lives up to the stereotype thrust upon it by its greatest detractors.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good post. Your stance is too.....diplomatic. Most of the people who post in gdf are xenophobic homophobes with little to no regard for intellectual discussion. Valid talking points are casually discarded. It's disheartening but meh what can u do? In order to achieve any semblance of a discussion or debate youd need both adjacent sides to have some. ...decorum. It's pretty much nonexistent here.

You didn't provide any intellectual discussion your just interjecting an opinion of nothing, making posts here means more then big words with little meaning or substance. Psudeointelledtuals is why this country is in decline. The pajamaboys and pajamboy culture has ruined this country. And you suddenly deciding to post in the GDF is rather odd. Seems the Star Wars and CBVF people all get bored with the time wasting debates and actually want to talk about something non fictional, or are you here to just try and stir the pot?

Originally posted by Digi
Ha. Well. I agree, it's probably too diplomatic. But I have to overcompensate a bit so as not to get dragged down when I'm met with such vitriol.

Same issue I have with gun control. I don't really have a side. But the "debate" surrounding it is impossible to penetrate from an undecided standpoint. It's all agenda-laden rhetoric.

But I actually find it interesting when I get pulled onto different teams, so to speak, in debates. So like, I'm an atheist, and have readily contributed to talking about the collective evils of religion, not just on KMC but irl. In most other settings, I would NOT be its defender. And honestly, I'm not sure I am here either. I'm only a defender of those who don't do evil in the name of their religion. Frankly, most religions as a whole can rot for all I care.

But though he didn't specifically call me out on this yet, TI's OP lumps "liberals" together in something of an odd group. I would suspect that, by not openly condemning all of Islam quite enough, I likely hit the prerequisite for being an overly mushy, hand-holding liberal. I actually smiled thinking of that, because of the absurdity of it; that I could somehow be a proponent of irreligion yet a defender of arguably religion's most violent sect(s) right now. I do enjoy being a contradiction.

The Pride Festival I'm going to tomorrow allows firearms. That might not be a case-in-point in and of itself, but I feel like no single cultural group really lives up to the stereotype thrust upon it by its greatest detractors.

Dear God...

Time, stop worrying about every post contributing to whatever Great Important Thing you think is happening here. She decided to respond to me. Take away "opinions of nothing" and this forum would be a few tumbleweeds and vultures picking on corpses.

No, your not fooling anyone dude, you just typed up a bunch of big words together, they don't mean anything. You don't have any real points. Why? Cause you either can't or wont, or are unable to.

i'm about to masturbate

"You don't have points" and "get out of my thread" don't give me much to work with. For the record, I didn't come here in bad faith. As (literally) a decade can attest, I don't mind conversing with those who disagree with me, or on topics where I know I don't have all the facts and there is information to be gained from others. But since you're openly wondering why people don't post here, this is at least part of your answer. Anyway...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No, your not fooling anyone dude, you just typed up a bunch of big words together, they don't mean anything. You don't have any real points. Why? Cause you either can't or wont, or are unable to.

Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show. If I might offer a true response...

944lpWbBB30

Originally posted by Digi

Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show. If I might offer a true response...



http://i.imgur.com/DIes633.gif

Originally posted by Digi
Excellent rebuttal. You're right, the big words are just for show.
LOL. OK, Digi, I need you to stop right there.

TBH your posts fit perfectly this mode and I am positive you may be aware of that.

I find your intellectual stance wanting, and it appears you are overcompensating this deficiency with empty rhetoric. This will not fly here.

Can you make a sound argument for, or against violence against homosexuals perpetrated by Radical Muslims?

Do you have anything to say about the apparent clash between gay rights and "Muslim" rights? (which we shall understand to mean Radical Muslims' approach to homosexuality).

I hope you can demonstrate you are focused on the issue and not wiggling out by invoking third parties (Christians, Ted Cruz etc.) in a discussion that is not centered on them.

I await your response.

If we, unnaturally, define "Muslim rights" as "certain radical Muslim's desire to persecute against gay people" then they would be in clash, however, I believe everyone here comes down on the side of gay rights in this case, for one, since they are not aggressors or perpetrate violence.

If we however define "Muslim rights" in the much more common and natural way that Muslims should have the right to not be persecuted solely for being Muslim, and to be treated fairly and equal under the law, then these two rights do not stand in conflict.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question, Stigma?

Originally posted by Bardock42
If we, unnaturally, define "Muslim rights" as "certain radical Muslim's desire to persecute against gay people" then they would be in clash, however, I believe everyone here comes down on the side of gay rights in this case, for one, since they are not aggressors or perpetrate violence.

If we however define "Muslim rights" in the much more common and natural way that Muslims should have the right to not be persecuted solely for being Muslim, and to be treated fairly and equal under the law, then these two rights do not stand in conflict.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question, Stigma?
Bearing in mind that the onus of the OP was to bring forth the issue of radical Muslims (at least in spirit in whcih the OP was made, and we all agree we are not discussing moderate Muslims here), then clearly not.

Also, this could work if majority of Muslims worldwide were not radicalized... but they are as we find in the Pew Research study cited by Ben Shapiro.

I think you are also mixing up the the notions of rights and freedoms, but that is for entirely different discussion.

So no, your response is not sufficient, given the depth of the issue

Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner, which the random youtube video was far from proving, Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.

The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner,
They are according to Pew Research study.

Originally posted by Bardock42
which the random youtube video was far from proving,
http://reactionimage.org/img/gallery/9325080020.jpg




Shapiro cited research data, you handwave it with "no u" response. Very dishonest


Also, BIG FAT LOL @ you calling one of the most influencial conservative commentators and critics "random". Once again, very dishonest

Originally posted by Bardock42
Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.
Yes, they need to re-check and re-shape their understanding of rights, as the ones they claim to have infringe upon the well-being of homosexuals. This is obvious.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".
This is insubstantial given that you do not accept data that most Muslims are radicalized. It's actually sad.

Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.
So, what you're saying is that you have no counter-argument to the data-driven argument that majority of Muslims are radicalized.

That's ok, but then again, perhaps you should not come in and make arguments characterized by "no u" responses and empty platitudes.


Anyways, I'm off to have lunch and do a bunch of some cool stuff with friends. Any responses I'll address tomorrow, possibly. (I'm looking at you, Digi).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if a majority of Muslims were radicalized in a violent anti-gay manner, which the random youtube video was far from proving, Muslims would still deserve rights which do not infringe upon other people's.

The OP asked which rights progressives will choose in a conflict regarding Muslim and Gay rights...when defining Muslim rights the way progressive people define them, I can not answer which they would choose, but we can explain that Muslim rights and Gay rights as progressives support them do not stand in conflict, so the basis of the question is flawed.

We can then go on to discuss the definition of Muslim rights you would like us to discuss, and in that case the answer is that Muslim rights as you, contrary to basically everyone else, define them are not something that progressives are in favor of, so the answer to the OP would be "they will and have always chosen gay right's in this question".

You went from this, to being countered on every point

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, the question posed was thoroughly answered, I understand you would like there to be more of an argument but it's really simple. Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it.

To this. You basically lied about everything, tried to write off Shapiro as some second rate opinion that is below your complete lack of understanding. As of right now you sit in a country being destroyed and you can't say shit about it. Why do you even come here anymore? What leg do you have to stand on besides your fake eSJW.

You don't do a damn thing for any Syrians or Muslims that you claim to love so much and are willing to just hand over your way of life too.

Originally posted by Stigma
They are according to Pew Research study.


http://reactionimage.org/img/gallery/9325080020.jpg




Shapiro cited research data, you handwave it with "no u" response. Very dishonest


Also, BIG FAT LOL @ you calling one of the most influencial conservative commentators and critics "random". Once again, very dishonest


Yes, they need to re-check and re-shape their understanding of rights, as the ones they claim to have infringe upon the well-being of homosexuals. This is obvious.


This is insubstantial given that you do not accept data that most Muslims are radicalized. It's actually sad.

So you notice how the progressives are trying to careful bob and weave around the Op? By basically trying to now deny Muslims "rights" as a term.

Originally posted by Stigma
LOL. OK, Digi, I need you to stop right there.

TBH your posts fit perfectly this mode and I am positive you may be aware of that.

I find your intellectual stance wanting, and it appears you are overcompensating this deficiency with empty rhetoric. This will not fly here.

If you wanted me to jump back in after nothing but insults from TI, this isn't the best start.

And empty rhetoric flies here regularly. We should embroider it on the KMC flag. I got to post an Emperor's New Groove video, so I'm doing pretty good, considering.

Originally posted by Stigma
Can you make a sound argument for, or against violence against homosexuals perpetrated by Radical Muslims?

Did I miss something in this question? You want me to make a sound argument for or against violence against homosexuals by radical Muslims. I'm against it. And my argument is that it's bad.

*looks around for Aston Kutcher and a film crew*

Originally posted by Stigma
Do you have anything to say about the apparent clash between gay rights and "Muslim" rights? (which we shall understand to mean Radical Muslims' approach to homosexuality).

I hope you can demonstrate you are focused on the issue and not wiggling out by invoking third parties (Christians, Ted Cruz etc.) in a discussion that is not centered on them.

I await your response.

Not centered on them, no. But homophobic violence didn't begin in Orlando. We're watching growing pains. "Radical Islam" is just piling on to an already-maligned group in an already-waging cultural war. So rather than get sucked in to the latest story of the week, yes, I think we're looking at larger issues here.

Anyway. Bardock wrote "Where certain Muslims want to infringe on the rights of gay people, progressives are against it," and I'm happy to cosign that statement. It seems a pretty uncontroversial viewpoint, imo, but apparently is? Or it's misconstrued to be something else? I'm not entirely sure what I'm debating against at this point, so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.
...

I think the biggest issue here is context. When I came into this thread, TI's eldritch vomit was the biggest presence in the thread. My responses were with him in mind. The points about not lumping all Muslims in to the equation were mostly because I had to play Mister Rogers in the face of such vitriol. It wasn't even relevant to acknowledge radical Islam. I was too busy trying to save the baby lost in TI's bathwater.

KMC's doing that fabulous trick where I can't quote your post. I'll try again eventually. I could do it by hand, but this thread is already trying my patience, so I need a bit more willpower than I'd be able to muster on a weekday.

Originally posted by Digi
KMC's doing that fabulous trick where I can't quote your post. I'll try again eventually. I could do it by hand, but this thread is already trying my patience, so I need a bit more willpower than I'd be able to muster on a weekday.
Don't worry about it. I have a similar problem with my edit button, I cannot edit my posts for some reason.

Either way, I am also positive we can actually finish at this point.

You already stated you think violence towards homosexuals is wrong on all accounts, which I agree with. We seem to agree that radical Islam is a problem in that regard too.

All in all, that's good enough for me

Lucky I'm not the only one with quote problems, thought my browser was ****ed.

Yeah every now and then either the quotes do not work properly(though if you click the button right next to the quote button that will actually also quote it properly). Also there are times when if you click the edit button to edit your post..your entire post vanishes and there is nothing there to edit.

Looks like Rob was wrong, again.

Originally posted by Digi
See, you're combative and dismissive again. This is my entry point into the thread. I haven't been able to read all 6 pages, but clearly I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't willing to have a discussion. Don't waste your time staring into the void

Oh oh, someone is mad again. Arnt you tired of being a troll?