Originally posted by Alliance
Homosexuality is two things...an essence of your being, and a type of action you commit.If you are religious, that is likely not going to change, if ever. Thus is the same with homosexuality. You will always feel religious desires.
However, just because one is homosexual, does not mean that one exclusive engages in homosexual acts. If one is religious, I'd argue that one will ALWAYS have a religion, Islam or anyhting else. If one CHOOSES Islam as ones religion, it can become something as essential to a person as their sexuality.
Religion may not be a chioce any more that sexuality is. Also, Islam is harmless...I don't see 1.4 billion terrorist running around. Honestly, when I'm on this psychotic forum, I feel like I'm on stormfront.
1) Religion is a choice, so don't try pulling that card. I have never heard a religious person on KMC claim that they didn't choose thier Faith and Religion. They all will argue that they have.
2) A religion is a big part of many people (those who are actually religious, and don't just call themselves religious), but it's not a physical part of them they way thier sexuality is.
3) You are wrong to argue that if one is religious, they always will be. I was religious for 18 years, then became Atheist....
Originally posted by Alliance
As far as agression goes, I seem to see much more western governmental aggression than that from the government in the Middle east. And do the few "ardent' (which apparently means that if you are religious or spiritual you automatically become a terrorist) followers of Islam actually represent what the religion is? Hell no.
Neither do the peaceful Muslims. Every Muslim will pick and choose what parts of the Quran they rather abide by. Same with Christians.
That is not what is at discussion here. IT is Muhammed I am questioning, as well as the Quran itself.
Islamic people are not being antagonized here.
Originally posted by Alliance
haermm Apperntly you know shit about Greece too....superior? Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. This is my official position as a student of ancient history.
In many city states of Ancient Greece, sexual intimacy between an older man and younger boy were considered far superior to sexual intimacy between an adult man and woman.
Homosexuality between two elder men, was however, ridiculed.
In Ancient Greece, sex was about submission and power. Ancient Greek Society constructed the "norms" of sex to be between a dominant and submissive partner.
If a male Greek had sex with a woman, that was considered normal, but not revered. Women were seen as inferior to men, and the only justification for having sex with a woman was pro-creation.
Ever since the myth of Pandora's box, women were seen as deceptive, cunning, and impure.
Young boys were seen as beautiful, majestic, and clean. For an older man to have sex with a younger boy was an honor, because:
1) Men were considered superior
2) Young boys, especially at age 19, were at the so-called "peek of perfection".
To have sex with a younger boy was considered greater than sex with a woman.
All people who study Ancient Greek History know this. I know what I am talking about, I've obsessed over this shit for years.
Originally posted by Alliance
Its clear that all you need to get into an Islamaphobes pants is Islamophbia. Good job Kali, you are now a minon of the ignorant and xenophobic right.
Ahh shut the f*ck up 👇
You see what you choose to see, and ignore your own hypocrisy....get outta here.