Homophobia: The New Closeted Homosexual

Originally posted by Robtard
True, but when is sex between adults "objectively bad"?

That is indeed the debate to be had, I would give as one perhaps still uncontroversial example as between siblings. I think it is bad in itself that a brother and a brother or a brother and sister should have sex together, there are many reasons one might advance to support such a view which are not limited (obviously in the case of two brothers) to the impact on the children.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're literally just going back to the scripture and saying man+woman parts = good, man+man parts = bad

I'm not so sure that our only option is to go back to Scripture. Many people have come up with a variety of explanations as to why homosexual sex is not properly speaking sex at all and, following on from that, not fitting. Stoics for example were able to construct arguments against homosexuality activity. Cicero advances a case against being the 'receiver' in homosexuality sex in the case against Verres on the basis that it is un-Roman (we wouldn't buy that idea but it's actually not as close-minded or arbitrary as it sounds, Romans had a very developed account of what it meant to be Roman after all).

Originally posted by Robtard
Historically, homosexuality has thrived as it has wilted. There have been several cultures where it wasn't a bad thing, periods of Greece and Rome as you mentioned, even remember reading that in one of Japan's historical periods man-love was actually viewed as greater. Also think the Incas (at least for a period) didn't view homosexuality as something different than heterosexuality, it was all just sex.

Originally posted by Robtard
No real disagreement I think (if I read you correctly), but "what is right for them" needs to also respect the humanity of others.

I don't think we disagree but are deepening the conversation!

It's that part about respecting the humanity of others which will cause us trouble for the 'what is right for them' notion. When we find ourselves bringing up the question of common Essences which have to be respected it is reasonable to suppose that from that Essence is to be found common- and binding- rules which mean 'what is right for them' is not determined by Will but by Nature.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Currently, homosexuals have an agenda to edit Scriptures to remove the sin nature of homosexuality.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
[B]The Queen James Bible is one example of this.

You know that King James himself was a homosexual?

Changing or ignoring text, isn't that more or less like just cherry picking which parts you think are good? Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate something if a religion has shit you just have to outright ignore if you don't want to be considered a horrible person.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No they don't. Some people who are gay (as well as straight) might want to change the texts to reflect what they perceive to be an acceptable meaning but this isn't the same thing as an agenda held by a undefined number of people grouped together by a label.

You know that King James himself was a homosexual?

That is unsubstantiated. No solid evidence if he was or not.

Originally posted by Surtur
Changing or ignoring text, isn't that more or less like just cherry picking which parts you think are good? Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate something if a religion has shit you just have to outright ignore if you don't want to be considered a horrible person.

That's life I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is unsubstantiated. No solid evidence if he was or not.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about the garbled quote mess on the other page it was just that, a mess.

To paraphrase MS Warehouse on that, the fact that you do not like the opposing argument does not mean it’s “a mess.” It means you are ignorant, though.

It would be much more sincere of you if you actually addressed my points rather than try to hand-wave them. It really showcases your intellectual impotence and solidifies the impression that you’re just trolling 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
You used non sequiturs, strawmen and a nice little "no you!".

Originally posted by Robtard
Shape up, learn how to quote and reply on the direct topic, don't try and move the goalpost because you're stuck.

That’s rich coming from a guy that has not presented a cohesive argument in this thread other than “it’s barbaric”, “stereotypes about Pollocks” and “ look at your anger” tenets in your posts.

You’d be wise to apply this advice to yourself, because as it is, you offered nothing of substance 👆

I also like how you ignored completely my challenge for you to provide any survey/poll results that show how many Christians are radicalized and homophobic compared to research that is available on Muslims.

Stop shitting your pants and rise up to the challenge 👆

Stigma,

You literally just did another "no you!" and a strawman(never commented on the amount of homophobes per religion). Lame and sloppy, imho.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That is unsubstantiated. No solid evidence if he was or not.

What exactly were you referring to with the 'homosexual agenda' claim and changing the Bible?

Curious, as I've watched (forget were/channel) some time back that Leviticus if [properly] translated actually could mean that a 'man would not lay (sex) with another man in the bed of a woman', which in ancient Israel times was reserved for husband and wife coitus/baby-making. Meaning that gay sex was okay, if not done in a martial bed, or maybe a bed at all.

Also (iirc) found it interesting that apparently there's no recorded instances of a man being judged and condemned for practicing homosexuality in the Talmud.

Oh, you guys.

Originally posted by Robtard
Also (iirc) found it interesting that apparently there's no recorded instances of a man being judged and condemned for practicing homosexuality in the Talmud.

What everyone seems to forget about the OT is, as far as anyone can tell, the entire narrative is about the fact that no one ever kept the law (with the exception of a few heroes now and then, but even they failed i.e. David).

Watch it, seems like you're insulting a whole lot of Jews and MS won't stand for that.

(humor purposes, MS)

I don't know guys, Jim Garrison(the guy Kevin Costner played in the JFK movie) told us the JFK assassination was a homosexual thrill killing. Why would a politician lie?

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly were you referring to with the 'homosexual agenda' claim and changing the Bible?

Curious, as I've watched (forget were/channel) some time back that Leviticus if [properly] translated actually could mean that a 'man would not lay (sex) with another man in the bed of a woman', which in ancient Israel times was reserved for husband and wife coitus/baby-making. Meaning that gay sex was okay, if not done in a martial bed, or maybe a bed at all.

Also (iirc) found it interesting that apparently there's no recorded instances of a man being judged and condemned for practicing homosexuality in the Talmud.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stigma,

You literally just did another "no you!". Lame and sloppy, imho.

your opinion is virtually always extremely misguided so I do not take this post of yours as to mean anything of value.

But one thing is clear.

You refuse to address my points, you run away from presenting any cohesive argument (You have not done so yet. I assume you are unable to) or even rise to the challenge I gave you and present surveys/polls that state how many Christians are homophobic in comparison to data we have on Muslims.

In short, you chickened out and you try to spin it now.

Glad we made it clear as I do not like to waste time with people who behave in such an embarrassing way. Still, you could have said in the beginning you are going to do that, and we would have saved a lot of time. 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
Once again, this is a cop out. First you come say you don't care what they are called, but then you say "we shouldn't call them this because we'll alienate them" even though no sane rational human being would suddenly get pissed off that you label something radical Islam.

So you either feel these people are crazy or that they are so uneducated they really can't tell what words like "radical" mean. Then you try to for "not understanding the culture".

Cop out? I said I DON'T CARE. It doesnt bother me what you call it. I'm a military vet with actual combat tours. Ive trained with, fought beside muslims and engaged islamic enemy combatants in multiple countries. If someone gets in front of me in a combat zone idgaf what terminology you use to discern them im putting them down. And that was then on active duty and now as a contractor. And you can ask anyone who served over there in a combat mos and theyd say the same. Its semantics. Its bs talking points for political pundits/internet trolls who dont have to risk their lives. But to actual trigger pullers we dont GAF.

NOW in regards to myself i was a practicing muslim while a marine during OIF 1. Talk about a MINDPHUCK. I am familiar with the culture and the people. Hell ive fought beside them. There is no more in depth than that. And im telling you it alienates islamist by adding that little radical to their religion. I dont know why. Maybe its because they hold their religion sacred and instead of just calling a terrorist a terrorist youre taking a side jab at islam. Who knows. And honestly at this stage why is it important? Y because people like to stereotype. Let's lump this group together because the have the same mo. It just doesnt work like that. And thats why this countries war on terror is so ass backwards because noone is taking the time to know these people. To figure out when to but in and when to leave it alone.

And another thing America dug/digs this pit with a shitty foreign policy. We are in everything. We have more troops in Europe than Europe does. We got people all over the globe and we wonder y when we have some tribe perform a coup because we're mad at this one particular warlord that the locals hate us. It's our god complex that phucks us.

That being said I'm an American. Staunch conservative. Champion of democracy. I love my motherphuckin country. I shit red/white &blue. But I'm a woman. And im of mixed heritage. A devout southern Baptist who converted to Islam and dumped that for atheism. Im a conundrum. And even that short description doesnt encompass who i REALLY AM. And thats how you gotta address these situations. This isnt ww2 and nazis. These are homegrown people who are disenfranchised with our country. Terrorist looking to pick a fight. Cowards hiding behind religion to gain followers. Attack the root and not the branches.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Cop out? I said I DON'T CARE. It doesnt bother me what you call it. I'm a military vet with actual combat tours. Ive trained with, fought beside muslims and engaged islamic enemy combatants in multiple countries. If someone gets in front of me in a combat zone idgaf what terminology you use to discern them im putting them down. And that was then on active duty and now as a contractor. And you can ask anyone who served over there in a combat mos and theyd say the same. Its semantics. Its bs talking points for political pundits/internet trolls who dont have to risk their lives. But to actual trigger pullers we dont GAF.

NOW in regards to myself i was a practicing muslim while a marine during OIF 1. Talk about a MINDPHUCK. I am familiar with the culture and the people. Hell ive fought beside them. There is no more in depth than that. And im telling you it alienates islamist by adding that little radical to their religion. I dont know why. Maybe its because they hold their religion sacred and instead of just calling a terrorist a terrorist youre taking a side jab at islam. Who knows. And honestly at this stage why is it important? Y because people like to stereotype. Let's lump this group together because the have the same mo. It just doesnt work like that. And thats why this countries war on terror is so ass backwards because noone is taking the time to know these people. To figure out when to but in and when to leave it alone.

And another thing America dug/digs this pit with a shitty foreign policy. We are in everything. We have more troops in Europe than Europe does. We got people all over the globe and we wonder y when we have some tribe perform a coup because we're mad at this one particular warlord that the locals hate us. It's our god complex that phucks us.

That being said I'm an American. Staunch conservative. Champion of democracy. I love my motherphuckin country. I shit red/white &blue. But I'm a woman. And im of mixed heritage. A devout southern Baptist who converted to Islam and dumped that for atheism. Im a conundrum. And even that short description doesnt encompass who i REALLY AM. And thats how you gotta address these situations. This isnt ww2 and nazis. These are homegrown people who are disenfranchised with our country. Terrorist looking to pick a fight. Cowards hiding behind religion to gain followers. Attack the root and not the branches.

Don't necessarily agree on everything, but that's one hell of a powerful post. 👆

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Attack the root and not the branches.

I thought the pew polls helped to expose the roots.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I thought the pew polls helped to expose the roots.

Not sure if serious

Hold on a second, we let women post here? Unbelievable.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Not sure if serious

If you read the information from pew I don't think you would be making that statement.

You didn't like my profiling comments yet its proven, profiling is effective. You may not like my comments about islam but the data I provide supports a position where regardless of your experience doesn't show islam to be a very progressive religion, it is exactly the opposite.

I do not think christianity is very progressive either but islam seems to be 500 years (tongue in cheek here) behind the modern world.

Originally posted by snowdragon
If you read the information from pew I don't think you would be making that statement.

You didn't like my profiling comments yet its proven, profiling is effective. You may not like my comments about islam but the data I provide supports a position where regardless of your experience doesn't show islam to be a very progressive religion, it is exactly the opposite.

I do not think christianity is very progressive either but islam seems to be 500 years (tongue in cheek here) behind the modern world.

Religion as a whole is regressive. Its built on archaic laws and thinking so there's no disagreement there.

As far as polls go i take them with the infinitesimally smallest grain of salt. I've never been polled in my life so i highly doubt it's accuracy. But i value your opinion nevertheless