Homophobia: The New Closeted Homosexual

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it should not be so difficult for you to refute.

I've already refuted it twice. Each time I refute it, you bring up some nonexistent point like people worshiping Mao or some other nonsense having nothing to do with anything. Keep trying to blame religion for everything and then rationalizing when political ideology is responsible for more deaths. It's amusing to watch.

No, Christians just blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. There is an entire laundry list of such incidents prior to this. But hey, a Muslim did this one, so those others never happened.

Originally posted by Stigma
BTW @ Adam, I'll remember to absolutely decimate you while I address your posts, but Poland plays Ukraine at Euro in 40 min so I need to get going. Wait your turn 😉

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I've already refuted it twice. Each time I refute it, you bring up some nonexistent point like people worshiping Mao or some other nonsense having nothing to do with anything. Keep trying to blame religion for everything and then rationalizing when political ideology is responsible for more deaths. It's amusing to watch.

This shouldn't be too hard for you to prove 👆

Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example.

Pastor Donnie Romero of Stedfast Baptist Church said:

"These 50 sodomites are all perverts and pedophiles, and they are the scum of the earth, and the earth is a little bit better place now.

And I’ll take it a step further, because I heard on the news today, that there are still several dozen of these queers in ICU and intensive care.

And I will pray to God like I did this morning, I will do it tonight, I’ll pray that God will finish the job that that man started, and he will end their life, and by tomorrow morning they will all be burning in hell, just like the rest of them, so that they don’t get any more opportunity to go out and hurt little children.”

Originally posted by Surtur
But you see your answer to my question could have an effect on how I answer you. Since you've yet to list any good reason why we shouldn't label it radical Islam. You just said it was radical Islam.

So I'm baffled you just asked me why would should correctly label things? Isn't that obvious? Why shouldn't we call it radical Islam if it's radical Islam? You never actually explained why. If calling it radical Islam changes nothing..then..call it radical Islam lol.

Or here I can sum this up: we should call it radical Islam because it is radical Islam. We are not meant to get anything out of this, we are not meant to change anything by applying appropriate labels to things. We don't hesitate to label something as racist or police brutality, so we shouldn't hesitate to call radical Islam..radical Islam.

If someone is not into radical Islam, but follows the religion, and then they suddenly sympathize with ISIS because we labeled this radical Islam...that person is a piece of utter horse shit, right? I mean you agree with that, right? That anyone so easily swayed to sympathize with ISIS is just a pathetic excuse for a person?

Lol so you cant forn an intelligent answer unless someone leads you? Haha i stopped reading after that. Hilarious surtur

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Lol so you cant forn an intelligent answer unless someone leads you? Haha i stopped reading after that. Hilarious surtur

That isn't what I just said though. I never said calling it radical Islam would change anything.

I'm essentially asking you for the reason why we shouldn't label radical Islam as radical Islam? This is not complicated.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, Christians just blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. There is an entire laundry list of such incidents prior to this. But hey, a Muslim did this one, so those others never happened.

I would figure if Christians were blowing up gay bars it would be just as big a deal though? Or at least be a major news story if Christians were actually walking into gay bars with bombs and killing loads of people.

Half time during the match so I can present something interesitng.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/imams-line-up-to-condemn-homosexuality/news-story/b1df7829507ae0a60875a5577bd21a43

Imams line up to condemn homosexuality

Gay and lesbian people should be put to death or otherwise punished under sharia, according to two imams who share leadership positions with Shady Alsuleiman, the controversial sheik invited to a Ramadan dinner at Kirribilli House by Malcolm Turnbull.

The Australian National Imams Council, of which Sheik _Alsuleiman is president, has at least three executive members who believe the only punishment for homosexuality is the death penalty, according to Islamic law.

Imam Yusuf Peer, the chairman of the Council of Imams Queensland, who is a member of the national peak body, told The Weekend Australian yesterday that it was “not permissible” to be gay and Muslim.

“But we do not have a problem with the people themselves, just the act and ideology,” Imam Peer said. “But this is what the sharia law says and we have to follow that. There is no way around that. When we are talking about gays, we have to be confident (they are gay) and there must be a lot of _investigating.”

When asked if sharia _required death, Imam Peer said: “Yes.”

So radicalized Muslims (who make up the majority of Muslims worldwide according to Pew Reseach study) condemn homosexuality and advocate death for those who practise this lifestyle. What a surprise 😬

Islam--the most homophobic religion in the modern world is at it again.

While Christianity has its faults and a small minority of radicals, Musliims are in majority radicalized and violently homophobic... Very sad.

Originally posted by Surtur
That isn't what I just said though. I never said calling it radical Islam would change anything.

I'm essentially asking you for the reason why we shouldn't label radical Islam as radical Islam? This is not complicated.

If i facepalm any harder i will knock myself out.

I asked you a question. You never responded. Or rather you responded with a question in order to find out my beliefs prior to a response. I really dont care what u call it. A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example.

No, Christians just blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. There is an entire laundry list of such incidents prior to this. But hey, a Muslim did this one, so those others never happened.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
If i facepalm any harder i will knock myself out.

I asked you a question. You never responded. Or rather you responded with a question in order to find out my beliefs prior to a response. I really dont care what u call it. A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest

But nobody said it was the key to defeating it, so it doesn't surprise me about your face palming because you are having comprehension issues.

Calling it radical Islam won't defeat it, nobody said it would. But if we are going to not label something what it truly is we need a valid reason and we do not have one.

I mean quite literally nobody said calling them a certain name would defeat them and yet here you are saying it as if people did say that. Then you tell others they are the ones thinking backwards.

This isn't rocket science. If it's radical Islam call it radical Islam. No, it won't change anything if you call it something else, but we have no actual need to call it something else, we already know what to call it: radical Islam.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Uhuh. You listed 1 example from 16 years ago that had 2 deaths. Right before that, you posted this:

So once again, you have severe mental issues when it comes to religion given by how much stuff you had to exaggerate and flat out make up.

ex·am·ple noun one of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole

Yes, that is what an example is: highlighting one of a number of instances to illustrate the character of the collective whole.

I even noted that it was 1. not the most recent example, and 2. not the most egregious example.

I chose it because it was a high profile case that made national headlines, so there is a greater likelihood that people would remember it.

Sorry the death toll of this one example was not high enough for you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example.

Don't call that "radical Christianity", it makes some people upset, even though he's technically following biblical scripture

Originally posted by Sin I AM
A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest

Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't call that "radical Christianity", it makes some people upset,

No-one in their sound mind is upset when you call radicalized Christians, radical...

You must be thinking about radical Islam, that is, the most homophobic religion in the modern world according to Pew Research study, while this is also collaborated by CNN poll on British Muslims and an article posted a few posts above.

Yet, some people refuse to call radical Islam for what it is. Example is Sin and Surtur's exchange in this very thread.

You possibly have missed all of that while you were browsing this thread. I am glad to help. 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
even though he's technically following biblical scripture

Originally posted by Surtur
But nobody said it was the key to defeating it, so it doesn't surprise me about your face palming because you are having comprehension issues.

Calling it radical Islam won't defeat it, nobody said it would. But if we are going to not label something what it truly is we need a valid reason and we do not have one.

I mean quite literally nobody said calling them a certain name would defeat them and yet here you are saying it as if people did say that. Then you tell others they are the ones thinking backwards.

This isn't rocket science. If it's radical Islam call it radical Islam. No, it won't change anything if you call it something else, but we have no actual need to call it something else, we already know what to call it: radical Islam.

You couldnt answer a simple question and I lack comprehension skills lol try harder. Anywho labeling it would alienate muslims who aren't radical. You're attaching a negative to a religion that views the west with caution. It may not matter to you but some find it offensive. We aren't going to win this war with that mindset. I for one don't care what it's called, it's a trivial talking point when action is what's required.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior.

Simpleton logic would be to assume that you could prevent crime by profiling.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
You're attaching a negative to a religion that views the west with caution.

EDIT: 😉

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Simpleton logic would be to assume that you could prevent crime by profiling.

Its a good thing then the profiling is used to help prevent crime but its not the only tool. Which is why labels help to identify things, people, behaviors, food etc to deny that is sophmoric.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201402/does-criminal-profiling-work

Islam isn't a very forgiving or progressive religion in regards to womens rights or the lbgt community. I'd say the act of killing in the name of said beliefs is radical unless you believe thats a normal behavior for islams to begin with.

Originally posted by Stigma
Yet, the west that views Islam with caution is unacceptable, yes or no?

Yes. Only because the US wants the world to perceive it as a bastion of democracy. Can't have your cake and eat it too