Islamic Misogyny Shows It's Face Again

[Gaztopian]

Same reason I don't like Christians "spreading their views." It's not that I would try to stop them from speaking or selling their BS, but I certainly will stop listening and will refuse to buy what they are selling.

That's a matter of personal preference that still doesn't justify your distaste for gays spreading their views. Case in point, I don't like self-help seminars but I'm not opposed to their marketing either, because I don't think there's anything wrong with them, and me not liking them is just a matter of personal preference. For you to oppose the spreading of something, you have to have something against; you tolerating it out of resignation has no bearing to what you objectively think of it.

 

[Paleocon]

If you state something is right because the bible didn't specifically state it, then with parallel logic anything can be right if it is explicitly not stated in The Bible.

I would advise you to read the whole discussion and try to figure out the difference between a primary argument and a counterargument.

 

[calamity]

That's a matter of personal preference that still doesn't justify your distaste for gays spreading their views. Case in point, I don't like self-help seminars but I'm not opposed to their marketing either, because I don't think there's anything wrong with them, and me not liking them is just a matter of personal preference. For you to oppose the spreading of something, you have to have something against; you tolerating it out of resignation has no bearing to what you objectively think of it.

Just because I do not object to men ****ing each other in the ass or wearing dresses does not mean I agree with them promoting the idea to kids in schools or holding parades or influencing legislation.

 

[Gaztopian]

Just because I do not object to men ****ing each other in the ass or wearing dresses does not mean I agree with them promoting the idea to kids in schools or holding parades or influencing legislation.

Which means you do object to the idea of men buggering each other, for no one opposes the spread of a benign thing. You're not fooling anyone with your chicken**** dissonance; so you may as well come out and avow your animus towards buggery.

 

[blarg]

Beat women lightly. Apparently that's some sort of Islamic compromise between beating the crap out of them and treating them as equals.

Pakistani men can beat wives 'lightly' to punish them, council says - CNN.com



Note the council's name: Islamic Ideology. Great religion there. We should import more of it over here. /s

maybe we should ban people that call for violating the rights of others but we should make it a crimes hear if its not already and i dont see why we would need to ban people from pakistan who dont support this which will include Muslims

 

[calamity]

maybe we should ban people that call for violating the rights of others but we should make it a crimes hear if its not already and i dont see why we would need to ban people from pakistan who dont support this which will include Muslims

I'm not for banning people due to their religion. It's a bad idea. That said, I am not opposed to calling a bad religion bad.

 

[calamity]

Which means you do object to the idea of men buggering each other, for no one opposes the spread of a benign thing. You're not fooling anyone with your chicken**** dissonance; so you may as well come out and avow your animus towards buggery.

I support gay marriage because it promotes monogamy and discourages promiscuity and the spread of disease. I oppose promotion of the "gay lifestyle" because with it often comes promiscuity and the spread of deadly disease.

I have a hard time understanding why liberals insist on this all or nothing crap that you are pushing above. People can accept homosexuality without wanting it to be normalized and promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

If someone has a gay child, they can very well wish he were straight and even try to address the issue in hopes that the kid is not really gay but only experimenting. But, once the kid is without a doubt gay, it would be time to accept him for who he is. I don't think it wise to tell a kid in seventh grade that he can be gay or straight and all is well. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to nudge, if not push, a kid into a hetero-normative lifestyle.

 

[Gaztopian]

I have a hard time understanding why liberals insist on this all or nothing crap that you are pushing above. People can accept homosexuality without wanting it to be normalized and promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

If someone has a gay child, they can very well wish he were straight and even try to address the issue in hopes that the kid is not really gay but only experimenting. But, once the kid is without a doubt gay, it would be time to accept him for who he is. I don't think it wise to tell a kid in seventh grade that he can be gay or straight and all is well. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to nudge, if not push, a kid into a hetero-normative lifestyle.

I'm no liberal, and my comments in Sex and Sexuality on the topic of homosexuality - many of which you liked - clearly show where I stand on the subject. That, however, doesn't stop me from discerning your dissonance. How can you accept something yet oppose its promotion as an acceptable thing? that is literally a paradox. As for the second paragraph of your post, it reflects a conviction that homosexuality is something that needs to be tolerated as a last resort rather than being an acceptable thing, and your desire to try and combat it in as much as possible demonstrates your rejection of it.

 

[calamity]

I'm no liberal, and my comments in Sex and Sexuality on the topic of homosexuality - many of which you liked - clearly show where I stand on the subject. That, however, doesn't stop me from discerning your dissonance. How can you accept something yet oppose its promotion as an acceptable thing? that is literally a paradox. As for the second paragraph of your post, it reflects a conviction that homosexuality is something that needs to be tolerated as a last resort rather than being an acceptable thing, and your desire to try and combat it in as much as possible demonstrates your rejection of it.

I don't see it as a paradox. It's just accepting something because, well, because it's the right thing to do. But, that does not mean we want to promote being gay like it's becoming an astronaut or something.

 

[blarg]

I'm not for banning people due to their religion. It's a bad idea. That said, I am not opposed to calling a bad religion bad.

thats fair and ya any one cabling for beating women over ther religion has a particulate bad 1

 

[TobyOne]

You're confusing acceptance with tolerance. The law and maybe even common decency requires people to be tolerant of homosexual behavior. Thats not the same as acceptance and certainly different than celebration which is what is required by left wing ideology.

I'm no liberal, and my comments in Sex and Sexuality on the topic of homosexuality - many of which you liked - clearly show where I stand on the subject. That, however, doesn't stop me from discerning your dissonance. How can you accept something yet oppose its promotion as an acceptable thing? that is literally a paradox. As for the second paragraph of your post, it reflects a conviction that homosexuality is something that needs to be tolerated as a last resort rather than being an acceptable thing, and your desire to try and combat it in as much as possible demonstrates your rejection of it.

 

[TobyOne]

I saw Animus Towards Buggery open for Lone Justice back in '83.

Which means you do object to the idea of men buggering each other, for no one opposes the spread of a benign thing. You're not fooling anyone with your chicken**** dissonance; so you may as well come out and avow your animus towards buggery.

 

[Gaztopian]

You're confusing acceptance with tolerance. The law and maybe even common decency requires people to be tolerant of homosexual behavior. Thats not the same as acceptance and certainly different than celebration which is what is required by left wing ideology.

I understand the difference between acceptance and tolerance, and I'm not contesting the logic of the dichotomy. But you can't tolerate something and be accepting of it - that's my objection to calamity's disposition. He's too much of a chicken**** to come forward and express his distaste for buggery, as it goes against the slanderous message of this topic.

 

[calamity]

I understand the difference between acceptance and tolerance, and I'm not contesting the logic of the dichotomy. But you can't tolerate something and be accepting of it - that's my objection to calamity's disposition. He's too much of a chicken**** to come forward and express his distaste for buggery, as it goes against the slanderous message of this topic.

I have no "distaste for buggery." I'm just smart enough to know we should not promote buggery to children, it leads to increased risk for deadly disease and a lifestyle which is rife with mental problems like addiction and suicide. Apparently being smart is not a common trait on this forum.

 

[TobyOne]

I don't know why that would be a problem. Why do you object to someone's disposition? Disposition isn't important.

I understand the difference between acceptance and tolerance, and I'm not contesting the logic of the dichotomy. But you can't tolerate something and be accepting of it - that's my objection to calamity's disposition. He's too much of a chicken**** to come forward and express his distaste for buggery, as it goes against the slanderous message of this topic.

 

[devildavid]

Islam does generally seem to be a driving force behind treating women poorly. I am not a proponent of theocracies of any kind, especially Islamic ones. Rational secular societies provide the greatest chance for equal treatment of all people. Islam today holds a dangerously powerful hold on too many countries and their governments. I am pessimistic about Islam ever being absorbed into secular societies, as other religions have been. Islamic law seems to be antithetical to equality and freedom.

 

[calamity]

Islam does generally seem to be a driving force behind treating women poorly. I am not a proponent of theocracies of any kind, especially Islamic ones. Rational secular societies provide the greatest chance for equal treatment of all people. Islam today holds a dangerously powerful hold on too many countries and their governments. I am pessimistic about Islam ever being absorbed into secular societies, as other religions have been. Islamic law seems to be antithetical to equality and freedom.

I really do not understand why so many supposed liberals do not get this. Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and a select few do, but so many absolutely refuse to see this.

 

[devildavid]

I really do not understand why so many supposed liberals do not get this. Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and a select few do, but so many absolutely refuse to see this.

I think that our country's embrace of religious freedom causes confusion on this issue. I believe in religious freedom, but feel that religion should be the moral foundation of an individuals life without having too much power in the political realm. Islam does not seem willing to embrace that approach.

 

[calamity]

I think that our country's embrace of religious freedom causes confusion on this issue. I believe in religious freedom, but feel that religion should be the moral foundation of an individuals life without having too much power in the political realm. Islam does not seem willing to embrace that approach.

I agree but with one-word difference.

I think that our country's embrace of religious freedom causes confusion on this issue. I believe in religious freedom, but feel that religion can be the moral foundation of an individuals life without having too much power in the political realm. Islam does not seem willing to embrace that approach.

 

[devildavid]

I agree but with one-word difference.

I think that our country's embrace of religious freedom causes confusion on this issue. I believe in religious freedom, but feel that religion can be the moral foundation of an individuals life without having too much power in the political realm. Islam does not seem willing to embrace that approach.

Agree with change.

 

[TobyOne]

It doesn't have to do with views on religious freedom. The left is defending Islam and is acting as apologists for radical islam. They don't support religious freedom - their argument is about identity and ethnicity. It will never be about religions freedom.

I think that our country's embrace of religious freedom causes confusion on this issue. I believe in religious freedom, but feel that religion should be the moral foundation of an individuals life without having too much power in the political realm. Islam does not seem willing to embrace that approach.

 

[devildavid]

It doesn't have to do with views on religious freedom. The left is defending Islam and is acting as apologists for radical islam. They don't support religious freedom - their argument is about identity and ethnicity. It will never be about religions freedom.

That is the reason you want because you are pre-disposed to think of the left in a negative way as some monolithic group. The left has a variety of views, and some are based on the very mundane liberal ideal of religious freedom.