# Palestinian Authority: Gays and Jews not allowed



## Megaharrison (Sep 14, 2011)

> The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat said on Tuesday in Washington that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)opposes the immediate presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state, according to reports in The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard.
> 
> When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected Mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said: ?But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.?
> 
> ...





The worlds darling.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Sep 14, 2011)

What!? There're gays in Gaza? I thought they don't have gays, like Iran!


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Edward Newgate said:


> What!? There're gays in Gaza? I thought they don't have gays, like Iran!



That's not true.  You typically see them *hanging* around the public squares.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Not letting Jews in is understandable. 

And people from America are bitching about he non-acceptance of gays ? Accept them first in your goddamn land before you bitch about it.


----------



## Toroxus (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> That's not true.  You typically see them *hanging* around the public squares.





I was going to comment on this thread, but this comment jolted my memory. And I'm speechless.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Not letting Jews in is understandable.
> 
> And people from America are bitching about he non-acceptance of gays ? Accept them first in your goddamn land before you bitch about it.



Actually we do, up here in NY and New England that is...but your trolling is cute.


----------



## Federer (Sep 14, 2011)

Gays are 'accepted' in Western countries, they are discrimated [not being allowed to marry for example], that's not the same thing. 

Minorities are also discrimated by some, but they are still allowed.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Actually we do, up here in NY and New England that is...but your trolling is cute.



I see, apparently the South did secede from the Union considering you never count them as part of your country.


----------



## Thor (Sep 14, 2011)

This is the country anti-isrealists support.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I see, apparently the South did secede from the Union considering you never count them as part of your country.



Rome wasn't built in a day, tough guy.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Sep 14, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> I was going to comment on this thread, but this comment jolted my memory. And I'm speechless.


Hm, yeah. They hanged 3 gays in the past few days.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Rome wasn't built in a day, tough guy.



How does that counter my point in any way ?


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> How does that counter my point in any way ?



That it's coming along, despite the fact you've written off the entire country like you typically do in your dickish manner.  I mean this cute bit of being all anti-Mega and bitching about Israel which you never really did a couple years back was fun at the moment, but now you're just whining.  How I've actually given a damn this far into it is beyond me.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

They forgot the most important group: "No fat chicks".


----------



## Coteaz (Sep 14, 2011)

They should exclude hipsters too.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> That it's coming along, despite the fact you've written off the entire country like you typically do in your dickish manner.  I mean this cute bit of being all anti-Mega and bitching about Israel which you never really did a couple years back was fun at the moment, but now you're just whining.  How I've actually given a damn this far into it is beyond me.



Big parts of your country are discriminating against gays, and don't accept them. That's a pretty fair reason to assume that not all of your country accept them, besides some states out of a whopping 52. Its a pretty logical conclusion, which you would have seen if you weren't so hellbent on wanking Mega and NE.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> They should exclude hipsters too.



I thought hipsters were simply culled.



Elim Rawne said:


> Big parts of your country are discriminating against gays, and don't accept them. That's a pretty fair reason to assume that not all of your country accept them, besides some states out of a whopping 52. Its a pretty logical conclusion, which you would have seen if you weren't so hellbent on wanking Mega and NE.



Not really because you're still saying *the country*.  And honestly I don't quite care to see whatever the fuck you're talking about since I have the hunch you haven't bothered to visit or live in any area of the country in contrast to what I've done.  Give me some specifics.   And it's 50 states so I'll now write off your commentary due to geography fail.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Sep 14, 2011)

I sure hope they don't allow ponies.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I sure hope they don't allow ponies.



Everyone allows ponies.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> I thought hipsters were simply culled.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because you're still saying *the country*.  Give me some specifics.   And it's 50 states so I'll now write off your commentary due to geography fail.



The Country still includes some federal southern states, don't write them off.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> The Country still includes some federal southern states, don't write them off.



Never said I did now did I?   You simply made an assumption based upon my distaste for the South, but good on you kiddo.

You still couldn't get the simple fact it's 50 states.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Everyone allows ponies.



I bet that pony convinced Hitler to kill the Jews.


----------



## Toroxus (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> The Country still includes some federal southern states, don't write them off.



No, those states are write offs.


----------



## Jin-E (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Not letting Jews in is understandable.



It's pure racism if the Jews are willing to accept Palestinian citizenship and obey the laws of the land.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Never said I did now did I?   You simply made an assumption based upon my distaste for the South, but good on you kiddo.



I said that gays aren't accepted in the whole USA. 
You countered by sperging out "NAH BRO, NEW ENGLAND BRO. SCYLLA AND CARIBDIS BRO".

At that point, that was a reasonable assumption to make.


> You still couldn't get the simple fact it's 50 states.



Neither does Obama


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I said that gays aren't accepted in the whole USA.
> You countered by sperging out "NAH BRO, NEW ENGLAND BRO. SCYLLA AND CARIBDIS BRO".
> 
> At that point, that was a reasonable assumption to make.



Ah I see the idiot bug struck you something fierce, since all I did was point out exceptions to your ad nauseum statement.



> Neither does Obama



So?  Doesn't spare him from scrutiny.  Why should a Canaturk get away too?


----------



## Coteaz (Sep 14, 2011)

Can we place a restraining order on Mael and Dice? Either that or they need a good fuck to get this out of their systems.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Well, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes to you then.



> It's pure racism if the Jews are willing to accept Palestinian citizenship and obey the laws of the land.



It's no different than what Western countries did to Arabs and Muslims after9/11 and 7/7


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Can we place a restraining order on Mael and Dice? Either that or they need a good fuck to get this out of their systems.



You're right...the break-up as you can see was still pretty rough.

I'll stop now.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Sep 14, 2011)

Now that Elim and Mael have simmered down we can go back to appreciating the Zionists and all the wonderful things they do for the world.


----------



## Jin-E (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Well, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes to you then.
> 
> 
> 
> It's no different than what Western countries did to Arabs and Muslims after9/11 and 7/7



Right, the western world have totally halted Muslim immigration after 2005


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's no different than what Western countries did to Arabs and Muslims after9/11 and 7/7


How so?!?!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Sep 14, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> Right, the western world have totally halted Muslim immigration after 2005



Subjecting them to "random" security checks
Increased racism against Muslims
Islamaphobes like Geert Wilders


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Sep 14, 2011)

What do they do when they find a gay Jew?


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Subjecting them to "random" security checks
> Increased racism against Muslims
> Islamaphobes like Geert Wilders



So different then.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Sep 14, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What do they do when they find a gay Jew?


They would hang him. TWICE.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What do they do when they find a gay Jew?



Execute him... *with bees*!


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Execute him... *with bees*!



Burn them, then freeze them, then burn them again.

That's the price of double heresy.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 14, 2011)

> And people from America are bitching about he non-acceptance of gays ? Accept them first in your goddamn land before you bitch about it.



Last I checked it wasn't outlawed or punishable by death so keep your shit to yourself. And amusing to see them harp on about it when the favourite pastime in the ME is to fuck pretty boys in the park.


----------



## Clay Man Gumby (Sep 14, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What do they do when they find a gay Jew?





Nothing, nothing at all.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 14, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What do they do when they find a gay Jew?


They'd hang him off a crucifix while burning him alive.

Don't even ask me what they'd do to the lesbians.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 14, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> It's no different than what Western countries did to Arabs and Muslims after9/11 and 7/7


The difference is that the US never legally took away any of their rights or even barred them from coming to the country.

Not to say that a lot of the people weren't dicks towards them, but there was never any legal discrimination against them, which is a stark contrast to the Palestinian Authority's stance towards Jews and gays, which amounts to public execution via stoning and hanging


----------



## zuul (Sep 14, 2011)

Sometimes I wonder if those guys are just guenuinely stupid or if they get paid by Israel to sabotage their own cause.


----------



## xenopyre (Sep 14, 2011)

Neither does KSA or the entire middle east for that matter , but that didn't prevent them from becoming a member of the UN .


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

xenopyre said:


> Neither does KSA or the entire middle east for that matter , but that didn't prevent them from becoming a member of the UN .



Or the UN "human rights" council


----------



## Kankurette (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> That's not true.  You typically see them *hanging* around the public squares.


Oh, you.


----------



## LadyTenTen (Sep 14, 2011)

Federer said:


> Gays are 'accepted' in Western countries, they are discrimated [not being allowed to marry for example], that's not the same thing.
> 
> Minorities are also discrimated by some, but they are still allowed.



Not in all western countries.

In Spain they can marry and they go first in work lists and government helps.
The have far more rights than heterosexual citizens.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

Allowing Jews is fine imo, they can live as Dhimmi's. Not like Jews/Christians/Muslims didn't live in peace before zionists came along. Gays though... Nah, never. Sorry.



Federer said:


> Gays are 'accepted' in Western countries, .



How are gay's "accepted" in any country? A few rights here and there doesn't mean society has accepted them. Tolerated, yes.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> How are gay's "accepted" in any country? A few rights here and there doesn't mean society has accepted them. Tolerated, yes.



Most people in the west actually accept them. It's difficult to imagine if all you've been taught is hatred, but most people genuinely accept others regardless of who they love.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Most people in the west actually accept them. It's difficult to imagine if all you've been taught is hatred, but most people genuinely accept others regardless of who they love.



That's quite a fantasy you've got pictured there. I'm just being realistic here, gays will never be accepted on a sociel level, unless they had their own country or something.

They must be the most bullied people, I mean there's a good reason why most of them don't "come out" until later in their lives. And when we talk about society, any straight person is never going to feel completely comfortable around a man who acts like a woman or a woman who acts like a man.

My heart geniunly goes out to them, it's a tough world, that's just never going to change.


----------



## Watchman (Sep 14, 2011)

Gays are accepted in most Western European nations, and large portions of the USA, as well as nations like Japan. Sure, there may be assholes in those nations that are homophobes, but most people aren't going to be any ruder to a gay person than they would to anyone else.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> That's quite a fantasy you've got pictured there. I'm just being realistic here, gays will never be accepted on a sociel level, unless they had their own country or something.



Nonsense, there have been many societies in history in which homosexuality was perfectly acceptable, modern day Europe is among them.

Recent polls show that the majority Europeans is for allowing same-sex marriage. Take the Netherlands, according to the most recent Europoll 82% of them support same-sex marriage. You can't tell anyone with a straight face that that's not acceptance.



> They must be the most bullied people, I mean there's a good reason why most of them don't "come out" until later in their lives. And when we talk about society, any straight person is never going to feel completely comfortable around a man who acts like a woman or a woman who acts like a man.
> 
> My heart geniunly goes out to them, it's a tough world, that's just never going to change.



Just because you don't feel comfortable around homosexuals doesn't mean that others can't. In fact I don't know anyone who feels uncomfortable around homosexuals. If it makes you feel that uncomfortable, maybe you're insecure about your sexuality.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Sep 14, 2011)

EVERYONE WHO HATES ON GAYS IS A CLOSETED HOMOSEXUAL
Really - every single person I've ever heard hating gays turned out to just be denying and hiding their own urges
So the Palestinian Authority is gay... interesting
We all knew Hamas is gay though


----------



## River Song (Sep 14, 2011)

Why don't they just do what Iran did, because apparently there are no gays in Iran


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 14, 2011)

anthony weiner's old seat in the congress was just lost to a republican because the democrat had a pro gay marriage view which the predominate jew majority of that district didn't accept.  

thinly veiled flaming by the OP.


----------



## WT (Sep 14, 2011)

Silly Palis. most of them don't even realise that they are either Jewish or have Jewish blood in them seeing that their ancestors have lived in that area for hundreds of years. surely Jews converted during that period.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 14, 2011)

Jews should be allowed but I can see why they wouldn't want gay people there.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Sep 14, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Jews should be allowed *but I can see why they wouldn't want gay people there*.



Please elaborate.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 14, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Please elaborate.



Because they're Muslim and believe homosexuality is a sin?


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because they're Muslim and believe homosexuality is a sin?



Thinking about it, I think they could always try to help these people overcome the problem.


----------



## Talon. (Sep 14, 2011)

Jews, i can kind of understand.

Gays, not so much. thats a little far.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Thinking about it, I think they could always try to help these people overcome the problem.



Cool story, Taliban Jack, but being gay isn't a "condition."


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Sep 14, 2011)

I agree with that authority


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Cool story, Taliban Jack, but being gay isn't a "condition."



In a few years neither will beastiality nor mechanophilia be.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 14, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> In a few years neither will beastiality nor mechanophilia be.



"Informed consent". Learn what it is.


----------



## xenopyre (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Thinking about it, I think they could always try to help these people overcome the problem.


Actually since homosexuality is genetically inherited , then by forcing them to  breed heterosexually  you are perpetuating the trend , while giving them the freedom to practice their sexuality would eliminate/diminish their genes from the gene pool .


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 14, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> "Informed consent". Learn what it is.



Your point?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 14, 2011)




----------



## Perseverance (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Cool story, Taliban Jack, but being gay isn't a "condition."



I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.



xenopyre said:


> Actually since *homosexuality is genetically inherited* .



LOL.

Yo, where's the beastiality gene, the i*c*st gene, the necrophilia gene.



Nothing against gays, but it's a lost cause.


----------



## αce (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, because the 1500 different species that have shown homosexual behaviour, and have little to no social lives, some of which raise themselves, pick up homosexual tendencies from the way they are brought up. Oh wait, humans aren't animals though, am I right?

Get the fuck out of here.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 14, 2011)

The debate flaming.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 14, 2011)

I see the homophobic cunts on NF are out in full force as usual.



> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.



Ignorance on your part doesn't equate to much of an argument.


----------



## Coteaz (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.


I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to pray to a giant black rock, treat women as subhumans, and dream of exterminating the Jews.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 14, 2011)

this whole thread is flaming, from the very first post.  gays face discrimination in every corner of the world.  

the jewish discrimination isn't good but it's not surprising due to the current squabble there.


----------



## very bored (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.



Cannibalism is natural...


----------



## Watchman (Sep 14, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Your point?



His point should be obvious. Animals and machines can't consent to sex. Adults of the same gender can.

Therefore you can't compare them.


----------



## Syed (Sep 14, 2011)

Wonder if there is an i*c*st gene. I'm looking at you Fritzel.


----------



## Mintaka (Sep 14, 2011)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Mael (Sep 14, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to stick his dick up another man's backside.



Much like you condoning the Taliban oppression of women or the violence used against civilians.  You're one sick little monkey.


----------



## Coteaz (Sep 14, 2011)

Mael said:


> Much like you condoning the Taliban oppression of women or the violence used against civilians.  You're one sick little monkey.


You're talking to a guy who idolizes Osama bin Laden, according to his sig. No getting through to that.


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 14, 2011)

Thor said:


> This is the country anti-isrealists support.


They don't care as long as Israel is gone.



			
				Perseverance said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, I think they could always try to help these people overcome the problem.


Oh *you* shouldn't be "disappointed" then considering the Qur'an and Islam allows their death and or punishment -- free game (according to breaking Islam and Sharia) right?



> Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"
> 
> 29:29 For come ye not in unto males, and cut ye not the road (for travellers), and commit ye not abomination in your meetings ? But the answer of his folk was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if thou art a truthteller!
> 
> ...


----------



## Psycho (Sep 14, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> They should exclude hipsters too.



it's the middle east, they're still in the disco era, another 25 years before hipsterism hits 'em


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

I don't understand why Israel topics get so much response. They are so repetitive at this point.

Mega... Shinigami Perv... I love you two, but why do you debate the same stuff over and over again when its obvious that no one will ever change their mind.

Like, I'm not even being hyperbolic... This goes for everyone that frequently argues over this stuff (Mael, the dude who has a boner for that guy the US pwned a few months back and as a result I got to have rare Sunday night sex with a fine looking Pakistani babe in celebration, etc) why? You already know what the opposition thinks and you already know most people think of it as morally gray. So why bother?


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 15, 2011)

Its their body country*** they can do whatever they want with it.

Wait.  I think I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 15, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> I don't understand why Israel topics get so much response. They are so repetitive at this point.
> 
> Mega... Shinigami Perv... I love you two, but why do you debate the same stuff over and over again when its obvious that no one will ever change their mind.
> 
> Like, I'm not even being hyperbolic... This goes for everyone that frequently argues over this stuff (Mael, the dude who has a boner for that guy the US pwned a few months back and as a result I got to have rare Sunday night sex with a fine looking Pakistani babe in celebration, etc) why? You already know what the opposition thinks and you already know most people think of it as morally gray. So why bother?



incessant flaming is the name of this game, and MH knows how to play.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

^
That very well may be, but its not just MH that is doing it. Its a whole group of people that just seem to pour into the exact same topic over and over again.

Personally, I don't even think MH is much of a troll and seems to put more thought and effort into his posts than most nf-users do. I am actually kind of surprised that more people don't try to use him as a lolcow.

You really can't just say its one person. The thread would die immediately if that were the case.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 15, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Oh *you* shouldn't be "disappointed" then considering the Qur'an and Islam allows their death and or punishment -- free game (according to breaking Islam and Sharia) right?



Someone ain't reading their bibles. 

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:13)"

"IF A MAN has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:15)"

"IF A WOMAN approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:16)"​
Quran discourages homo's, but never assigns punishment to them. Also that  hadith is one of 2 hadiths on homo's that you posted is regarded as _weak_.

But yes (no choice but to accept weak hadiths), under certain cirumstances, though very difficult one's, execution it is   Imo, Shariah over-protects them, but that's just me.



Coteaz said:


> I guess we simply have a difference of opinion. I mean, sorry if I don't find it natural for a man to pray to a giant black rock, treat women as subhumans, and dream of exterminating the Jews.



Sorry, I don't understand.



Mael said:


> Much like you condoning the Taliban oppression of women or the violence used against civilians.  You're one sick little monkey.



How many times have I asked you, go learn about Taliban, seriously.

The Taliban added a tremendous amount of safety, security, law, and order to the region. But there were also some misguided elements among them that imposed unIslamic policies. Others merely acted on their own and the way the media reports such crimes is by citing the "Taliban" even though the "Taliban" take such criminals and shoot them outside.

The bottom line is that there is a dangerous fog of war in Afghanistan where any man who's face is wrapped up and is harassing people gets called a "Taliban" by the media. This works to the advantage of armed militias and corrupt warlords who were looting and raping in Afghanistan before and after the Taliban came to power. They spread this level of propaganda only so they can maintain control of the country.
​


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Someone ain't reading their bibles.
> 
> "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:13)"
> 
> ...



Yes but we did something magical, Pers, something you haven't bothered to do.

Evolve.  We evolved past using barbaric means of punishment upon innocents who happen to be biologically hard-wired to like the same sex.  The same goes for men and women who love each other and just aren't married yet but have sex.

And the Taliban?  Hmmm...wonder what those executions of women in the soccer arenas were all about?  Flimsy adultery charges?  You betcha! 

But you're Taliban Jack, the Extremist Apologist.  Please die.


----------



## αce (Sep 15, 2011)

Look at Perserverance's sig. Why are we responding. He's obviously a terrorist apologist.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Lol at people comparing humans to animals.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Lol at people comparing humans to animals.



Darwin says hi.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Darwin says hi.



Darwin can eat a dick.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Darwin can eat a dick.



What is Darwin a kuffar or something? 

Truth hurts.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Lol at people comparing humans to animals.



Yeah, like those ridiculous people comparing ducks to bird, cars to vehicles, or milk to dairy products.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> What is Darwin a kuffar or something?



Are you trying to be funny or something? 



Saufsoldat said:


> Yeah, like those ridiculous people comparing ducks to bird, cars to vehicles, or milk to dairy products.



''Animals have gay sex, so we can too!!!''


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Are you trying to be funny or something?
> 
> ''Animals have gay sex, so we can too!!!''



Just bitingly sarcastic since your logic is fucking retarded, just like the Taliban apologist.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Just bitingly sarcastic since your logic is fucking retarded, just like the Taliban apologist.



It's so retarded that you can't make a point against it


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> It's so retarded that you can't make a point against it



Why should I?  But since you insist...

We possess basic instinctual functions like animals and have sexual hardwirings like animals.  We evolved from animals because we are animals.  Homo sapiens sapiens is still listed in the animal kingdom, you prat.  If you have picked up a fucking textbook in school maybe you'd understand.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Why should I?  But since you insist...
> 
> *We possess basic instinctual functions like animals* and have sexual hardwirings like animals.  We evolved from animals because we are animals.  Homo sapiens sapiens is still listed in the animal kingdom, you prat.  If you have picked up a fucking textbook in school maybe you'd understand.



Who would've thought it?

Only someone like you would think this was some higher level of knowledge.

Clearly since you can't grasp what i'm saying, I'll explain it. Humans can be gay without having to have homosexual relations, but you'd rather say we are just like animals in the sense that we can't control our desires and shit.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Who would've thought it?
> 
> Only someone like you would think this was some higher level of knowledge.
> 
> Clearly since you can't grasp what i'm saying, I'll explain it. Humans can be gay without having to have homosexual relations, but you'd rather say we are just like animals in the sense that we can't control our desires and shit.



And humans can be left-handed without actually using their left hand for most tasks. The question is why they shouldn't, though. Why shouldn't a gay person have consensual intercourse with people of the same sex?


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> And humans can be left-handed without actually using their left hand for most tasks. The question is why they shouldn't, though. Why shouldn't a gay person have consensual intercourse with people of the same sex?



Because it's immoral and wrong.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's immoral and wrong.



Lol Allah forbids it. 

Great logic there.

And you've already lost.  Just pack your bags and go room with Taliban Jack.


----------



## αce (Sep 15, 2011)

> Lol at people comparing humans to animals.



Are you being ignorant on purpose or have you never attended a first grade level biology session?


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

I love you because you are Bullwinkle J Moose and I imagine everything you say in that voice.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Lol Allah forbids it.
> 
> Great logic there.



Of course, no atheists think that



> And you've already lost.  Just pack your bags and go room with Taliban Jack.







♠Ace♠ said:


> Are you being ignorant on purpose or have you never attended a first grade level biology session?



Lol at you being so stupid as to not read the next posts.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Sep 15, 2011)

Holy shit, looks like I stumbled upon a doofus convention.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's immoral and wrong.



Please do elaborate how it's immoral and wrong.

Oh and do so without invoking your 7th century p*d*p**** warlord.


----------



## αce (Sep 15, 2011)

> ''Animals have gay sex, so we can too!!!''



No one came close to saying this.
Try harder.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Please do elaborate how it's immoral and wrong.
> 
> Oh and do so without invoking your 7th century p*d*p**** warlord.



Because Allah said so.  That's why.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Please do elaborate how it's immoral and wrong.



Because it's the same sex.



> Oh and do so without invoking your 7th century p*d*p**** warlord.



Relax hitler.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Sep 15, 2011)

Reminds of me of


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

This thread is entertaining.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's the same sex.
> 
> Relax hitler.



Godwin's Law FTL.

Stop with the 10-year-old everybody.  He lost...just won't admit it.


----------



## αce (Sep 15, 2011)

> Because it's the same sex.



Compelling argument.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Someone ain't reading their bibles.
> 
> "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:13)"
> 
> ...


LOL, Leviticus

1) Leviticus is the judicial codes for the ancient kingdom of Israel, and is applicable ONLY to those in the kingdom of Israel (the foundations of which ceased to exist after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and expelled the Jews from Judea)

2) Leviticus also considers eating shellfish, mixing meat and dairy (eg. cheeseburgers), shaving, and wearing more than one fabric as offenses equal to homosexuality.

3) Bestiality is morally wrong, not because it is condemned by the Old Testament, but because it is a form of rape (since animals can't give consent with humans, and can often lead to death in smaller animals). Homosexuality is (usually) consensual and as such, cannot be placed in the same category as bestiality.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Godwin's Law FTL.
> 
> Stop with the 10-year-old everybody.  He lost...just won't admit it.



BULLWINKLE CANNOT LOSE YOU HORNY SIMPLETON!!!!!!!!


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Godwin's Law FTL.
> 
> Stop with the 10-year-old everybody.  He lost...just won't admit it.



Hold up let me just tell everybody else I won.

Stop with this 10 year old. He lost...just won't admit it.



♠Ace♠ said:


> Compelling argument.



Why thank you.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

RAH RAH CISS BOON BAH! SHOW EM WHO IS BOSS MR MOOSE!


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

But tell them why you think it's immoral for you.


----------



## Mael (Sep 15, 2011)

Moose is the new Degelle? :33


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> But tell them why you think it's immoral for you.



Because it's the same sex, clearly wrong, can't get any more obvious than that.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

USE YOUR LOGICZ!!!

GET'EM SUPER MOOSE!!!!!!!!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's the same sex.



I asked you to elaborate, as in to explain in closer detail, not to repeat what you just said.

*Why* is it wrong or immoral for two consenting men or women to have sex with each other?



> Relax hitler.



Hitler is dead, how could I relax him?


----------



## αce (Sep 15, 2011)

And people have asked why I don't bother with the cafe. Just as many trolls as the Library, unfortunately.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

^
YOUR SOUL IS MINE!


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's the same sex, clearly wrong, can't get any more obvious than that.



It's not enough. People here don't understand why it's immoral for two person of the same gender to have sex.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Sep 15, 2011)

Oy                 Vey


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 15, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> LOL, Leviticus
> 
> 1) Leviticus is the judicial codes for the ancient kingdom of Israel, *and is applicable ONLY to those in the kingdom of Israel* (the foundations of which ceased to exist after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and expelled the Jews from Judea)



Just like Jesus.

Many American Christians believe that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman, and that any sexual act outside of the marriage relationship is inherently sinful.[52] Most American members of the Christian Right consider homosexual acts as sinful[53] and think it should not be accepted by society.[54] They tend to interpret biblical verses on homosexual acts to mean that the heterosexual family was created by God[55] and that same-sex relationships contradict God?s design for marriage and violate his will.[56][57][58][59][60] Christians who oppose homosexual relationships sometimes contend that same-gender sexual activity is unnatural.[61]

Christian objections to homosexual behavior are often based upon their interpretations of the Bible. Some *Christians believe that the book of Leviticus contains prohibitions against male-male sexuality.*[62][63][64][65] Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual activity led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.[62][66] Other Biblical passages that some interpret as addressing the issue of homosexual behavior include Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:8?10, and Jude 1:7;[62] the relevant portion of Romans 1 reads as follows:

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men ... For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:18a, 21?27)[67]​


♠Ace♠ said:


> Yes, because the 1500 different species that have shown homosexual behaviour, and have little to no social lives, some of which raise themselves, pick up homosexual tendencies from the way they are brought up. Oh wait, humans aren't animals though, am I right?
> 
> Get the fuck out of here.



 Animals also commit i*c*st, isn't that interesting.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Because it's the same sex, clearly wrong, can't get any more obvious than that.



WHY is that immoral?

And "Because God said so" or "because it's icky" aren't valid reasons


----------



## Edward Newgate (Sep 15, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> WHY is that immoral?
> 
> And "Because God said so" or "because it's icky" aren't valid reasons


Well obviously God has some unknown, spiritual explanation that humans can't understand. Or that's atleast why I was told once


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> It's not enough. People here don't understand why it's immoral for two person of the same gender to have sex.



It's just unnatural. I think they can be helped and shouldn't be outcasted from society.

Homosexual men are more likely to have had cancer than heterosexual men, a US study has suggested.

The study of more than 120,000 people in California has led to calls for more specialist support.

Lesbians and bisexual women also had poorer health after cancer than heterosexuals, according to research published in the journal Cancer.

Cancer Research UK said more research was needed as the reasons for any difference were unclear.

In the 2001, 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview surveys, a total of 3,690 men and 7,252 women said they had been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

Out of the 122,345 people interviewed, 1,493 men and 918 women described themselves as gay, while 1,116 women said they were bisexual.

Gay men were twice as likely to have been diagnosed with cancer as straight men and, on average, it happened a decade earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13295300​


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

We can't force Palestinian to accept gay because western people do accept them. Our values are different than ours.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Just like Jesus.
> 
> Many American Christians believe that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman, and that any sexual act outside of the marriage relationship is inherently sinful.[52] Most American members of the Christian Right consider homosexual acts as sinful[53] and think it should not be accepted by society.[54] They tend to interpret biblical verses on homosexual acts to mean that the heterosexual family was created by God[55] and that same-sex relationships contradict God?s design for marriage and violate his will.[56][57][58][59][60] Christians who oppose homosexual relationships sometimes contend that same-gender sexual activity is unnatural.[61]
> 
> ...



And yet, American Christians don't withhold a single law from Leviticus other than the one about homosexuality. 

And also, Paul was a delusional Puritan whose teachings were often in direct contrast to Jesus' message of peace and acceptance. Paul insisted on following the Old Testament and it's laws/punishments to a "t", in contrast to Jesus, who proclaimed that his sacrifice would free man from sin and the old Covenant.



> Animals also commit i*c*st, isn't that interesting.


I don't find i*c*st to be morally wrong as long as both parties are adults, it's fully consensual, and they don't plan to have children together.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> It's just unnatural. I think they can be helped and shouldn't be outcasted from society.
> 
> Homosexual men are more likely to have had cancer than heterosexual men, a US study has suggested.
> 
> ...



The cancer argument is poor in my opinion. You could say the same thing for cigarettes and many products allowed.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> It's just unnatural. I think they can be helped and shouldn't be outcasted from society.



Did you miss the part about homosexual behavior being observed in dozens upon dozens of other animal species? It's not unnatural and even if it were, that's not an argument for anything. Computers are unnatural.



Le M?le Dominant said:


> We can't force Palestinian to accept gay because western people do accept them. Our values are different than ours.



We can't force them but we certainly don't have to support them as long as they hold such backwards views.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

Everyone that thinks homosexuality is normal, I suggest you read this;

Very enlightening.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> We can't force Palestinian to accept gay because western people do accept them. Our values are different than ours.



Stop being their champions and boning them in the media/international community then. They are extremely popular in the West, despite this kind of stuff.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> *I don't find i*c*st to be morally wrong* as long as both parties are adults, it's fully consensual, and they don't plan to have children together.



You must live in a:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUS6nKpddec[/YOUTUBE]

Country-ass fucked up town.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 15, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Stop being their champions and boning them in the media/international community then. They are extremely popular in the West, despite this kind of stuff.



le male's not wrong,  ur just trying to enflame anti muslim sentiment.  I already asked why was the election in that predominately jewish new york district shaped by the gay marriage election (jews were against it, dems lost).

why is my popular media full of gay sob stories about how hard life is, for example glee. super popular show, unrelenting story lines of how hard society makes the gay character's life.  the story takes place in the USA.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

^
Was wondering when you would show up, Mr. OJ.

Its been a fun day on these forums today!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 15, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> ^
> Was wondering when you would show up, Mr. OJ.
> 
> Its been a fun day on these forums today!



if by fun u mean "life or death disaster" , then yes , i agree.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> We can't force Palestinian to accept gay because western people do accept them. Our values are different than ours.



Sounds like you treat them as somehow inferior to you and other westerners... so they should not be held the high standard we hold ourselves to. 

how bigoted of you.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> if by fun u mean "life or death disaster" , then yes , i agree.



When is the internet ever a life or death disaster?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> The Taliban added a tremendous amount of safety, security, law, and order to the region.


At the expense of growth, freedom, democracy, culture, education, healthcare, and so on.  Basically everything else.  
Safety, security, law and order would be perfectly fine if it's for the betterment of the country.  Instead it's for their ideals.  

What are we supposed to thank them for kicking our vase to the ground, then attempting to glue the shattered pieces once it was theirs? 



> But there were also some misguided elements among them that imposed unIslamic policies.  Others merely acted on their own and the way the media reports such crimes is by citing the "Taliban" even though the "Taliban" take such criminals and shoot them outside.


If that's going to be used as an excuse then they shouldn't have a problem with some American soldiers "acting on their own" and going raping and killing for the lulz.  ...Except the Taliban does it to its own people, in its own country.


----------



## Keile (Sep 15, 2011)

While I don't support a new Palestine prohibiting gays and Jews from entering the country, I do support the existence of one in the first place. Likewise, I support the right of states like Texas even if I hate their views on homosexual marriage.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Stop being their champions and boning them in the media/international community then. They are extremely popular in the West, despite this kind of stuff.



Mmmh, when you ask this, it's me or a group in general ???



Saufsoldat said:


> We can't force them but we certainly don't have to support them as long as they hold such backwards views.



Depends what you mean by support. We don't really support Hamas.



sadated_peon said:


> Sounds like you treat them as somehow inferior to you and other westerners... so they should not be held the high standard we hold ourselves to.
> 
> how bigoted of you.



Before accuse me of being a bigot, you should ask more about my opinion.

Inferior ??? No, different, yes. We don't have the right to impose our values to them. That was my point. We evolve in our own way, they have they evolve in their own way.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Depends what you mean by support. We don't really support Hamas.



Oh please, there's so many self-proclaimed leftists and even governments in Europe that support Palestine in all its anti-semitic, homophobic, misgynistic glory. Ironically, it's usually the same people who jump at the slightest hint of homophobia, sexism, or "islamophobia" in the west.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Palestinians (and muslims in general) are treated like children or mentally retarded, drooling idiots who have a right to hold backwards opinions because of the evil west oppressing them.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh please, there's so many self-proclaimed leftists and even governments in Europe that support Palestine in all its anti-semitic, homophobic, misgynistic glory. Ironically, it's usually the same people who jump at the slightest hint of homophobia, sexism, or "islamophobia" in the west.
> 
> It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Palestinians (and muslims in general) are treated like children or mentally retarded, drooling idiots who have a right to hold backwards opinions because of the evil west oppressing them.



Yes, there are leftists in Europe that support them like they are nazi apologist in the far right as well. 

If you talk about our left politics, then I have nothing to say, but there is not a general support from Europe to Hamas.

Yes they have the right to do whatever they want because in my opinion, we shouldn't be involve in their shit. If they want to be racist, homophobic and more, if it doesn't affect our society in Europe, I don't care. It's the same with Iran, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect us. 
The best way to show them that our way to live is better is to be true on our values in our country. 
It's useless to try to impose something because it would be seen as colonialism. 
This logic also apply to them, they shouldn't even try to impose something to us.  We don't want their values as well.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Before accuse me of being a bigot, you should ask more about my opinion.
> 
> Inferior ??? No, different, yes. We don't have the right to impose our values to them. That was my point. We evolve in our own way, they have they evolve in their own way.



Do you apply the same to the Americans, can they also hate gay people. 
What about the English, can they hate gay people. 
What about people in other parts of france, can they hate gay people.

These people are all "different", what standard to you hold for them?

-
Next, I don't know if it is a language barrier, but evolved differently is bigoted. We all evolved the same, the human species has not evolved differently for ethnic groups in terms of human brain function. 

We are all the same and can all rationalize the same moral constructs. To say otherwise is bigoted.  

These people are not different, they are the SAME. They are the same as white westerns.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> You must live in a:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUS6nKpddec[/YOUTUBE]



But i*c*st is not morally wrong when you get down to it, provided that it's two consenting adults and they don't have kids. It's not hurting anybody

I would never commit i*c*st myself, but my point is that it's a victimless crime provided that it doesn't involve child abuse or making a mutant baby.

Also, nice _ad hominem_, BTW



> Country-ass fucked up town.


 Unless you consider Phoenix a small country town, then nope.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> *But i*c*st is not morally wrong* when you get down to it, provided that it's two consenting adults and they don't have kids. It's not hurting anybody
> 
> I would never commit i*c*st myself, but my point is that it's a victimless crime provided that it doesn't involve child abuse or making a mutant baby.
> 
> ...



This is the kind of people i'm dealing with? Jeeze!


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

They are nothing but gay emosexuals, mr moose. Don't worry, I understand you!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> This is the kind of people i'm dealing with? Jeeze!



Can you actually back up any of your shit or will you just keep going "well duh, it's all so obvious, hurr durr, herpaderp"?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Do you apply the same to the Americans, can they also hate gay people.
> What about the English, can they hate gay people.
> What about people in other parts of france, can they hate gay people.
> 
> ...



The Americans ? They don't hate the gay but they are ok with selling guns or death penalty. It's something I don't agree but I won't try to force them to accept my values. The Americans also don't agree with our way to deal with Burqa. We are different.

When I use the word, evolve, I don't talk about species , I talk about the evolution of mind and opinions. We evolve differently according to our culture, and history. We have different opinions on issues. 
I don't why you talk about "race" I never mention that in my comments.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> This is the kind of people i'm dealing with? Jeeze!



Still waiting for a valid reason as to why i*c*st is wrong even if it's consensual and they aren't procreating.

And "it's icky" or "because God says so" aren't valid reasons


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Can you actually back up any of your shit or will you just keep going "well duh, it's all so obvious, hurr durr, herpaderp"?



Alright so you think i*c*st is ok, next.



Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> Still waiting for a valid reason as to why i*c*st is wrong even if it's consensual and they aren't procreating.
> 
> And "it's icky" or "because God says so" aren't valid reasons



It's ok man, don't be embarrassed.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

Why is i*c*st wrong ? Because the end goal of life is to continue the line. And from a genetic point of view breeding degenerates ain't okay.

i*c*st also shows a mental retard. Cos as you should know, there is a psychological process impeding people growing up together, that is family, to be sexually atrracted.

Is it enough for you ?


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> The Americans ? They don't hate the gay but they are ok with selling guns or death penalty. It's something I don't agree but I won't try to force them to accept my values. The Americans also don't agree with our way to deal with Burqa. We are different.



Many Americans do hate gays. But if you don't believe in a value enforcement then you would disband any and all human rights organizations. correct?



Le M?le Dominant said:


> When I use the word, evolve, I don't talk about species , I talk about the evolution of mind and opinions. We evolve differently according to our culture, and history. We have different opinions on issues.
> I don't why you talk about "race" I never mention that in my comments.


People have different opinions on things like climate change, evolution, age a structure of the universe based off of the culture and history. 
It doesn't make those opinions equal, that a person has a value from their culture in no way designates it as being worthy of respect. 

This applies to someone who grew up believing the earth is flat, or grew up believing it was fine to kill gay people.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Alright so you think i*c*st is ok, next.



Concession accepted.



Punpun said:


> Why is i*c*st wrong ? Because the end goal of life is to continue the line.



So not raping fertile women is morally wrong?


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

Why do you use a logical fallacy to attack a position Sauf ? I expected more from a student of the famous German's school of thought.

I'd also like to point out that there is not a single occurence of the word moral in my post so you should at least try to accord your rebutall to the post you quote.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Concession accepted.



Lol, this is hilarious.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Punpun said:


> Why do you use a logical fallacy to attack a position Sauf ? I expected more from a student of the famous German's school of thought.



I don't see the logical fallacy here. You say that the most important thing in life is the procreate and that things which don't lead to creation of viable healthy offspring are somehow morally wrong.

By your logic anything that doesn't involve producing more offspring does not serve the "end goal" of life. Assuming that the end goal is the most important moral obligation a human has, it must trump such moral obligations as respect others' freedoms.

Maybe you should think a little before making ridiculous statements about "end goals" of life.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

Read again my post. Not a single occurence of the word "moral".

By your logic, i*c*st is okay thus protecting the human genome and pursuing it is of no importance so you're for the end of the human race Sauf. How nihilistic of you. Tho this won't shock me if you adhere to a warped pov of Nieztche thought.

---

Nor did I spoke of "end goal of life", Decidely you can't read.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't see the logical fallacy here. You say that the most important thing in life is the procreate and that things which don't lead to creation of viable healthy offspring are somehow morally wrong.
> 
> By your logic anything that doesn't involve producing more offspring does not serve the "end goal" of life. Assuming that the end goal is the most important moral obligation a human has, it must trump such moral obligations as respect others' freedoms.
> 
> Maybe you should think a little before making ridiculous statements about "end goals" of life.



Freedom....moral....in fact we all deal with a difficult issue in this thread. Those who support sex with children can also use the freedom card. I don't defend their opinion of course or compare homosexual to p*d*p**** but I want to show that the acceptance of something differ from people. The culture and history have an impact on this as well.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Punpun said:


> Read again my post. Not a single occurence of the word "moral".



The question was if it's morally wrong, you respond by saying it's wrong and then get pissed when someone assume you were talking about morally wrong? Don't blame others when you can't manage to express yourself clearly.



> By your logic, i*c*st is okay thus protecting the human genome and pursuing it is of no importance so you're for the end of the human race Sauf. How nihilistic of you. Tho this won't shock me if you adhere to a warped pov of Nieztche thought.



I never said incestuous procreation was ok, you might want to check my post for things I actually say.

Oh and it's Nietzsche (who would never have condoned incestuous procreation).



> Nor did I spoke of "end goal of life", Decidely you can't read.



O rly? Let's have a look:



Punpun said:


> Why is i*c*st wrong ? Because *the end goal of life* is to continue the line. And from a genetic point of view breeding degenerates ain't okay.
> 
> i*c*st also shows a mental retard. Cos as you should know, there is a psychological process impeding people growing up together, that is family, to be sexually atrracted.
> 
> Is it enough for you ?



So can you not read or do you just suffer from Alzheimer's disease?



Le M?le Dominant said:


> Freedom....moral....in fact we all deal with a difficult issue in this thread. Those who support sex with children can also use the freedom card. I don't defend their opinion of course or compare homosexual to p*d*p**** but I want to show that the acceptance of something differ from people. The culture and history have an impact on this as well.



Informed consent.

Learn what it means, apply logic before posting.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

of individuals. It was implied. And because your rebuttals were based on morality it is thus worthless in my answer.



Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> Still waiting for a valid reason as to why i*c*st is wrong even if it's consensual and they aren't procreating.
> 
> And "it's icky" or "because God says so" aren't valid reasons




Nowhere is the word moral uttered here. WHich is the post I answered (made evident by the absence of the word moral) 

--

Oh no, this won't fly. I said incestuoous relationships were wrong. You said they weren't. SO they are okay by inversion of the proposition. THus you are for the end of Human life by virtue of my past demonstration.


If we were in a game.. TRY AGAIN would highlight your screen Mr. Sauf. Actually don't, you should just concede now. Afterall it's not your fault if your understanding of english ain't perfect all the time.

Or cool off, being so irritated to the point of blindness isn't good for a civil discussion. I'm also shocked by the fact you're treeting me of being mentally ill.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Informed consent.
> 
> Learn what it means, apply logic before posting.



I don't understand why you saying I don't apply logic here. Those who promote sex with children say they have their contentment. I wasn't talking about rapist but like those kind of people who created an organization to promote this. I also think there is a political party in the Netherlands that support this. The Age of consent is different from countries. In few states of the US it's 18 years old, in Germany (according to Wikipedia) it's 14 years old. The moral on this is not the same.


Then again, I don't support their cause. It was just to show an example of something our society don't accept because it's seen as immoral. 

I didn't expect an answer to my message. My opinion was that the moral is something that depends on people and culture.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Punpun said:


> of individuals. It was implied. And because your rebuttals were based on morality it is thus worthless in my answer.
> 
> Nowhere is the word moral uttered here. WHich is the post I answered (made evident by the absence of the word moral)



Questions of right and wrong are inseperably linked to morality. How is it wrong if not morally wrong? Do explain.



> Oh no, this won't fly. I said incestuoous relationships were wrong. You said they weren't. SO they are okay by inversion of the proposition. THus you are for the end of Human life by virtue of my past demonstration.
> 
> If we were in a game.. TRY AGAIN would highlight your screen Mr. Sauf. Actually don't, you should just concede now. Afterall it's not your fault if your understanding of english ain't perfect all the time.
> 
> Or cool off, being so irritated to the point of blindness isn't good for a civil discussion. I'm also shocked by the fact you're treeting me of being mentally ill.



You failed and still fail to explain how they're wrong. When you make a claim, you either back it up or you get the fuck out.

Now either explain why incestuous relationships are wrong (morally or otherwise) or concede your point. The whole "if everyone did it, humanity would end" thing is bullshit. If everyone became a coal miner, society would collapse. Is it wrong to become a coal miner? If everyone was heterosexual and procreated 365 days a year, society would also collapse, is it wrong to be straight or to have children?

You don't judge the moral character (because that's what right and wrong are) of an action by guessing what would happen if every human indulged in it. If we did that, then the only "right" way to act is in uniformity, doing the same thing everyone else on the planet is doing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> I don't understand why you saying I don't apply logic here. Those who promote sex with children say they have their contentment. I wasn't talking about rapist but like those kind of people who created an organization to promote this. I also think there is a political party in the Netherlands that support this. The Age of consent is different from countries. In few states of the US it's 18 years old, in Germany (according to Wikipedia) it's 14 years old. The moral on this is not the same.
> 
> Then again, I don't support their cause. It was just to show an example of something our society don't accept because it's seen as immoral.
> 
> I didn't expect an answer to my message. My opinion was that the moral is something that depends on people and culture.



Age of consent may differ, but it exists in all countries and it exists for the same reason everywhere: informed consent. Child cannot consent to having sex because they do not understand the ramifications. That's why there is such a thing as age of majority and age of consent.

Homosexuality or i*c*st will never be comparable to pedophilia because the latter lacks consent, which puts the issue on an entirely different level.


----------



## Revolution (Sep 15, 2011)

Jin-E said:


> It's pure racism if the Jews are willing to accept Palestinian citizenship and obey the laws of the land.



Right, because Israel never granted Palestineans Israeli citicenship EVER!!!


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

Sauf, Grasping at straw AND disregarding the initial position of the person you are trying to have a discussion with is wrong. Stop grasping at straw. You're the one saying sth wrong has to be involved with moral. Which is your opinion. and a wrong one at that.

2 + 2 = 5 is wrong yet morality is not involved for demonstrating it. So well if you have nothing interesting to rebbuts why i*c*st is wrong don't try to suggest so.

Thus I will gladly accept your concession.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Punpun said:


> Sauf, Grasping at straw AND disregarding the initial position of the person you are trying to have a discussion with is wrong. Stop grasping at straw. You're the one saying sth wrong has to be involved with moral. Which is your opinion. and a wrong one at that.
> 
> 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong yet morality is not involved for demonstrating it. So well if you have nothing interesting to rebbuts why i*c*st is wrong don't try to suggest so.



 So you're saying that i*c*st is mathematically wrong? Is that it? Do want it to go down like that in the record?

I'll clarify myself just for you so you can stop grasping at straws (seriously, math?): Questions of right or wrong *regarding actions* are inseparably linked to morality.

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you but since you can't tell the difference between calculus and ethical choices, I'm glad to help fill in this gaping hole in your education. In case you didn't learn Kant's four question, the question for ethics was: "What should I do?"


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Age of consent may differ, but it exists in all countries and it exists for the same reason everywhere: informed consent. Child cannot consent to having sex because they do not understand the ramifications. That's why there is such a thing as age of majority and age of consent.
> 
> Homosexuality or i*c*st will never be comparable to pedophilia because the latter lacks consent, which puts the issue on an entirely different level.



Yes but what is allowed at 14 year old is forbidden in California. Doing this in California and you are seen as an *immoral* p*d*p****.

My point was that people have a different opinions on issue like this one. We don't have the same values everywhere. 
I started on *moral* and *freedom*. I keep saying that it's not easy to deal with moral and freedom at the same time.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 15, 2011)

Bla bla bla, further deriving the debate on such questions serves no purpose. You acted like an ass and you were off at that. Now you're grapsing at straw trying to have your rebuttal fit when it does not. 

Continuing this pathetical conversation that went from why i*c*st is wrong to why i*c*st is moreally wrong to why wrongness is linked to moral to ethic in general is stupid. It is not the time nor the place to discuss it. Nor do I intend to do so now.

Sauf, you dissapoints me grandly here.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Yes but what is allowed at 14 year old is forbidden in California. Doing this in California and you are seen as an *immoral* p*d*p****.



Pedophilia has a clear-cut definition, to which 99.9% of all 14-year-olds wouldn't fit.



> My point was that people have a different opinions on issue like this one. We don't have the same values everywhere.
> I started on *moral* and *freedom*. I keep saying that it's not easy to deal with moral and freedom at the same time.



And my point is that you're comparing apples and oranges. The problem with pedophilia is one of informed consent while the problem with i*c*st and homosexuality is... well, I don't know, nobody here actually managed to make an argument against either of them but they're definitely not about consent.



Punpun said:


> Bla bla bla, further deriving the debate on such questions serves no purpose. You acted like an ass and you were off at that. Now you're grapsing at straw trying to have your rebuttal fit when it does not.
> 
> Continuing this pathetical conversation that went from why i*c*st is wrong to why i*c*st is moreally wrong to why wrongness is linked to moral to ethic in general is stupid. It is not the time nor the place to discuss it. Nor do I intend to do so now.
> 
> Sauf, you dissapoints me grandly here.



I wasn't off, you judged an action as wrong and thus judged it in a moral perspective. Asking why i*c*st is wrong is identical to asking why i*c*st is morally wrong. You failed to explain in what non-moral context i*c*st can be judged (unless you want to stick with your thesis that it's mathematically wrong).


----------



## hyakku (Sep 15, 2011)

Gotta Love NF


----------



## Draffut (Sep 15, 2011)

Kazuma the Shell Bullet said:


> Still waiting for a valid reason as to why i*c*st is wrong even if it's consensual and they aren't procreating.
> 
> And "it's icky" or "because God says so" aren't valid reasons



How are you preventing them from procreating?  Taking their word on it?


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> And my point is that you're comparing apples and oranges. The problem with pedophilia is one of informed consent while the problem with i*c*st and homosexuality is... well, I don't know



I'll ask you serious question if nothing is wrong with those, would you have gay sex with your brother/dad?


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 15, 2011)

Well, one thing will lead to another. Today it's homo's, tomorrow it will be i*c*st and next week it will be beastiality.

That's why Human's can't judge morals, you need a higher power to do it for you. That's where religion comes


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I'll ask you serious question if nothing is wrong with those, would you have gay sex with your brother/dad?



I ask you seriously, if nothing is wrong with heterosexuality, would you have sex with this:



I am not homosexual and I do not in the least feel attracted to any of my relatives. Just because I don't indulge in something, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's one of those lessons parents should teach their 4-year-old children.

Would you eat cockroaches? I'm guessing not, does that make it wrong?


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Well, one thing will lead to another. Today it's homo's, tomorrow it will be i*c*st and next week it will be beastiality.


 Bestiality will never be accepted because animals *cannot consent*. Bestiality is, by definition, a form of rape.

Homosexuality and i*c*st (as long as both parties are adults) are consensual.



> That's why Human's can't judge morals, you need a higher power to do it for you. That's where religion comes


Says the guy who tries to justify 9/11 and glorifies Osama bin Laden in his signature.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I ask you seriously, if nothing is wrong with heterosexuality, would you have sex with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if you were?

Yes or no.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> What if you were?
> 
> Yes or no.



What if I were what? You mean if I were homosexual and attracted to one of my male relatives, would I have sex with them? Well duh, if they would feel the same. 

That's like asking, "if monkey brain wash your favorite dish and you were offered monkey brain, would you eat it?". Obviously, but in the real world, I still find the idea repulsive.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What if I were what? You mean if I were homosexual and attracted to one of my male relatives, would I have sex with them? Well duh, if they would feel the same.



That is disgusting.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> That is disgusting.



Your failure to address my post, your inability to tolerate victimless crimes and your retarded hypothetical situations, that's what I find disgusting.


----------



## ensoriki (Sep 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> They forgot the most important group: "No fat chicks".



Fucking whales.

It's dey country, if dey don't want the gays and jews, whatever, as long as they have somewhere to go. Or if there doing some eugenics shit to determine whose jew and gay, I don't like that shit.


----------



## Keile (Sep 15, 2011)

Most of these posts are off-topic. Gay sex is irrelevant (but fucking hot).


----------



## Watchman (Sep 15, 2011)

Homosexuality is irrelevant to a thread talking about homosexuals?


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 15, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> That is disgusting.



Wait a minute.

You're a moose.

And you can talk.

*How is that even possible?*


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 15, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Someone ain't reading their bibles.
> 
> "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:13)"
> 
> ...



I'm quite aware of what the Bible (regardless of the debate behind it), but what the hell does the Bible after to do with this? This country ain't a Christian nation -- if there so exists a all Christian nation -- that is doing this hateful thing, is it? But okay, let's bring the Bible into this. Its friggin' hilarious that you have to bring in another religion -- which in Islam is apart of Islam -- to try and defend Islam in some form and to attack it whenever your religion is put in light for its barbaric teachings, but _the funniest part_ is that you lack the knowledge that the Qur'an says to believe in its older scriptures, aka the Bible and the Torah. So therefore if you diss your previous scriptures, you diss your religion which invites ultimate laughter from me and anger from your Allah, as it was his creation and his religion. 



> O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray (4:136 AYA).
> 
> We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them (3:84 AYA).



But let's get on with this, shall we?

You finished telling us in the Islam thread that you can kill people if they break Sharia law, in which calls for death for those having sex or loving a person of the same gender. Look under the Sharia Law branch of 'uqubat. Muhammad himself said: ?If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.? After all; !مَنْ رَأَيْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ، فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِه

Maybe you should read Tafsir Ibn Kathir. 

Regardless of whether you see the Ahadith as weak -- something Muslims always see in their holy literature, whenever they disagree with its message -- it doesn't make it weak or less reliable simply because it disagrees with you or regardless of your wishful thinking. Did your eyes magically seal shut when reading my post, or did you purposely ignore the part where it quotes the Qur'an saying it will rain down upon them (the Gays) a shower of brimstone? 

But sure, continue with your cherrypicking and attacking your own religion, all the more humorous to those who actually read the Qur'an.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 16, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm quite aware of what the Bible (regardless of the debate behind it), but what the hell does the Bible after to do with this? This country ain't a Christian nation -- if there so exists a all Christian nation -- that is doing this hateful thing, is it? But okay, let's bring the Bible into this. Its friggin' hilarious that you have to bring in another religion -- which in Islam is apart of Islam -- to try and defend Islam in some form and to attack it whenever your religion is put in light for its barbaric teachings, but _the funniest part_ is that you lack the knowledge that the Qur'an says to believe in its older scriptures, aka the Bible and the Torah. So therefore if you diss your previous scriptures, you diss your religion which invites ultimate laughter from me and anger from your Allah, as it was his creation and his religion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You fail to grasp the point of what he's saying.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 16, 2011)

Terra, because she lived in Syria she suddenly is an expert on the subject ? Bullshit.


----------



## Perseverance (Sep 16, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> I'm quite aware of what the Bible (regardless of the debate behind it), but what the hell does the Bible after to do with this? This country ain't a Christian nation -- if there so exists a all Christian nation -- that is doing this hateful thing, is it? But okay, let's bring the Bible into this. Its friggin' hilarious that you have to bring in another religion -- which in Islam is apart of Islam -- to try and defend Islam in some form and to attack it whenever your religion is put in light for its barbaric teachings, but _the funniest part_ is that you lack the knowledge that the Qur'an says to believe in its older scriptures, aka the Bible and the Torah. So therefore if you diss your previous scriptures, you diss your religion which invites ultimate laughter from me and anger from your Allah, as it was his creation and his religion.



Should I even reply to the claim Muslims believe in the bible/torah? I mean, yes we believe in the uncorrupted torah Moses(pbuh) brought and the lost injeel that Jesus(pbuh) brought, but how'd you come to the conclusion those porn books today is what Muslims believe in?

Song of Songs 8:1-3 "*If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts!* Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.  I would lead you and bring you to my  *mother's house*-- she who has taught me.  *I would give you spiced wine to drink *  *[i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates.*  His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."

Song of Songs 4:9 "You have stolen my heart, *my sister*, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace."   Fantasizing about his sister? at least he shows in this verse that he would!.

Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me,  *my sister*, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.'  * I have taken off my robe  *  *(i.e., she showed his breasts and vagina to him.** Underwears  and bras didn't exist back then!)** must I put it on again?* I have washed my feet, must I soil them again?  My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him."  

2 Samuel 11:2-4 "One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, 'Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?'  Then David sent messengers to get her. *She came to him, and he slept with her*. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home."

"That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.  After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions.  So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak.  When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.  Then the man said, 'Let me go, for it is daybreak.'  But Jacob replied, 'I will not let you go unless you bless me.'  The man asked him, 'What is your name?'  'Jacob,' he answered.  Then the man said, 'Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.'  (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 32:22-28)"  How can a man defeat GOD Almighty in a fight? and why would GOD want to fight a human being anyway?  What kind of wisdom is GOD trying to give us here? To try our best to struggle with Him and try to defeat Him?​
Uh yeah, I can understand the people who wrote/changed the bible had alot going on in their minds and all.... but I'm sure Muslims don't believe that's God^. The Quran actually sets the record straight -

"*Then  woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is  from God,"* to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them  for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.   (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"​



Terra Branford said:


> But let's get on with this, shall we?



:sleepy



Terra Branford said:


> You finished telling us in the Islam thread that you can kill people if they break Sharia law, in which calls for death for those having sex or loving a person of the same gender. Look under the Sharia Law branch of 'uqubat. Muhammad himself said: “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” After all; !مَنْ رَأَيْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ، فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِه
> 
> Regardless of whether you see the Ahadith as weak -- something Muslims always see in their holy literature, whenever they disagree with its message -- it doesn't make it weak or less reliable simply because it disagrees with you or regardless of your wishful thinking. Did your eyes magically seal shut when reading my post, or did you purposely ignore the part where it quotes the Qur'an saying it will rain down upon them (the Gays) a shower of brimstone?



Your under the impression I'm trying to defend homo's, which is quite innacurate. I'm simply stating what Islam's stance on the matter is, which unfortunatly protects gays to a certain extent.

*Unlike the bible*, the Quran discourages homo's, but never assigns a punishment for them. That's one issue.

The next issue is, amongst the 1000's of hadiths, the two hadiths which talk about executing homo's are weak. In hadith science, hadiths can be weak or strong. Weak hadiths are usually those where there is a considerable doubt that Muhammad(pbuh) actually said this. This is because the chain of authenticity is either broken (untraceable to the original narrater) or unreliable, ie. very little is known about the narrater, could be people who weren't close to the Prophet etc.

So yes, one could doubt. I mean, surely there must've been homo's during the time of the prophet, yet we have no stories of homo-executions. Furthermore, there's records of early Islamic history which indicated that Transexuals were acknowledged and given the job of protecting the Prophet(pbuh)'s grave.

*However*, despite the hadiths being weak, they are still something we have to go by, as common sense tells us; Islam wouldn't want to condone a homo-topia, now would we?

So this is how Islam see's homo's; Nothing wrong with being a homo, outcasting homo's is also considered a sin. It's a test in this life for homo's. A Muslim leader could be a homo for all we care. Islam says to "help" homo's overcome their problems. However the issue comes when the immoral act of sex happens, which is what Islam forbids.

Despite this, shariah, unfortunatly protects homo's considerably. If 2 homo's have sex, to be liable for execution, two things have to happen -

1. Four upright Muslim witnesses see the act (for the record, in history this has never been achieved).

2. They admit to having sex (ofcourse if their "insane" or something, then thier statement, wouldn't be taken seriously).

What makes it harder is that  even if you miraculously got 4 upright witnesses, the issue would be, "did those 4 witnesses spy?" I mean, usually, people have sex in the privacy of their homes right? In Islam, if someone spy's on you through a hole, you have the right to poke their eye out lol 

So that leaves public sex. Which doesn't happen and is punishable even by western laws.

Anyways, I was  disappointed too when I found out the above, but what can you do eh? Atleast homosexuality can't be encouraged .



Terra Branford said:


> But sure, continue with your cherrypicking and attacking your own religion, all the more humorous to those who actually read the Qur'an.



Uh... I'm pretty sure when I say something about the bible, it really isn't attacking my religion


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 16, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Your point?



You're an absolute fucking moron?


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 16, 2011)

Rob said:


> You're an absolute fucking moron?



I just wanted him to say animals can't consent, then i'd be like ''As if people give a darn, animals don't consent to being killed for burgers do they?''


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 16, 2011)

^
As a talking anthropomorphic Moose, he knows better than most about animal rights.

Can't you just listen to him? Being gay is wrong because he says so.

Jeez. Is it really that hard?


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 16, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I just wanted him to say animals can't consent, then i'd be like ''As if people give a darn, animals don't consent to being killed for burgers do they?''



People do give a darn, actually. I'm a people, and I give a darn about both gay rights and animal rights.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 16, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> People do give a darn, actually. I'm a people, and I give a darn about both gay rights and animal rights.



Not alot of people give a darn about animal rights.


I'm sure the people spouting shit about informed consent enjoy a burger or 2 on the weekend, it quite hilarious actually.


----------



## Watchman (Sep 16, 2011)

No.1Moose, are you saying that since we eat meat, we must therefore be prepared to have sex with animals? 

The two aren't related, and neither is Bestiality relatable in any way to homosexuality.


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 16, 2011)

Watchman said:


> No.1Moose, are you saying that since we eat meat, we must therefore be prepared to have sex with animals?
> 
> The two aren't related, and neither is Bestiality relatable in any way to homosexuality.



Philosophicly he actually has a point. If we agree that it's ok to imprison, execute and eat animals, then we can't claim to completely support freedom of choice for animals.

Of course this logic doesn't make it mandatory for meat-eaters to personaly engage in bestiality, but you should not prevent others from doing so unless you are also prepared to stop them from eating meat.

You would have to add some other criteria that sets raping animals apart from killing and eating them.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 16, 2011)

Watchman said:


> No.1Moose, are you saying that since we eat meat, we must therefore be prepared to have sex with animals?



I'm saying the people using informed consent as a reason why beastiality can never be ''right'' or acceptable probably eat meat. And i'm sure those same animals never agree to being slaughtered for food.



> The two aren't related, and neither is Bestiality relatable in any way to homosexuality.



I'm just saying that back in the day homosexuality was widely considered wrong(way more than nowadays) , so it's possible that in a while people could accept beastiality.


----------



## Terra Branford (Sep 16, 2011)

@No.1Moose:

Then beastiality will be dealt with _then_. For now we'll deal with the injust actions of this country against Homosexuals and Jewish people; no country, religion and or person has the right to take rights from a person, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious views or lack of.

This is a horrible thing to do and it needs to be stopped. Using beastiality in some way to justify "being gay" as "wrong" and thus this action is "justified", is in turn wrong to do and needs to be stopped as well.



Punpun said:


> Terra, because she lived in Syria she suddenly is an expert on the subject ? Bullshit.



No, but she lived it (the law in Syria) and that's all I provided it for.  

 It wasn't provided for her testimony of her living there or to be used to make her a master in the 'subject', but to prove that the law I mentioned _actually exists_ in Islamic states, and it was something you watch _after_ you read the provided verses I gave.

@Perseverance:
I already proved this point in the Islam thread. Go read it there, I shan't say it for the hundredth time. The Qur'an says the Bible is not molested in any form of way, and the Torah and that you as Muslims must believe in Allah's previous scriptures but put the Qur'an over the rest. So yes, when you diss another Abrahamic religion -- especially those in which Islam says it made and Allah created -- you are in turn bashing your own religion, regardless of whether you want to cherrypick your religion to pieces.

Kay? Good.


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 16, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> I'm saying the people using informed consent as a reason why beastiality can never be ''right'' or acceptable probably eat meat.



A lot of the liberals on this forum who argue against you all the damn time are actually strict vegetarians. I'm the most well known and vocal one in the cafe' but I'd say five or six regulars in the atheist/theist threads and others are as well, last time I counted.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 17, 2011)

This thread really needs to be locked for the severe amounts of ad hominems being flung around.


----------



## hyakku (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I ask you seriously, if nothing is wrong with heterosexuality, would you have sex with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Hand Banana said:


> This thread really needs to be locked for the severe amounts of ad hominems being flung around.



Lmao and for the fact that a thread about a potential oppressive Palestinian state developing somehow has evolved to the legitimacy of bestiality and i*c*st as  forms of sexual expression.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 17, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> A lot of the liberals on this forum who argue against you all the damn time are actually strict vegetarians. I'm the most well known and vocal one in the cafe' but I'd say five or six regulars in the atheist/theist threads and others are as well, last time I counted.



That's not the point, i'm specifically referring to the people who used ''informed consent'' as a reason why beastiality can't be acceptable, so unless they are vegetarian then they are clearly hypocrites.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 17, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> That's not the point, i'm specifically referring to the people who used ''informed consent'' as a reason why beastiality can't be acceptable, so unless they are vegetarian then they are clearly hypocrites.



Yes they are, as most people in the west. People who eat meat can't defend beastiality being illegal without being hypocrites, but that's really derailing the already derailed topic.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 17, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yes they are, as most people in the west. People who eat meat can't defend beastiality being illegal without being hypocrites, but that's really derailing the already derailed topic.



You're a hypocrite aswell, unless you're vegetarian.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 17, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> You're a hypocrite aswell, unless you're vegetarian.



I don't think bestiality should be illegal, so I'm not a hypocrite.


----------



## Watchman (Sep 17, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> Philosophicly he actually has a point. If we agree that it's ok to imprison, execute and eat animals, then we can't claim to completely support freedom of choice for animals.
> 
> Of course this logic doesn't make it mandatory for meat-eaters to personaly engage in bestiality, but you should not prevent others from doing so unless you are also prepared to stop them from eating meat.
> 
> You would have to add some other criteria that sets raping animals apart from killing and eating them.



Ah, I see now. Well, it's a fair point, and I'll concede that even though I'd never engage in bestiality, I can't reasonably support it being _illegal_.


----------



## hcheng02 (Sep 17, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> That's not the point, i'm specifically referring to the people who used ''informed consent'' as a reason why beastiality can't be acceptable, so unless they are vegetarian then they are clearly hypocrites.



Certain social acts require consent whereas others do not. Sex is an act that should be acceptable only when both parties are capable and willing to give consent. 

There is the also fact that we naturally treat human beings as different from other species of life forms. We routinely kill insect and animals, but we don't routinely kill human beings. Ethics takes into account such differences.


----------



## Petes12 (Sep 17, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> I see, apparently the South did secede from the Union considering you never count them as part of your country.



I wish **


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 17, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Certain social acts require consent whereas others do not. *Sex is an act that should be acceptable only when both parties are capable and willing to give consent.*



But not slaughtering animals for food?



> *There is the also fact that we naturally treat human beings as different from other species of life forms.* We routinely kill insect and animals, but we don't routinely kill human beings. Ethics takes into account such differences.



According to some people here, we're no different from said species.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 17, 2011)

I don't want to enter this sidebar discussion, but I don't understand your argument?



No.1Moose said:


> But not slaughtering animals for food?


As oppose to plants, who also show cognizance of emotions and awareness? It is proven fact that plants feel and use their stems for preparation of heat and cold. So...what do you eat? 

Also, even as a vegetarian or vegan, you use products that are taken from animals, I can guarantee that.




> According to some people here, we're no different from said species.


Humans have a cerebral cortex; allows us to think methodically and act off of standards and outcomes, rather than instincts and/or pure emotions. You could argue monkeys, but I don't eat monkeys...

Also, even if humans were to stop eating meat (and plants for that matter), what would stop other animals from eating cows, chickens and the like?

This is not to say that I disrespect your view, I am just having a hard time grasping what your point is.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 17, 2011)

Bishop said:


> I don't want to enter this sidebar discussion, but I don't understand your argument?
> 
> 
> As oppose to plants, who also show cognizance of emotions and awareness? It is proven fact that plants feel and use their stems for preparation of heat and cold. So...what do you eat?
> ...



I never said I was vegetarian or vegan.

Firstly I stated that back in the old days homosexuality was widely seen as wrong, but as time went on it became more acceptable. Then I said that since this was the case with homosexuality it is possible that bestiality and mechanophilia, which now are considered wrong could later be seen as acceptable. A couple of people then said that bestiality and the like cannot be compared with homosexuality because of ''informed consent''. I proceeded to make the point that since the majority of people consume meat(I assume) that such fair and equal rights are not applied to animals as it is, and that when it comes to sex (bestiality) it would be the same and not many people would care.


----------



## Mael (Sep 17, 2011)

We need to post suggestively homoerotic things for Moose now...just to make him feel right at home.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 17, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> Firstly I stated that back in the old days homosexuality was widely seen as wrong, but as time went on it became more acceptable. Then I said that since this was the case with homosexuality it is possible that bestiality and mechanophilia, which now are considered wrong could later be seen as acceptable. A couple of people then said that bestiality and the like cannot be compared with homosexuality because of ''informed consent''. I proceeded to make the point that since the majority of people consume meat(I assume) that such fair and equal rights are not applied to animals as it is, and that when it comes to sex (bestiality) it would be the same and not many people would care.



Ah, I get your point. This does make sense and it the future it may very well be accepted. 300 years ago you were killed for being gay, it was out of question. Today you can even be transgender and be accepted, something that was grotesquely condemned some years ago. In today's society, as long as you can justify it and bash all who oppose, it will be accepted within 20 years. 

There is even bestiality porn and articles of people marrying animals, I see no reason why this trend wouldn't get more popular and acceptable. Of course I see the arguments against this, but there are arguments against everything.

I understand your point, and thank you for taking out the time to explain it to me Moose.


----------



## No.1Moose (Sep 17, 2011)

Mael said:


> We need to post suggestively homoerotic things for Moose now...just to make him feel right at home.



Newsflash you're not funny.......at all.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Sep 17, 2011)

This entire thread.


----------



## hcheng02 (Sep 17, 2011)

No.1Moose said:


> But not slaughtering animals for food?



No, because animals are lower life forms than humans. Adult homosexuals, on the other hand, are humans.



> According to some people here, we're no different from said species.



Those people are delusional then.


----------



## Doge (Sep 17, 2011)

Welcome to Islam.  With morals somewhat mirroring Christianity's to a point in some cases.

Except you can't call them out for it unless you want people to consider you unaccepting for not accepting the unaccepting because they didn't accept the unaccepted, got it?


----------



## Cygnus45 (Sep 17, 2011)

Typical Jewish smear tactics. He's an ambassador stating that he doesn't think a Jew should be elected as a fucking Mayor in a Palestinian state. Jews have been bombing Palestinians to hell for the last 50 years. It isn't discrimination, it's common sense. Why on Earth would they want a Jew as an elected official? He even said "for the time being, I think the two groups should be separate" without completely ruling out the possibility in the future.

They just blew it out of proportion in order to make him look like a buffoon. This Weinstein lady is probably a Jew herself.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Sep 18, 2011)

Thread locked on account of off-topic stupid.  Animal rights are not even tangentially connected to the subject at hand yet certain individuals feel the need to throw them in there.  I don't give a damn if you see some hypocrisy somewhere


----------



## makeoutparadise (Sep 18, 2011)

Good luck with that statehood guys


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 18, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Typical Jewish smear tactics. He's an ambassador stating that he doesn't think a Jew should be elected as a fucking Mayor in a Palestinian state. Jews have been bombing Palestinians to hell for the last 50 years. It isn't discrimination, it's common sense. Why on Earth would they want a Jew as an elected official? He even said "for the time being, I think the two groups should be separate" without completely ruling out the possibility in the future.
> 
> They just blew it out of proportion in order to make him look like a buffoon. This Weinstein lady is probably a Jew herself.



Haven't you seen the pictures? 

Weinstein is black.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Typical Jewish smear tactics. He's an ambassador stating that he doesn't think a Jew should be elected as a fucking Mayor in a Palestinian state. Jews have been bombing Palestinians to hell for the last 50 years. It isn't discrimination, it's common sense. Why on Earth would they want a Jew as an elected official? He even said "for the time being, I think the two groups should be separate" without completely ruling out the possibility in the future.
> 
> They just blew it out of proportion in order to make him look like a buffoon. This Weinstein lady is probably a Jew herself.



Jews have been bombed by Palestinians for the last 50 years, still they manage to have muslim arab elected officials. Why exactly are you treating Palestinians like retarded cavemen while holding Israeli to first world standards?


----------



## First Tsurugi (Sep 18, 2011)

Hey TSC I think you forgot something.


----------



## Punpun (Sep 18, 2011)

He didn't. Just that we are mods now, and mods can post in locked topic.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 18, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Jews have been bombed by Palestinians for the last 50 years, still they manage to have muslim arab elected officials. Why exactly are you treating Palestinians like retarded cavemen while holding Israeli to first world standards?



I think Westerners do that, particularly left wing Westerners because they see Palestine as the "oppressed proletariat" and Israel as the oppressor. Which is rather ironic as Israel is quite the left wing society, that and most people on the left will have much more in common with Israeli values than that of Palestine. 

That's what made me become more supportive of Israel, after going to some pro-Palestine events I realised that I had more in common with Israel and if many of the people there knew I was gay they'd probably beat the shit out of me.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 18, 2011)

NO FUN ALLOWED


----------



## Archangel Michael (Sep 18, 2011)

1 suck for them.
2 I didn't really read the article .


----------



## very bored (Sep 18, 2011)

Why would gays want to enter Palestine?

/posting in a locked thread


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

very bored said:


> Why would gays want to enter Palestine?
> 
> /posting in a locked thread



Enough gays already live in Palestine and are born there every day.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Sep 18, 2011)

> Haven't you seen the pictures?
> 
> Weinstein is black.



And how does this change anything?



> Jews have been bombed by Palestinians for the last 50 years, still they manage to have muslim arab elected officials. Why exactly are you treating Palestinians like retarded cavemen while holding Israeli to first world standards?



Likely they are left-wing apologist muslims with no real political power.

I'm not just "siding with the poor arabs", it's common sense. Why give real power to an enemy who's been bombing you within the last half century?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 18, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Likely they are left-wing apologist muslims with no real political power.
> 
> I'm not just "siding with the poor arabs", it's common sense. Why give real power to an enemy who's been bombing you within the last half century?



No, they're actual elected officials. You can't talk your way out of that one. Israel managed to elect both Arabs and muslims, Palestine doesn't just refuse to give jews power, they want to refuse even letting any jews into their country.

Your argument is void, your "common sense" is nothing more than a special pleading fallacy. Stop treating Palestinians like drooling retards and start applying the same standards to them that you'd apply to any adult, human being in the west.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 18, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> And how does this change anything?




You said she was probably Jewish.

She's not she's black baptist :/


----------



## siyrean (Sep 18, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> You said she was probably Jewish.
> 
> She's not she's black baptist :/



you failed to mention the baptist part, which happens to be the only information of relevance in that sentence.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 18, 2011)

Sorry, I forgot to be sensitive to those who don't consider the Jews to be a race.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Sep 18, 2011)

> No, they're actual elected officials. You can't talk your way out of that one. Israel managed to elect both Arabs and muslims, Palestine doesn't just refuse to give jews power, they want to refuse even letting any jews into their country.



Then Israel was incredibly trusting and naive to do so.



> Your argument is void, your "common sense" is nothing more than a special pleading fallacy. Stop treating Palestinians like drooling retards and start applying the same standards to them that you'd apply to any adult, human being in the west.



You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't consider Palestinians "retarded", I just praised the ambassador for taking the most logical course of action: Not wanting to start RIOTS IN THE STREET by supporting Jewish candidates for office.

Both sides bombed the other and are bitter about it. People of both young and old generations can bear witness to it. Both are guilty at this point, and the most sensible thing to do would be to keep them away from each other and let things cool down. If you lived during the colonial era, would you want Crazy Horse or Geronimo in the oval office?



> Sorry, I forgot to be sensitive to those who don't consider the Jews to be a race.



There are black Jews genius.


----------



## Oil Can (Sep 18, 2011)

Really? Wow, the stereotypes there but be positively awful....


----------



## Keile (Sep 18, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Typical Jewish smear tactics. He's an ambassador stating that he doesn't think a Jew should be elected as a fucking Mayor in a Palestinian state. Jews have been bombing Palestinians to hell for the last 50 years. It isn't discrimination, it's common sense. Why on Earth would they want a Jew as an elected official? He even said "for the time being, I think the two groups should be separate" without completely ruling out the possibility in the future.
> 
> They just blew it out of proportion in order to make him look like a buffoon. This Weinstein lady is probably a Jew herself.



Holy shit. Credited.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Sep 19, 2011)

Hast his been posted? Anyway, that same Palestinian minister claims he did not say what the headline says. 



> Last week, Jamie Weinstein of the conservative Daily Caller, who I tangoed with over the motivations behind 9/11, wrote a scandalous piece entitled, “Palestinian ambassador reiterates call for a Jew-free Palestinian state.” The ambassador in question was Maen Rashid Areikat. At a press conference he responded to Weinstein who asked whether he imagined that Jews could have a political role in a future Palestinian state. In the context of the upcoming bid for statehood based on the 1967 borders, Areikat said the following:
> 
> 
> > “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
> ...




Various links to news sites at the link. This seems to comfortably debunk the idea that Palestinians are seeking a state with a single religion or ethnicity.


----------

