Are Muslims a homosexual's worst enemy? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14820924
SolarCross wrote:Muslims are homophobes because it is in their book to hate gays. Hating gays is as much a part of the religion as not eating pork and stoning to death slutty women.


It also says in the Bible to hate gays, but that does not magically prevent Christian men from becoming homophobes due to repressed homosexual urges.

It's a pretty natural reaction to not like some things over other things, not liking something is not the same as fearing it.

I, for one, dislike the mullet hair style, I would never have my own hair that way, would think twice about associating with people with that hair and in probability would mock someone with that hair style. I have yet to have a phobic reaction to mullet hair cuts and it must be said neither am I a mullet hair cut guy in denial.


And when conservatives go "mullet-bashing" the same way conservative guys go "gay-bashing", you might have a point. But the whole bullying and violent assault thing suggests something far more than simple dislike.
#14820933
Pants-of-dog wrote:It also says in the Bible to hate gays, but that does not magically prevent Christian men from becoming homophobes due to repressed homosexual urges.
[/quote
It doesn't mean they are repressed homosexuals either.



True there are potential public health issues with homosexuality that does not exist with mullet hair cuts, so it's a potentially more serious issue. ZN however didn't say he went about beating or killing gays, he just said he didn't like to associate with them..

Surely you can see the difference between ZN saying he doesn't like gays and muslims hanging gays until they die?

Image
#14820935
SolarCross wrote:True there are potential public health issues with homosexuality that does not exist with mullet hair cuts, so it's a potentially more serious issue. ZN however didn't say he went about beating or killing gays, he just said he didn't like to associate with them..


Such as....?

Surely you can see the difference between ZN saying he doesn't like gays and muslims hanging gays until they die?


The difference between you and Muslims is that everyone gets all gay friendly when Muslims attack homosexuals, but when you guys do it, no one says anything to you. This is why you are a greater threat than Muslims.
#14820936
Pants-of-dog wrote:Such as....?

No one ever caught AIDS from a haircut.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The difference between you and Muslims is that everyone gets all gay friendly when Muslims attack homosexuals, but when you guys do it, no one says anything to you. This is why you are a greater threat than Muslims.


I have never attacked a homosexual nor killed one by any means. So how am I a greater threat than a muslim? POD logic fail.
#14820939
SolarCross wrote:No one ever caught AIDS from a haircut.


I see.

Does AIDS somehow excuse the centuries of homophobia that occurred before AIDS was a problem? Lol.

Or do you think that you are somehow fighting AIDS by being homophobic?

I have never attacked a homosexual nor killed one by any means. So how am I a greater threat than a muslim? POD logic fail.


I just explained it. Do you need me to repeat it a third time?
#14820944
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

Does AIDS somehow excuse the centuries of homophobia that occurred before AIDS was a problem? Lol.

Or do you think that you are somehow fighting AIDS by being homophobic?


Sodomy was censured in the Torah, Qu'ran and possibly also the New Testament, the influence of these books through their followers was the source of "homophobia" for the centuries prior to AIDS. AIDS is not the only venereal disease though and many like syphilis have been around for practically all of human history.

BTW I am not homophobic, you are confusing me with someone else I guess.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I just explained it. Do you need me to repeat it a third time?

And I explained to you that what you said is illogical. A person who does not kill gays is not more dangerous to gays than someone that does, how can it be otherwise?
#14820946
@SolarCross

You're a greater threat to him than a Muslims because if a far-right extremist does something to gays there's not a very big reaction but when Muslims do it, there is. This means that, by the time far-right extremism grows and gets a reaction, it would be too late. Muslims are in constant discussion in the US, it would be impossible for any Muslim to get away with anything without being held accountable. It doesn't matter if the Muslims is pitied or attacked, it gets a large reaction anyway. You don't get that same reaction with far-right extremism. I warn you that this situation is what lead to the Iranian Revolution.

So far-right extremists have never killed gays? Why the fuck do you think they're called far-right extremists then?

Are you implying that all Muslims (you always generalize them) kill gays? Because if it's simply homophobia then you should have no problem with it given that ZN also is homophobic.
#14820951
Oxymandias wrote:@SolarCross

You're a greater threat to him than a Muslims because if a far-right extremist does something to gays there's not a very big reaction but when Muslims do it, there is. This means that, by the time far-right extremism grows and gets a reaction, it would be too late. Muslims are in constant discussion in the US, it would be impossible for any Muslim to get away with anything without being held accountable. It doesn't matter if the Muslims is pitied or attacked, it gets a large reaction anyway. You don't get that same reaction with far-right extremism. I warn you that this situation is what lead to the Iranian Revolution.

So far-right extremists have never killed gays? Why the fuck do you think they're called far-right extremists then?

Are you implying that all Muslims (you always generalize them) kill gays? Because if it's simply homophobia then you should have no problem with it given that ZN also is homophobic.


A. I am not a "far right extremist".

B. In western countries there are no legal penalties for being homosexual, (excepting homosexual pedophilia), also there is (apart from some US states) no death penalty for any crime, and finally there is no instance where a person can attack and kill a homosexual legally and if someone kills a homosexual because they are homosexual and not for some other reason that may also be a "hate crime". Consequently if a "far right person" or any person is caught killing gays in a western country they will go to prison. This very broadly also applies to many other non-western countries that are also non-islamic majority, such as in the far east.. korea, japan though not china.
#14820953
Zionist Nationalist wrote:I knew someone would say it but whatever

I said I dont fear them I just dont like them why its so hard to understand?
and no Im not gay I got a girlfriend


It means nothing, Oscar Wilde was married with kids.
#14820975
@SolarCross

A. Some of you're views seem to be shared by them. Zionist Nationalist is a far right extremist and yet he agrees with on everything. Of course this does not mean you are a far-right extremist, that was a mistake on my part.

B. I am not talking about the consequences but of the reaction. If people continue to overlook or refuse to address far-right extremist crimes in a reactionary way as seen with Muslim crimes then eventually you'll end up with another Iranian Revolution. By the time people notice it will be too late.

C. There are also many countries in eastern Europe where you can get killed for being homosexual so no, it's not as if you can only get a death sentence in the Middle East. Also in Maghreb homosexuality isn't criminalized. So much for all islamic countries right?

D. Like I said, Middle Eastern countries are exceptions since the government is an authoritarian jackass that gets off of brainwashing it's citizens. Muslims who live in countries with free speech and good internet do not feel the same way as other brainwashed Muslims. You can see this especially in Egypt and Iran.
#14820978
There are also many countries in eastern Europe where you can get killed for being homosexual so no, it's not as if you can only get a death sentence in the Middle East. Also in Maghreb homosexuality isn't criminalized. So much for all islamic countries right?


There are no such countries.

there is no capital punishment for homosexualism in any Eastern European country

Like I said, Middle Eastern countries are exceptions since the government is an authoritarian jackass that gets off of brainwashing it's citizens. Muslims who live in countries with free speech and good internet do not feel the same way as other brainwashed Muslims. You can see this especially in Egypt and Iran.


not really. Egypt and Iran have lots of crazy Islamist mob even though they have a small progressive society
#14820981
@Zionist Nationalist

Saying that there aren't isn't proof that there aren't. Look up Homosexuality in Maghreb and you'll see every country makes homosexuality legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... ern_Europe

Is it legal? Yes. Is there capital punishment though? Yes.

Alright, here is where you fucked up. First off, the government doesn't represent the Egyptian and Iranian people at all. Second, you have to give me some serious proof that this is true and not just start talking out of your ass. Third, this progressive society is not small at all, pretty much everyone you ask in Iran and Egypt disagree with the government in every way. Fourth, Islamism is a minority in Egypt and Iran because a majority of the population is educated enough to know why Islamism sucks. Many of these people are also Muslim.

You have no proof for any of these claims. What you're doing is comparable to what children do when someone says that they did something "No, you're stupid!" "No, you did that!" "Well, you're stupid!". It's childish and immature of you.
#14820982
Is it legal? Yes. Is there capital punishment though? Yes.


No there isnt any capital punishment. do you even know what that means?

Alright, here is where you fucked up. First off, the government doesn't represent the Egyptian and Iranian people at all. Second, you have to give me some serious proof that this is true and not just start talking out of your ass. Third, this progressive society is not small at all, pretty much everyone you ask in Iran and Egypt disagree with the government in every way. Fourth, Islamism is a minority in Egypt and Iran because a majority of the population is educated enough to know why Islamism sucks. Many of these people are also Muslim.

You have no proof for any of these claims. What you're doing is comparable to what children do when someone says that they did something "No, you're stupid!" "No, you did that!" "Well, you're stupid!". It's childish and immature of you.
Quick Reply
Reply


Well in Iran the people are the sane voice but in Egypt its the opposite the people are stupid thats why Muslim brotherhood was at first elected in 2011
#14820983
Oxymandias wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... ern_Europe

Is it legal? Yes. Is there capital punishment though? Yes.


Ehh, whaaaat? No, there is emphatically no capital punishment for homosexuality in Eastern Europe. I hate to agree with ZN on anything, but there simply isn't. Eastern Europe is backwards but not that backwards. Maybe you misunderstand the term?
#14821041
SolarCross wrote:Sodomy was censured in the Torah, Qu'ran and possibly also the New Testament, the influence of these books through their followers was the source of "homophobia" for the centuries prior to AIDS. AIDS is not the only venereal disease though and many like syphilis have been around for practically all of human history.


Sure. As long as we agree that AIDS could not possibly account for the homophobia that existed beforehand.

And that the idea that homosexuality has medical issues that mullets do not have is also not a valid excuse for homophobia.

BTW I am not homophobic, you are confusing me with someone else I guess.


Sure. You just find reasons to excuse homophobia by claiming that there are valid medical reasons for doing so.

And I explained to you that what you said is illogical. A person who does not kill gays is not more dangerous to gays than someone that does, how can it be otherwise?


Because when white guys like you kill homosexuals (which still happens in the west), it is not discussed. When Muslims do it, everyone all of a sudden cars about gay rights.

Also, the awful Muslims who execute gays are, at least, not pretending that they do not kill homosexuals, while white conservatives claim they no longer do, despite the fact that such killings continue.
#14821044
@Oxymandias
Oxymandias wrote: Second, you have to give me some serious proof that this is true and not just start talking out of your ass.

I think it would be better to refrain from talking about asses and assholes in a thread about homosexuality.
#14821094
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. As long as we agree that AIDS could not possibly account for the homophobia that existed beforehand.

And that the idea that homosexuality has medical issues that mullets do not have is also not a valid excuse for homophobia.

Not AIDS no, as it is a very new disease, but as I said AIDS isn't the only venereal disease and some have been around for all of human history. It is fairly probable that the authors of the Torah and similar works were censuring sodomy because of its perceived public health risk, they wouldn't know about viruses and such but they could draw lines between dots where those who liked to get their bottom poked ended up with anal pustules later. The same could also be said of their injuctions against promiscuity, drinking alcohol, eating pork etc.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. You just find reasons to excuse homophobia by claiming that there are valid medical reasons for doing so.

Well there are two sides to every story: on one side, the abrahmic side, there is joyless discipline and on the other, the pagan side, risky indulgence. I'm a pagan myself so I tend to be sympathetic to those that want to live fast and die young even while I do not necessarily partake, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding the other side.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because when white guys like you kill homosexuals (which still happens in the west), it is not discussed. When Muslims do it, everyone all of a sudden cars about gay rights.

Also, the awful Muslims who execute gays are, at least, not pretending that they do not kill homosexuals, while white conservatives claim they no longer do, despite the fact that such killings continue.


That's racist. It's also misguided because the overlap between "white people" and "tolerating homosexuality" has an exceedingly strong correlation. In black Somalia being homo is a death sentence, in white Netherlands it's practically a national past time.

--------

Edit additional: A nice case history that is relevant to this conversation would be the life of elite pop singer Freddie Mercury. He was world famous as the lead vocalist of a British pop-rock band call "Queen". He became a very well loved rock and roll legend in Britain and he was also an overt homosexual. What may be a bit less well known was that he was born in Zanzibar to Iranian parents. Zanzibar was absorbed into Tanzania by the early 60s. Tanzania has a penalty for homosexuality of 30 years in prison. Had Freddie Mercury remained in Tanzania instead of coming to Britain his life would have been very different. He did die young though even so, aged just 45 from AIDS. Perhaps he may have lived a bit longer enduring joyless discipline in a Tanzanian prison than he did as a super rich and famous rock legend in Britain but he clearly made the right choice all the same. Clearly his life in Britain was far superior!
Freddie Mercury
Last edited by SolarCross on 05 Jul 2017 13:08, edited 2 times in total.
#14821096
Old fashioned people everywhere use religion to cover their prejudices, and colonialists always make alliances with the most totally reactionary elements they can find. If Europe had lived under colonialism there would never have been a Reformation. Get out of Muslim countries and give them a chance to develop naturally.
#14821111
SolarCross wrote:Not AIDS no, as it is a very new disease, but as I said AIDS isn't the only venereal disease and some have been around for all of human history. It is fairly probable that the authors of the Torah and similar works were censuring sodomy because of its perceived public health risk, they wouldn't know about viruses and such but they could draw lines between dots where those who liked to get their bottom poked ended up with anal pustules later. The same could also be said of their injuctions against promiscuity, drinking alcohol, eating pork etc.


Sure. None if this contradicts what I said. Your claim that AIDS is a valid reason for homophobia is still not supported. None of this historical stuff supports it either.

Also, please present evidence that sodomy gives you anal pustules. Thanks.

Well there are two sides to every story: on one side, the abrahmic side, there is joyless discipline and on the other, the pagan side, risky indulgence. I'm a pagan myself so I tend to be sympathetic to those that want to live fast and die young even while I do not necessarily partake, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding the other side.


I pointed out that your argument is an apologia for homophobia. This weird stuff you believe about everything having an Abrahamic side and a pagan side is just your weird beliefs and is not relevant.

That's racist.


No, it is not racist to point out that white people get away with more because of racism.

It's also misguided because the overlap between "white people" and "tolerating homosexuality" has an exceedingly strong correlation. In black Somalia being homo is a death sentence, in white Netherlands it's practically a national past time.

--------

Edit additional: A nice case history that is relevant to this conversation would be the life of elite pop singer Freddie Mercury. He was world famous as the lead vocalist of a British pop-rock band call "Queen". He became a very well loved rock and roll legend in Britain and he was also an overt homosexual. What may be a bit less well known was that he was born in Zanzibar to Iranian parents. Zanzibar was absorbed into Tanzania by the early 60s. Tanzania has a penalty for homosexuality of 30 years in prison. Had Freddie Mercury remained in Tanzania instead of coming to Britain his life would have been very different. He did die young though even so, aged just 45 from AIDS. Perhaps he may have lived a bit longer enduring joyless discipline in a Tanzanian prison than he did as a super rich and famous rock legend in Britain but he clearly made the right choice all the same. Clearly his life in Britain was far superior!
Freddie Mercury


None of this has anything to do with my claim. Please note that I will start to ignore all this irrelevant stuff from now on.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

@blackjack21 , you replied; This is the issue[…]

Is a Marxist receiving financial backing through t[…]

Election 2020

And speaking of the story that Facebook and Twitt[…]

Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just p[…]