Stockholm Terror Attack

[peter_spy]

Do LGBT couples have any ground or safle conditions to speak up about their rights in Islamic or African countries? Obviously, was talking about Europe/Americas, as talking about everything simultaneously and mixing everything up won't lead us to any conclusion about anything ever.

[Anderson]

>login

>46 notifications

 

GG, Mr. Anderson.

 

Back on-topic: some Christians aspire to be as militant as the minority of Islamic extremists. They are just too coddled with wealth and distracted with entertainment at the moment to get with it. And when Christians do bull or kill for example, an LGBT youth, it doesn't make headline news like an Islamist killing 1-3 people with a machete would. Once the middle classes of the West collapse, you can expect Christians to get to work bullying homosexuals, bombing abortion clinics, assassinating fertility and biotechnology scientists, etc. They'll look at social and technological progress in the world, and see the telltale signs of the Antichrist and end times.

 

No need for apocalyptic scenarios. This does not justify the ignorance of some liberal circles.

[Anderson]

Do LGBT couples have any ground or safle conditions to speak up about their rights in Islamic or African countries? Obviously, was talking about Europe/Americas, as talking about everything simultaneously and mixing everything up won't lead us to any conclusion about anything ever.

 

Depending on national laws.

The idea is why justify one group of sexual preferences over another?

Edited April 9, 2017 by Anderson

[nbohr1more]

>login

>46 notifications

 

GG, Mr. Anderson.

 

Back on-topic: some Christians aspire to be as militant as the minority of Islamic extremists. They are just too coddled with wealth and distracted with entertainment at the moment to get with it. And when Christians do bull or kill for example, an LGBT youth, it doesn't make headline news like an Islamist killing 1-3 people with a machete would. Once the middle classes of the West collapse, you can expect Christians to get to work bullying homosexuals, bombing abortion clinics, assassinating fertility and biotechnology scientists, etc. They'll look at social and technological progress in the world, and see the telltale signs of the Antichrist and end times.

 

That Christians can become extremist is undoubtedly true but I think that the sentiment that all religious folks are equally capable of devolving

to where Islamic Extremists' are is a pretty false equivalence.

 

Even with societal decadence factored in, you still have no equivalent to Jihad canonized in the New Testament.

 

The closest you thing you can compare is the conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament and Jesus clearly refutes that type of activity with his parables about

"casting stones at sinners" and good Samaritans. Islam has a head start on "justified Holy War" encoded into it's scriptures.

 

Christianity only achieves a Holy War stage by running the doctrines through mental gymnastics and with a congregation that doesn't read the Bible directly.

Gutenberg ended the age where a Christian is limited to only knowing what God wants from the mouth of a clergyman \ clergywoman.

 

Islam sorta lacks that Gutenberg stage because many of the places where Madrassas are typically setup the kids don't know Arabic

and therefore only know what the Imam tells them. And even where they are able to read the scriptures, there is no sea change in

the scripture that delineates between the era of purging infidels to the era of living peacefully with them. The concept of a peaceful Islam

is a divergent new thread from those who chose to ignore some of the darker parts of the text. It's certainly within everyone's right to

maintain that they believe in a peaceful version of an old religion but it doesn't change the fact that the source material is conducive

towards influencing folks to remain conservative.

 

Comparing the two is Apples and Oranges. If you were contrasting 12th century or older Catholics to Contemporary Islam I would concede the comparison

but we all know that is a silly comparison.

 

We wish it weren't but progressive Islam is still a very fragile and formative movement. Our willingness to treat conservative Islamist proponents are purveyors

of progressive ideals is such a blind-spot and enabling these folks by "supporting them" simply makes it that much harder for REAL progressives (or seculars

or atheists, etc) to grow their influence. The West needs to be more honest and frank about this. Flowery euphemisms and false equivalences will just lead to

more tragedy for all sides except our happy Jihadis who revel in the miseries they create.

[peter_spy]

The idea is why justify one group of sexual preferences over another?

 

 

Because it's easier to extend the idea of a couple, from heterosexual couples only, to other combinations, than embrace polygamy, in a Christian or post-Christian culture. Is that really not so obvious or hard to grasp?

Edited April 9, 2017 by Judith

[Anderson]

Because it's easier to extend the idea of a couple, from heterosexual couples only, to other combinations, than embrace polygamy, in a Christian or post-Christian culture. Is that really not so obvious or hard to grasp?

 

No it's not.

 

But it's hard to grasp how the liberal movement considers that somehow both muslims (the way they are today) and LGBT are supposed to peacefully coexist without terrorist attacks happening periodically.

 

This needs a broader answer with either a universal religion or some limited, temporary state policies to stop this. At the moment it's reaching a dead and ugly end.

[Springheel]

The same reason why not every national minority gets autonomy within a country. Same reason why Texas is not an independent state even if it really wants to.

 

 

This seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. How is Texas not being an independent state an example of people being denied rights because they are "arrogant"??

 

In Vitro is a relatively new method and we may have very little data to operate with to make a prognosis of long term effects. But that's just speculation for now.

 

 

If you're talking about gay people raising children, there are plenty of studies on this already that show there is no problem there. If you're talking about in-vitro fertilization in general, that doesn't appear to have much relevance to anything else being discussed.

 

 

The state can be involved, but it may choose not to.

 

 

The state can't "choose not to" be involved with issues relating to marriage, unless it stops being involved in marriage completely.

 

 

Tax evasion and sadistic torture affect the state in a bad way. The state gets involved only when the society needs it. The state should not be involved in a way that would cause harm to society. While an objective minority with dubious prospects to raise families? Remains to be seen if it's as good as polygamy in Islam. Or the aforementioned failed attempt to legalize polygamy in developed countries. Time will tell.

 

So you're abandoning the arguement that marriage equality shouldn't be addressed because there are worse problems. Good. Now you seem to have moved onto an argument that marriage equality would "cause harm to society". Please present your evidence of this.

[peter_spy]

I don't get how you include both of these camps in terms of opposition, or a threat, but terrorist attacks will happen from time to time, regardless of religion or backround. It's more about media coverage and visibility, and things like internet access. Whether it's a random psycho, IRA, or some other desperate immigrant, the thing is not to let our lazy brains attribute that to a whole nation or religion.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Judith

[Anderson]

 

This seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. How is Texas not being an independent state an example of people being denied rights because they are "arrogant"??

 

 

I did not mean through arrogance. Everything in this world needs to have order. For a society to function it would be absurd for every less conventional practice to become suddenly legalized. The state carries only as much as it can handle. Especially if society isn't ready.

 

 

 

So you're abandoning the arguement that marriage equality shouldn't be addressed because there are worse problems. Good. Now you seem to have moved onto an argument that marriage equality would "cause harm to society". Please present your evidence of this.

 

I do not have evidence for you. Same as I can't prove the existence/absence of God - I think we already talked about this previously.

​This is only something we can find out empirically. That's why I advise caution

At the very least an uninitiated society needs years to acknowledge such a circumstance.

[Anderson]

I don't get how you include both of these camps in terms of opposition, or a threat, but terrorist attacks will happen from time to time, regardless of religion or backround. It's more about media coverage and visibility, and things like internet access. Whether it's a random psycho, IRA, or some other desperate immigrant, the thing is not to let our lazy brains attribute that to a whole nation or religion.

 

But they are usually with at least a mild muslim background interest... The Quran directly forbids homosexuality. Hard to reconcile that. If it was Sharia law it would be easier if we presumed that a secular Islamic state would eventually leave Sharia Law only for more in depth theological study and leave the source, base text of Quran. But if the main source says so... I don't see a reconciliation on this topic.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Anderson

[peter_spy]

Also, in a lot of those cases terrorists were not immigrants per se, but born in the country their parents went to; learned the language, got the education etc. It was more like a period of fascination with their religion, but gone wrong, often with outside influence too.

[Anderson]

Also, in a lot of those cases terrorists were not immigrants per se, but born in the country their parents went to; learned the language, got the education etc. It was more like a period of fascination with their religion, but gone wrong, often with outside influence too.

 

Exactly. And it's kinda weird to talk of Islam inclusion like Mogherini and of LGBT rights concurrently. They are mutually exclusive in their current forms.

[Anderson]

http://m.dw.com/en/two-men-may-get-100-lashes-after-gay-sex-in-indonesia/a-38354186