BBC news website asks users: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'

[aadil77]

BBC news website asks users: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'Talkboard post seeks readers' views ahead of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say
Comments (484)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Stephen Brook guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 December 2009 17.00 GMT Article history
The BBC's Have Your Say talkboard

The BBC today asked users of its news website "Should homosexuals face execution?" on a talkboard discussion for a World Service programme for African listeners.

Posted on a BBC News premoderated talkboard, the thread was designed to provoke discussion ahead of the latest edition of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say.

"Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question, but this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death," the post said.

The talkboard post asked users to send in their views to the programme, which goes out on the World Service and is also available online.

"Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored?," the post added.

Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: "Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer 'gay pride' festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a 'straight pride' festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation - after which, theoretically there should be none left!"

Another, from Aaron in Freetown, said: "Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society. We hope other African nations will also follow your bold step."

The Africa Have Your Say programme aired at 4pm today. By 5.30pm, the headline of the discussion had been changed to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?".

Liliane Landor, the BBC World Service acting head of Africa region, defended the radio programme and talkboard post, saying it allowed gay men and lesbians from Uganda, whose voices have never been heard in the UK, to talk with dignity about the impact the legislation would have on their lives.

The show also included the opinion of those who supported the anti-homosexual legislation, including religious leaders, she said. "The programme was a dignified exchange between people who have differing beliefs," Landor added.

Landor said that the World Service realised that the headline on the talkboard was blunt, but it was carefully put in context. "We wanted to frame the question starkly, in order to reflect the stark reality of the Ugandan bill," she added.

The BBC Pride board, composed of gay and lesbian staff at the corporation, lobbied the World Service to change the headline and close discussion "to minimise negative reflection on the BBC".

Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk, labelled the post "more than offensive". "It's completely unacceptable. And it's mainly British people replying," he said on Twitter.

The talkboard post is understood to have been written by a female member of the BBC World Service Africa bureau.

The World Service, which broadcasts in 32 languages on TV, radio and the web, is part of BBC Global News, but funded by the Foreign Office

I wonder how long till views like the ones above become extinct

EDIT: forgot link http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...-have-your-say

[Cabdullahi]

gives us the link bro

[tango92]

those views will never die cause islam can never die

[Supreme]

This is a joke, but one of the worst kind, the kind that costs lives. One day, maybe one day, the world will be a place where all human beings are free and equal. But this latest news from Uganda only proves that day is rather a long way away.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[GuestFellow]

gives us the link bro

Its real, google it.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

you know, it's interesting. up until 1861 In England and Australia, the punishment for sodomy was actually the death penalty.

[nocturnal]

you know, it's interesting. up until 1861 In England and Australia, the punishment for sodomy was actually the death penalty.

Do you think homosexuality ought to be punishable by death in a secular democracy?

[KittenLover]

it's funny how people's perception of whether or not something is acceptable in society or not changes through out time.

how do we truly determine if something is acceptable if our mentality changes from time frames. I mean alot of us have been exposed to mental conditioning via the media and we're unaware of it, it happens every day infront of a square box.

interesting how media has influenced society, if only I could get control of the media and broadcast the kind of messages that I agree with :)

[KittenLover]

our mentality and thinking is simply a result of the society and time frame we live in righht?

[aadil77]

it's funny how people's perception of whether or not something is acceptable in society or not changes through out time.

how do we truly determine if something is acceptable if our mentality changes from time frames. I mean alot of us have been exposed to mental conditioning via the media and we're unaware of it, it happens every day infront of a square box.

interesting how media has influenced society, if only I could get control of the media and broadcast the kind of messages that I agree with :)

True, I've never thought of it that way. Sooner or later the media will flush all morals out of society, there will be almost nothing let that won't be acceptable and as a member above put it - human beings will be 'free and equal' to do whatever they want

[CosmicPathos]

This is a joke, but one of the worst kind, the kind that costs lives. One day, maybe one day, the world will be a place where all human beings are free and equal. But this latest news from Uganda only proves that day is rather a long way away.

A nation, with a certain majority, has a right to shun what they deem inappropriate from the minority. Seems Ugandan majority decided that this minority view cannot be accepted. It does not mean that minority view must be given equal status as the majority view, that would take the whole meaning out of having majority and minority positions in the first place.

Gays have a place to live in Islamic environment as long as they keep it a secret and dont spread their ill practices and are not caught committing sodomy. A bit hard price to pay but that is how the majority of Muslims have decided to implement in their society.

[Supreme]

A nation, with a certain majority, has a right to shun what they deem inappropriate from the minority. Seems Ugandan majority decided that this minority view cannot be accepted. It does not mean that minority view must be given equal status as the majority view, that would take the whole meaning out of having majority and minority positions in the first place.

Gays have a place to live in Islamic environment as long as they keep it a secret and dont spread their ill practices and are not caught committing sodomy. A bit hard price to pay but that is how the majority of Muslims have decided to implement in their society.

We're not talking about a Muslim society, we're talking about a Christian one, because Uganda is a Christian country. Therefore I am ashamed such laws are being considered by my fellow Christians. I suppose 'thou shalt not kill' bears no weight in Uganda.

[KAding]

I am always amazed by the fact that so many people seem to think that simply because they disapprove of something, that it should be made illegal or even punishable by, say, death.

Maybe I should start advocating the death penalty myself for action I disapprove of, like say, eating meat or using loud motorcycles ;). All I need is my very own tyrannical majority and apparently I'd be all set! :P

[tango92]

i think the modern philosophy is "if it doesnt hurt anyone then its acceptable", i guess so far it seems to be working for them... but dont be fooled, this curtain of liberty is needed to hide their true evil.

Allah gives them enjoyment in this life, we as muslims cannot dictate our views of morality, we hear and obey. for some, atheists in particular, this can be a very difficult and frustating thing to comprehend.

[KAding]

i think the modern philosophy is "if it doesnt hurt anyone then its acceptable", i guess so far it seems to be working for them... but dont be fooled, this curtain of liberty is needed to hide their true evil.

Who's 'true evil'? Of non-Muslims?

[Raaina]

I am always amazed by the fact that so many people seem to think that simply because they disapprove of something, that it should be made illegal or even punishable by, say, death.

I agree with that statement, just because someone disapproves of something doesn't mean it should be made illegal, no one will agree with everyone else on everything in the world.

Maybe I should start advocating the death penalty myself for action I disapprove of, like say, eating meat or using loud motorcycles ;). All I need is my very own tyrannical majority and apparently I'd be all set! :P

Wow, thats a great idea, can I add people who ride those annoying kid bike things to the list, ermmm who else, ohh inconsiderate neighbours!! :p

[tango92]

Who's 'true evil'? Of non-Muslims?

i do not mean to imply all non muslims are evil - im talking about the illegal wars being fought in our countries, and the inhumane and barbaric treatment the americans and jews make our innocent brothers endure. im talking about gitmo and vietnam. how about hiroshima? what about labour exploitation in china? lets not forget gaaza.

the fact of the matter is that through the ages westerners have proved again and again their governments are rotten to the core. and the people are blindly advocating them, believing themselves the bringers of peace to the world.
now im the first to admit muslim countries have their fair share of flaws and corruption, but what the west does is global terrorism yet because they grant gays et al, THEIR rights, the rights of everyone in the world are overlooked.

btw this is the right to life!

[Amadeus85]

This is a joke, but one of the worst kind, the kind that costs lives. One day, maybe one day, the world will be a place where all human beings are free and equal. But this latest news from Uganda only proves that day is rather a long way away.

The white men taught africans the bible teachings and now when the africans want to impose the biblical teachings, the white men are shocked. :skeleton:
But now many, many european and american christians replaced christianity with liberalism. Our new religion is religion of human rights wich is far more important than God, Christ and Church.

[Supreme]

The white men taught africans the bible teachings and now when the africans want to impose the biblical teachings, the white men are shocked. :skeleton:
But now many, many european and american christians replaced christianity with liberalism. Our new religion is religion of human rights wich is far more important than God, Christ and Church.

So you think killing homosexuals is the kind of thing Jesus would have advocated?

[GuestFellow]

So you think killing homosexuals is the kind of thing Jesus would have advocated?

Well does the Bible approve of Homosexuality? I assume Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.

[Amadeus85]

So you think killing homosexuals is the kind of thing Jesus would have advocated?

I dont think that they should be killed, but there should be some punishment for that act, just like it was in Europe even 50 years ago.
But of course now its impossible, for christians Jesus Christ was a hippie, gay activist and supporter of abortion and euthanasia.
No wonder why european and american churches stay empty, its a just God's punishment for violating His laws.

[Amadeus85]

Well does the Bible approve of Homosexuality? I assume Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.

Most christians doesnt care, as for them it's ok to break christian laws, while the only true and unchangable religion is the religion of human rights. For them it's ok to doubt in almost every christian theological concept, while it's impossible to doubt in liberalism and human rights. John Locke, Wolter and Rousseau are more important for them than God, Christ and commandments.

[GuestFellow]

Most christians doesnt care, as for them it's ok to break christian laws, while the only true and unchangable religion is the religion of human rights. For them it's ok to doubt in almost every christian theological concept, while it's impossible to doubt in liberalism and human rights. John Locke, Wolter and Rousseau are more important for them than God, Christ and commandments.

Hmmm

I'm curious, when did Christians have began to become more liberal? Is it due to secularism, materialism, democracy, when in America decided to seperate the state and the church or due to different views among the sects?

Does Christianity have a political structure?

[mkh4JC]

Hmmm

I'm curious, when did Christians have began to become more liberal? Is it due to secularism, materialism, democracy, when in America decided to seperate the state and the church or due to different views among the sects?

Does Christianity have a political structure?

Well, the United States Constitution is built around Biblical principles, and all of the founding fathers were pretty much Christians.

But nowadays, America as a whole has been regressively turning her back on God. This country used to be a collectively God fearing and honoring society, but everything has been pretty much going down hill since about the end of World War II.

Whether it's taking prayer out of the schools, not displaying the Ten Commandments, the legalizing of abortion, and pretty much everything else that goes against the Biblical roots on which this country was founded. And God will judge America for this, in fact we are already experiencing God's judgement to a degree, but it is going to get much worse. All you have to do is look in the Old Testament to the many instances when the people of Israel turned their backs on God and he chastened them sore until their hearts were turned back to him.

Yet to be honest I don't think America will rise from the ashes after we experience the fullness of God's judgement like the Israelites, as we are pretty much ten minutes to midnight for the conclusion of this age, and the ushering in of the thousand year reign of Christ.

[GuestFellow]

Well, the United States Constitution is built around Biblical principles, and all of the founding fathers were pretty much Christians.

But nowadays, America as a whole has been regressively turning her back on God. This country used to be a collectively God fearing and honoring society, but everything has been pretty much going down hill since about the end of World War II.

Whether it's taking prayer out of the schools, not displaying the Ten Commandments, the legalizing of abortion, and pretty much everything else that goes against the Biblical roots on which this country was founded. And God will judge America for this, in fact we are already experiencing God's judgement to a degree, but it is going to get much worse. All you have to do is look in the Old Testament to the many instances when the people of Israel turned their backs on God and he chastened them sore until their hearts were turned back to him.

Yet to be honest I don't think America will rise from the ashes after we experience the fullness of God's judgement like the Israelites, as we are pretty much ten minutes to midnight for the conclusion of this age, and the ushering in of the thousand year reign of Christ.

Interesting...thanks for that sharing that. I'm sensing a similar patterns for Muslims too.

[Supreme]

Well does the Bible approve of Homosexuality? I assume Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.

No, we believe Jesus to be the Word of God, the Bible is simply a divinely inspired text; however, we must remember that much of the Bible was written for a small Jewish tribe facing persecution at the hands of every race in the Middle East, and not intended for the world's largest religion. Jesus never mentions the subject, but seeing as Jesus is just about the most moral person in history, I can't see Him shouting in demonstrations with huge 'Kill all the Gays' banners.

I dont think that they should be killed, but there should be some punishment for that act, just like it was in Europe even 50 years ago

Shoulda woulda coulda... mate, I don't want to live in the past, we develop as a human race, we evolve, it's social science.

But of course now its impossible, for christians Jesus Christ was a hippie, gay activist and supporter of abortion and euthanasia.

Maybe in your church mate.

No wonder why european and american churches stay empty, its a just God's punishment for violating His laws.

Speak for yourself, and also, God punishes people... by not allowing Himself to be worshipped in church? Wait, what?

[GuestFellow]

No, we believe Jesus to be the Word of God, the Bible is simply a divinely inspired text; however, we must remember that much of the Bible was written for a small Jewish tribe facing persecution at the hands of every race in the Middle East, and not intended for the world's largest religion. Jesus never mentions the subject, but seeing as Jesus is just about the most moral person in history, I can't see Him shouting in demonstrations with huge 'Kill all the Gays' banners.

Well apparently other Christians don't share the same view here, where did they get the idea of not approving homosexuals?

Shoulda woulda coulda... mate, I don't want to live in the past, we develop as a human race, we evolve, it's social science.

I would not say we evolve...our culture is drowned in materialism...

Maybe in your church mate.

Speak for yourself, and also, God punishes people... by not allowing Himself to be worshipped in church? Wait, what?

Well the above just proved what I thought, there is a huge variety of views within Christian faith.

Either Christians are not following the Bible correctly or choosing what they want to believe and denying what the Bible states itself.

[Supreme]

Well apparently other Christians don't share the same view here, where did they get the idea of not approving homosexuals?

This is more of a political issue than a religious one. There's far more divide in one's own church between liberals and conservatives than there is between Catholics and Protestants. I believe in the rights for everyone, and I believe that what happens between two consenting adults shouldn't be judged by hypocritical humans.

I would not say we evolve...our culture is drowned in materialism...

I would say we've evolved... we've come a long way since the isolated tribes of millenia ago, and every day we're evolving. Social science is not my strong point, but I'm fairly certiain we've come a long way as a race.

Well the above just proved what I thought, there is a huge variety of views within Christian faith.

You're never going to get two billion minds thinking identically. I'd have thought getting two minds to think identically would be a chore.

Either Christians are not following the Bible correctly or choosing what they want to believe and denying what the Bible states itself.

Apart from the obvious, there's no set in stone way to follow the Bible. Hence, why there are so many Christiand denominations out there, each with their own interpretations.

[GuestFellow]

I would say we've evolved... we've come a long way since the isolated tribes of millenia ago, and every day we're evolving. Social science is not my strong point, but I'm fairly certiain we've come a long way as a race.

In terms of technology and medical science yes we have progressed, we also used technology to cause destruction, harm the environment and made nuclear weapons. Consumerism is a major problem I believe in many countries. Even the media though it can spread information very quickly it can also be used to spread false deceptive information to the public and brainwashing in some cases... :skeleton:

It is not difficult to workout if you sit back and watch what happens around the world.

You're never going to get two billion minds thinking identically. I'd have thought getting two minds to think identically would be a chore.

Thats true.

Apart from the obvious, there's no set in stone way to follow the Bible. Hence, why there are so many Christiand denominations out there, each with their own interpretations.

Hmmm....if interpretations vary amongst your other fellow Christians how do you decide which is the true interpretation? I mean there has to be an agreement correct on some of the issues? I see this has the Church dividing rather than uniting.

Even Islam has divided due to Muslims who have their own selfish agendas.

[Pygoscelis]

That such a question could even be asked in a prominent place would be very disturbing.

What's next? We execute anybody with freckles? Its insanity.

[ummzayd]

.....a small Jewish tribe facing persecution at the hands of every race in the Middle East

A cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals the Israelites of old to be an incredibly blood-thirsty lot who never left their neighbors alone, forever going into other people's territories and slaughtering everyone (except the little girls whom God suposedly told them to 'save for yourselves').

The tribe of Judah was actually just one tribe among many, and they turned their murderous hatred on each other as well.

Read your bible. Please.

[جوري]

A cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals the Israelites of old to be an incredibly blood-thirsty lot who never left their neighbors alone, forever going into other people's territories and slaughtering everyone (except the little girls whom God suposedly told them to 'save for yourselves').

The tribe of Judah was actually just one tribe among many, and they turned their murderous hatred on each other as well.

Read your bible. Please.

:sl:

well said ummzayd.

A sin any sin mentioned is a conscious act that the individual wills to happen, and is a transgression against God and his commandments. Thus, I can't be made to understand how being born with freckles for instance is akin to sodomizing and then advertising? can you draw any similarities? I think the problem with loss of morals is that there is no baseline .. no difference for instance between being a dignified human or a lawless animal, no difference between hard work or leeching off others by force because of power or a sense of entitlement, between a family unit and break association, between good or bad.. and that is what the new world order is after..skewed morals of why is this ok and this isn't..

I have no problems people committing sins on their private time, but the whole will not be made to suffer the debauchery of a few and their supporters!

:w:

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Supreme;1264041]

Jesus never mentions the subject, but seeing as Jesus is just about the most moral person in history, I can't see Him shouting in demonstrations with huge 'Kill all the Gays' banners.

So tell me You think that there is no problem that some protestant "churches" bless gay "marriages"?
The attitude of Creator about gays and lesbians is very clear, expressed many times in Bible, You think that Creator changed His mind?

Shoulda woulda coulda... mate, I don't want to live in the past, we develop as a human race, we evolve, it's social science.

Yeah, we developped, especially when I look at my own nation and western nations, with withh all those social ilnesses, its clear how we "developped".

Maybe in your church mate.

Not, but You can't deny that many christians see Jesus Christ as the hippie from "Jesus Christ Superstar" movie, with sign of anarchy, always smiling guy who plays a guitar.

Speak for yourself, and also, God punishes people... by not allowing Himself to be worshipped in church? Wait, what?

Some people too easily use the word "church". I am catholic and I dont think that every building used by "church" created last week by some John, Robert or Bill should be called as church.
Moreover, a "church" where gay or lesbian couples as blessed, where their sin is accepted, becomes rather a synagoga satanae.

The problem with today's christianity is the alliance with modern world and society. In past the Church changed people, now the people change churches. The people think that sodomy is ok, so the "church" changes its views not to be seen as medival fossil. The same with abortion, the feminists made some "churches" think that the kill of an unborn baby is the "right" of a woman. The radical ecology movement made some churches think that the biggest problem of nowadays world is global warming.

What are other medival fossils still defended by churches? Physical purity before marriage, one undivided marriage, marriage faithfulness.
What else we must change to be accepted as modern?

You say that it's no problem what two adults do in their bedrooms, but as a christian Your duty is to tell them - Your act is evil, bad for you people, it will destroy your lives.
You should say it not because of your homophobia, but because of Your love to the people.

The problem is that modern popculture (rather counter culture) lies to the homosexuals and lesbians that this kind of sex is alright. The popculture also says - Adultery is ok, our own needs are more important than faithfulness and family. The popculture says - Your own good is more important than anything, than our children. Human replaced God, human became new God.

The sad thing is that many modern "churches" say the same what popculture says, those "churches" change Creator's unchangeable and eternal opinions about human nature just to please modern people, who are controlled by their sexual desires.

[sur]

(Quran 4:15):And those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

Quran:4:16:If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

[Skavau]

A nation, with a certain majority, has a right to shun what they deem inappropriate from the minority. Seems Ugandan majority decided that this minority view cannot be accepted. It does not mean that minority view must be given equal status as the majority view, that would take the whole meaning out of having majority and minority positions in the first place.

Such is the very definition of 'mob rule'. This is the reason the rule of law is so important. This is the reason many first-world nation-states have documents that specifically line out rights for all of its populace (and of which, cannot be repealed purely by popular momentum). It is the reason people take the UN's Declaration of Human Rights seriously - it is to prevent barbarism and rule by bigotry.

It is a foundation of democracy that the powers of the majority cannot destroy the freedoms of the minority. Such mantra is typically the foundation of elitist fascist states. This foundation is just as important as the importance of popular support.

Gays have a place to live in Islamic environment as long as they keep it a secret and dont spread their ill practices and are not caught committing sodomy. A bit hard price to pay but that is how the majority of Muslims have decided to implement in their society.

Now sir, doesn't that just encourage hypocrisy? You set up a situation where homosexuals have to pretend their preferences in order for security guarantees.

i think the modern philosophy is "if it doesnt hurt anyone then its acceptable", i guess so far it seems to be working for them... but dont be fooled, this curtain of liberty is needed to hide their true evil.

What exactly do you mean by this? Who's "true evil"?

I dont think that they should be killed, but there should be some punishment for that act, just like it was in Europe even 50 years ago.But of course now its impossible, for christians Jesus Christ was a hippie, gay activist and supporter of abortion and euthanasia.
No wonder why european and american churches stay empty, its a just God's punishment for violating His laws.

This statement is a disgrace. Why should people not of your faith be held accountable to it? The above is an absolute green light to totalitarianism. It is impossible now because of the well-battled importance of secularism.

Well, the United States Constitution is built around Biblical principles, and all of the founding fathers were pretty much Christians.

No it wasn't.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

The problem with today's christianity is the alliance with modern world and society. In past the Church changed people, now the people change churches. The people think that sodomy is ok, so the "church" changes its views not to be seen as medival fossil. The same with abortion, the feminists made some "churches" think that the kill of an unborn baby is the "right" of a woman. The radical ecology movement made some churches think that the biggest problem of nowadays world is global warming.

Why does this surprise you? It does not surprise me in the slightest. It is simply how what I will call 'divine bigotry' is not compatible in modern life.

You say that it's no problem what two adults do in their bedrooms, but as a christian Your duty is to tell them - Your act is evil, bad for you people, it will destroy your lives.
You should say it not because of your homophobia, but because of Your love to the people.

The problem is that modern popculture (rather counter culture) lies to the homosexuals and lesbians that this kind of sex is alright. The popculture also says - Adultery is ok, our own needs are more important than faithfulness and family. The popculture says - Your own good is more important than anything, than our children. Human replaced God, human became new God.

It absolutely is none of your business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. You are free to consider homosexuality reprehensible and choose your company in accordance with this. You are free to hold contempt for adultery and do likewise. You are not free to prohibit others on this basis.

Do you live in a Western secular state, might I inquire? You seem awfully contemptible about it if so. Can I ask where you might prefer to live?

[mkh4JC]

No it wasn't.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

No I haven't read the Treaty of Tripoli. What I know, is that in the founding fathers letters many of their quotes were taken from the Bible, that the Bible was the most quoted book, that they were God fearing men.

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Skavau;1265367]

This statement is a disgrace. Why should people not of your faith be held accountable to it? The above is an absolute green light to totalitarianism. It is impossible now because of the well-battled importance of secularism.

For the common good, catholic values are good not only for catholics but also for atheists and agnostics.

Have you read the Treaty Of Tripoli? Can you tell me what beliefs Thomas Jefferson had? In fact, can you even name me anything in the Constitution that is wholly based on Biblical principles?

USA was built on enlightment, protestant and masonic fundaments. I dont know how for other but for me catholic, american stand for religion is an anarchy.

Why does this surprise you? It does not surprise me in the slightest. It is simply how what I will call 'divine bigotry' is not compatible in modern life

.

If modern life mean killing unborn children, killing ill born children (in Holland for example), killing old people by euthanasia, allowing the existence of paedophile political party (in Holland), men and women controlled by their sexual desires like animals, so I prefer to stay with my Medival values.

It absolutely is none of your business what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom. You are free to consider homosexuality reprehensible and choose your company in accordance with this. You are free to hold contempt for adultery and do likewise. You are not free to prohibit others on this basis.

Oh really, so what if I wanted to keep a slave, would it also be my own buisness? Why You want to force the abolition of slavery on me?
Like it or not, but christian, jewish and islamic values are fundaments of human rights.

Do you live in a Western secular state, might I inquire? You seem awfully contemptible about it if so. Can I ask where you might prefer to live?

Unfortunately I live in secular state, but with God's will not for long. We conservatives count time in centuries.
The ideal state is the social reign of Christ the King.

[Skavau]

For the common good, catholic values are good not only for catholics but also for atheists and agnostics.

Sorry, I don't want a part of it. Feel free to be sanctimonious about your values and their importance in your life. Don't tell me I have to observe them or recognise them. And kindly do not tell homosexuals that they have to change their lifestyle to accommodate this creed.

USA was built on enlightment, protestant and masonic fundaments. I dont know how for other but for me catholic, american stand for religion is an anarchy.

The Enlightenment was a wholly leaning secular revolution. America is a secular state. It does not stand for any religion and indeed that ought to remain.

If modern life mean killing unborn children, killing ill born children (in Holland for example), killing old people by euthanasia, allowing the existence of paedophile political party (in Holland), men and women controlled by their sexual desires like animals, so I prefer to stay with my Medival values.

Proudly marching back into the 19th century. That statement stands entirely true.

Irrespectively of assisted suicide, please do not smear the reasoning and held and invoked by those who 'advocate' it. Euthanasia proponents advocate it based on compassion and empathy for those who suffer from long drawn out terminal illnesses and a respect for their desire to end their life on their own terms, with as limited suffering as possible. The same is of abortion.

Who exactly is controlled by their sexual desires? And when has this ever been otherwise if argued so?

Oh really, so what if I wanted to keep a slave, would it also be my own buisness? Why You want to force the abolition of slavery on me?

Do you know nothing of human rights? Keeping a slave is the slave's business. You are intruding on another human being's freedom. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual intercourse or adultery where all participants are consensual. If you want to make your analogy work, then you would have to ask if there was a problem with you having a servant that consensually assists you for free? The answer in that instance indeed would be no.

Like it or not, but christian, jewish and islamic values are fundaments of human rights.

Give me some examples of human rights that can only be affirmed as a Jew, Muslim or a Christian.

Unfortunately I live in secular state, but with God's will not for long. We conservatives count time in centuries.
The ideal state is the social reign of Christ the King.

You believe that the population of nation-states have no specific right to anything and that some divine arbiter ought to reign supreme over all. This is fascism and one of a theocratic leaning. You believe that you, based on divine 'obligation' have the right to interfere in the personal lives of others and tell them that they must appreciate and observe your standards.

It is abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane. I suspect you would not appreciate living under Islamic rule yourself.

[GuestFellow]

The Enlightenment was a wholly leaning secular revolution. America is a secular state. It does not stand for any religion and indeed that ought to remain.

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

[Skavau]

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

Why not what?

I never said people were not allowed to express their views.

Irrespectively, I would probably react by making plans to leave the state immediately if it became religious in nature.

[جوري]

secularists own the words ''abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane''..

it isn't disgraceful, abhorrent and inhumane to sodomize and publicly advertise it seeking 'equal rights' equal rights for what exactly? does everyone put their debauched sexual venues in a day parade in front of children?

Disgusting!

this shouldn't even be a topic for conversation.. no one would know of your sexual escapades if you weren't advertising it to the world. And if you are advertising it then be prepared come what may!

[Skavau]

secularists own the words ''abhorrent, disgraceful and inhumane''..

Hello, long time no see..

Anyway, no Secularists don't. Anyone can use those words.

it isn't disgraceful, abhorrent and inhumane to sodomize and publicly advertise it seeking 'equal rights' equal rights for what exactly? does everyone put their debauched sexual venues in a day parade in front of children?

Disgusting!

What does this have to do with anything? Advertisement is byproduct of rampant commercialism.

this shouldn't even be a topic for conversation.. no one would know of your sexual escapades if you weren't advertising it to the world. And if you are advertising it then be prepared come what may!

We're not talking about 'advertising' anything concerning that.

[جوري]

Hello, long time no see..

Anyway, no Secularists don't. Anyone can use those words.

Ah, we can't make them into bread and butter the way you can!

What does this have to do with anything? Advertisement is byproduct of rampant commercialism.

It has everything to do with it. No one would know what you are doing in your boudoir, if you weren't expressing it in a lewd fashion every chance you get. Expressing sexual lewdness is unacceptable unless you are an animal and don't know any better. Laws are meant to safeguard all citizens not favor a few because they really can't help but get bent!

We're not talking about 'advertising' anything concerning that.

See previous paragraph, Again, no one would know you are a homo or a pederast or a necrophile etc. unless you were caught in the act in some form..


all the best

[Skavau]

Ah, we can't make them into bread and butter the way you can!

I think I'll take that as a compliment.

It has everything to do with it. No one would know what you are doing in your boudoir, if you weren't expressing it in a lewd fashion every chance you get. Expressing sexual lewdness is unacceptable unless you are an animal and don't know any better. Laws are meant to safeguard all citizens not favor a few because they really can't help but get bent!

See previous paragraph, Again, no one would know you are a homo or a pederast or a necrophile etc. unless you were caught in the act in some form..
all the best

Right... you're operating from the assumption that homosexuals ought to be expected to conceal their desires from all public life. Why? I know several people who are homosexual openly. Nice people.

And what does this have to do with the frankly revolting proposition that they ought to be terminated for it?

[GuestFellow]

Irrespectively, I would probably react by making plans to leave the state immediately if it became religious in nature.

Oh great. ;)

[جوري]

I think I'll take that as a compliment.

It really wasn't meant as one. It means you should find some other means to make a case for yourself than the use of vacuous words!

Right... you're operating from the assumption that homosexuals ought to be expected to conceal their desires from all public life. Why? I know several people who are homosexual openly. Nice people.

The why is already explained previous.
You don't want to be subject to all kinds of scrutiny, keep your getting bent out of public interest!

And what does this have to do with the frankly revolting proposition that they ought to be terminated for it?

It has everything to do with it, are you a concrete thinker?


all the best!

[Skavau]

It really wasn't meant as one. It means you should find some other means to make a case for yourself than the use of vacuous words!

I'll make my case as bombastically as I please and without your consent, thank you.

The why is already explained previous.
You don't want to be subject to all kinds of scrutiny, keep your getting bent out of public interest!

?

I have no idea what this means. No-one says that homosexuals have to be immune from criticism.

It has everything to do with it, are you a concrete thinker?

No I'm not.

Please tell me how the fact that homosexuals make their sexual preferences known somehow has everything to do with the proposition that they ought to be terminated for it.

[جوري]

I'll make my case as bombastically as I please and without your consent, thank you.

Then don't come asking if we are complimenting you or take anything you write with other than a grain of salt!

?

I have no idea what this means. No-one says that homosexuals have to be immune from criticism.

Oh good, well some criticism comes in the form of grievous punishment!

No I'm not.

I think you are.. twice a comment made flew completely over your head..

Please tell me how the fact that homosexuals make their sexual preferences known somehow has everything to do with the proposition that they ought to be terminated for it.

Acting on your sexual preferences in a public manner that is jarring to others should be punishable and such laws have always existed whether you protest it or not you may go ahead and read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law


all the best

[Supreme]

Gosamer, are you personally offended by homosexuality? Or are you defending your conservative views because your religion demands it?

[Skavau]

Then don't come asking if we are complimenting you or take anything you write with other than a grain of salt!

I didn't. You commented on my way with words.

Oh good, well some criticism comes in the form of grievous punishment!

This is a pretty sickening and snidey comment, to be honest. You know very well what I mean by criticism. This thread invites people to comment on Uganda's decision to referendum the legality of homosexuality. I very much stand against it as inhumane, bigoted and immoral (as do others). Other than making stupid cheap comments: what exactly is your position on this subject? Do you seriously believe Uganda is a hub of the San Francisco rainbow movement?

Acting on your sexual preferences in a public manner that is jarring to others should be punishable and such laws have always existed whether you protest it or not you may go ahead and read

What do you mean by a 'public manner'?

Moreover, I don't care how traditional it is to exterminate homosexuals.

[GuestFellow]

Gosamer, are you personally offended by homosexuality?

Why should people display their sexuality preferences in public? Whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, people should keep their their sexual life in private. Why do people feel the need to boast about their sexuality?

[جوري]

Gosamer, are you personally offended by homosexuality? Or are you defending your conservative views because your religion demands it?

Any sexual act outside the bounds prescribed by religion is offensive, it doesn't have to be in a personal fashion, it can be in fashions your mind can't conceive (I am not sure why) for instance the amount of money spent on health-care that goes to promiscuous teenagers for very preventable STD's or abortions etc that comes out of tax payers pocket. Or at some point the 'gay men health crisis' which by the way continues on various other levels than simply AIDS.. they do have the highest rate of Anal cancer, and Kaposi's sarcoma is almost exclusive to gay men.
Try to think of a world outside of your immediate interest and what your mind wrap around.. you don't need defined terms and how to circumvent around them to understand why God would proscribe a particular act!

all the best

[Skavau]

Why should people display their sexuality preferences in public? Whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, people should keep their their sexual life in private. Why do people feel the need to boast about their sexuality?

I think you have a misapprehension here. Let us take someone who is a homosexual. Do you think that they should have to or feel compelled to conceal their preferences to those around them? What if they are asked?

There is a lot of blank space as to what is considered 'boasting' or taking your sexual preferences into the public sphere amongst Muslims.

[جوري]

I didn't. You commented on my way with words.

They come up empty, I think it is imperative to highlight that!

This is a pretty sickening and snidey comment, to be honest. You know very well what I mean by criticism. This thread invites people to comment on Uganda's decision to referendum the legality of homosexuality. I very much stand against it as inhumane, bigoted and immoral (as do others). Other than making stupid cheap comments: what exactly is your position on this subject? Do you seriously believe Uganda is a hub of the San Francisco rainbow movement?

sickening
snide
inhumane
bigoted
cheap

again, I can do without the fillers, I believe I have covered my stance on the topic in various posts here including the last one. There is really no room for you to infiltrate and cause me to all of a sudden see the error in my views, when clearly yours are the ones askew!

What do you mean by a 'public manner'?

That was difficult for you to understand?

Moreover, I don't care how traditional it is to exterminate homosexuals.

Good for you!
then I hope you recognize that it is your own views that are outlandish, and not the other way around!

all the best

[GuestFellow]

I think you have a misapprehension here. Let us take someone who is a homosexual. Do you think that they should have to or feel compelled to conceal their preferences to those around them? What if they are asked?

I assume if they were questioned, it would be none of my business, that conversation would be private. I'm referring to gay pride marches where homosexuals behave in a promiscuous manner.

[Skavau]

That was difficult for you to understand?

Yes! Many Muslims like to say about many issues that everything is permissible in an Islamic society providing that it is not public. Indeed some Muslims proclaim that merely announcing such activities as engagement in the public arena, whereas others refer to boasting publicly.

If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

then I hope you recognize that it is your own views that are outlandish, and not the other way around!

Not anymore.

The primarily significant groups that would disagree with me would be Muslims and Christians, and particularly in the case of Christianity not all of them.

[Skavau]

I assume if they were questioned, it would be none of my business, that conversation would be private. I'm referring to gay pride marches where homosexuals behave in a promiscuous manner.

Gay Pride marches exist for two reasons.

1. Oppression towards homosexuals. If there was no oppression and bigotry towards homosexuals, then these events would likely be very rare indeed. There would be a diminished need for them.

2. Minority status. Many minority groups hold identity parades simply to let others know that they exist, or appreciate their existence.

[جوري]

Yes! Many Muslims like to say about many issues that everything is permissible in an Islamic society providing that it is not public. Indeed some Muslims proclaim that merely announcing such activities as engagement in the public arena, whereas others refer to boasting publicly.

If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

You need witnesses to an act for it to be a crime!

Not anymore.

Says you!

The primarily significant groups that would disagree with me would be Muslims and Christians, and particularly in the case of Christianity not all of them.

Yes, and one group makes up 1.86 billion, while the other 2 billions, I assure you Jews frown upon it too and I am almost certain that Hindus (the other quite large group) isn't particularly allowing either.. so you are actually looking at homos themselves and lawless secularists who want to push an agenda to no end, until folks are copulating like donkeys on the street while using every hilarious term under the sun to describe how the rest of the people are in error!


all the best

[GuestFellow]

If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

No. If they're is promoting his sexual desires, then that would be considered inappropriate. Witnesses are to be needed to.

Gay Pride marches exist for two reasons.

1. Oppression towards homosexuals. If there was no oppression and bigotry towards homosexuals, then these events would likely be very rare indeed. There would be a diminished need for them.

2. Minority status. Many minority groups hold identity parades simply to let others know that they exist, or appreciate their existence.

That is not the impression I'm getting though, sexuality is a very personal matter. It just seems like an opportunity to promote promiscuity in public.

[Supreme]

Why should people display their sexuality preferences in public? Whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, people should keep their their sexual life in private. Why do people feel the need to boast about their sexuality?

Why shouldn't they feel proud about their sexuality? The opposite of pride is shame; it is against my better understanding to understand why anybody would be ashamed of their hetero/homosexuality. Let me use myself as an example. It is no secret to the people I know that I am attracted to black women, contrary to myself being white. I don't 'boast' about (although it's actually rather obvious), but I certainly don't go out my way to hide it. Also, why are you bringing one's sexual life into it? Sexuality and sexual life aren't the same- just because you see a man and a woman together, it doesn't mean that they're not keeping their sexual life private.

Any sexual act outside the bounds prescribed by religion is offensive, it doesn't have to be in a personal fashion, it can be in fashions your mind can't conceive (I am not sure why) for instance the amount of money spent on health-care that goes to promiscuous teenagers for very preventable STD's or abortions etc that comes out of tax payers pocket. Or at some point the 'gay men health crisis' which by the way continues on various other levels than simply AIDS.. they do have the highest rate of Anal cancer, and Kaposi's sarcoma is almost exclusive to gay men.

So gay men have the highest rates of anal cancer, why do you care so much? Surely less gays that might offend you in the future.

[Skavau]

You need witnesses to an act for it to be a crime!

That's not what I asked.

I asked: If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

Yes, and one group makes up 1.86 billion, while the other 2 billions, I assure you Jews frown upon it too and I am almost certain that Hindus (the other quite large group) isn't particularly allowing either.. so you are actually looking at homos themselves and lawless secularists who want to push an agenda to no end, until folks are copulating like donkeys on the street while using every hilarious term under the sun to describe how the rest of the people are in error!

I am sure that most Muslims frown on homosexuality. I am sure that many Christians and Jews also frown on it, as well as Hindus.

However far less of these groups actually believe homosexuality ought to be punishable by death. You forget about the large numbers of cultural muslims and cultural Christians that live in the western world. You forget about the fact that in many European nations, irreligion is by many statistics considered the majority position. I guess I should qualify my claims by stating that most people in secular nations believe there is no legal issue with homosexuality and that it ought not be punishable.

[GuestFellow]

Why shouldn't they feel proud about their sexuality?

Ah is it not liberals who claim people have no control over their sexuality? Last time I checked, I heard people say homosexuals are born like that, they had no control over it. So why be proud of something when you have no control over it? I assume your referring to acceptance, not pride.

Let me use myself as an example. It is no secret to the people I know that I am attracted to black women, contrary to myself being white. I don't 'boast' about (although it's actually rather obvious), but I certainly don't go out my way to hide it. Also, why are you bringing one's sexual life into it? Sexuality and sexual life aren't the same- just because you see a man and a woman together, it doesn't mean that they're not keeping their sexual life private.

Indeed, sexual like and sexuality are not the same. When people begin to act upon their sexual desires in public (e.g kissing), then I personally consider it to be inappropriate.

[جوري]

That's not what I asked.

I asked: If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

I don't care for what you asked, this isn't a matter left to personal judgment, cases of execution are taken to court with folks deliberating over facts! For facts you need witnesses. I really can't be bothered to take a joy ride into the atheist agenda and their endless psychobabble!
There is the law, and then there is your personal opinion. Everyone has an opinion, if we are talking about a matter of said seriousness, then what I have written above is sufficient!

I am sure that most Muslims frown on homosexuality. I am sure that many Christians and Jews also frown on it, as well as Hindus.

Good!

However far less of these groups actually believe homosexuality ought to be punishable by death. You forget about the large numbers of cultural muslims and cultural Christians that live in the western world. You forget about the fact that in many European nations, irreligion is by many statistics considered the majority position. I guess I should qualify my claims by stating that most people in secular nations believe there is no legal issue with homosexuality and that it ought not be punishable.

Matters of punishment are left to courts not to public opinion as stated previously!

all the best

[Skavau]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

[Supreme]

Ah is it not liberals who claim people have no control over their sexuality? Last time I checked, I heard people say homosexuals are born like that, they had no control over it. So why be proud of something when you have no control over it? I assume your referring to acceptance, not pride.

People have no control over their intelligence, looks, race, nationality and gender, and yet people still are proud of these things too. The point is, people are proud of who they are, sometimes moreso than what they've done or achieved.

Indeed, sexual like and sexuality are not the same. When people begin to act upon their sexual desires in public (e.g kissing), then I personally consider it to be inappropriate.

And this is where we differ. Kissing is an act of love. Love is a good thing, if not the greatest thing according to Paul. It is not an act of sex. Sex generally involves the genitals. Kissing involves the lips. Sure, kissing is a sign of affection, but if people showed more affection and love to one another, there would be far less wars in the world. I also believe people should be able to do what they like in public, so long as it does not harm anyone or offend the majority. I believe individuals should be able to do what they like within the law.

[جوري]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

That is fantastic as to why you hadn't arrived to that conclusion earlier is fully beyond me..

good day to you!

[GuestFellow]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

Well I'll clarify. In an Islamic State, what people do in their private lives is none of judiciary business; they will be dealt with by Allah. Now if someone questioned another individual about their sexuality, of course they will not be punished. In order for the death penalty to be carried out, you would require 4 witness.

People have no control over their intelligence, looks, race, nationality and gender, and yet people still are proud of these things too. The point is, people are proud of who they are, sometimes moreso than what they've done or achieved.

People do have a control over their intelligence, by studying and educating yourself, you can become more intelligent.

Pride itself can be a problem where once it is excessive, one can assume they are superior than the other. This can be applied to race, nationality, gender and the colour of your skin. What your referring to is acceptance, no one has control over these factors, so I feel there is not need to announce how proud you are. It is acceptance, not pride. Being proud of such factors goes to show, you seeking something to be proud of since you have not achieved anything or seeking to feel superior than other based on factors you have no control over.

[Uthman]

I must clarify something that I don't think has been made crystal clear on this thread. The Islamic state does not have a problem with homosexual feelings. However, it does have a problem with homosexual acts.

[Skavau]

I must clarify something that I don't think has been made crystal clear on this thread. The Islamic state does not have a problem with homosexual feelings. However, it does have a problem with homosexual acts.

Yes this is often specified, and I should like to add something based on this. It is often claimed that the Islamic state (it is with both homosexuality and apostasy) that both are wholly acceptable as long as they are private, or in other words as long as no-one finds out. This is an apologetic response to criticisms of Islamic Law I have seen on many occasions and I believe it is flawed because it doesn't really justify it. The UK government could go ahead and appease would-be murderers and say, "Well murdering is now legal providing you don't get caught." It is identical to saying that it is legal. How does it make sense to encourage crime like that?

Something is illegal if it is outlawed. Both homosexuality and apostasy appear to be, by the voice of most muslims and apologists - under Islamic Law, forbidden - therefore illegal. Encouraging critics of this that "well, just don't tell anyone" is encouraging hypocrisy and still a concession that it is illegal.

Apologies for bringing the thread slightly off-track.

[جوري]

There is no apologetic response for Homosexuality it is never legal, it isn't condoned and shouldn't be, however if you are dumb enough to commit a sin don't be caught or suffer the consequences come what may!

having homosexual feelings, or getting the urge to kill your mother or kick someone's a$$ all fall within the confines of normal, acting upon them isn't.. and acting upon them in a foolish fashion can only get you your just desert!

if you don't get justice in this life, then there is assuredly divine justice from which there is no escape!

all the best

[titus]

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

Negatively I am sure. After all, in any religious state you automatically create a class system based on religion. Followers of the state religion are first class citizens, all others are, at minimum, second class. At this point you now have tyranny.

I don't know of any examples of religious states in which those that were not the main religion were not eventually persecuted and driven out.

[GuestFellow]

Negatively I am sure. After all, in any religious state you automatically create a class system based on religion. Followers of the state religion are first class citizens, all others are, at minimum, second class. At this point you now have tyranny.

I don't know of any examples of religious states in which those that were not the main religion were not eventually persecuted and driven out.

I doubt you have knowledge upon the political structure that Islam offers. Most religions do not have a political or economic structure.

In Western countries through democracy the majority imposes upon the minority, a possibility that could take place. Looking at the state of western countries and living in one, I personally can't wait to leave.

[Skavau]

In Western countries through democracy the majority imposes upon the minority, a possibility that could take place. Looking at the state of western countries and living in one, I personally can't wait to leave.

?

Huh? You realise democracy is all about preventing the power of mob rule from imposing itself on others? You realise democracy is all about empowering people to be free from tyranny? This is very true in the independence of America if you want a good example.

[Grofica]

We're not talking about a Muslim society, we're talking about a Christian one, because Uganda is a Christian country. Therefore I am ashamed such laws are being considered by my fellow Christians. I suppose 'thou shalt not kill' bears no weight in Uganda.

First off from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary for an accurate reference:

The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, or "sin of Sodom."
Copulation with a member of the same gender or with an animal.

Non-coital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the same gender.

Old testimate:

Genesis 1-2 says the male was incomplete without the female: "It was not good for man to be alone." The woman was created to be a suitable companion for the man.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. " (Leviticus 18:22-23)

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " (Leviticus 20:13)

new testimate:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:26-28)

Referance wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

The association of the ancient city of Sodom with sexual depravity is of biblical origin. In the Book of Genesis (chapters 18-20), the Lord perceives Sodom and Gomorrah as places of grave sinfulness and seeks to discover whether this perception is really true before He destroys the inhabitants. Two angels (who have the appearance of humans) are sent to find out the reality of life in Sodom. After arriving in the city in the evening, the angels are invited - then urged strongly - by Lot (an upright man) to take refuge with his family for the night.

The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may "know them," which has been interpreted either to mean "interrogate" or "to engage in sexual intercourse." Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.

Sodom is subsequently destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire. From this biblical narrative, the word 'Sodomy' is derived.

In current usage, the term is particularly used in law.[2] Sodomy laws prohibiting such s*xual activity have been a standard feature of codes of s*xual morality in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilisations (see below) as well as many other cultures[citation needed]. In the various criminal codes of United States of America, the term "sodomy" has generally been replaced by "Deviant s*xual intercourse", which is precisely defined by statute.[3]

[GuestFellow]

?
Huh? You realise democracy is all about preventing the power of mob rule from imposing itself on others? You realise democracy is all about empowering people to be free from tyranny? This is very true in the independence of America if you want a good example.

Democracy can be used to elect a fascist government? People vote for political parties, the majority imposes on the minority though to be fair, minorities rights can be represented, however democracy does not ensure peace. Bad people can be elected through democracy.

Have you heard of the USA Patriot Act? I guess not, if you assume America is a good example. People in the West only think they free, they cannot even challenge their own government. British people could not stop the government from going to war with Iraq nor could the Americans stop their own government. The government in the West does what it pleases and gets away with it, the public cannot do anything since they believe they are ''free.'' The public are free to indulge in sexual activities, get drunk and degrade themselves. When it comes down to challenging the government, their voices are not heard. If you believe your ''free'' then your definitely are in your own world. The only thing your free to do is embarrass yourself.

[Pygoscelis]

Why should people display their sexuality preferences in public? Whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, people should keep their their sexual life in private. Why do people feel the need to boast about their sexuality?

Backlash. Homosexuals didn't make homosexuality a big deal, they just run with the idea. When people declare you as "evil" and deserving of death, you'd probably want to find a way to speak out and tell the world you're not ashamed too. I don't find this at all surprising or unusual.

For centuries they have been told to be ashamed of being gay. Gay Pride is the opposite of Gay Shame, so naturally the pendulum swings in the other direction, sometimes too far. The same happens with "Black Pride" and those crazy aggressive feminists (as opposed to egalitarians). So long as there are people declaring that homosexuality is evil and that homosexuals should be KILLED for it... a little parade really isn't comparatively as bad though. As homosexuality becomes more commonly accepted, as inter racial marriage has been, I think you'll see a decline in gay pride. It'll be no big deal.

[Skavau]

Democracy can be used to elect a fascist government? People vote for political parties, the majority imposes on the minority though to be fair, minorities rights can be represented, however democracy does not ensure peace. Bad people can be elected through democracy.

Democracies indeed can malform into anything. But we are talking about the intended objectives of democracy. I don't even know what you mean when you claimed that minorities are being imposed upon by the majority. Do you mean it is a passive consequence of decisions through referendum, or petition or do you mean governments in these democracies deliberately choose to stomp over the rights of the minority? It is interesting how you show a contradiction in thought. On one hand you complain that democracy is mob rule and about the imposition on the minority, and yet on the other hand you point out (as you do below) the fact that these are representative democracies (not direct) and that people have much less power than you claimed.

Which is it?

Have you heard of the USA Patriot Act? I guess not, if you assume America is a good example. People in the West only think they free, they cannot even challenge their own government.

I have heard of the patriot act, and I am not referring to that. Go and look up about the forefathers of the US State and what they intended, and why they intended. I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.

Also, what do you mean by cannot even challenge their own government?

British people could not stop the government from going to war with Iraq nor could the Americans stop their own government. The government in the West does what it pleases and gets away with it, the public cannot do anything since they believe they are ''free.'' The public are free to indulge in sexual activities, get drunk and degrade themselves. When it comes down to challenging the government, their voices are not heard. If you believe your ''free'' then your definitely are in your own world. The only thing your free to do is embarrass yourself.

You would do well to understand that apathy is the root cause of government freedom, both in the USA and in the Uk. Many incidents where there has been a backlash, there has been capitulation.

[جوري]

I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.
.

That was very well illustrated by slavery as a legal institution!

[GuestFellow]

Democracies indeed can malform into anything. But we are talking about the intended objectives of democracy.

Well lets define democracy.

1. representation of people: the right to a form of government in which power is invested in the people as a whole, usually exercised on their behalf by elected representatives

2. democratic nation: a country with a democratically elected government

3. democratic system of government: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making

4. control of organization by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a right to participate in decision-making processes

The public are meant to be in power. Define what you mean by intended objectives.

I don't even know what you mean when you claimed that minorities are being imposed upon by the majority.

It is a possibility.

Do you mean it is a passive consequence of decisions through referendum, or petition or do you mean governments in these democracies deliberately choose to stomp over the rights of the minority?

Both can take place. The public may vote to pass a legislation to scrutinize a minority or decide to vote for a political party who will themselves pass laws to favour the majority and not represent the rights of a minorities. These are possibilities.

It is interesting how you show a contradiction in thought. On one hand you complain that democracy is mob rule and about the imposition on the minority, and yet on the other hand you point out (as you do below) the fact that these are representative democracies (not direct) and that people have much less power than you claimed.

Which is it?

You failed to realise both can occur. There is a possibility of both occurring in any democratic society.

I have heard of the patriot act, and I am not referring to that.

Well I'm referring to that. That is the case where people believe they are free when these legislations are passed without even realising their freedoms and privacy is affected.

Go and look up about the forefathers of the US State and what they intended, and why they intended.

I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.

I'm aware of the principles, I'm exploring the possibilities that can take place in a democratic society.

Also, what do you mean by cannot even challenge their own government?

You can protest, complain and critique the government. It does not mean these complaints shall be addressed. I gave an example of the Iraq war.

You would do well to understand that apathy is the root cause of government freedom, both in the USA and in the Uk. Many incidents where there has been a backlash, there has been capitulation.

Democracy ensures the public decide which political party is in power. Democracy through freedom of expression ensures everyone has equal say in matters, however this is not the case at times.

As an overview, I'm stating the principles of democracy cannot be enforced all the time. As society changes so does the law to reflect this, it does not provide certainty. There is a possibility of the majority imposing upon the minority by electing a political party to pass laws to achieve this. People think they are ''free'' in democratic society when they are not, example of the Patriot Act and there is difficulty challenging the government, most people are not aware what laws are passed. You can also elect a incompetent individual to govern a country. These are the problems with democracy I stated above, these factors can become a reality.

[greenshirt]

6 pages of debating and arguing! wow!

firstly i dont think the USA was founded upon christian values. thomas jefferson was certainly not a christian by our definition. in fact, he seems to have been a unitarian. also, many founding fathers were profoundly inspired by the writings of john locke, a deist. also anyone who studies the reasons why the first european settlers came to america, it was because they wanted to practice their religion freely, without persecution. america to this day continues to be a secular nation. i feel much more comfortable about the fact that i am in the USA than in europe, because in europe muslims arent as integrated as here. also, we can have mosques here with big minarets. no one is voting to ban minarets. no one is working to close down islamic schools. we have freedom to worship here and even if people dont like us because we are muslim, they arent going to express it publicly.

secondly i see that there is debating going on concerning whether or not homosexuality is acceptable or not.

in islam we value privacy. we are not allowed to invade privacy and we are not supposed to speculate what goes on behind closed doors, even if we have a feeling it is something sinful. if gays want to commit intercourse in closed doors, then that is their business and i have no reason to condemn them for something if i dont know. i think islams perspective on privacy is a lot like "dont ask, dont tell."

when homosexuality becomes a problem is when people come out and tell the whole world what they are doing. in fact, this is a problem when anyone shares their sex life, even if they are married. intercourse is purely a private matter and the whole world doesnt need to know your private business. and when shared, sin is being committed. in islam we dont want people to share the fact that they sin, because this can cause mischief.

homosexual acts are sinful in islam, no doubt. but in this world, in a true islamic society, if you were gay but didnt flaunt it or tell others, we would be obligated to leave you alone and let you do what you wish in your privacy. we would only see a problem if you did these things in public. otherwise, we would let allah(swt) deal with you, not us. in islam, punishing someone for a sexual sin(whether it be fornication, adultery, or sodomy) is really hard. there must be at least 4 witnesses and they shouldnt invade your privacy.there was a time when uthman ibn affan saw someone getting drunk and engaging with prostitutes: two very sinful acts in islam. however the sinner was on his own property behind closed doors so he couldnt do anything about it.

so if it is so hard to prosecute homosexuals why do we have these laws in the first place? as a deterrent. it may be hard to be put to death but it could still happen so we hope that people will think twice before engaging in sin.

and also keep in note that it's not homosexual desires that are sinful, it is the acts.

[mkh4JC]

6 pages of debating and arguing! wow!

firstly i dont think the USA was founded upon christian values. thomas jefferson was certainly not a christian by our definition. in fact, he seems to have been a unitarian. also, many founding fathers were profoundly inspired by the writings of john locke, a deist. also anyone who studies the reasons why the first european settlers came to america, it was because they wanted to practice their religion freely, without persecution. america to this day continues to be a secular nation.

No. America is historically built on Biblical principles. As I said earlier, most of the letters of the founding fathers have Biblical quotes. The Bible is the most quoted book by all of the founding fathers. The Bible was taught in schools up until sometime near World War II. Prayer used to be practiced in schools. When you go to court to testify, you have to swear on a Bible. The Ten Commandments used to be displayed in courthouses.

These are things historically that have taken place in our nation that cannot be denied. What is happening is, the secular humanists have been systematically distorting America's history, through textbooks and whatnot, and in our educational institutions. So revisionist history has been taking place, on a grand scale, here in America.

[Pygoscelis]

It was during the red scare that the US became ultra christian, put "in god we trust" on the money and "under god" in the pledge, etc.

But even if the US had been founded as a christian theocracy, that'd have no bearing on how good an idea theocracy is. The US was also founded on male chauvenism and slavery. Countries improve. Why would anybody want to stay stuck in the past?

[mkh4JC]

It was during the red scare that the US became ultra christian, put "in god we trust" on the money and "under god" in the pledge, etc.

But even if the US had been founded as a christian theocracy, that'd have no bearing on how good an idea theocracy is. The US was also founded on male chauvenism and slavery. Countries improve. Why would anybody want to stay stuck in the past?

Well, I didn't say that the U.S. was a theocracy. The only theocracy established in the Bible was when Israel came into being, when God ruled them directly.

But the US was built on Biblical principles. The Founders were Christians, they had a great understanding of the Bible, and they applied things like God's parameters for government in the Constitution.

[KAding]

The Founders were Christians, they had a great understanding of the Bible, and they applied things like God's parameters for government in the Constitution.

Interesting. What kind of 'parameters' did you have in mind?

I ask, because it is always quite unclear to me how (orthodox) Christianity approaches government. To what extend do Christians want man to judge over man? Islam seems quite clear in its intention to legislate morality. Among Christians this seems a more contentious issue?

[Skavau]

Well, I didn't say that the U.S. was a theocracy. The only theocracy established in the Bible was when Israel came into being, when God ruled them directly.

But the US was built on Biblical principles. The Founders were Christians, they had a great understanding of the Bible, and they applied things like God's parameters for government in the Constitution.

Show me what biblical principles are in the Constititution please.

Irrespectively, Guestfellow I will get to responding to your reply asap (when I can be bothered).

[mkh4JC]

Interesting. What kind of 'parameters' did you have in mind?

I ask, because it is always quite unclear to me how (orthodox) Christianity approaches government. To what extend do Christians want man to judge over man? Islam seems quite clear in its intention to legislate morality. Among Christians this seems a more contentious issue?

Show me what biblical principles are in the Constititution please.

Irrespectively, Guestfellow I will get to responding to your reply asap (when I can be bothered).

Well, go here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/ I saw on Christian television over Thanksgiving a gentlemen from this site who was presenting a lecture on how America is built on Christian principles. I've already shown how that historically you can see this (you have to swear on the Bible to testify in court, prayer was practiced in schools until about World War II, the Bible was taught in schools, the Ten Commandments were placed in courthouses and whatnot, etc, etc).

[Skavau]

Well, go here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/ I saw on Christian television over Thanksgiving a gentlemen from this site who was presenting a lecture on how America is built on Christian principles. I've already shown how that historically you can see this (you have to swear on the Bible to testify in court, prayer was practiced in schools until about World War II, the Bible was taught in schools, the Ten Commandments were placed in courthouses and whatnot, etc, etc).

Ugh. Sorry, I've been given hundreds of links to hundreds of videos. I have no interest in watching yet more videos.

Firstly, one error you've made is that you have to testify in court on a bible. No you don't. You can choose what to testify on.

Moreover, I do not dismiss the USA's tradition of Christianity. I dispute the claim that it was founded as a Christian leaning state with its principles based on the ten commandments.

[GuestFellow]

Irrespectively, Guestfellow I will get to responding to your reply asap (when I can be bothered).

No need to, I'm no longer interested though you can reply if you want.

[mkh4JC]

Ugh. Sorry, I've been given hundreds of links to hundreds of videos. I have no interest in watching yet more videos.

Firstly, one error you've made is that you have to testify in court on a bible. No you don't. You can choose what to testify on.

I don't think it was always like that though. It used to be whereby you had to. That was added later. And that's goes along with the point I was trying to make about the secular humanists.

[Pygoscelis]

The thing about the bibles in courts is true-ish. It used to be that anybody who believed in God could testify in court (and would be allowed to swear on their holy book, but they only had bibles in the courts so most people, christian or not, swore on that).

Atheists were banned from giving testimony as it was thought that since they don't fear divine retribution they couldn't be trusted to tell the truth.

The US has come a long way since these days of bigotry. They got rid of slavery too and gave women the right to vote :shade:

Whenever somebody brings up the "The USA was founded on Christian principles" line, I'm of course tempted to correct them by quoting all the founding fathers who spoke against Christianity (there are many such quotes). But then it occurs to me that this is a pointless exercise, for even if the country was formed on christian principles, that doesn't mean it should retain them or that they are in any way good for the country. Which is why I mention the country also being based on male chauvenism and slavery, two principles the country thankfully abandoned.

Oh and the old Christian society had some other strange legal ideas. So to Christians who judge Sharia law for being barbaric, I have to point out some things Christian theocracy came up with in its time in the spotlight. Both are called judicium Dei (God's judgment):

-- Trial by ordeal, where witches and other's suspected of demon infestation were drowned to see if they died or not. If they lived they were possessed or a witch. If they died they were not and were sent to God, so it was ok to have killed them. Literaly a no win situation.

-- Trial by combat, where two people having a dispute would fight to the death and whoever won was right because God favored them in the fight. These people could hire champions to fight in their place and these champions are basically the first trial lawyers. A descendant of this, the honorable duel, remained legal until far more recent than you may think.

[Amadeus85]

Interesting. What kind of 'parameters' did you have in mind?

I ask, because it is always quite unclear to me how (orthodox) Christianity approaches government. To what extend do Christians want man to judge over man? Islam seems quite clear in its intention to legislate morality. Among Christians this seems a more contentious issue?

The fact is that the whole christian world has now post protestant, mainly anglo-saxon political system, which is liberal, secular democracy. The catholic and orthodox tradition is monarchy was defeated.

The secular-republican system began to break in catholic world since the 1848-49 revolution. In the second half of XIX century the catholic counter revolution for re-establishing the blessed by God christian traditional monarchy was defeated. Mostly with jewish money, masonic connections and protestant ideology.

The masonic french president and protestant american president eliminated the last catholic monarchy in Europe, Austria-Hungary in 1918.

The civil war (1939-1945) between three ideological children of Enlightment, communism, national socialism and anglo-saxon democracy tore down traditional christian Europe into pieces.

So now, even catholic and orthodox countries have anglo-saxon systems of state, although that our tarditions are completely different.

[Amadeus85]

The thing about the bibles in courts is true-ish. It used to be that anybody who believed in God could testify in court (and would be allowed to swear on their holy book, but they only had bibles in the courts so most people, christian or not, swore on that).

Atheists were banned from giving testimony as it was thought that since they don't fear divine retribution they couldn't be trusted to tell the truth.

The US has come a long way since these days of bigotry. They got rid of slavery too and gave women the right to vote :shade:

Whenever somebody brings up the "The USA was founded on Christian principles" line, I'm of course tempted to correct them by quoting all the founding fathers who spoke against Christianity (there are many such quotes). But then it occurs to me that this is a pointless exercise, for even if the country was formed on christian principles, that doesn't mean it should retain them or that they are in any way good for the country. Which is why I mention the country also being based on male chauvenism and slavery, two principles the country thankfully abandoned.

Oh and the old Christian society had some other strange legal ideas. So to Christians who judge Sharia law for being barbaric, I have to point out some things Christian theocracy came up with in its time in the spotlight. Both are called judicium Dei (God's judgment):

-- Trial by ordeal, where witches and other's suspected of demon infestation were drowned to see if they died or not. If they lived they were possessed or a witch. If they died they were not and were sent to God, so it was ok to have killed them. Literaly a no win situation.

-- Trial by combat, where two people having a dispute would fight to the death and whoever won was right because God favored them in the fight. These people could hire champions to fight in their place and these champions are basically the first trial lawyers. A descendant of this, the honorable duel, remained legal until far more recent than you may think.

For a catholic, american system was always a mistake, no matter five years ago or 200 tears ago. In traditional catholic system, only God is the source of law, while the american forefathers, as protestants and/or masons built the american constitution on the heretical assumption that the source of the law can be human mind, which as we know often fails. Also the division between church and state is heretical and comes from the masonic thought. In catholic meaning, the Church and state are two different bodies but they co-operate, to work in common good, the salvation of the citizens.

So the political and religious system of USA isn't treated by catholics as christian system, even 200 years ago.

To understand better what's real christian system was, you can read the sentence about Spain from its Golden Age (Siglo de Oro) -

"...The essence of the Hispanidad is to make the faith the fundament of every aspect of life - individual life of soul and group life of the community. Spanish national-religious integralism is the unconditional submission of current life to transcendental eternity. A Spaniard with castyllian soul is someone who fights for Heavens just like others fights for markets and money. This spiritual direction shows itself in every sphere of expression of Hispanidad - in the transcendental politics of spanish kings, in the architecture of enormous cathedrals, in emotional religious paintings, in poetry and theater of Siglo de Oro, in the connection of exaltation with military order of jezuit monastery, and of course in the numbers of mystics of Siglo de Oro. The spanish archbishop from the times of the national Cruzada (1936-1939), cardinal Isidro Goma, said in one of his homilias - " To be a Spaniard is to be a catholic. In Spain you are a catholic or no one."
Las Espanas, Monarquia Espanica, the Empire of God, which consists of - one Monarchy, one Empire, and one Sword, given to the king, whom Christ gave His banner to re-establish Universitas Cristiana."

"Only with the unity of faith, the nation can live with its own life, aware of the power which gives like-mindedness (...) Without one and the only God, without the same altar, without same martyrs, what great and powerful will nation have? (...) Happy is that age, the time of our glory and miracolous hapennings, the time of youth and vigorous life. The Spain conquering for the light of Evangelion the half of the Globe! The Spain the represser of heretics! The light of the Trident, the sword of Rome, the cradle of St. Ignatius! This is our greatness and our unity - we don't have other! "

Compare those transcendental system of reigns with system of early United States of America. You will see the difference.