format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
'Back a few steps' to where? Why not actually respond to what I said? MY point about the distinction was quite clear and has nothing to do with what is illegal where. Please read it again. If you don't understand, just ask.
Here's what you wrote as you were arguing that it is acceptable that US embassy held events to supports homosexuality:
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Not that 'promoting' equality is a bad thing, of course, and I'm sure gay people in Pakistan can do with any help and support they can muster in the face of the usual homophobia presented as religion.
.
Indicating support for people's rights to follow the lifestyle of their choice without persecution does not account to 'promoting' or favouring that lifestyle;
You also questioned:
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
So why 'outrage'? Why any problem at all?
And as I have already explained, in Pakistan, homosexual acts are a crime, and hence not ok for anyone, let alone foreign countries to give their support for a crime, regardless whether homosexual act should not be made a crime. and hence the analogy to answer your question
So why 'outrage'? Why any problem at all?
And what you think as "promoting equality", in the eyes of muslim it is "promoting crime", and it is a bad thing.
What the homosexuals do privately are their own business, but as soon as they advertise their identities, and hence made their crimes public, it comes into the sphere of law. Same thing goes with thieves.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Of course I disagree.. so what the heck was the point of the last paragraph?
Which last paragraph?
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
No, I can't for reasons I am getting sick of having to repeat.
You contended that it is ok to publicly give support to homosexuals in Pakistan and you couldn't understand why it is not ok, and I gave the analogy to make you understand.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Did I ever claim it wasn't? Again, you are arguing against a position other than mine; I have already agreed with you that that is hypocritical. If you don't understand what the word 'normative' means, please go look it up. The principle is not 'arbitrary', it is absolute. Practice, as always, is rather different. See below.
The principle that the west use is arbitrary, as they regard homosexuals deserve to have freedom to choose, but not other groups such as those who practice polygamy relationships. If it were only a matter of practice, we would have some variations of legality of polygamy practices among those western countries. It's not just the practices, it's the LAW of those nation, which is the highest principles of the land.
Also, my example of polygamy has disproved your notion that :
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
In their defence, it is on that principal that the country was founded in the first place, so you can hardly accuse the Americans of inconsistency.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
As far as I am aware I haven't. Surely the distinction between principle and practice is equally clear though, if not more so - just because things are 'crimes in Islam' doesn't prevent many muslims from doing them on occasion!
Yep, I agree that many muslims do acts considered crimes in Islam, but The LAW in Islam does not vary and change at will or arbitrary as the source does not change.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Yet again, I have made the distinction clear previously, so if it still 'seems' that way to you there's no a lot I can do. If you seriously wish to contend that incest does not damage family relationships, feel free to produce your evidence. It is, on the other hand, no problem whatsoever to demonstrate that in regard of homosexuality as no family relationship is involved. Unless, of course, it is one that would not have occurred had those involved not been forced to repress their sexuality in the first place
actually, the burden is on you to prove that incest damage family relationships.
From normative position, incest is not damaging and should be afforded with the same right as the people who practice incestuous relationships do not "infringe on other people's rights", which is your argument for supporting homosexuality.
I wished you don't keep shifting your argument though.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Undoubtedly, if the diagnoses were compared on a like by like basis.
undoubtedly? Please give your evidence.
if there is no evidence or study, then it's all hogwash. I thought as an atheist you would be disgusted with any idea without material evidence?
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Let me ask you a question for a change. Imagine that, due to social convention you, a heterosexual, are forced into 'marriage' and an extended sexual relationship with another man. Would you consider yourself at increased risk of psychological illness or no?
There is no proof or evidence that homosexual is genetic, and there is all evidence that people were born heterosexual, so that is the normative position.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Living in the West I have never encountered any 'promotion' of gay lifestyles, or 'gay education', whatever that is. What has appeared in those years is acceptance and tolerance. That does not equate to 'promoting'.
What city do you live in? If you happen to live in London, you'll all those pride parades where the homosexuals promoting their sexual lifestyles, in all kinds of forms and lewdness for all the world to see. I would think as a buddhist, this should be against the teaching of Buddha, no?
Also, children education books now should include gay characters etc. You may not see all those as "promotion", because people in the west have been numb.
Interestingly, the natural population growth in all western countries has been in constant decline since the sexual revolution.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
True, mathematically, although I really can't see the relevance of this particular bit of nit-picking. Let's just say it's still increasing very fast - or at least I would call something like a 50% increase over the next 40 years or so 'very fast'. If you are seriously suggesting 'promotion' of gay lifestyles and 'gay education' are likely to bring this trend to a screeching halt and throw it into reverse, ultimately threatening the existence of the species, please make that explicit so I can have a good laugh. Otherwise, well.. perhaps you something to add that is actually relevant?
UH, you were the one who brought up about impacts of gays on population, not me. I was just pointing out your inaccuracy. Again, no straw men.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Trying actually reading what I posted. Please?
You have posted in other threads about homosexuality what you think of people who think there should be no rights for homosexuals. I'm too lazy to look up.
But in this thread, you have argued that homosexuals should be allowed and supported on the principle of "freedom to choose" and "does not infringe on other people's rights to do the same", so what is your excuse for not allowing incestuous relationships?
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Actually, you have done no such thing. Why should they not work towards that, as long as doing so is not illegal? People in all countries campaign to change particular laws using legal means. And yet again you seem thopelessly confused between advocating tolerance and acceptance and 'promotion'. I have read as much as time permitted; 'indirectly' is of course an irrelevance, but if you can actually produce a few quotes showing that any of them received funds from USAID for the specific purpose of promoting gay lifestyles, as you have claimed, I would be grateful.
I have already provided you with the documents including their websites such as
http://gaya-nusantara.blogspot.com/2...oundation.html
Also, Indonesian gay and lesbian network is funded directly by USAID, you can see it here:
http://www.gwl-ina.org/
And GWL INA has many programs that promote homosexual lifestyles. Certainly if USAID didn't approve of their programs, they wouldnt have funded it, correct?
so you consider "indirectly" is an irrelevance?
OK, I will remember this particular stance of yours in later and other discussions. For me, "indirect" holds much relevance, especially in country like Indonesia where USAID is careful about american image, so for sensitive issues such as religion affairs where they still want to meddle, they don't fund programs directly, but they indirectly fund programs created by organizations through their projects.
So State Department use american taxpayers money to promote a particular sexual lifestyle.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
Some groups and organizations considered security risks (or 'labelled as terrorists' if you prefer) advocate introducing Sharia law in Britain and indeed everywhere else. I would have thought that was probably the default position for any self-respecting bunch of Islamicist terrorists? That does not, though, mean all groups who advocate the introduction of Sharia law are terrorists, and unless you can produce some I am unaware of any evidence that anyone has been catagorized as a terrorist on that basis.
Are you that naive that you really do not understand islamophobia that permeates US government and citizens?
Even Charles Schumer (Democrats senator from NY) has labelled the very mild CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) has ties to terrorists. Charles Schumer is not the only one.
And I am not even going to comment on your *****y remark "I would have thought that was probably the default position for any self-respecting bunch of Islamicist terrorists?".
format_quote Originally Posted by
Trumble
My bad; generally homophobia is as much a cultural phenomenon as a religious one, although the two are obviously connected, and I shouldn't have extended that to yourself. I'm happy to accept your personal prejudice is based solely on religious grounds. We are unlikely to ever agree whether or not that justifies such a prejudice.
I am happy that you call me prejudice and homophobic on the basis that I am speaking the truth. :)