Religious groups condemn US embassy gay event

[GuestFellow]

As I said, excuses. Are you seriously claiming that what two adult non-muslims happen to do in private (nobody is suggesting sex in the street) will somehow influence muslims who just happen to be in the vicinity to start doing things they know are forbidden by their religion? You are having a laugh. It's nonsensical.

Sorry I should make myself clear. I meant that events which promote homosexual acts may encourage Pakistani citizens to engage in such acts or to make these acts acceptable.

I would prefer to see an event organised to protect homosexual from violence. There are cases where some people commit violence against homosexuals.

Actually, if an analogous event were held at the Saudi embassy I very much doubt the French government, and indeed the French in general, would so much as bat an eyelid. What makes you think differently? Two wrongs don't make a right, in any event. Human rights are not subject to 'tyranny of the majority'; that is their whole purpose.

I do think it is likely the French government and some French citizens would not like it if the Saudi Monarchy organised an event in Paris where they are promoting the Sharia and protesting against the veil ban.

We all have different ideas of what constitutes as human rights. Some support the death penalty while others oppose the death penalty. In criminal litigation, there are arguments about how much powers the police should have and how long suspects should be detained without seeking legal advice. These issues must be dealt with by the public living in that country, not by foreign forces.

 

[Trumble]

Let me ask you a question: What would the government of UK do if thieves in UK start to organize themselves and fight for the right to be a thief? Would the UK government start giving money for those organizations to have "thieves party"?

:rollseyes As I said

as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others

Obviously thieves do interfere with such rights, as they steal from the general public and not from other 'consenting thieves'!

I don't buy all the bs about giving freedom to choose. It's about freedom to choose when it comes to homosexuals.

Whether you 'buy' it or not, it's the principal political philosophy behind all liberal-democratic governments, although obviously the extent to which it is actually observed can differ. This event was about that particular choice, but it would be absurd to claim the US and other countries do not follow the same approach in relation to political views, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or whatever. All of those, at one time or another, have been discussed with the Pakistani government in rather stronger ways than throwing a party.

Have you not heard that the practice of polygamy is illegal in all 50 states?
And you say I can hardly accuse the americans of inconsistency?
LOL. you are right, inconsistency does not even describe it.

Not being American I hadn't heard it, no, but it doesn't surprise me. Fair point, though... I would agree that is certainly inconsistent, as indeed is gay 'marriage' being legal in some states and not in others.

And why the freedom to choose stops at homosexuality? and why only homosexuality is supported? what about the freedom of people who are born incestuous? Don't fathers who have incestuous tendencies have right to marry their own daughters on consentual basis?

It neither stops nor starts there, the principle relating to all aspects of life, not just relationships. The essential distinction is not consent, but the potential for either compromising the rights of others to live as they choose, or doing real harm to individuals or society - by 'real' I am excluding such things as merely causing 'offence' or hurting 'sensibilities', religious in origin or otherwise. In the case of incest I would argue even the adult child is extremely unlikely to ever be able to make an autonymous and informed choice anyway, but regardless incest has highly damaging consequences socially and, potentially, biologically.

]I was responding to your claim that the French government wouldnt bat an eyelid, which is not true. In Indonesia (and ,many other world countries, and I am pretty sure also in Pakistan), the US government through its aid agencies such USAID have provided funds to gay organizations to promote gay lifestyles and to push lawmakers to create specific laws that give freedom for homosexuals to practice homosexual acts.

Produce some evidence that the US government has provided funds for those purposes and I'll be happy to discuss it further.

 

[Ramadhan]

Obviously thieves do interfere with such rights, as they steal from the general public and not from other 'consenting thieves'!

You missed the point. In Islam, homosexual sex is among the most grievous sins and a crime. Theft is also a sin and a crime. no difference. Pakistan is an Islamic country with much of their law and customs based on Islam. For a group of homosexuals to form organizations and parties amount to advertising and make their sins public.
In UK obviously homosexual acts is neither sin nor a crime but theft is a crime, so I wanted to drive home the point to you by giving you a simple analogy that I was hoping you'd understand.

Not being American I hadn't heard it, no, but it doesn't surprise me. Fair point, though... I would agree that is certainly inconsistent, as indeed is gay 'marriage' being legal in some states and not in others.

It is not only inconsistent, but hypocrisy to the highest degree, not to mention that the law on "freedom to choose" in the US is made on arbitrary basis. More hypocrisy: in the US, many proponents of same-sex marriage are also in favour of maintaining current statutory prohibitions against polygamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Oh, news flash to you: Polygamy is also illegal in the UK, your own country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy
I would be surprised if you cannot even smell the injustice and hypocrisy which is so thick in your own backyard.

It neither stops nor starts there, the principle relating to all aspects of life, not just relationships. The essential distinction is not consent, but the potential for either compromising the rights of others to live as they choose, or doing real harm to individuals or society - by 'real' I am excluding such things as merely causing 'offence' or hurting 'sensibilities', religious in origin or otherwise. In the case of incest I would argue even the adult child is extremely unlikely to ever be able to make an autonymous and informed choice anyway, but regardless incest has highly damaging consequences socially and, potentially, biologically.

Funny, I always heard supporters of homosexual lifestyles say that the most important thing is that they are "consenting adults", that's the mantra that has always been repeated to justify homosexual sex, even if it destroys individuals and families.
If you agree that homosexual sex and even homosexual marriage do not damage individuals and society, how can you say that consenting incestuous relationships damage or harm individual and society? In what way they are different?
Say, the consenting father- adult daughter agree not to have a child, how would it damage biologically?
and talking about physical and psychological medical and health consequences (and hence the much increased burdens on society for much larger health costs), surely homosexual sex and relations are much worse than normal marriage and families?

In the past, even in western countries, homosexual relations was something that was taboo, illegal, damaging to individuals and society, etc, but thanks to "education" that brainwash the masses that homosexual relations is ok and need to be accepted, it has now become a norm, hell even homosexual relations are now blessed in churches by pastors.
Maybe the masses need also education that incestuous sex is ok and need to be accepted? Do you not think the society is still backward and need to be educated on the issue of incest and it is ok as long as it is between consenting adults who are aware that they make informed choice under no due or undue pressure?

Produce some evidence that the US government has provided funds for those purposes and I'll be happy to discuss it further.

FYI, I have worked with various foreign donor agencies and I can tell you that much of the fundings are used to finance projects mostly indirectly through local organizations which are clearly against the local religious and/or society values and the prevailing laws). Here's a few snippets example:
http://spiritia.or.id/Dok/Pemberdayaan.pdf (spiritia is funded by USAID, among foreign donors)
http://aruspelangi.pbworks.com/w/page/9723216/FrontPage (yayasan arus pelangi is funded by HIVOS - dutch government aid agency, Ford Foundation and Tifa Foundation who in turn funded by USAID - they are fighting for political recognitions for gays and lesbians)
http://www.globalgayz.com/country/Indonesia/view/IDN/gay-indonesia-news-and-reports-2010Queer Film Festival - The festival works closely with a number of foreign governmental or government-linked groups including Goethe Institute (Germany), Erasmus Huis (Dutch Cultural Centre), Central Culture Francaise (France), Japan Foundation and AusAID (Australia) and is mainly funded by Holland-based Hivos (Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation).
Also, USAID funded key and most important "liberal islam" organizations who champion homosexual equalities, such as
Jaringan Islam Liberal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaringan_Islam_Liberal
Wahid Institute http://www.wahidinstitute.org/
I personally know many people in those organizations, and I can attest that many do not even pray, let alone 5 times a day, and they are only using the name of Islam (funded directly and indirectly by foreign donors) to try change the country's regulations on many social issues that conform to western ideals (including gay marriage) and they are fighting for the secularisation of Indonesia.
Also read this (page 18-20 where it's stated USAID is the primary donors for such organizations)
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/berlin/05660.pdf
Also, this is old news, and even coming from washingtonpost -one of the bastions of zionist media: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/24/AR2009102402279_2.html
The report says that the USA is now backing out from meddling in the country's religious affairs, but the opposite is true: organizations such as JIL and wahid institute are still receiving funds from US aid agencies.

Now, can you imagine the reaction of UK government or UK public if Saudi government sponsor and fund organizations and projects in the UK that promote sharia and try to change legislation to implement sharia in UK?

Your turn.

 

[Karl]

Homosexuality is promoted by Zionists to lower the population of the Gentiles. It is an Antichrist agenda to destroy nations with this Satanic global social engineering. Also anti nationalism, feminism and miscegenation are also promoted by Zionists to degrade the Goyim. Why do the mainstream metrosexual new age liberal lefty Westerners hate Islam so much? Because they are evil hypocrites and Godless fascists.

 

[Just_A_Girl13]

Why do the mainstream metrosexual new age liberal lefty Westerners hate Islam so much? Because they are evil hypocrites and Godless fascists.

I think that's a bit extreme, brother. I'm from the US and I consider myself quite liberal. I have seen no evidence of hatred for Islam in the United States except from the right-wing Christian extremists who repeatedly claim that Islam is "the devil's religion" and that all Muslims are terrorists. Please correct me if I misunderstood your meaning.

Peace and blessings be with you

 

[Trumble]

You missed the point. In Islam, homosexual sex is among the most grievous sins and a crime. Theft is also a sin and a crime. no difference. Pakistan is an Islamic country with much of their law and customs based on Islam. For a group of homosexuals to form organizations and parties amount to advertising and make their sins public.
In UK obviously homosexual acts is neither sin nor a crime but theft is a crime, so I wanted to drive home the point to you by giving you a simple analogy that I was hoping you'd understand.

I haven't missed anything. You have introduced the idea that in an 'Islamic country', the requirements of that religion should trump the (liberal) rights of all citizens whether followers of that religion or not. Your analogy is only such if you accept that. I don't, of course, hence as far as my argument goes it is no analogy at all.

I would be surprised if you cannot even smell the injustice and hypocrisy which is so thick in your own backyard.

There are worse injustices and hypocrises in my backyard, as there are in yours. Not being able to wave my magic wand and spinkle pixie dust to instantly remove them I am, however, arguing a normative position. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right and churning out what is no more than an extended ad hominem does not make an argument.

Funny, I always heard supporters of homosexual lifestyles say that the most important thing is that they are "consenting adults", that's the mantra that has always been repeated to justify homosexual sex, even if it destroys individuals and families.

I am hardly responsible for what you may have heard. Perhaps your confusion, though, is result of your continuing inability to distinguish between supporting or promoting a particular lifestyle, and supporting the freedom to choose and live it, or any alternative, that doesn't infringe the same right of others.

If you agree that homosexual sex and even homosexual marriage do not damage individuals and society, how can you say that consenting incestuous relationships damage or harm individual and society? In what way they are different?

I would have thought that blindingly obvious. In the case of incest a family bond of the strongest kind already exists between the people involved, not to mention the network of that relationship with other family relationships. Disruption and disfunctionality are inevitable. However, a gay 'marriage' is no different from a straight one in that those involved have no familial connection prior to the event.

and talking about physical and psychological medical and health consequences (and hence the much increased burdens on society for much larger health costs), surely homosexual sex and relations are much worse than normal marriage and families?

I've no idea what 'psychological' consequences you have in mind, but I very much doubt they are more frequent or expensive than those concerning people forced to repress their sexuality. As to physical illness first you need to compare like with like, either homosexual 'sex and relations' and heterosexual 'sex and relations', or homosexual 'marriage' and straight marriage (or other monogamous relationship). Certainly, there is an increased risk with gay sex in casual relationships, but additional costs might result from any casual relationships. The argument leads nowhere as ultimately, in order to remain consistent, it would result in banning any activity that involved any element of medical risk, sexual in nature or not. I assume you aren't talking about the obvious lack of children in gay relationships; with the population of the world still increasing exponentially despite all that gay promoting 'education' and brainwashing going on that would hardly seem to present a problem. Indeed, many would see it as a plus!

Do you not think the society is still backward and need to be educated on the issue of incest and it is ok as long as it is between consenting adults who are aware that they make informed choice under no due or undue pressure?

No, I don't think that for reasons I hope I have made clear. I do think that, incidently, regarding polygamy within certain religious groups.

FYI, I have worked with various foreign donor agencies and I can tell you that much of the fundings are used to finance projects mostly indirectly through local organizations which are clearly against the local religious and/or society values and the prevailing laws). Here's a few snippets example:

You are just confirming my point. Most of those are concerned with advocating liberal values in general. I can't see evidence any of them receive money from the US State Department for the specific purpose of 'promoting' homosexual lifestyles.

Now, can you imagine the reaction of UK government or UK public if Saudi government sponsor and fund organizations and projects in the UK that promote sharia and try to change legislation to implement sharia in UK?

Honestly, there wouldn't be one, or at least one worth talking about. I can only assure you that we wouldn't have a problem; indeed there already are such organizations although I have no idea who funds them. They could 'promote' all they like, and people will listen or not, but legislation can be enacted only by Parliament which is elected by the people. Any such measure would therefore require the support of the people or bribery on such a scale it would make the recent expenses scandal look like shoplifting a Mars Bar from the confectionary store. There are plenty of groups who advocate things the government don't like who are financed from abroad. Perhaps the classic example in the past was that of Irish Republicans, but the issue there was not advocating Republicanism with the help of foreign money but doing so with bombs and assault rifles. Ditto in this instance, unless the funded 'promotion' was violent in nature nobody would care.

Your turn.

We are never going to agree on this, not because of missing points, not understanding, or overly complex analogies, but simply because we are on opposite sides of the liberal/communitarian divide. You prioritize culture, religion and nationality over liberal rights while I do the reverse. Both are defensible positions, but never the twain will meet as they say - at the extremes, anyway.

 

[Karl]

Salam
Well, the West being at War with Muslim nations and bombing them to bits would be a sign of hatred but maybe I'm wrong.
There might be a few rancourous Christians, yes, but the internet is full of athiest, Zionists, socialists, Marxists etc who make many more scathing attacks against Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) than Christians, from what I have observed.

 

[Just_A_Girl13]

Salaam,

Well, the West being at War with Muslim nations and bombing them to bits would be a sign of hatred but maybe I'm wrong.

That's a fair point, however, the war is hardly the fault of the liberals alone.

There might be a few rancourous Christians, yes, but the internet is full of athiest, Zionists, socialists, Marxists etc who make many more scathing attacks against Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) than Christians, from what I have observed.

The internet is also full of misguided people who haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about. It's not their fault that they have not been properly introduced to Islam. Rather than insulting them and the group to which they belong as a whole, we should pray that Allah (s.w.t.) will guide them to the truth.

Peace

 

[Pygoscelis]

There might be a few rancourous Christians, yes, but the internet is full of athiest, Zionists, socialists, Marxists etc who make many more scathing attacks against Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) than Christians

With the exception of zionists, who are the most rabidly anti-muslim people I've met, I've actually met a lot more Christians who hated muslims and called them all terrorists etc than any other group. This has suprised me given how much Islam and Christianity have in common. It would make sense for atheists, hindus, etc (who truly are different) to have more distaste of Islam but this just hasn't been w hat I've found. Maybe it is because of the internet forums I've visited though. Stop by "Paltalk" sometime and you'll see hundreds of rabid anti-muslim christians. And by rabid I mean mouth foaming screaming at the top of their lungs types.

 

[FS123]

A group of religious conservatives in Pakistan has condemned a recent event hosted by the US embassy in Islamabad in support of gay rights.

:skeleton:

Share your views....

First, they first look in their own country, there are states that ban gay unions.

Second, they don't have the right to meddle into laws of another country.

 

[FS123]

I would have thought that blindingly obvious. In the case of incest a family bond of the strongest kind already exists between the people involved, not to mention the network of that relationship with other family relationships.

That is some arbitrary argument, if it is between two consulting adults then they shouldn't have any restrictions, it doesn't affect anybody as for their family they know better, from the pov of personal liberty. Same goes for polygamy. It depends on opinion, imagine some other country does the same in US or UK which is against the law, because they don't share the same opinion.

 

[Ramadhan]

I haven't missed anything. You have introduced the idea that in an 'Islamic country', the requirements of that religion should trump the (liberal) rights of all citizens whether followers of that religion or not. Your analogy is only such if you accept that. I don't, of course, hence as far as my argument goes it is no analogy at all.

My analogy of the thieves association in the UK was a response to your statements:

Indicating support for people's rights to follow the lifestyle of their choice without persecution does not account to 'promoting' or favouring that lifestyle;

Non-muslims are not bound by it, any muslims who do what is forbidden presumably have to account to God at some point

As I said, excuses. Are you seriously claiming that what two adult non-muslims happen to do in private (nobody is suggesting sex in the street) will somehow influence muslims who just happen to be in the vicinity to start doing things they know are forbidden by their religion?

The case presented so far suggesting homosexual activity in private does interfere with others' rights is, while commonly used, seemingly backed by no evidence whatsoever.

Let's go back a few steps:
1. Homosexuality acts is a crime in pakistan, and people who openly declare they are homosexuals either perform homosexual acts or support the freedom to perform them.
2. Theft is a crime in the UK, and people who openly declare they are thieves either perform thefts or support the freedom to perform them.

Whether you disagree that homosexuality acts itself is not a crime is another point and another discussion. Homosexuality act is a crime in Pakistan, and that is fact. There are many acts considered crimes in other countries but not crime in the UK, and vice versa, there are many acts considered crime in the UK but not in other countries.
You can replace thieves analogy with any other crimes and criminals in the UK if you are displeased with the thieves one.

There are worse injustices and hypocrises in my backyard, as there are in yours.

It is interesting point to note that when the table is turned, you wave your hand at it and claim like it's nothing worth discussion.

Not being able to wave my magic wand and spinkle pixie dust to instantly remove them I am, however, arguing a normative position. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right and churning out what is no more than an extended ad hominem does not make an argument.

I was pointing out at polygamy because it is very significant evidence in the arbitrariness of your claim of "freedom to choose"
In ALL western countries that legalize homosexuality, polygamy is illegal.
It is not isolated cases, and it is evident that it is systematic.

I am hardly responsible for what you may have heard. Perhaps your confusion, though, is result of your continuing inability to distinguish between supporting or promoting a particular lifestyle, and supporting the freedom to choose and live it, or any alternative, that doesn't infringe the same right of others.

As I said again and again, homosexuality is a crime in Islam, thus it does not make sense for a muslim to support the freedom to do crimes. At least you cannot accuse a muslim of inconsistency Whether you don't believe homosexuality is not a crime is different matter.
On the other hand, I can point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy to the highest degree to those who champion "freedom to choose" but ban and criminalize polygamy

I would have thought that blindingly obvious. In the case of incest a family bond of the strongest kind already exists between the people involved, not to mention the network of that relationship with other family relationships. Disruption and disfunctionality are inevitable. However, a gay 'marriage' is no different from a straight one in that those involved have no familial connection prior to the event.

Isn't that your own prejudice?
How do you know incest would disrupt familial relationships? In fact, the incestuous relationships would even make their bond stronger.
Say, there is loving relation between a brother and a sister and their parents approve, what make you deny their right to get marry?
It seems you are being arbitrary here, using one standard for homosexuals, and different one for incest couples.

I've no idea what 'psychological' consequences you have in mind, but I very much doubt they are more frequent or expensive than those concerning people forced to repress their sexuality.

Were there many more psychological illnesses in the old days of "gay" people who were repressed and got married, compared to todays where people are free to choose whatever lifestyles they prefer?

As to physical illness first you need to compare like with like, either homosexual 'sex and relations' and heterosexual 'sex and relations', or homosexual 'marriage' and straight marriage (or other monogamous relationship)

Yes, I'd like to know if such data are available. My guess is there are more physical illnesses among "homosexual marriages" than in heterosexual marriages. There would be some obvious ones, such as: breast cancer, hemorrhoids, etc.

Certainly, there is an increased risk with gay sex in casual relationships, but additional costs might result from any casual relationships. The argument leads nowhere as ultimately, in order to remain consistent, it would result in banning any activity that involved any element of medical risk, sexual in nature or not.

Alhamdulillah, casual sex is also a crime in Islam
Islam has complete guidelines on how to life live, for individual and society.

I assume you aren't talking about the obvious lack of children in gay relationships; with the population of the world still increasing exponentially despite all that gay promoting 'education' and brainwashing going on that would hardly seem to present a problem. Indeed, many would see it as a plus!

The promotion of gay lifestyle is still very new, homosexuality only started to get accepted in the west after the "sexual revolution" in the 60s and 70s. Even gay education is still very new in the west, only in the past two decades or so.
And you need to be factual and accurate: the population of the world is NOT increasing exponentially.
Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%. The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.

No, I don't think that for reasons I hope I have made clear. I do think that, incidently, regarding polygamy within certain religious groups.

Actually, you have only made clear of your prejudices towards those who want to practice incestuous relationships, and you have not made yourself clear regarding polygamy.

You are just confirming my point. Most of those are concerned with advocating liberal values in general. I can't see evidence any of them receive money from the US State Department for the specific purpose of 'promoting' homosexual lifestyles.

Actually, I have made clear that Q-munity, Arus Pelangi, Spiritia and Gaya Nusantara are gay organizations in Indonesia, they are not just advocating liberal values, but they are working towards legal equal rights for homosexuals in Indonesia as well as organizing events and programs designed to promote homosexual lifestyles. Also, I have shown that these gay groups, along with many other gay groups in Indonesia have received funds directly or indirectly from USAID.
And because you didn't seem to read the links I have provided, USAID is an arm of US State Department.

Honestly, there wouldn't be one, or at least one worth talking about. I can only assure you that we wouldn't have a problem; indeed there already are such organizations although I have no idea who funds them

Actually, there were already organizations trying to fight for the implementations of sharia law, but they were labelled "terrorist organizations". You may not have problem, but your government and many of your countrymen certainly do.

We are never going to agree on this, not because of missing points, not understanding, or overly complex analogies, but simply because we are on opposite sides of the liberal/communitarian divide. You prioritize culture, religion and nationality over liberal rights while I do the reverse. Both are defensible positions, but never the twain will meet as they say - at the extremes, anyway.

I am not sure what do you mean by I prioritize culture and nationality? I do prioritize religion, however.

 

[May Ayob]

As to physical illness first you need to compare like with like, either homosexual 'sex and relations' and heterosexual 'sex and relations', or homosexual 'marriage' and straight marriage (or other monogamous relationship).

Peace be to you

You do acknowledge that we only have AIDS/HIV in our planet because of Homosexuality? Atleast from my knowledge when it appeared it appeared on a Gay couple. I do not think it is safe to risk my life in order to express my "sexuality" ...
Didn't mean to offend you

Peace be to you

 

[Trumble]

Let's go back a few steps:
1. Homosexuality acts is a crime in pakistan, and people who openly declare they are homosexuals either perform homosexual acts or support the freedom to perform them.
2. Theft is a crime in the UK, and people who openly declare they are thieves either perform thefts or support the freedom to perform them.

'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.

Whether you disagree that homosexuality acts itself is not a crime is another point and another discussion.

Of course I disagree.. so what the heck was the point of the last paragraph?

You can replace thieves analogy with any other crimes and criminals in the UK if you are displeased with the thieves one.

No, I can't for reasons I am getting sick of having to repeat.

I was pointing out at polygamy because it is very significant evidence in the arbitrariness of your claim of "freedom to choose"
In ALL western countries that legalize homosexuality, polygamy is illegal.
It is not isolated cases, and it is evident that it is systematic.

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.

As I said again and again, homosexuality is a crime in Islam, thus it does not make sense for a muslim to support the freedom to do crimes. At least you cannot accuse a muslim of inconsistency

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!

It seems you are being arbitrary here, using one standard for homosexuals, and different one for incest couples.

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 occured had those involved not been forced to repress their sexuality in the first place.

Were there many more psychological illnesses in the old days of "gay" people who were repressed and got married, compared to todays where people are free to choose whatever lifestyles they prefer?

Undoubtably, if the diagnoses were compared on a like by like basis. They weren't, of course, as any survey of the numbers of diagnoses of psychiatric illnesses, particularly for depression, will tell you. Whatever the cause, it was usually 'shut up and just get on with it' with many totally dehabilitating problems not even recognised.

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?. I don't share your homophobia, but I certainly would!

The promotion of gay lifestyle is still very new, homosexuality only started to get accepted in the west after the "sexual revolution" in the 60s and 70s. Even gay education is still very new in the west, only in the past two decades or so.

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'.

And you need to be factual and accurate: the population of the world is NOT increasing exponentially.

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?

Actually, you have only made clear of your prejudices towards those who want to practice incestuous relationships, and you have not made yourself clear regarding polygamy.

Trying actually reading what I posted. Please?

Actually, I have made clear that Q-munity, Arus Pelangi, Spiritia and Gaya Nusantara are gay organizations in Indonesia, they are not just advocating liberal values, but they are working towards legal equal rights for homosexuals in Indonesia as well as organizing events and programs designed to promote homosexual lifestyles. Also, I have shown that these gay groups, along with many other gay groups in Indonesia have received funds directly or indirectly from USAID.

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.

Actually, there were already organizations trying to fight for the implementations of sharia law, but they were labelled "terrorist organizations". You may not have problem, but your government and many of your countrymen certainly do.

You might benefit from a basic logic course at some point if you have the time. Just because all X are Y does not entail all Y are X!

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.

I am not sure what do you mean by I prioritize culture and nationality? I do prioritize religion, however.

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.

 

[Trumble]

You do acknowledge that we only have AIDS/HIV in our planet because of Homosexuality?

Of course I don't acknowledge it, it's complete nonsense.

HIV/AIDS was first recognised as a disease within the gay community in the US (probably originating from a single source), but it originated in Africa where it probably made the jump to man from other primates (eating 'bushmeat' is one speculation). On retrospective examination of medical records several earlier cases were identified as almost certainly being the result of HIV, with no homosexual connections or implications, and there were no doubt many more where the ultimate catalyst of the disease that actually killed the patients went unrecognised.

There are details HERE

 

[May Ayob]

Of course I don't acknowledge it, it's complete nonsense. HIV/AIDS was first recognised as a disease within the gay community in the US (probably originating from a single source), but it originated in Africa where it probably made the jump to man from other primates (eating 'bushmeat' is one speculation). On retrospective examination of medical records several earlier cases were identified as almost certainly being the result of HIV, with no homosexual connections or implications, and there were no doubt many more where the ultimate catalyst of the disease that actually killed the patients went unrecognised.

Peace be to you
I have nothing to say, infact we are all free to think what we want so this will be insha'Allah my last post here.
Peace be to you

 

[Ramadhan]

'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:

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:

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.

Of course I disagree.. so what the heck was the point of the last paragraph?

Which last paragraph?

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.

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 :

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/2010/07/kunjungan-silaturahmi-ford-foundation.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.

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?".

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.

 

[FS123]

actually, the burden is on you to prove that incest damage family relationships.

Yup burden is on him. And it doesn't, here is Stanford article: http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

Mazdaean (‘Zoroastrian’) religious doctrine, originating from Iran, not only legitimized but encouraged and extolled sexual relations between parents and children and between siblings. The very substantial corpus of pertinent evidence combines prescriptive Zoroastrian texts (mostly from the early Middle Ages) and descriptive accounts by outsiders, ranging from the 5th century BC to the Middle Ages and from western Europe to Tibet and China (West 1882; Spooner 1966; Sidler 1971; Bucci 1978; Frye 1985; Herrenschmidt 1994; Mitterauer 1994; Frandsen 2009).

It was practiced in certain communities in history and it did not show the alleged damage to the family unit. And you know what, when Muslims conquered Persia, they found the practice shocking but sharia scholars allowed it within Mazdaean community. They argued, it is very wrong from Muslim point of view, but we can't force our values on Mazdaeans. So they allowed it for them, seems like Sharia is more tolerant of other communities. Dr Sherman Jackson mention's this in one of his lecture. I saw that lecture 1 year ago so I don't remember the link but the following might be the one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-14807952849278044

 

[Trumble]

It was practiced in certain communities in history and it did not show the alleged damage to the family unit.

Right... And that was confirmed by a detailed study of all the contemporary sociological and psychological journals of the times was it? :hiding: Get real.

Any sort of assessment of psychological states when we barely know the names of a few people concerned is totally impossible. Even when we know rather more because of the preservd literature, as with the Roman Emperors about all we can do is take a stab at whether they were mildly disturbed, completely crazy, or totally sociopathic. All the same, an interesting point. The article confirms the widespread and effectively general taboo and the reasons for it, but obviously the damage is potentially mitigated to some degree by an environment where the practice is generally accepted. But in the 21st century, with which we are concerned, there are no such societies so the point is mute.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't know abot socially, but genetically incest is damaging. Health improves as inbreeding decreases. We can see this in purebred dogs for example. Incestual parents should know about this before breeding.

That said, if two (or more) consenting adults want to go at it or get married, who am I to stop them? Poligamy, homosexuality, incest, whatever. I really don't see it as my place to interfere with what these people do, so long as everything is consentual.