Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

[titus]

To the contrary it is you who lives in a bubble.. Not only was I born in a foreign country- since the age of 40 days I have been traveling the world.. Have you been outside of Texas?

I have lived in multiple foreign countries myself.

Is it your contention, though, that there are no misconceptions about Islam? You avoided answering that.

 

[Argamemnon]

Turkey will be won back with ''Allah Akbar''

The great war between the Christians and Muslims will result in the Muslims conquering Constantinople (which is modern day Istanbul) without army by the sheer force of Takbeer (Allahu Akbar).
Abu Hurairah reports that the Prophet

said, ''Have you heard of a town of which a part is in the sea?''
''Yes'' said they. He said: 'The last hour shall not occur till 70,000 of the children of Isaac shall attack it. When they come to it, they (Muslims) will not fight with arms, nor throw arrows. They will only say: There is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then on of its sides will fall down. They will recite for the second time : there is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then another of its side will fall down. After that they will say it for the third time: there is no god but Allah and Allah is the greatest, and then it will be opened for them and they will enter and acquire booty. While they will be dividing the booty, a proclaimer will come to them and proclaim: 'Verily Dajjal has come out. 'Then they will leave everything and return. ' (Muslim)
It should be noted that the conquests will take place a very short period. Abdullah-b-Busr has reported that the Messenger of Allah

has said: 'Between the Great War and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) there will be six years, and the Dajjal shall appear in the seventh year,' (abided)
Back to content


and to be frank I really like your current PM.. we're moving in the right direction insha'Allah

Insha'Allah.. thank you for sharing, I remember reading this somewhere else...

 

[جوري]

I have lived in multiple foreign countries myself. Is it your contention, though, that there are no misconceptions about Islam? You avoided answering that.

I have answered your 'q'

late in the game to involve misconceptions unless a deliberate move for reasons afore mentioned

Selective reading or intentional omissions? I think if atheists paid more attention in general this thread would be 3 pages instead of 21!
There is something to be said of vain discourse!

 

[جوري]

Insha'Allah.. thank you for sharing, I remember reading this somewhere else...

I think everything is moving to the will of Allah swt so long as the people change for the better..

 

[Maryan0]

But the analogy is apt.




and it was also true that black people in the racist Jim Crow south could choose to "act white", sit at the front of the bus, drink from the white-only water fountain. They also were able to choose wether or not to date or marry white people, which in the racist south was just as, if not more, taboo than homosexual relations are today.

This is truly the most moronic analogy I have ever read... particularly the choosing to act white part. It's a shame that nobody told the black people of those days to just act white. They could have used your forward thinking and ingenuity.
Salam

 

[Pygoscelis]

They did "act white". That is what the racists objected to. Rosa Parks sitting down at the front of the bus, demanding to be treated with respect. People married inter-racially as well, despite overwhelming outcries by racists against it. The outcries against homosexuals getting married to one another or beingwith each other at all (as the gentleman said a few posts up "homosexuality should be banned/outlawed") is just more bigotry. The analogy is apt. The analogy to the head scarves (which went ignored) is even better.

 

[Maryan0]

They did "act white". That is what the racists objected to. Rosa Parks sitting down at the front of the bus, demanding to be treated with respect. People married inter-racially as well, despite overwhelming outcries by racists against it.

So because people married inter-racially and demanded respect they were acting "white"? your analogy is even more erroneous and ignorant the more you elaborate.
This is what you stated originally

and it was also true that black people in the racist Jim Crow south could choose to "act white", sit at the front of the bus, drink from the white-only water fountain. They also were able to choose wether or not to date or marry white people, which in the racist south was just as, if not more, taboo than homosexual relations are today.

Tell me could they have also chose to not be oppressed in the first place. Could they by acting white have chosen not to be slaves too? Can Palestinians choose to not be treated like second class citizens on their own land and have their house demolished in front of them. You are a Canadian as am I, could the native people's by acting like the white majority achieve a higher standard of living?
Your analogy is very simplistic.
Salam

 

[جوري]

This is truly the most moronic analogy I have ever read... particularly the choosing to act white part. It's a shame that nobody told the black people of those days to just act white. They could have used your forward thinking and ingenuity. Salam

agreed...radically post modern hogwash.. like paying for two items and believing that entitles you to steal five more!

 

[GuestFellow]

the analogy to the head scarves (which went ignored) is even better.

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

 

[GuestFellow]

@ Pygoscelis

Can you please explain your analogy again? It is really confusing me...

 

[Wyatt]

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

Some fight for freedom from religion. Homosexuals that don't believe in God shouldn't have to abide by His laws, should they? Non-Muslims shouldn't have to abide by Islamic law, should they? If they should, then non-Atheists should abide by a Atheist outlook, shouldn't they?

However, since this thread is about homosexuals who apparently believe in God and want to marry in churches, I'd say they're just trolling the religious to get a reaction out of them. ;D

 

[GuestFellow]

EDIT: Sorry delete this post. I got confused.

 

[Wyatt]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So because people married inter-racially and demanded respect they were acting "white"? your analogy is even more erroneous and ignorant the more you elaborate.
This is what you stated originally

Tell me could they have also chose to not be oppressed in the first place. Could they by acting white have chosen not to be slaves too? Can Palestinians choose to not be treated like second class citizens on their own land and have their house demolished in front of them. You are a Canadian as am I, could the native people's by acting like the white majority achieve a higher standard of living?
Your analogy is very simplistic.
Salam

You miss the point completely. "Acting White" is not my term. It is one I borrowed from the racists. The point is that black people were expected to act a certain way and not engage in certain activities, because it was considered "wrong". They were denied equality and respect due to bigotted attitudes. The same holds today towards homosexuals (and also still towards black people).

 

[جوري]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

I believe what you're asking is of religious reforms?
I can't speak of Christianity or Judaism but Islam is a done deal.. there are no reforms to the spiritual fundamentals to suit a particular political climate or a sexual movement to attract followers. We acquiesce to the laws of God, God doesn't acquiesce to our understanding of right or wrong.

Sodomy will not be one day acceptable (from an Islamic perspective) whether practiced by homosexuals or even a man with his wife..

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

All religions change over time (I define religion here as what people actually believe and practice, not what is written in a book (which is often ambiguous anyway)), even those which claim not to. I would recommend Karen Armstrong's book "A History of God" which explores the various Christianities, Judaisms, and Islams that have existed throghout the ages.

If they become less conventional over time is an interesting question and it would depend on what is meant here by "conventional". They do splinter into subgroups pretty often. I don't think they all beocme more liberal over time though, some go the other way and become more literalist and fundamentaist than before.

 

[جوري]

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

what is a good rational reason to ban incest?
what is a good rational reason to ban theft?
what is a good rational reason to ban drinking under 18?
what is a good rational reason to make the age of consent 18 in Iowa and 16 in Rhode Island?

what is worst so called bigotry or frank stupidity?

 

[Maryan0]

You miss the point completely. "Acting White" is not my term. It is one I borrowed from the racists. The point is that black people were expected to act a certain way and not engage in certain activities, because it was considered "wrong". They were denied equality and respect due to bigotted attitudes. The same holds today towards homosexuals (and also still towards black people).

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one.
Salam

 

[جوري]

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one. Salam

His argument has always been poor.. and not just recently evolved into poor.. the only thing he practices to give any sort of value to his 'arguments' is to pepper them with emotionally charged words like 'bigotry' or 'discrimination' and who wants to be either? but not any sort of real intellectual foundation or even proper similitude to the things he makes sodomy akin to!