[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

OK, we won't bring terrorism into it. Just agree that gay persecution that leads to some gay kid being tossed off the roof of a five-storey building or being hanged from a jib crane is a lot worse than the gay opposition that culminates in someone saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get married or that male trannies shouldn't be allowed to use the women's restroom. Just agree that the former is significantly worse than the latter and maybe we actually have a starting point for a better discussion.

Apparently some pervert not being able to use the women's bathroom in North Carolina is the same as Nazis marching homosexuals into the gas chambers so I doubt we're going to have a rational discussion with these people.

Also, let's say they win the bathroom discussion, what next? What new perversion will these sick fucks want to normalize next?

I ask because you know they're already planning on their next attack on normal people.

This is turning out to be a weirder than usual Monday morning.

[Tyler_1]

Thanos Thanos:

This is turning out to be a weirder than usual Monday morning.

I like big Cats and I cannot lie
You other brothers can't deny

[BeaverFever]

It's not a side-track, because the OP does not say half of UK Muslims want to throw gay people off of building, it says they think it should be illegal, which while still indefensible, is not so different from what the Christian conservatives think.

[Thanos]

Tyler_1 Tyler_1:

Thanos Thanos:

This is turning out to be a weirder than usual Monday morning.

I like big Cats and I cannot lie
You other brothers can't deny

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's not a side-track, because the OP does not say half of UK Muslims want to throw gay people off of building, it says they think it should be illegal, which while still indefensible, is not so different from what the Christian conservatives think.

With the added irony that the person starting this thread doesn't care much for gays himself. Same with Bart. Their hearts bleed for the gays the Muslims hate while they do their own hating right alonside.

FD posted that he wanted to have a discussion around Muslims not integrating into British values. A valid concern. Wrong headline for the purpose tho. And a funny one given FD's previous anti-gay posts.

[PluggyRug]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's not a side-track, because the OP does not say half of UK Muslims want to throw gay people off of building, it says they think it should be illegal, which while still indefensible, is not so different from what the Christian conservatives think.

Both groups say it should be illegal.

Only one group takes drastic action to prove their point. That difference is what ticks a lot of people off. Deflection of that point is useless to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

[martin14]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urish.html

$1:

Trevor Phillips reveals his anxieties about growing divide across Britain
Portion of Britain’s three million Muslims consider UK nation of low morals
For that reason they seek to live much more separately and by sharia law
Almost half of Muslims have views which differ to common British values

$1:

a significant minority (25%)of Britain’s three million Muslims consider us a nation of such low morals that they would rather live more separately from their non-Muslim countrymen, preferably under sharia law.

$1:

More than half of Muslims think lesbian or gay relationships should be illegal.

$1:

Almost a third of British Muslims think polygamy – currently illegal – should be permitted.

$1:

Two fifths (39 per cent) of Muslims say a woman should always obey her husband, compared to 5 per cent of non-Muslims.
So is the Koranic injunction that a man may chastise his wife. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the instruction to ‘obey’ tells women that they should accept domestic abuse without complaint.

$1:

Finally, there’s the small matter of the Jews: 35 per cent of British Muslims – compared to 8 per cent of others – believe Jewish people have too much power in Britain.

$1:

A fifth have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.
One in six would prefer to live more separately; almost a quarter would like to see areas where sharia law took precedence over British law.

$1:

Four per cent – the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims – told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice.

Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It's not a side-track, because the OP does not say half of UK Muslims want to throw gay people off of building, it says they think it should be illegal, which while still indefensible, is not so different from what the Christian conservatives think.

Sorry, but regulating personal behavior is well within the parameters of defensible for a civilized society.

Or do you assert that a fifty-year-old man should be able to marry a nine-year-old girl?

Of course not.

But the society you keep agitating for is eventually going to embrace some such notion and then you'll be the (pick an epithet) who opposes whatever's trendy and fashionable for the moment.

Don't believe me? Ask your parents if they thought that asking the police to stop raiding gay bars in the 1970's was going to lead to gay marriage and homosexuals and lesbians running the schools and the military just forty years later?

[BeaverFever]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Really? I ask you to provide one example of gays protesting at a mosque, or disrupting a service at a mosque like they've done to the Catholic church on several occasions.

I'll wait.

That's a red herring for several reasons:

1) Protests are for opposing groups who are more powerful than you, not less powerful. LGBT groups are politically more powerful than Muslim groups. When was the last time you saw the governing party protesting outside the offices of the party who lost the election? Doesn't often happen that way.

2) The assumption that a LGBT group would go around targeting random mosques (or random Muslims) because they think that "all Muslims discriminate against gay people" isn't likely, because an anti-discrimination group isn't likely to adopt discriminatory assumptions such as saying "All Muslims.....". Now, if a specific mosque or Imam was up to something that attracted special attention, would be different, as it was here and here

3) You should know that there are gay-friendly mosques, gay Imams and gay Muslim weddings. There are also Muslim nations where it is not illegal to be gay. Google will show you the way.

[2Cdo]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Really? I ask you to provide one example of gays protesting at a mosque, or disrupting a service at a mosque like they've done to the Catholic church on several occasions.

I'll wait.

That's a red herring for several reasons:

1) Protests are for opposing groups who are more powerful than you, not less powerful. LGBT groups are politically more powerful than Muslim groups. When was the last time you saw the governing party protesting outside the offices of the party who lost the election? Doesn't often happen that way.

2) The assumption that a LGBT group would go around targeting random mosques (or random Muslims) because they think that "all Muslims discriminate against gay people" isn't likely, because an anti-discrimination group isn't likely to adopt discriminatory assumptions such as saying "All Muslims.....". Now, if a specific mosque or Imam was up to something that attracted special attention, would be different, as it was here and here

3) You should know that there are gay-friendly mosques, gay Imams and gay Muslim weddings. There are also Muslim nations where it is not illegal to be gay. Google will show you the way.

I knew you would dance around that.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sorry, but regulating personal behavior is well within the parameters of defensible for a civilized society.

Or do you assert that a fifty-year-old man should be able to marry a nine-year-old girl?

Depends what you mean by "personal behaviour". Your example above doesn't seem an example of personal behaviour. It's an example of sexual assault. There is no consenting adult.

If we define "personal behaviour" and "behaviour by consenting adults which has no effect on anyone but themselves and whose behaviour is no one's business but their own" then I disagree with your contention. There is no regulating "personal behaviour" if you define it as I have.

[2Cdo]

In fact, it's completely consistent with the political left and Gay Lobby groups ONLY targeting the safe groups that will only use words against them and not physical violence. If they truly believed their position they would protest the organization that has consistently used violence against them.

But honesty has never been a strong suit with either of these groups.

[Lemmy]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

In fact, it's completely consistent with the political left and Gay Lobby groups ONLY targeting the safe groups that will only use words against them and not physical violence.

That may be true, but I doubt it. Got some source to back that up? I sure hope it's true 'cause that would be an interesting read.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

If they truly believed their position they would protest the organization that has consistently used violence against them.

You may be right. It worked in the Civil Rights Movement. Freedom riding around Brentwood or Grosse Point would have been a waste of gas. But I don't know that the LGBT has the same taste for physical conflict that African-Americans had in the '60s.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

But honesty has never been a strong suit with either of these groups.

Not sure either are well organized to be a "group", particularly the "political left". What is that, exactly? Are you talking about kooks like Sarah Thompson?

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sorry, but regulating personal behavior is well within the parameters of defensible for a civilized society.

Or do you assert that a fifty-year-old man should be able to marry a nine-year-old girl?

Depends what you mean by "personal behaviour". Your example above doesn't seem an example of personal behaviour. It's an example of sexual assault. There is no consenting adult.

What if your children grow up to pass legislation that makes children adults at birth so they can consent to whatever they want without parental permission? This thinking is in line with the UN 'Rights of the Child' movement.

The argument you'll encounter will be something along the lines of, "You narrow-mined bigots oppose intergenerational sex and love and you just want children to grow up as sexually repressed as you were!"

Will you oppose it even if someone calls you names?

Lemmy Lemmy:

If we define "personal behaviour" and "behaviour by consenting adults which has no effect on anyone but themselves and whose behaviour is no one's business but their own" then I disagree with your contention. There is no regulating "personal behaviour" if you define it as I have.

Well, I was on board with that notion for quite a long time. Keep the government out of people's bedrooms and let them do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone else.

But now it is.

Now the Christian bakers are being targeted (there's another one in Michigan today) for not endorsing gay marriage with their service. It does hurt someone.

Yes, I know how you folks like to paint this as Christians denying services just because someone is gay but that's not what this is. It's Christians being forced to provide gay-specific services. None of these people have been accused of refusing gay people the right to purchase a donut.

And you can argue it with me until you're blue in the face and I will not ever concede this. Some people just need to accept that not everyone in the world has to endorse their sexuality, religion, political beliefs, or PC sensitivities.

Just go somewhere else.

If that's not acceptable then realize that there are some lines where some people are not going to compromise and they'll push back as we're seeing in selected states. And if the Convention of the States (CoS) is ratified then you can bet on seeing a Marriage Amendment and a Religious Freedom Amendment come out of it.

Interestingly, the CoS seemed to be dying on the vine and then the bakery thing started up and now seven states have ratified it. It needs 38 states and then the party starts. Keep on pushing this queer agenda and you'll end up being the best proponents of the CoS.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What if your children grow up to pass legislation that makes children adults at birth so they can consent to whatever they want without parental permission? This thinking is in line with the UN 'Rights of the Child' movement.

Well it'll be up to my children to decide the rules they'll by, I suppose. I think they're smart enough to keep an age of majority in their laws and/or some means to prevent the sexual abuse of children through capacity requirements on consent. You're interpreting the UN Rights of the Child Convention as a movement to empower children with the right to consent to anything?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The argument you'll encounter will be something along the lines of, "You narrow-mined bigots oppose intergenerational sex and love and you just want children to grow up as sexually repressed as you were!"

Will you oppose it even if someone calls you names?

Ask me when it happens. I think you're tossing out ridiculous "What if?"s.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, I was on board with that notion for quite a long time. Keep the government out of people's bedrooms and let them do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone else.

But now it is.

Now the Christian bakers are being targeted (there's another one in Michigan today) for not endorsing gay marriage with their service. It does hurt someone.

Yes, I know how you folks like to paint this as Christians denying services just because someone is gay but that's not what this is. It's Christians being forced to provide gay-specific services. None of these people have been accused of refusing gay people the right to purchase a donut.

And you can argue it with me until you're blue in the face and I will not ever concede this. Some people just need to accept that not everyone in the world has to endorse their sexuality, religion, political beliefs, or PC sensitivities.

Just go somewhere else.

If that's not acceptable then realize that there are some lines where some people are not going to compromise and they'll push back as we're seeing in selected states. And if the Convention of the States (CoS) is ratified then you can bet on seeing a Marriage Amendment and a Religious Freedom Amendment come out of it.

Interestingly, the CoS seemed to be dying on the vine and then the bakery thing started up and now seven states have ratified it. It needs 38 states and then the party starts. Keep on pushing this queer agenda and you'll end up being the best proponents of the CoS.

Well you're not getting it, clearly. I've done what I can to try to help you get it, but you don't. C'est la vie.