alchresearch Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is there actually any evidence to suggest that "knuckle dragging tattooed thugs" are more likely to be homophobic than the rest of society though? I very much doubt it, but I'm willing to change my mind if presented with some evidence. Just do a Google news search for "murdered for being gay" and then look at the type of person who did the killing. Not an intelligentsia amongst them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Conrod suggesting, in the face of all medical and biological knowledge, that gays are "mentally ill" is a sign that this country is not as enlightened and tolerant as you seem to think. And you accuse others of strawmanning To say that the UK is liberal, clearly isn't a claim that every single individual in the UK is impeccably liberal without exception and you know it. So please try debating honestly for once and try responding to what people actually post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 And you accuse others of strawmanning To say that the UK is liberal, clearly isn't a claim that every single individual in the UK is impeccably liberal without exception and you know it. So please try debating honestly for once and try responding to what people actually post. Take a look upthread. Conrod posted that then disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That's a blatant lie and really rather desperate lie, the passage Jimmy quoted explicity mentions homosexuality: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81 ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women How is that not a reference to homosexuality? Furthermore that wording is common across translations: YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. So what if the bible doesn't explicitly mention homosexuality in the tale of the destruction of Sodom, the Koran which is the book under discussion does on 4 separate occasions. Besides the bible explicitly condemns homosexuality in numerous places across the Old and New Testaments so it's a complete non-point to argue that the common assumption as to why Yaweh supposedly slaughtered the inhabitants Sodom and Gomorrah has no scriptural basis. Because homophobia like slavery & all manner of other evils has clear Koranic and Biblical backing. Quite simply because the story is about Lot. It was the knowing of the angels Lot was condemning.... so that might be bestiality or something equivalent but with a higher species? Either way it cannot be homosexuality. Also as this writer interprets it... it is not the same sex that is being condemned... here is another translation.... And Lot, when he said unto his people: 'Will you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever done before you? Verily, with lust you approach men instead of women: nay, but you are people given to excesses!' (7: 80-81) It sounds a bit like a Carry on film excerpt... http://muslimfeminist.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-homosexuality-sin.html I admit there is some condemnation there, but it is not clear homosexuality was the object of the condemnation, so much as the lust... the homosexuality is noted... but not necessarily in a way that is particularly significant. It is also not what the story was about... which even in the crudest sense is an attempted mass rape of angels. Those being approached with lust weren't even human, the fact of the context in the narrative being a rape is sufficient to explain the condemnation. Also the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality anywhere.... it condemns ritual sex and sex with angels. The clobber pasages are all mistranslations and amount to a mere handful out of the thousands of verses in the bible. There are even 3 same sex relationships in the Bible written about positively... David and Saul, Ruth and another woman and there is another male homosexual relationship as well that escapes me at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 And you accuse others of strawmanning To say that the UK is liberal, clearly isn't a claim that every single individual in the UK is impeccably liberal without exception and you know it. So please try debating honestly for once and try responding to what people actually post. I tell you what's spooky, the prejudiced, sweeping statements from interviewer, slagging ALL muslims off based on the actions of a handful, passed by without comment from you! It seems only some prejudice alarms you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 My bold You obviously can't differentiate been "thinking" and "doing"!! Everything is legal, if you're just thinking about it, we don't have thought crime. I've thought about battering people to a pulp on more than one occasion - but because I didn't actually do so, I am guilty of no crime. If I had battered somebody, it would be illegal - whether I was caught or not. You miss my point. Spindrift had said that homophobia was legal in the UK, because the law doesn't prevent us from having homophobic thoughts or views. My subsequent comments were made as examples of how obtuse his argument was. We cannot police racist, homophobic or sexist views, but there are many laws against doing things that are racist, homophobic or sexist - so racism, homophobia and sexism are all illegal in one way or another. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 - so racism, homophobia and sexism are all illegal in one way or another. That was my point. No, they are not. Acting upon prejudice is illegal, being prejudiced isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You miss my point. Spindrift had said that homophobia was legal in the UK, because the law doesn't prevent us from having homophobic thoughts or views. My subsequent comments were made as examples of how obtuse his argument was. We cannot police racist, homophobic or sexist views, but there are many laws against doing things that are racist, homophobic or sexist - so racism, homophobia and sexism are all illegal in one way or another. That was my point. Have you got any evidence that "many people" think homosexuality is a mental disease? What's the basis of that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Anyone would take it the wrong way because of the excessive use of the word these days when refering to Homosexuality. As I said earlier a perfectly decent word was hijacked to give Homosexuality a cloak of decency. It would appear and be very easy to form the opinion that by covering up the word Homosexual that the Homosexuals themselves were ashamed of being Homosexuals. Oh, you don't think it had anything to do with being fed up of being referred to as poofters, shirt lifters, **** bandits, etc, etc?? And since gay has been "highjacked" and is synonymous with being a homosexual, how on earth can somebody who openly says, "I'm gay" be assumed to be ashamed of their sexual preference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No, they are not. Acting upon prejudice is illegal, being prejudiced isn't. Isn't one "being prejudiced" when one acts upon their prejudice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.