How does religion handle homosexuals

[jimnyc]

A lot of people criticize Catholics/Christians because of their stance on homosexuals, which is mainly to denounce it and/or not be accepting of it. Here in the USA, outside of disdain from many within religion, there is no monetary fine or punishment for being gay, nor do I ever believe there should be, even though I am more against it than the average Joe. Not being accepting of it, disagreeing with it, fighting against "rights" or gay marriage - these things are much different than actual punishment from authorities, whether that be monetarily speaking or physical. Of course there are some yo-yo's out there who would abuse a gay person if they had a chance, referred to as "gay bashing" here.

But how far should anyone go in an attempt to prevent gay marriage, to "stop" homosexuality, if that's even possible? Should there ever be violent reactions? What about death for gay people? I cut out much of this page, so feel free to follow the link to read even more, but I thought these worthy of highlighting:


Iran
Of the Islamic states that ban lesbian and gay sex, Iran is the most zealously homophobic. Since 1980, when the fundamentalists came to power under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed, according to estimates by the exiled Iranian homosexual rights group, Homan.

In the early 1980's, for example, 70 people were executed after they attempted to set up a lesbian and gay organization. Nearly 100 homosexuals were sentenced to death in 1992 following a raid on a private party.
. . .
Lesbians and gay men living in countries dominated by the New Dark Ages of Islamic fundamentalism cannot afford the liberal luxury of tolerating religious fanaticism. For them, the politically correct arguments about "cultural sensitivity" smack of surrender to the extremists who jeopardize their freedom and even their lives.[2]

Iraq

678 people killed because of their sexuality between 2004 and 2009.
Iraqi gays are being targeted and killed in what rights campaigners say is some of the worst violence against the community in recent years.

At least 68 gay and transgendered men have been killed over the last four months, according to the London-based rights advocacy group Iraqi LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender), bringing the total number of killings of Iraqis because of their sexuality to 678 since 2004.[3]

Malaysia
Abdul Kadir Che Kob describes homosexuals as "shameless people" and homosexuality as a "sin worse than murder." Abdul Kadir is head of education and research at Malaysia’s Islamic Affairs Department, which operates as the morality police with 50 enforcement officers across the country. These officers are empowered to arrest Muslims — including unmarried couples, homosexuals, transvestites and transsexuals — suspected of breaking Islamic laws. Last year, 111 men were arrested in Kuala Lumpur for "attempting to commit homosexual acts."[9]

Palestinian Authority area
A number of gay Palestinian men are risking their lives to cross the border into Israel, claiming they feel safer among Israelis than their own people.

According to some estimates, there are now 300 gay Palestinian men secretly living and working in Israel.
Their willingness to live there - despite the risk of being detained and deported as a security threat - is due to Palestinian attitudes towards gay men, they claim.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_%28Homosexuals%29

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A lot of people criticize Catholics/Christians because of their stance on homosexuals, which is mainly to denounce it and/or not be accepting of it. Here in the USA, outside of disdain from many within religion, there is no monetary fine or punishment for being gay, nor do I ever believe there should be, even though I am more against it than the average Joe. Not being accepting of it, disagreeing with it, fighting against "rights" or gay marriage - these things are much different than actual punishment from authorities, whether that be monetarily speaking or physical. Of course there are some yo-yo's out there who would abuse a gay person if they had a chance, referred to as "gay bashing" here.

But how far should anyone go in an attempt to prevent gay marriage, to "stop" homosexuality, if that's even possible? Should there ever be violent reactions? What about death for gay people? I cut out much of this page, so feel free to follow the link to read even more, but I thought these worthy of highlighting:



http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_%28Homosexuals%29 Islam= death penalty for being homosexual. The Religion of Peace is firm on that(Sharia law) yet gets a complete pass on it. Amazing isn't it? Fear, ignorance and money can really garner a lot of support and blind ALLEGIANCE, HUH?-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

Conservatives should express solidarity with hardline Muslims over their stance concerning homosexuals. Gather in a circle and sing Kum Ba Ya or something. :p

[jimnyc]

Conservatives should express solidarity with hardline Muslims over their stance concerning homosexuals. Gather in a circle and sing Kum Ba Ya or something. :p

Stop being a troll. Conservatives are nowhere even remotely having a similar stance to Muslims. Can't you possibly discuss ANY political/religion topic without being a troll? It's one thing if you offer a valid opinion of your own, get bad treatment, and then reply in kind. But the extreme majority of the time, you open a thread, barely even read it, and start trying to offend as many as you can.

[jimnyc]

Btw, Gabby, that's the second time in as many days pulling this crap. Now Conservatives want to kill homosexuals - and yesterday the Tea Party members were tax cheats and hate the American troops.

[gabosaurus]

Stop being a troll. Conservatives are nowhere even remotely having a similar stance to Muslims.

In regard to their stands toward homosexuals, conservatives and Muslims have very similar stances. How can you not see this? Is it going over your head or what?

[jimnyc]

In regard to their stands toward homosexuals, conservatives and Muslims have very similar stances. How can you not see this? Is it going over your head or what?

Most conservatives don't agree with homosexuality and and are against gay marriage. The Muslims you mentioned, and mentioned in what I pointed out, want these people executed. You're an idiot for making the comparison, and more of just a jerk in general for still trying to pass off this type of argument. And since a large portion of tea party members are conservatives, you're also saying we hate the troops and cheat on taxes.

I don't know why I even bother. It's trolling. You do it so darn often that you are starting to convince yourself that your trolling is legit.

[aboutime]

Jim. I know you will disagree with me on this but....how long are you willing to look the other way with this gabby crap?

Tell me I'm out of line if you like. But she really does sound like an Unstable, Mental case who has no concept of being honest, or personally responsible for anything she says here.

If I had used the accusations, expressions, and words she uses here. No doubt in my mind. You would have sent my post to the CAGE, or deleted my posts all together.

I do wonder how many other members...other than the normal few who defend gabby, agree with me?

[jimnyc]

Jim. I know you will disagree with me on this but....how long are you willing to look the other way with this gabby crap?

Tell me I'm out of line if you like. But she really does sound like an Unstable, Mental case who has no concept of being honest, or personally responsible for anything she says here.

If I had used the accusations, expressions, and words she uses here. No doubt in my mind. You would have sent my post to the CAGE, or deleted my posts all together.

I do wonder how many other members...other than the normal few who defend gabby, agree with me?

I'm sorry you believe that. I don't delete posts. I'll move them to the cage though, if it's a thread that he deteriorated and no longer serves a purpose. She has certainly had her share of thread bans, so in that regard she is treated the same as others.

I don't think you're out of line, I just disagree with you is all. And I'm not even 'looking away' as you put it. I call her out almost every time I see her posting something I disagree with, or something asinine.

[fj1200]

Jim. I know you will disagree with me on this but....how long are you willing to look the other way with this gabby crap?

Tell me I'm out of line if you like. But she really does sound like an Unstable, Mental case who has no concept of being honest, or personally responsible for anything she says here.

If I had used the accusations, expressions, and words she uses here. No doubt in my mind. You would have sent my post to the CAGE, or deleted my posts all together.

I do wonder how many other members...other than the normal few who defend gabby, agree with me?

Quoted for irony.

[fj1200]

But how far should anyone go in an attempt to prevent gay marriage, to "stop" homosexuality, if that's even possible?

Liberty should be valued more highly.

[aboutime]

Quoted for irony.


Sure thing fj. Ironic YOU just had to be the first to expel your typical BS.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649417#post649417)
But how far should anyone go in an at


Liberty should be valued more highly.

You told me, didn't you FJ that you approve both polygamy and adult incest and adult incest marriages????

If not, now is your opportunity.

As to Gabby, she does not rile me up as she riles up several members. I sweat the important stuff.

[fj1200]

... typical BS.

More irony.

[fj1200]

You told me, didn't you FJ that you approve both polygamy and adult incest and adult incest marriages????

If not, now is your opportunity.

As to Gabby, she does not rile me up as she riles up several members. I sweat the important stuff.

I don't recall approving those before and not now. If you want the government to restrict liberties, or favor some individuals over others, you had better be ready with the State's compelling interest.

[Voted4Reagan]

Conservatives should express solidarity with hardline Muslims over their stance concerning homosexuals. Gather in a circle and sing Kum Ba Ya or something. :p

I am conservative... and could care less about what anyone in the LGBT Community does.

I support the rights for Gays to Marry... And get Divorced just like Straights...

Welcome to Equality Folks! Pay the Lawyers as you file for Divorce!

[red state]

Equality means [EQUAL for all] I suppose and with that thought, I would assume that is confined to "consenting adults". Adults is plural so I would suggest that marriage between:

One man and three wives or
One woman and three men or
Two women and two women or
a sister marrying a sister (etc. etc.)

is next because it is their RIGHT of equality under the Constitution. Right?

What is next will be the imprisonment of citizens (including the clergy) for spouting HATE SPEECH as is the case in other countries where pastors, priests and citizens simply express their views and religion. We are already headed that way with tax exempt status and other PC and Hate Crime legislation. It is a mad house of the LEFT and the ignorance of those such as Gabby (who by the way is a troll and contribute NOTHING to any thread but allowed to do so time after time after time) that spews hatred for one group (Christians and Conservatives) while praising the evils and ignorance of liberals and muSLUMs (who are hell bent on destroying this Nation and would like nothing better than to silence the opposition with any means at their disposal). It is the liberal idiots (useful idiots) and muSLUMs who have much in common with one another....not Conservatives or Christians. Christians tolerate opposing views while educating those with an ear or intellect of the evils of fascistic/bullying tactics of the LEFT, iSLUM and the Homosexual Machine.

I agree with About Time 110% and enjoy intelligent posts from a few but I've decided to simply scroll past all the ignorance of other that I've know to post ignorant and hateful posts without meaning because THEY are simply an utter waste of time.

Addressing the topic head on, I'd have to say that religion (true religion) handles homosexuality as Christ's disciples handle homosexuality....with LOVE for the sinner but detest of the sin. With cults such as iSLUM, homosexuals are treated much the way liberals treat Christians (with the exception that liberals can't yet KILL or imprison Christians in America....YET).

[fj1200]

is next because it is their RIGHT of equality under the Constitution. Right?

No. There is no Constitutional right of marriage but there is equal protection under the law. Do you contend that gay couples had that?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No. There is no Constitutional right of marriage but there is equal protection under the law. Do you contend that gay couples had that? Do you contend that the exceptions made for muslims qualify as equal protection under the law when those same special exceptions do not extend to the other major religions. Islamists are allowed to opt out of the Obama care but no SPECIAL exception has been made for Christians that I am aware of. What say ye on that Hoss??? -Tyr

[red state]

Tyr,

What say ye or those who spout off EQUALITY yet remain silent on TRUE equality for ALL. Why are we limiting the debate to homosexuals ONLY instead of ALL consenting adults? Who is to say whom we are allowed to marry or how many we are allowed to marry? Who gets to play god....certainly not GOD. It must be the chosen few....and that is neither right or Constitutional. Surely equality for ALL means ALL.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't recall approving those before and not now. If you want the government to restrict liberties, or favor some individuals over others, you had better be ready with the State's compelling interest.

May I then conclude you do not agree with the two court rulings on marriage?

[jafar00]

The way I see it. If you want to pack fudge, don't pack fudge where fudge packing is illegal or move to where it is, in much the same way that smoking cannabis is illegal in the US so if someone wants to smoke it without fear of prosecution, they should move to somewhere where it is legal like Cambodia.

Laws are laws and it serves your best interests to abide by them.

[Voted4Reagan]

The way I see it. If you want to pack fudge, don't pack fudge where fudge packing is illegal or move to where it is, in much the same way that smoking cannabis is illegal in the US so if someone wants to smoke it without fear of prosecution, they should move to somewhere where it is legal like Cambodia.

Laws are laws and it serves your best interests to abide by them.

Translated into English..

"In Islam we kill GAYS/LESBIANS/Bisexuals and Transgendered people and openly discriminate against them"

[tailfins]

Btw, Gabby, that's the second time in as many days pulling this crap. Now Conservatives want to kill homosexuals - and yesterday the Tea Party members were tax cheats and hate the American troops.

The court jester's job is to jest. Just laugh.

[tailfins]

A lot of people criticize Catholics/Christians because of their stance on homosexuals, which is mainly to denounce it and/or not be accepting of it. Here in the USA, outside of disdain from many within religion, there is no monetary fine or punishment for being gay, nor do I ever believe there should be, even though I am more against it than the average Joe. Not being accepting of it, disagreeing with it, fighting against "rights" or gay marriage - these things are much different than actual punishment from authorities, whether that be monetarily speaking or physical. Of course there are some yo-yo's out there who would abuse a gay person if they had a chance, referred to as "gay bashing" here.

But how far should anyone go in an attempt to prevent gay marriage, to "stop" homosexuality, if that's even possible? Should there ever be violent reactions? What about death for gay people? I cut out much of this page, so feel free to follow the link to read even more, but I thought these worthy of highlighting:



http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_%28Homosexuals%29

At the end of the day, proper adherence to your faith should be the focus. I think for example, the Southern Baptist Convention has done a great job on this topic. They don't condone homosexuality, but don't differentiate them from any other sinner. The Southern Baptists are by no means a conservative denomination.


We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.


http://sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No. There is no Constitutional right of marriage but there is equal protection under the law. Do you contend that gay couples had that? Really!!??? Such a narrow interpretation of equality under the law they did and then lectured us on morality to boot. If government is going to be the final judge on marriage then use equality under the law to allow in one perversion it naturally flows that the other perversions must be allowed in. What SCOTUS DID WAS JUST AS WRONG AS JUSTICE SCALIA STATED IT WAS. Either we have hands off or hands on for the government but this picking select groups to defend and promote has ffing got to stop. There is no equality under the law if its only very selectively applied. The lib/left does just that apply it and cry for it to promote only their damn interests all the while patting themselves on their backs about how damn fair minded and enlightened they are! I've overheard the dumbasses talk in their little groups and sickening as hell how damn arrogant they are. In fact , arrogance and selfishness are the two primary qualifications to join in with such people. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

The way I see it. If you want to pack fudge, don't pack fudge where fudge packing is illegal or move to where it is, in much the same way that smoking cannabis is illegal in the US so if someone wants to smoke it without fear of prosecution, they should move to somewhere where it is legal like Cambodia.

Laws are laws and it serves your best interests to abide by them.

So rather than try and stop places from killing people for being homosexuals, your answer is to have them move out of their countries? You think execution is a fair penalty for being gay? Just like you think it's fair to behead people for insulting Islam and places that kill people for apostasy. Islam is sick, and you're infected.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr,

What say ye or those who spout off EQUALITY yet remain silent on TRUE equality for ALL. Why are we limiting the debate to homosexuals ONLY instead of ALL consenting adults? Who is to say whom we are allowed to marry or how many we are allowed to marry? Who gets to play god....certainly not GOD. It must be the chosen few....and that is neither right or Constitutional. Surely equality for ALL means ALL. No disagreement from me on that. And that is why absolute equality can not exist and still have a civilized society! Laws and regulations exist to set order in the world, to stop pure equality. Absolute equality equates to no laws upon any man, which is absurd. Equality can not exist with man as a pure form. Equality of outcome that the leftists strive for is a damn illusion simply because it can only be achieved by perfection! And man is an imperfect creature. Man's imperfection is why we needs laws and why force must be used to enforce order in the world. Our Constitution does a great job of striving for a state of equality that serves man and it's not anywhere near seeking pure equality. The Founders understood that was a path to chaos and madness. It's obvious that were I seek and demand equality then all that have more than me can not be allowed to exist! That is why communism fails . In it's quest to force pure equality of outcome it faces man's inherent desire to be free(to be individuals not a collective) . And than means it must use total brutal force to attempt to achieve its goals... The socialists/leftist/dems here are all ffing dumbasses and loons IMHO. THEY PREACH AND TEACH ONE THING WHILE GOING ABOUT DOING ANOTHER . And neither action bodes well for the people's freedoms and inherent rights. Which is why they seek to indoctrinate the young, those with not enough life experience and foundation to see them for what they truly are. Young and gullible they want them same way that they damn Islamists do. Indoctrinate the young into a cult like state and they will do anything--even blow themselves up to prove their loyalty to the cause , the agenda and/or the God. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Do you contend that the exceptions made for muslims qualify as equal protection under the law when those same special exceptions do not extend to the other major religions. Islamists are allowed to opt out of the Obama care but no SPECIAL exception has been made for Christians that I am aware of. What say ye on that Hoss??? -Tyr

Not sure why we need another "muzzy" thread but... it would be bad.

[fj1200]

May I then conclude you do not agree with the two court rulings on marriage?

IIRC, there was only one ruling, plus a non-ruling (defendant didn't have standing), where DOMA was struck down due to violating equal protection which I've stated that I believe it does. I'm not sure the basis for your confusion.

[fj1200]

Really!!??? Such a narrow interpretation of equality under the law they did and then lectured us on morality to boot. If government is going to be the final judge on marriage then use equality under the law to allow in one perversion it naturally flows that the other perversions must be allowed in. What SCOTUS DID WAS JUST AS WRONG AS JUSTICE SCALIA STATED IT WAS. Either we have hands off or hands on for the government but this picking select groups to defend and promote has ffing got to stop. There is no equality under the law if its only very selectively applied. The lib/left does just that apply it and cry for it to promote only their damn interests all the while patting themselves on their backs about how damn fair minded and enlightened they are! I've overheard the dumbasses talk in their little groups and sickening as hell how damn arrogant they are. In fact , arrogance and selfishness are the two primary qualifications to join in with such people. -Tyr

A narrow interpretation for a narrow question and a narrow law. The Federal government should have no business favoring one group over another and a specific law that sought to do just that should be found unconstitutional IMO. I'd prefer the government have NO laws or regulations that allow any preference in the first place but here we are.

[Robert A Whit]

A narrow interpretation for a narrow question and a narrow law. The Federal government should have no business favoring one group over another and a specific law that sought to do just that should be found unconstitutional IMO. I'd prefer the government have NO laws or regulations that allow any preference in the first place but here we are.

In the 1880-90 era, the Feds did just that by making polygamy illegal. What state has approved adult incest marriages?

So, why are homosexuals so special?

[Marcus Aurelius]

The way I see it. If you want to pack fudge, don't pack fudge where fudge packing is illegal or move to where it is, in much the same way that smoking cannabis is illegal in the US so if someone wants to smoke it without fear of prosecution, they should move to somewhere where it is legal like Cambodia.

Laws are laws and it serves your best interests to abide by them.

So, you obey all laws? What if a Sharia Law conflicts with a Civil Law? Which do you obey?

[fj1200]

In the 1880-90 era, the Feds did just that by making polygamy illegal. What state has approved adult incest marriages?

So, why are homosexuals so special?

Rather the actual question of the day would be why do we have laws that grant favor to straight marriage?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649624#post649624)
In the 1880-90 era, the Feds did just that by making polygamy illegal. What state has approved adult incest marriages?

So, why are homosexuals so special?


Rather the actual question of the day would be why do we have laws that grant favor to straight marriage?

That started in 1913 I believe.

However that may be, your comment is non responsive.

[fj1200]

That started in 1913 I believe.

However that may be, your comment is non responsive.

Many things started in 1913 so...

Yet my comment is on point as the decision was based on equal protection for all not how do we grant marriage to homosexuals.

[jafar00]

So rather than try and stop places from killing people for being homosexuals, your answer is to have them move out of their countries? You think execution is a fair penalty for being gay? Just like you think it's fair to behead people for insulting Islam and places that kill people for apostasy. Islam is sick, and you're infected.

Thanks for the abuse but no. I was just trying to point out that even though you may not agree with a law, you still have to abide by it or face the consequences. If you live in a country that has the death penalty for a particular crime, it's best you not engage in it even if you don't agree with the law. Just Sayin'

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the abuse but no. I was just trying to point out that even though you may not agree with a law, you still have to abide by it or face the consequences. If you live in a country that has the death penalty for a particular crime, it's best you not engage in it even if you don't agree with the law. Just Sayin'

I wouldn't go to a place, likely, with such crazy laws. But that's not the point, in abiding by the law. The point is THE law and people wanting to kill others for such things. Of course I would abide by laws of the country I am in, or I would just not go. But that hardly addresses the issue.

You said previously that you disagree with death for apostasy, and said Islam doesn't support it. BUT, it's still law in some areas. Do you just turn a blind eye there too, and just say that one should abide by the law if they go to that area?

[tailfins]

Thanks for the abuse but no. I was just trying to point out that even though you may not agree with a law, you still have to abide by it or face the consequences. If you live in a country that has the death penalty for a particular crime, it's best you not engage in it even if you don't agree with the law. Just Sayin'

You make a good point. Someone in Havana talked me out of leaving the below flyer in bathrooms. It's probably a good thing they did. If you hide the JPG on an MP3 player, it's easy to get past customs. The danger is that they can trace the printer and whomever let you use their printer would be in a world of trouble.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Yonocoopero.jpg/220px-Yonocoopero.jpg

[jafar00]

You said previously that you disagree with death for apostasy, and said Islam doesn't support it. BUT, it's still law in some areas. Do you just turn a blind eye there too, and just say that one should abide by the law if they go to that area?

What could I do to change it? I'm not a recognised Sheikh or Scholar and I'm not even a citizen of those places. Unless you have the power to change it, YES you should abide by the law if you live there or visit the country.

[jimnyc]

What could I do to change it? I'm not a recognised Sheikh or Scholar and I'm not even a citizen of those places. Unless you have the power to change it, YES you should abide by the law if you live there or visit the country.

One of the main reasons that these shit type of penalties continue is because the people apparently want them, however sick the penalties are. Many Muslims in many countries demand Sharia, and in many of those areas, they claim Sharia calls for these penalties. You say they are wrong. How can Sharia be interpreted SO differently in so many areas?

[fj1200]

How can Sharia be interpreted SO differently in so many areas?

Because religion. And living in a theocracy dominated by extremism and supported by an illiterate populace.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because religion. And living in a theocracy dominated by extremism and supported by an illiterate populace. No, its because Sharia law is a core part of Islam. It is as much a part of Islam as is the Koran. All Islam is governed by Sharia law----- where it is allowed!!!! -Tyr

[fj1200]

:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes: This is the comment made and that was your best reply?

No, its because Sharia law is a core part of Islam. It is as much a part of Islam as is the Koran. All Islam is governed by Sharia law----- where it is allowed!!!! -Tyr
Sure seems like a pathetic little attempt at saving face to me. If you can not prove that comment to be false it's best to not reply at all but you couldn't do that so we get instead a lame little -:rolleyes:--....-Tyr

[fj1200]

Sure seems like a pathetic little attempt at saving face to me. If you can not prove that comment to be false it's best to not reply at all but you couldn't do that so we get instead a lame little -:rolleyes:--....-Tyr

No. Your problem is that there was nothing incorrect about my statement:


Because religion. And living in a theocracy dominated by extremism and supported by an illiterate populace.

Which you validated by finishing up with:


No, its because Sharia law is a core part of Islam. It is as much a part of Islam as is the Koran. All Islam is governed by Sharia law----- where it is allowed!!!! -Tyr

You attempt to paint Sharia with the same broad brush all the time.