An openly homosexual Imam visits Norway

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Sock puppet path, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    and the value of that reply is?????????

    see? i ask "but why?", and you reply "shit, who knows?" i mean wtf? why answer then? and if you've only limited your nonsense at that.

    so when i post my challenge by saying that bestiality and incest is similar to homosexuality, and none give a good answer, oh you stand up for it, and your grand reply? "show us how they're the same".. my! you can actually ask questions back, how impressive.

    see? see what i mean?
    WHAT exactly are you saying? what is the value of your words? what is the point you're trying to make? you're like an angry child who keeps saying no and disagrees with everything, and wants nothing other than that he wants nothing. you've got nothing to say on the subject, other than the inverse of what i've got to say on the subject, and when you can't find an inverse..;
    oh you're sincere alright, if you didn't understand what i said you wouldn't have to answer, what i'm saying isn't an exam paper wheryou have to jot some reply to everything i throw at you. but noo, you gotta reply to everything i say, even if it isn't freaking directed at you.. it's like an echo crying "come again?!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    twice, in one post...
    you're as pathetic in this thread as the rest of the riff raff here, when you oppose just to oppose, you come across as stupid and senseless.

    just drop it, i'm done here.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Where's that "third way" I was promised?

    That your language is sort of a dead giveaway as to your opinion of homosexuals?

    Yeah! I know! It's crazy, right!

    I mean, it would be crazy, if you hadn't read a single word after that sentence. Which you seemingly didn't.

    That sentence made no sense at all.

    You mean response, and yes, they did. You just prefer not to read it.

    Uh, which of those am I standing up for again? I just want to be clear, because I'd rather my statements not be in a position where someone could deliberately misinterpret them.

    Same question: show us why I should put them in any group to begin with. It's surprising that you don't understand this: tell me why I should group homosexuality with beastiality and/or incest in the first place. You've danced around an answer but failed to provide one yet. You're starting from the assumption that I need to differentiate them. But you haven't given any evidence as to why they're supposedly equivalent. So you don't have any reason for this position in the first place. So I have to ask: what are the value of your words? What reason do you have for making this assumption that I even have to listen to you?

    Classic porch-sitting cracker kind of stuff. "What is the value of your words? Why do you not just immediately agree with me? Why do you not understand that I don't have an answer to your question above, and that I want to avoid it with wink-wink-nudge-nudge correlation?! What do you think you are proving, by forcing me to have some kind of logical basis for grouping homosexuality and incest and beastiality in the first place?! You are an angry child!" Excellent.

    I tell you what: we'll confine it to the question above, and which I've harped on for now for several posts: tell me why I should group homosexuality with beastiality and/or incest in the first place. You could use some kind of sociological evidence, or political evidence, or psychological evidence, or psychiatric evidence. There must be lots out there...somewhere...I'm sure.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Bonne chance. But since you say you're running away like a coward, I guess you won't even try. Pity. It's always amusing to catch a religious retard out on his bullshit when it's a) bigoted and b) totally unfounded, except in the words of the sky-face.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Well well, you return to the thread. Welcome back scifes. I have missed you so.

    You will excuse me for laughing at you, yet again, since it has been your assertion in this thread and others that you deem atheists to be beneath contempt. In fact, you have been sure to remind us that to atheists, bestiality and incest should be accepted, because it seems that you have this bizarre belief that such things should be accepted if you're an atheist. You then repeatedly ask your detractors in this thread, all of whom have been either atheist or non-Muslim, why you cannot marry your sister or fuck your animals.

    It seems you, being the pious little cretin that you are, need such things explained to you. You accuse us of hypocrisy because we do not fuck our immediate relatives or animals, but we accept homosexuality. That you cannot actually any answers as to what homosexuality has in common with beastiality and incest says more about you than you may wish to know. A prime example is how you actually even refer to homosexuals in this thread.

    So why do you think you should not fuck your sister Scifes?

    You are a snide little turd and have displayed your turdness to perfection in this thread. If I throw your pathetic little arguments back in your face, remember, it is because I am using the very same words you have been throwing at us in this thread. Don't like it? Tough titties. You do not deserve anything above contempt for your bigotry.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    bells, you make up hostility in your own little brain then react to it, i mean seriously, you're angry at me for stuff i didn't say, that's why i don't really hate you as much as i just pity you:shrug:

    as for G, well duh, bestiality, incense, homosexuality are all sexual orientations disgusting for most people. where do you live man, in a cave?
  8. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Bells and Scifes,

    Bells, I wouldn't ask you to not "attack" a homophobe because the homophobe happens to be Muslim. But I think the attack should be against homophobia and not against Islam. I agree that Islam should be condemned for spreading homophobia which is cruel just as spreading Islamophobia is cruel. I am openly bigoted against cruel even though I am part cruel.

    When somebody is going to attack a group that is under attack the way Muslims and Homosexuals are under attack in the West and in other places the attacker should be very accurate and should no know why they are attacking and should never attack unconsciously or because it is fashionable to attack that group.

    Scifes advocates cruelty to homosexuals. Rejection and condemnation alone are cruelty. To me cruelty is only acceptable when it is punishment. And Punishment is only acceptable when it prevents cruelty. Even when punishment does prevent cruelty the punishment should not be more cruel than the cruelty prevented.

    I can not find a rational reason to punish homosexuality that meets my standards.

    I can find reasons want to consider wanting to punish Islam because Islam does promote some cruelty; but punishment imposed by unvirtuous outsiders with who have unvirtuous motives for wanting to be cruel while pretending to punish won't work to correct the behavior but rather would undermine the internal struggle of those within the Muslim world that want to oppose cruelty done for the sake of tradition or orthodoxy. Everything that the west criticizes the Muslim world for is yet to be fully eradicated in the West.

    Criticize the force the creates homophobia in all cultures. If you chose to single out Islam stay alert and remember that you might be mistaken for one of those people who says nasty things about Islam because because everybody is doing it and it satisfies like scratching a psychological itch. This itch actually has nothing to do with Islam and more to do with "Us" versus "Them tribal instincts." Many people want to make Islam into the West's enemy scapegoat the way the Germans made Jews into their scapegoats and the way some types of people want to make homosexuals there scapegoat.

    Logically both you and Scifes are wrong about the homosexual to beastiality comparison. I presume Scifes thought since surely you would reject beastiality then you would see that homosexuality which is also a minority variant of human sexuality that is not as normal as heterosexual sex and serves no procreative purpose should also be rejected if you are going to reject beastiality. I don't think Scifes meant to be offensive. I think he was trying to be logical and I think to some degree he succeeded at being logical. I presume for you beastiality is disgusting and homosexuality is not disgusting and therefore the analogy offended you.

    I think the old religions were trying to make sense out of this troublesome force that is sexuality and were trying to impose order on sexuality when the decided that sex is just for making children and is only appropriate in marriage and any other type of sex should be banned and shunned and thought of as disgusting.

    Logically if we are lifting the disgust based "it's not normal and it does not make children within a marriage" taboos against variant sex then we should also drop our disgust against bestiality.

    What we are left with after the moral taboos and disgust taboos are shown to be illogical and cruel is public health issues and animal cruelty issues which should be thought out logically not emotionally or religious superstitionally. Of course calling religions superstitions is cruel but this is Sciforums AKA a protected reserve for another persecuted minority "the atheist" and religions create so much cruelty so screw them. But don't single out Islam.

    My earlier public health idea that bestiality was relatively safe sex is true for the individual but not true for the species. Beastiality could be an entry point diseases crossing species as could keeping farm animals or eating meat but beastiality only pleases a tiny minority.

    Disgust is probably both learned and instinctual. When a young woman is creeped out by the sexual interest in her from an old man I think both her reaction to be disgusted by the unwelcome interest and the old man's interest are both probably more instinctual than learned. When I was a young man gay men hit on me a few times. Because I did not feel vulnerable or confused I did not need to react dramatically. But instinctively male homosexual sex has a yuck factor for me. I don't think it is a learned yuck factor. But do we want a world where the laws for all obey the instincts of the majority?

    There are so many Homosexuals and bisexuals that I believe they must serve an evolutionary purpose and I suspect that internal relations within the bands of early humans must have been improved by having a certain percentage of the population being homosexual.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  9. Bells Staff Member

    How do you define that only heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality not normal?

    Is it only normal if one can spawn one's offspring, in your opinion? Does that mean if heterosexual sex does not result in offspring (ie. one or both are infertile), is that also abnormal in your opinion?

    With all due respect, I think you give Scifes too much credit.

    He is deeply offensive and he means to be so. In fact, he goes out of his way to be offensive. He is sly and snide with his comments about homosexuals and atheists in general. Slyly commenting about atheists accepting homosexuals and homosexuality and how we should also accept incest, then asking why he can't marry or have sex with his sister. I am sorry, but how is that not offensive to you?

    I am curious as to how or why you may think comparing homosexuality with beastiality is not offensive. In short, how can it not be offensive?

    Again, you give him too much credit.

    There is no logic in comparing homosexuality and beastiality. Tell me, do you think it is logical to compare two adults having sex to an adult having sex with his family pet dog? How about to an adult raping his/her child? Is it comparable in your opinion? Is it logical to make such a comparison? You seem to think it is. If you see logic there, it could very well be that you are as homophobic and bigoted as he is.

    To put it bluntly..

    Well duh!

    You are telling me you don't find the analogy offensive? To me it is akin to a racist comparing a black person to a gorilla or chimpanzee. It is offesive in the extreme.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2010
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Angry? No. I am angry at the shit that sticks to my shoe if I accidently step in said shit. You are not as important as that shit, therefore I am not angry.

    What I do feel is sneering disgust at what you have said. You can try to deny it as much as you want, but the facts remain that you are a homophobic little arsewipe as well as a bigot.

    Considering you are comparing homosexuals with beastiality and asking why you can't fuck your sister, I'd suggest you start coming out of that cave dwelling you happen to be living in and stop saying "ugg".

    While you may consider "most people" to be like you, one must take into consideration that you are surrounded by people who are as homophobic and bigoted as you are. And it is quite possible.

    What I can say to you is that you are a small blight on humanity's anus, which hopefully will be expelled, along with all of your backwards clanfolk, as your bigotry and homophobic tendencies are exposed to the sunshine for all to see.
  11. Yosef Registered Senior Member

    What is the reason for all that bad language ?

    A true believer does not do that. No need!

    Love the Lord

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Love the lord and abhor the homo LOL
  13. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    샢는 바보다.

    I still don't understand why homosexuality is being put on the same line with paedophilia. I don't know, maybe it's just me but I see fundamental differences between the two...
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    The catch 22 seems to be that condeming Islam for spreading homophobia is deamed Islamophobia. Condeming Jeudism is antisemitic. Condeming Chrsitianity, well, we can still get away with that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    A true believer does not require all that hate, do they?
  16. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You don't know the difference?

    Homosexuality is sexual attraction to people of the same sex as yourself. Incest is having sex with members of your family. Paedophilia is adults having sex with children.

    How can you begin to discuss these things if you don't know the basics?

    Incest is not the same as homosexuality. Understand?

    You need to get the basic definitions first, then we can go into details once you decide what you actually want to discuss.

    Because your society's marriage laws do not condone incestual marriages. Duh!

    Maybe nothing. What kind of sex are you thinking about, in particular? You'll need to distinguish sex between consenting adults from sex with unconsenting children, for example. Hint: one of those is ok, the other is not.

    Who cares what "most people" think? What you need to look at is whether those things are right or wrong according to any defendable principles? Lots of people are wrong about all kinds of things.

    Your belief that evolution is "crap" is frankly irrelevant. Take it to a different thread if you want to discuss that.

    Because the child is incapable of consent, for a start.

    What reason would you give for disallowing that?

    A moment ago you were the one talking about what "most people" think about homosexuality. Doesn't that suggest to you that it's you who is jumping on a bandwagon?

    But I'm interested. Tell me what is the resemblance of bestiality to homosexuality, exactly? I don't see them as being the same, but apparently you do. Why?

    Tell me why you believe homosexuality and bestiality are the same. Explain. In what way are they the same? In particular, tell me what the harm is from each of them.

    So, you're jumping on the "most people" bandwagon. Do you admit it?

    Got any better reason than that for saying homosexuality is wrong?
  18. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, why are they "disgusting" exactly? (I tend to agree that incense is disgusting, it's the nastiest smell ever which is why I tend not to walk into Indian stores).
  19. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    james, an ad populum isn't always wrong, it is actually recognized as a very strong factor, but using it to be definite about something is fallacious.

    if we were to label sexual orientations as good or bad based on societies acceptance of them, then we ought to jump in the bigger bandwagon.

    if most people said that homosexuality is disgusting, and so is incense and bestiality, then we say that's the case. and it wouldn't exactly be a fallacy because we're judging them by what the majority thinks of them.

    however, to say homosexuality is fine and most people are evil homophobics, then say incense is bad and we don't need to explain why it's bad because everyone agrees its bad[everyone being the same evil homophobic everyone], is [you gotta admit] fucking stupid.

    and so then jumping on the small selective atheist/secular bandwagon is the retarded thing to do. you either be a proper sheeple who is content with what the masses accept. or you reject the majorities rule and properly defend your individual position.

    one thing demonstrated in this thread, is that most atheists are in that bandwagon.
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    One thing demonstrated in this thread is that you have no objective reason for grouping homosexuality with beastiality or paedophillia to even begin asking your propaganda-narrowed-disguised-as-questions. Why don't you start with answering my objection and see where that gets us.
  21. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Wow, now it's not about homosexuals any more, but about atheists..

    Anyway, I loled at this article describing incest:

    Maybe you'll understand better what incest is once you read the article I linked, scifes..

Share This Page