NationStates Jolt Archive

NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's parliament voted to ban the sale of seedless watermelon deemed corrupting by Moslem clerics. Deputies voted for the bill after a two-day debate in which a minority argued that people should not be denied watermelon because it has no seeds. "The government has to defend Islamic and cultural values, just as it has to defend the borders...Spreading corruption, robbing the youth of moral values. Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality." The law will take effect after further debate on details of the bill expected in several weeks' time.

NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's parliament voted to ban the sale of seedless watermelon deemed corrupting by Moslem clerics. Deputies voted for the bill after a two-day debate in which a minority argued that people should not be denied watermelon because it has no seeds. "The government has to defend Islamic and cultural values, just as it has to defend the borders...Spreading corruption, robbing the youth of moral values. Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality." The law will take effect after further debate on details of the bill expected in several weeks' time.
Yeah, Iran can be trusted with nukes. They're as reasonable as any other government.:rolleyes:

That's the funniest thing I have read in many a day. Even so, it actually makes sense on some level.

That's the funniest thing I have read in many a day. Even so, it actually makes sense on some level.

Now I think about it...it does! Hahahahaha :p

NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's parliament voted to ban the sale of seedless watermelon deemed corrupting by Moslem clerics. Deputies voted for the bill after a two-day debate in which a minority argued that people should not be denied watermelon because it has no seeds. "The government has to defend Islamic and cultural values, just as it has to defend the borders...Spreading corruption, robbing the youth of moral values. Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality." The law will take effect after further debate on details of the bill expected in several weeks' time.

Seedless watermelon encourages self abuse.

Yeah, Iran can be trusted with nukes. They're as reasonable as any other government.:rolleyes:

Um...on what authority can you make that judgement? It seems very silly to suggest that just because there are government pronouncements that you find strange, a nation's right to arm itself as it sees fit should automatically be called into question.

NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's parliament voted to ban the sale of seedless watermelon deemed corrupting by Moslem clerics. Deputies voted for the bill after a two-day debate in which a minority argued that people should not be denied watermelon because it has no seeds. "The government has to defend Islamic and cultural values, just as it has to defend the borders...Spreading corruption, robbing the youth of moral values. Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality." The law will take effect after further debate on details of the bill expected in several weeks' time.

:eek: NO! Don't ban the seedless watermelons!!!

Now I understand why the Gunny is always picking on watermelons during that 'Mail Call" TV show :p

It seems very silly to suggest that just because there are government pronouncements that you find strange, a nation's right to arm itself as it sees fit should automatically be called into question.

Most nations get over their superstitious stage while still using muskets. Imagine if the US president used astrological readings to determine whether to nuke someone...

Um...on what authority can you make that judgement? It seems very silly to suggest that just because there are government pronouncements that you find strange, a nation's right to arm itself as it sees fit should automatically be called into question.
Dude, they've banned seedless watermellons because some idiot decided god didn't like them. I wouldn't trust people like that with sharp scissors.

Most nations get over their superstitious stage while still using muskets. Imagine if the US president used astrological readings to determine whether to nuke someone...
Regan made some decisions based on an astrologer.

Dude, they've banned seedless watermellons because some idiot decided god didn't like them. I wouldn't trust people like that with sharp scissors.

In principle, it's no different from people who oppose IVF for religious reasons.

Damn good. It is about time that someone showed those watermelons whose boss. And that boss certainly isn't fruity.
Of course, this won't please the Catholics, after all those are Catholic watermelons, thoroughly devoted to never shedding their seed.

In seriousness, though, I didn't know that Islam prohibbited asexuality, I thought that they were in the line of Jews, where you either marry or live your life without screwing. I didn't know that Allah said to never bud and/or divide into two self sustaining halves.

In principle, it's no different from people who oppose IVF.
IVF? WTF?

Um...on what authority can you make that judgement? It seems very silly to suggest that just because there are government pronouncements that you find strange, a nation's right to arm itself as it sees fit should automatically be called into question.

Nations don't have the right to arm themselves as they see fit in general. They only have the right to arm themselves to the extent that other nations will let them.

True it's hard luck for the crappy nations. But maybe it will encourage them to be less crappy. (Like Iran).

Um...on what authority can you make that judgement? It seems very silly to suggest that just because there are government pronouncements that you find strange, a nation's right to arm itself as it sees fit should automatically be called into question.

Not to mention, I think we have more than our fair share of silly laws in the US...

Damn good. It is about time that someone showed those watermelons whose boss. And that boss certainly isn't fruity.
Of course, this won't please the Catholics, after all those are Catholic watermelons, thoroughly devoted to never shedding their seed.

In seriousness, though, I didn't know that Islam prohibbited asexuality, I thought that they were in the line of Jews, where you either marry or live your life without screwing. I didn't know that Allah said to never bud and/or divide into two self sustaining halves.

Obviously, the melons are doing something unnatural in the bushes...

IVF? WTF?

Well, it seems to me that this law is there because the method of producing seedless watermelons isn't "natural" like "God intended it", and those who oppose IVF (for example...you could take any number of things) on similar grounds are essentially no different. And there are quite a few people like that within our society.

But furthermore, you're assuming this is a silly law, whereas it is in fact rational, on some level. You're imposing a sort of cultural bigotry: just because it sounds silly at first, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed as nonsense. It also has no bearing on their ability to use nuclear weaponry.

But furthermore, you're assuming this is a silly law, whereas it is in fact rational, on some level. You're imposing a sort of cultural bigotry: just because it sounds silly at first, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed as nonsense. It also has no bearing on their ability to use nuclear weaponry.

No, it's a silly law. Not least because it comes from clerics. Anyone who wastes most of their early life studying religion is a priori a bit dodgy. What's more, that type of person should be kept as far away from any form of projectile - never mind - nuclear weapon as possible because of thier faulty brain.

Well, it seems to me that this law is there because the method of producing seedless watermelons isn't "natural" like "God intended it", and those who oppose IVF on similar grounds are essentially no different.
I think I get it. In Vitro Fertilization?

Most people who oppose IVF don't object to modern agricultural processes. They object to modern agricultural processes being applied to humans.

But furthermore, you're assuming this is a silly law, whereas it is in fact rational, on some level. You're imposing a sort of cultural bigotry: just because it sounds silly at first, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed as nonsense. It also has no bearing on their ability to use nuclear weaponry.
I sure am applying cultural bigotry. My culture is better than theirs. My culture doesn't rely on an imaginary man in the sky to determine our laws, and perhaps who our enemies should be. (although I must grant that with Bush at the helm we're backsliding towards Iran style barbarism.)

But furthermore, you're assuming this is a silly law, whereas it is in fact rational, on some level. You're imposing a sort of cultural bigotry: just because it sounds silly at first, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed as nonsense. It also has no bearing on their ability to use nuclear weaponry.
While I agree with the nukes part that does not detract from this being a ridiculous law

Specially with their lack of data (I would love to see the regression on this even a linear one) on seedless watermelons and its influence on homosexuality … I am guessing a p-value of .000000001

No, it's a silly law. Not least because it comes from clerics. Anyone who wastes most of their early life studying religion is a priori a bit dodgy. What's more, that type of person should be kept as far away from any form of projectile - never mind - nuclear weapon as possible because of thier faulty brain.

Well, I personally don't think it's my place to judge those who study religion. I wouldn't assume they're wasting their time: some of the greatest scholars and writers of all time have been religious ones. To suggest, furthermore, that they have a 'faulty brain' borders on flamebait. Please refrain from make such comments to me again, as they offend me.

Can someone please explain to me how it is that seedless watermelons promote homosexuality and asexuality? :rolleyes:

While I agree with the nukes part that does not detract from this being a ridiculous law

Specially with their lack of data (I would love to see the regression on this even a linear one) on seedless watermelons and its influence on homosexuality … I am guessing a p-value of .000000001

Well, 0.000000001 is about what I got in my stats exam, so I can't comment. I doubt, too, that many people are encouraged to pursue homosexuality because of seedless fruit. However, it is possible one might. In the eyes of some, that is one too many: I imagine they feel it is better to remove the threat than to allow it to persist, relatively harmless as it seem now.

Well, 0.000000001 is about what I got in my stats exam, so I can't comment. I doubt, too, that many people are encouraged to pursue homosexuality because of seedless fruit. However, it is possible one might. In the eyes of some, that is one too many: I imagine they feel it is better to remove the threat than to allow it to persist, relatively harmless as it seem now.
And I call that “just in case” specially with NO statistical backing sort of laws lacking in good sense or wisdom … in other words silly

And I call that “just in case” specially with NO statistical backing sort of laws lacking in good sense or wisdom … in other words silly

Ok. They probably argue allowing their citizens the opportunity to be tempted to sin and go to Hell is silly.

Can someone please explain to me how it is that seedless watermelons promote homosexuality and asexuality? :rolleyes:

No ability to reproduce, nor purpose of reproduction.

NICOSIA, Cyprus (Reuter) - Iran's parliament voted to ban the sale of seedless watermelon deemed corrupting by Moslem clerics. Deputies voted for the bill after a two-day debate in which a minority argued that people should not be denied watermelon because it has no seeds. "The government has to defend Islamic and cultural values, just as it has to defend the borders...Spreading corruption, robbing the youth of moral values. Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality." The law will take effect after further debate on details of the bill expected in several weeks' time.
Care to provide a link, or shall I just assume that you are trolling?

Well, I personally don't think it's my place to judge those who study religion. I wouldn't assume they're wasting their time: some of the greatest scholars and writers of all time have been religious ones. To suggest, furthermore, that they have a 'faulty brain' borders on flamebait. Please refrain from make such comments to me again, as they offend me.

Well it's my place to judge them. I can't stop them from being religious, but I don't think that they should have any say in how things are run because they obviously have problems distinguishing between reality and fantasy. I mean, did the enlightment mean nothing, or are we doomed to slip back into an era where we mutilate people because "god told us to"?

And seriously, devoutly religious people should be kept away from weapons of mass destruction at all times. They are not capable of correctly assesing the damage that can be caused, owing to a belief in invisible friends.

No ability to reproduce, nor purpose of reproduction.
Well, watermelons could have a purpose of reproduction, if you decide to eat them on your 3rd and the aphrodisiac juices... well, you know.... :p

Ridiculous.

Well it's my place to judge them. I can't stop them from being religious, but I don't think that they should have any say in how things are run because they obviously have problems distinguishing between reality and fantasy. I mean, did the enlightment mean nothing, or are we doomed to slip back into an era where we mutilate people because "god told us to"?

And seriously, devoutly religious people should be kept away from weapons of mass destruction at all times. They are not capable of correctly assesing the damage that can be caused, owing to a belief in invisible friends.

Ah, but I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist. As such, my lack of belief in invisible friends, under your logic, renders me equally unsuitable to be use weapons of mass destruction. Your conclusion, then, that no human can use one, as we all hold beliefs, is one I actually find very comforting.

The Enlightenment, it should also be noted, was not a complete secularisation of all matters of thought. In fact, Enlightenment thinkers held many beliefs in abstract concepts. This, of course, makes them too ineligible to use WMD.

No ability to reproduce, nor purpose of reproduction.

How comes they haven't banned bananas and cucmbers then?

How comes they haven't banned bananas and cucmbers then?

They have seeds. Yes, they look phallic. But they have seeds. Hence, they can reproduce.

Ah, but I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist. As such, my lack of belief in invisible friends, under your logic, renders me equally unsuitable to be use weapons of mass destruction. Your conclusion, then, that no human can use one, as we all hold beliefs, is one I actually find very comforting.

The Enlightenment, it should also be noted, was not a complete secularisation of all matters of thought. In fact, Enlightenment thinkers held many beliefs in abstract concepts. This, of course, makes them too ineligible to use WMD.
I think that the poster you were responding to meant that people who think that they're guided by god and that no matter what happens to their bodies their souls will ascend to paradise so long as they kill their enemies are more likely to use nuclear weapons (MAD doesn't apply to them) than non-believers and therefore it's not a good idea to trust them with such weapons.

Ah, but I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist. As such, my lack of belief in invisible friends, under your logic, renders me equally unsuitable to be use weapons of mass destruction. Your conclusion, then, that no human can use one, as we all hold beliefs, is one I actually find very comforting.

It depends upon how you arrive at "belief", not what it is. Religious people have invisible friends and believe in life after death despite all evidence to the contrary. That brings into question their fitness to make life or death decisions for the rest of us.

They have seeds. Yes, they look phallic. But they have seeds. Hence, they can reproduce.

No, they can't. Cucumbers are parthenocarps. Bananas, like seedless watermelons, are overwhelmingly infertile.

Care to provide a link, or shall I just assume that you are trolling?

Trolling?;)

Friend, Iran executes girls at the age of 9 and boys at the age of 12 for crimes including 'acts incompatible with chastity'. I read an article a while ago (although I can't find a link) about a girl whose parents forced her into child prostitution; when they were caught the parents got off scot free but she was hanged from a crane in the middle of a public square.

In the UK, an Iranian asylum seeker covered himself in petrol and set himself on fire after his application for asylium was turned down, apparently he regarded it as preferable to what the Iranian authorities would do to him if he returned. His crime: homosexuality.

Compared to this watermelon is irrelevant; trolling is a poor way to describe it.

I think that the poster you were responding to meant that people who think that they're guided by god and that no matter what happens to their bodies their souls will ascend to paradise so long as they kill their enemies are more likely to use nuclear weapons (MAD doesn't apply to them) than non-believers and therefore it's not a good idea to trust them with such weapons.

1. Why emphasise 'guided by god'? Believing that one is guided by a divine being - or any supernatural force, really - doesn't automatically lead to militarism. Granted, it provides a more viable justification for use of WMD, but it doesn't necessarily mean all who believe they are guided by god will do so. It may be worth pointing we can only assume many other leaders and politicians also believe they are so guided.

2. How do you know that all the clerics and legislators involved believe that they 'will ascend to paradise so long as they kill their enemies'? As has been pointed out before, that is an interpretation of Islam that many - even conservatives and fundamentalists, and plain wackos - do not subscribe to. People who do not believe this could equally be of a nihilist persuasion: 'nothing matters so fuck it all to hell and back'.

It's not that it seems arrogant or dangerous to second-guess people's beliefs. It's just that, to me, it's very hard. I can't always infer from one policy decision people's views on a whole host of other topics. As such, in this case, I can't really see the links you are making.

If you use religion as a source of truth, you can pretty much argue anything.

No, they can't. Cucumbers are parthenocarps. Bananas, like seedless watermelons, are overwhelmingly infertile.

I stand corrected. Sorry.

It depends upon how you arrive at "belief", not what it is. Religious people have invisible friends and believe in life after death despite all evidence to the contrary. That brings into question their fitness to make life or death decisions for the rest of us.

Not all religious people have invisible friends. Some religions do not identify with supreme deities, but merely with concepts and ideas. If, then, you are suggesting that abstract thoughts can be friends, then one must question those who believe in 'liberty' or 'equality' just as severely. Equally, not all religious people believe in life after death. Finally, many belief systems do not allow for the existence of evidence of life after death. (I personally reject the low levels of evidence of direct reincarnation.) As such, the lack of evidence for something hardly seems relevant.

Your generalisations aside, everyone has prejudices regarding life or death decisions. Besides, those who believe in an afterlife do not necessarily believe that murder, or any form of killing, is right or necessary.

If you could back up some of your generalisations with examples of Iranian law or statements of opinion from those you are criticising they would hold more weight. As they stand, they appear rather flimsy.

1. Why emphasise 'guided by god'? Believing that one is guided by a divine being - or any supernatural force, really - doesn't automatically lead to militarism. Granted, it provides a more viable justification for use of WMD, but it doesn't necessarily mean all who believe they are guided by god will do so. It may be worth pointing we can only assume many other leaders and politicians also believe they are so guided.

2. How do you know that all the clerics and legislators involved believe that they 'will ascend to paradise so long as they kill their enemies'? As has been pointed out before, that is an interpretation of Islam that many - even conservatives and fundamentalists, and plain wackos - do not subscribe to. People who do not believe this could equally be of a nihilist persuasion: 'nothing matters so fuck it all to hell and back'.

It's not that it seems arrogant or dangerous to second-guess people's beliefs. It's just that, to me, it's very hard. I can't always infer from one policy decision people's views on a whole host of other topics. As such, in this case, I can't really see the links you are making.
1. God, the great pumpkin, whatever.

2. We know that Iran's mullas have sent children to their deaths marching across saddam's minefields with the promise that their deaths will open the gates to paradise.

Iran's clearly not the most sane nation. Like I said, I wouldn't trust them with a sharp pair of scissors. I certainly wouldn't trust them with a nuclear weapon.

1. God, the great pumpkin, whatever.

2. We know that Iran's mullas have sent children to their deaths marching across saddam's minefields with the promise that their deaths will open the gates to paradise.

Iran's clearly not the most sane nation. Like I said, I wouldn't trust them with a sharp pair of scissors. I certainly wouldn't trust them with a nuclear weapon.

1. 'Whatever'. Exactly. Almost anything can be included under whatever. Most leaders are presumably guided by something: if that is a desire to do good then that is still included under your definition. We can only assume then that the only responsible politicians are soulless automatons with no view of the future and no beliefs. And I'm not saying that to be silly: it's quite possibly the case.

2. We know that some have, yes. That does not proclude the possibility that there are those with more views more in line with yours. It would be mistaken, I feel, to assume that all Iranian clerics, legislators and politicians support the irresponsible use of WMD. Assuming that they will only seems to feed the extremists, and discourage those who seek measured progress. (This is all still assuming that such beliefs are inherently bad or wrong.)

Iran as a political force has acted in ways that I personally deem irresponsible. I would not deny that it may well act in such fashion again. To, from that, make assumptions as to the mental clarity of the nation is a leap I am unable to make, and the idea of doing such makes me uneasy. I also feel that there is only one nation in history that has used nuclear weapons in a military setting. For that nation to dictate to others who may or may not be 'trusted' seems...counter-intuitive.

1. 'Whatever'. Exactly. Almost anything can be included under whatever. Most leaders are presumably guided by something: if that is a desire to do good then that is still included under your definition. We can only assume then that the only responsible politicians are soulless automatons with no view of the future and no beliefs. And I'm not saying that to be silly: it's quite possibly the case.

2. We know that some have, yes. That does not proclude the possibility that there are those with more views more in line with yours. It would be mistaken, I feel, to assume that all Iranian clerics, legislators and politicians support the irresponsible use of WMD. Assuming that they will only seems to feed the extremists, and discourage those who seek measured progress. (This is all still assuming that such beliefs are inherently bad or wrong.)

Iran as a political force has acted in ways that I personally deem irresponsible. I would not deny that it may well act in such fashion again. To, from that, make assumptions as to the mental clarity of the nation is a leap I am unable to make, and the idea of doing such makes me uneasy. I also feel that there is only one nation in history that has used nuclear weapons in a military setting. For that nation to dictate to others who may or may not be 'trusted' seems...counter-intuitive.
1. No, you're wrong. A person guided by the ideals of democracy, or a desire to do good doesn't think he's being guided by an omniscient, infallible intelligence. He's going to second guess his decisions. He's going to think things through more.

2. You don't hand a person with a history of violent mental illness a gun. You don't hand a country that's irrational and violent a nuclear weapon.

1. No, you're wrong. A person guided by the ideals of democracy, or a desire to do good doesn't think he's being guided by an omniscient, infallible intelligence. He's going to second guess his decisions. He's going to think things through more.

2. You don't hand a person with a history of violent mental illness a gun. You don't hand a country that's irrational and violent a nuclear weapon.

1. There are democratic extremists as well as religious extremists: those who believe they are guided by an infallible theory of everything. They are not necessarily able to consider matters any more fully before attempting to impose their views on others. Communists, for example, flatly reject the notion of good. They see the promotion of a classless society as the ultimate good. Yet there have been some appalling policy blunders by communist governments, and times when it does not seem that they are encouraging, but rather stifling, internal debate. There are equally religious people who encourage secular debate, and who sometimes make very well-thought out decisions.

2. I'm not advocating handing Iran nuclear weapons by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just suggesting that it is wrong to automatically assume they would abuse WMD, especially given that the majority of criticisms of the Iranian government concern its domestic policy, and not its foreign policy.

"Seedless Watermelons Promote Homosexuality"

And they use to tell little kids who asked why Aunt Linda had such a big belly ( she was pregnant ) that she had swallowed a watermelon seed!

So now, you not only can't safely eat the watermelons with the seeds in them, you can't eat the ones without seeds either. You have a choice: do I wanna be pregnant or do I wanna be gay? :eek:

You have a choice: do I wanna be pregnant or do I wanna be gay? :eek:

Gay. Hurts less.

Not all religious people have invisible friends. Some religions do not identify with supreme deities, but merely with concepts and ideas. If, then, you are suggesting that abstract thoughts can be friends, then one must question those who believe in 'liberty' or 'equality' just as severely. Equally, not all religious people believe in life after death. Finally, many belief systems do not allow for the existence of evidence of life after death. (I personally reject the low levels of evidence of direct reincarnation.) As such, the lack of evidence for something hardly seems relevant.

Let us just assume that when I say religious I am talking - as are most people - about anything that involves divine revelation. Now that is hardly comparable to concepts like "liberty" or "equality", and to suggest any similarity is the falacy of equivalance, not least because the latter may defined without recourse the wishes of the divine. On the one hand you have a set of conclusions that can be arrived at from logical arguments based upon premises that are readily observed and verifiable, and on the other you essentially have "what was passed down to me from some guy who knew this goat herder who god spoke to. But it must be true, because god said it."

It's a plain difference. Mostly because anyone making decisions under the "evidence" model can be easily called upon their faulty reasoning or poor evidence, making it a self correcting process. You can't do that with religion.


Your generalisations aside, everyone has prejudices regarding life or death decisions. Besides, those who believe in an afterlife do not necessarily believe that murder, or any form of killing, is right or necessary.

Just because religions sometimes arrive at the right answer, does not mean that they are using the right method to get there. And it also means that they are just as likely to be wrong when a novel question arises.

If you could back up some of your generalisations with examples of Iranian law or statements of opinion from those you are criticising they would hold more weight. As they stand, they appear rather flimsy.

Should we start with the one where they hang teenage girls for having sex, or the bit where they kill gay people for being gay? Because both of those are based upon what "god told them to do" and both of those are despicable and wrong. (As any person who actually employs a modicum of reason can see).

Gay. Hurts less.
Hehehe! :D

Seedless watermelons cause people to be asexual?

Now, I can prove that's a load of nonsense.

I enjoy seedless watermelons over regular ones every time, and I clearly still have the hots for John Lennon, tall/thin Russian males, and Tobey Maguire.

Seedless watermelons cause people to be asexual?

Now, I can prove that's a load of nonsense.

I enjoy seedless watermelons over regular ones every time, and I clearly still have the hots for John Lennon, tall/thin Russian males, and Tobey Maguire.
You have the hots for John Lennon? I'm pretty sure necrophillia is illegal.

Let us just assume that when I say religious I am talking - as are most people - about anything that involves divine revelation. Now that is hardly comparable to concepts like "liberty" or "equality", and to suggest any similarity is the falacy of equivalance, not least because the latter may defined without recourse the wishes of the divine. On the one hand you have a set of conclusions that can be arrived at from logical arguments based upon premises that are readily observed and verifiable, and on the other you essentially have "what was passed down to me from some guy who knew this goat herder who god spoke to. But it must be true, because god said it."

It's a plain difference. Mostly because anyone making decisions under the "evidence" model can be easily called upon their faulty reasoning or poor evidence, making it a self correcting process. You can't do that with religion.

Yes, I think they would argue, it must be. Given the vast disagreements when it comes to the reason of political science, the word of an infallible deity IS a lot more certain than these supposedly observable yet undeniably abstract concepts. It would also be wrong to assume all those who believe in non-religious concepts do so from a hard reasoned basis: for many, it is an intrinsic value. I do accept, however, that it is harder to find logical fault with religious assumptions if one rejects the fundamental premise.

Just because religions sometimes arrive at the right answer, does not mean that they are using the right method to get there. And it also means that they are just as likely to be wrong when a novel question arises.

Absolutely. Religious people can be wrong. As can non-religious people.

Should we start with the one where they hang teenage girls for having sex, or the bit where they kill gay people for being gay? Because both of those are based upon what "god told them to do" and both of those are despicable and wrong. (As any person who actually employs a modicum of reason can see).

I don't know the Qurannic verses, or whether the justification is taken from the Hadith (I know it's Sharia law, but it has a theological root), so I can't necessarily reason it that well. However:

1. it can be argued that marriage promotes societal stability, but that marriage can only be effectively maintained through fidelity and trust; premarital sex can be seen as immoral, then, because it promotes the idea of entering into a deep emotional bond, and potentially becoming pregnant - which, unmarried, would not be part of a 'stable' family;

2. homosexuality does not produce offspring. Given that procreation is necessary for the continuation of society (and the spread of religious truth), and that 'leaving it to others' could be taken as a dangerous, selfish precedent, it then follows that homosexuality is not good.

Execution, I can only assume, is justified socially as a deterrent, and religiously because the individual holds no hope of salvation, and as such can not contribute further to society in a positive way.

Seedless watermelons cause people to be asexual?

Now, I can prove that's a load of nonsense.

I enjoy seedless watermelons over regular ones every time, and I clearly still have the hots for John Lennon, tall/thin Russian males, and Tobey Maguire.
You have strange tastes! :eek:

You have the hots for John Lennon? I'm pretty sure necrophillia is illegal.

Well, I would if he were ALIVE, is my point. Obviously I don't want to dig up his skeleton.

Heavens, perhaps we'd better not tell them I think Lennon was awesome. Then they'll say watermelons cause people to like corpses.

<snip>
Are you one of those wacky cultural relativists who think that no society can be judged by another?

Well, I would if he were ALIVE, is my point. Obviously I don't want to dig up his skeleton.

Heavens, perhaps we'd better not tell them I think Lennon was awesome. Then they'll say watermelons cause people to like corpses.
Well I was starting to assume that the watermellons had corrupted your sense of sexual morality.

You have the hots for John Lennon? I'm pretty sure necrophillia is illegal.
Just because something is illegal is no reason not to bribe your way past the security at a funeral parlor. Er, wait . . .
Ahem
Not that I'd know about that sort of thing. No, I wouldn't know anything about it. Nothing. Hey, look over there!
*Runs away very quickly*

Well I was starting to assume that the watermellons had corrupted your sense of sexual morality.

No, no, I'm very sane. Besides, the Lennon thing is also partly a joke, due to the name of my Nation.

But tall/thin Russian guys and Tobey Maguire are still good.

Are you one of those wacky cultural relativists who think that no society can be judged by another?

I wouldn't describe myself as one, no, but then, I'm hardly an unbiased source. I'm not necessarily sure what objective truths or goods I believe in, but I'm sure there must be some, because I don't consider myself an absolute relative in that, ultimately, we have to say something. So, hopefully: no.

Care to provide a link, or shall I just assume that you are trolling?

I checked The Onion, and it's not from there. Make of that what you will. :p

I checked The Onion, and it's not from there. Make of that what you will. :p

No, it is genuine, although I can't find the Reuters article in itself: just a bundle of requotes. It would be quite a subtle troll and, anyway, I think some reasonable argument came out of it. (But then I would say that, as I won.)

Yes, I did just attempt another joke, after promising not to.