NationStates Jolt Archive

this is subject the israeli society dealing with those days.
the issue united muslim,christians and jewish leaders against the rally, and some threat they will act violently. those threats scare the police which consider her ability to defend lives, although the israeli supreme court decided for the rally.
last year, the police decided against the global rally the gays want to do in the last minute. the israeli rally was there but during the rally orthodox jew stab 3 homsexsuals.
jerusalem is considered to be the religious center for many although half of her citizens are secular. in tel-aviv which is the cultural and secular center of israel the rally taking place each year for many times. the religious leader which plan big protest against it tell that the jerusalem's rally is un apropriate while the gays can do it freely in tel-aviv without hurt the feeling of the religious people.
what do you think?

Any citizen of Israel should be able to protest anything they choose, anywhere in Israeli public land. Th villains here are the extremists who want to shut up the protestors.

Of course they should be allowed to march. End of

Any citizen of Israel should be able to protest anything they choose, anywhere in Israeli public land. Th villains here are the extremists who want to shut up the protestors.

most times the police should consider also the public opinions. as example, while the last elections they prevent right extremists from entering to arab city, because they know it will end violently.
this issue is more complex, because the rally won't be in the religious parts, but in the main streets which are mostly secular.

The stronger the objection to gay rights rallies the more need there is for them to take place.

Yes and then in the Vatican followed by Mecca.

If Israel wants to be considered a democracy, then I can't see how they could ban the march. I admire the courage of those who would participate.

That said, I don't think I'd be likely to do it myself, if I were there. Violent religious fanatics are not my idea of fun.

this is subject the israeli society dealing with those days.
the issue united muslim,christians and jewish leaders against the rally, and some threat they will act violently. those threats scare the police which consider her ability to defend lives, although the israeli supreme court decided for the rally.
last year, the police decided against the global rally the gays want to do in the last minute. the israeli rally was there but during the rally orthodox jew stab 3 homsexsuals.
jerusalem is considered to be the religious center for many although half of her citizens are secular. in tel-aviv which is the cultural and secular center of israel the rally taking place each year for many times. the religious leader which plan big protest against it tell that the jerusalem's rally is un apropriate while the gays can do it freely in tel-aviv without hurt the feeling of the religious people.
what do you think?

Holy shit!! This has to be a first.Homosexuals bring peace to the middle east.;)

The stronger the objection to gay rights rallies the more need there is for them to take place.

Not that I'm against gay rights or anything (believe me, I'm not). I just keep getting images of Neo-Nazis wanting to rally in Jerusalem with their "What holocaust?" signs, the Jewish population screaming in frothing, violent rage, and the rest of Jerusalem shrugging their shoulders because it has nothing to do with them. To let gays demonstrate in Jerusalem starts a slippery slope that, quite frankly, America is sliding down head first with arms flailing and legs kicking as we speak. Jerusalem has a right to its views; to force an alteration of those views on the city is a sure way to get people hurt.

Jerusalem is NOT America, or Great Britain or anywhere else that feels a need to exercise tolerance. Quit trying to make it so.

Definitely a con of globalization.

If Israel wants to be considered a democracy, then I can't see how they could ban the march. I admire the courage of those who would participate.

the israeli bodies who should've make decision already decided for it.
now the police considered his ability to defend the marchers from the protestors. if the police would decide they aren't able to secure the march it would be canceled.

Not that I'm against gay rights or anything (believe me, I'm not). I just keep getting images of Neo-Nazis wanting to rally in Jerusalem with their "What holocaust?" signs, the Jewish population screaming in frothing, violent rage, and the rest of Jerusalem shrugging their shoulders because it has nothing to do with them. To let gays demonstrate in Jerusalem starts a slippery slope that, quite frankly, America is sliding down head first with arms flailing and legs kicking as we speak. Jerusalem has a right to its views; to force an alteration of those views on the city is a sure way to get people hurt.

Jerusalem is NOT America, or Great Britain or anywhere else that feels a need to exercise tolerance. Quit trying to make it so.

Definitely a con of globalization.

Gays = Nazis? Godwin FTW!

Gays are not preaching intolerance. Nazis do.

It is OK not to tolerate intolerance or people who wish to kill you. It is not ok to not tolerare someone because of what they and another consenting adult get upto.

Holy shit!! This has to be a first.Homosexuals bring peace to the middle east.;)
now we should widening that agreement.
I think even the pope talked about the issue before some months.

Not that I'm against gay rights or anything (believe me, I'm not). I just keep getting images of Neo-Nazis wanting to rally in Jerusalem with their "What holocaust?" signs, the Jewish population screaming in frothing, violent rage, and the rest of Jerusalem shrugging their shoulders because it has nothing to do with them.

They should have a right to exercise their free speech too. As odious as their opinion might be doesn't mean the state has a right to supress it.


Jerusalem has a right to its views;

As do the gay folk who live there. Jerusalem doesn't have one monolithic opinion. There are many groups there with many different opinions. And in a democracy, they all have a right to speak up.

Jerusalem is NOT America, or Great Britain or anywhere else that feels a need to exercise tolerance.

No, it's not. But it does claim to be a free and democratic nation. If it wants to be taken seriously as one, it will have to allow free speech and freedom of assembly. Otherwise it is a theocracy no different from Iran.

Gays = Nazis? Godwin FTW!

Gays are not preaching intolerance. Nazis do.

It is OK not to tolerate intolerance or people who wish to kill you. It is not ok to not tolerare someone because of what they and another consenting adult get upto.

the march even named "the rally of pride and tolerance".

Jerusalem is NOT America, or Great Britain or anywhere else that feels a need to exercise tolerance. Quit trying to make it so.There is a need to exercise tolerance whether or not Jerusalem feels it.

why should israel suppress its people? it is not a sin to be gay anyway

Have you already forgotten what happened to Sodom, Gomorrah and New Orleans?

Have you already forgotten what happened to Sodom, Gomorrah and New Orleans?

New Orleans was gay?

make israel the new gay holy land!
elton johns chosen people!

New Orleans was gay?
Of course it was levees are also called DYKES!!!!;)

Holy shit!! This has to be a first.Homosexuals bring peace to the middle east.;)

thats what i was thinking!

they should march 3 or 4 times a year!

Of course it was levees are also called DYKES!!!!;)

I'm guessing Holland is in really hot water with god then. That place is full of dykes ;)

thats what i was thinking!

they should march 3 or 4 times a year!
Fuck it!! It should be at least once a week.

I'm guessing Holland is in really hot water with god then. That place is full of dykes ;)
Ah Holland is rightly screwed!!Not even Satan would touch that shit...

Gays are not preaching intolerance. Nazis do.


They are not tollerant of religious viewpoints towards them, despite the fact that by their nature they are viewpoints and do nothing to them.

They are not tollerant of religious viewpoints towards them, despite the fact that by their nature they are viewpoints and do nothing to them.

Except tell them they're not allowed to march? They're not tollerant of intollerance? Gasp!

*has a heart attack and falls into a vat of molten cheese flakes*

They are not tollerant of religious viewpoints towards them, despite the fact that by their nature they are viewpoints and do nothing to them.

I've never met a gay person who has gone any further than thinking someone is an idiot for hating gay people. I have, however, met plenty of gay people who have been physically attacked for their sexuality.

They are not tollerant of religious viewpoints towards them, despite the fact that by their nature they are viewpoints and do nothing to them.

Opinions =/= Actions

The gays tolerate the religious people right to practice their religion.
The religious people should tolerate the gays rights to be gay.

You should be tolerant of another persons views UPTO the point that their views turn into actions (or plotting actions) that affect you or someone you want to protect.

*channels the ghost of John Stewart Mill*

Oooooh... The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others... Oooooh... Offence does not equate to harm...

*stops channelling* Well, there you have it. The only excuse the Israeli authorities would have to stop this rally is if it posed a significant risk to anyone. As it does not, I guess it should go ahead.

I believe they should be allowed to march. Israel is a country where almost every city is a symbol, something connected with religion happened almost everywhere. Gays do not want to march in Jerusalem to offend anybody - it's because Jerusalem is the biggest city in Israel. And that's all.

Fuck the religious wackos - Israel is already one of the gayest places on Earth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD4EJ6OJKlI)

So, go Jew fags, go! :)

I believe they should be allowed to march. Israel is a country where almost every city is a symbol, something connected with religion happened almost everywhere. Gays do not want to march in Jerusalem to offend anybody - it's because Jerusalem is the biggest city in Israel. And that's all.

actually, tel-aviv is the biggest center of israel, as well as the cultural and secular center and the place with the largest homosexual populace.
jerusalem is the capitol, the ministrial city and the religious center.

Tel-aviv fit that rally much more than jerusalem. chosing to do it in jerusalem is symbolyc act, and the religious people see it as provocation. if you agree or not, that is different question.

this is subject the israeli society dealing with those days.
the issue united muslim,christians and jewish leaders against the rally, and some threat they will act violently. those threats scare the police which consider her ability to defend lives, although the israeli supreme court decided for the rally.
last year, the police decided against the global rally the gays want to do in the last minute. the israeli rally was there but during the rally orthodox jew stab 3 homsexsuals.
jerusalem is considered to be the religious center for many although half of her citizens are secular. in tel-aviv which is the cultural and secular center of israel the rally taking place each year for many times. the religious leader which plan big protest against it tell that the jerusalem's rally is un apropriate while the gays can do it freely in tel-aviv without hurt the feeling of the religious people.
what do you think?
Hm, I would say they should be alowed to, but I'm not so sure it would safe for them to do it, if you know what I mean. They have the right, but it does seem the police are questioning their ability to protect the protestors from violence, which makes sense since it seems they have failed at that before. I guess it would, and should, be up to them to decide if they want to take the risk and face any potential backlash.

actually, tel-aviv is the biggest center of israel, as well as the cultural and secular center and the place with the largest homosexual populace.
jerusalem is the capitol, the ministrial city and the religious center.

Tel-aviv fit that rally much more than jerusalem. chosing to do it in jerusalem is symbolyc act, and the religious people see it as provocation. if you agree or not, that is different question.I think Jerusalem actully is the biggest city (municipality) alone. Obviously, gush dan as an agreggate is larger. [/nitpick]
But Green Israel is correct. It is symbolic, and it may well be a provocation. I happen to be fully in support of the symbolism and provocativeness of such a statement. If the basic right of expression isn't given to gays in the capital city of Israel, it will be a burning shame. Besides, the ultra-orthodox community does plenty to provoke the other inhabitants of Jerusalem. An absoloutly appalling example of this is in public transport - busses that are designated as seperate seating: what does seperate seating mean? women in the back. The religious lobby is so huge in Israel that their compunctions are constantly imposed on others. Maybe it's healthy for them to have a little taste of forein lifestyles and values exposed to them.

no they should not because by jewish law all of them should be stoned to death and the law will be on their side because they would be carrying out the word of god. basicly if the jews paid any atention to their laws like they used to those people would be doomed what would be best for them is to come to the use were evil rules.

Absolutely, anything to batter down the walls of religious hate and racism in israel is a good thing.

Theocracy is never OK.

secular 'jews' are funny.


why didn't the stabbing of homosexuals by orthodox jews make headline news??

wait, muslims chrisitans and jews allied together against it?? that's awesome! finally they can agree on something! I'm so glad to be gay - bringing together even the bitterest enemies under a banner of hatred and misogyny!


seriously, though, jerusalem has some more serious issues than gay rights. israel is practically fascist (compulsory military, rediculos walls and security checkpoints, arbitrary anti-arab policies), you'd think the radical human rights folks could find something slightly more important than gay rights...I mean, unless they're being a horrific to gay people as they are to arabs (muslim and christian alike), the other human rights abuses should get more attention.

though for all the trouble that area causes the world (american support of the israel rogue state is what has the entire muslim world angry at us in the first place) I think it might be a better investment to pray for a tsunami or something.

Piekrom;11896845']no they should not because by jewish law all of them should be stoned to death and the law will be on their side because they would be carrying out the word of god. basicly if the jews paid any atention to their laws like they used to those people would be doomed what would be best for them is to come to the use were evil rules.

actually by ancient jewish definitions - gay people are not "male" - throughout the ancient mediteranian basin a biological male who is impotent with a woman for any reason is called a eunuch, not a man. they more or less completely ignore the sexual lives of eunuchs in the old testament - except where they occasionally mention them without criticism (like Daniel and Ashpenez)...but I really don't care enough right now to argue about it.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to march anywhere, period. What they do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business. What they do in our streets is not. They don't need to be permitted to recruit and corrupt and be accepted rather than merely tolerated, so there.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to march anywhere, period. What they do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business. What they do in our streets is not. They don't need to be permitted to recruit and corrupt and be accepted rather than merely tolerated, so there.

i think it would be funny if some gays decided to take up arms against you.

*looks at your sig pointedly*

Gays shouldn't be allowed to march anywhere, period. What they do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business. What they do in our streets is not. They don't need to be permitted to recruit and corrupt and be accepted rather than merely tolerated, so there.

on that note - the homosexual mafia is recruiting in your region. would you be interested in joining? we offer a generous sign-on bonus of near-universal hatred. you'll never be able to go to a family reunion again! I thank my lucky stars every time I think of the invisible nameless imaginary man who recruited me at the age of 3 into homosexuality - believe me, you'll be glad you joined!

I don't know about your religion, but in christianity, we're not an orientation. we're a gender. the bible uses standard ancient near-eastern customs to refer to gay men:

For there are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb

this website (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm#N1) uses extensive academic sources to demonstrate the fact that the ancient world did not view us as "men". we were not charactorised as being male, and the laws now perceived as being against homosexuality would have meant nothing of the kind back then, as there was no such thing as a "homosexual man" to the ancient mind. they were meant to strictly define gender boundaries - a man did not cross over and *become* a member of the third gender, or vice-versa. we were a third gender, arguably still *are* a third gender, and one that is mentioned only in passing in scripture - and never with reference to our sexual preferences for *eachother* being inappropriate. in fact, the majority of civilisations in the mediteranian basin made extensive use of us, seeing our gender as having natural functions (http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/index.html) just like the males and females did. if you would like to debate semantics in dead languages, lets go ahead and do that. I'll win.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to march anywhere, period. What they do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business. What they do in our streets is not. They don't need to be permitted to recruit and corrupt and be accepted rather than merely tolerated, so there.

Just what do you think they'll be doing at this march?!? "Oh look, here comes Felatio Formation."
You feign tolerance, but what you're really pushing is intolerance through ignorance. Pretending they don't exist isn't the same as accepting that they have rights.

*looks at your sig pointedly*

Of course. Americans are so lucky they have the right to a pair of Bear Arms.

http://www.agitated.net/pics/right%20to%20bear%20arms.PNG

Of course. Americans are so lucky they have the right to a pair of Bear Arms.

http://www.agitated.net/pics/right%20to%20bear%20arms.PNG

that joke has been beaten to a pulp...but it's kind of funny again every time.

Just what do you think they'll be doing at this march?!? "Oh look, here comes Felatio Formation."

That would be so cool, I would even break my boycott of Israel and go to Jerusalem just to partake in it.

You feign tolerance, but what you're really pushing is intolerance through ignorance. Pretending they don't exist isn't the same as accepting that they have rights.

When discussing things with homophobes, the first thing one needs to do is to not give any attention to the "cerebral" (and I use that term oh, so loosely that's I should probably not be using it at all) "arguments" (again, oh, so loosely) they've concocted to conceal what lies at their cores: "fags are yucky!"

Oh, they'll bitch and moan about "morality" or "religion" and tonnes of other irrelevancies which can be easily shot down, but one will always end up with "fags are yucky." So, one needs to let them know that one isn't fooled. That one is very well aware of why they want gay people to be oppressed and invisible. It isn't because of some valid reason, because there is simply no valid reason and they know it no matter how many smoke screens they try to erect, it's because they have been taught hate and bigotry and just simply don't want to let go of them.

That tends to bring clarity to the situation, because it becomes so readily apparent that we who do not share this simple mindedness of theirs will rarely, if ever, be able to convince them of anything, because they've no use for actual reflection. What we will be able to do is, though, the same thing we've done with bigots before: outlive them and outnumber them. It isn't the fags and dykes who are the "dead end," as they so like to hope we would be, but it is they who are. And that scares them.

Just what do you think they'll be doing at this march?!? "Oh look, here comes Felatio Formation."

That would be so cool, I would even break my boycott of Israel and go to Jerusalem just to partake in it...

You feign tolerance, but what you're really pushing is intolerance through ignorance. Pretending they don't exist isn't the same as accepting that they have rights.

When discussing things with homophobes, the first thing one needs to do is to not give any attention to the "cerebral" (and I use that term oh, so loosely that I should probably not be using it at all) "arguments" (again, oh, so loosely) they've concocted to conceal what lies at their cores: "fags are yucky!"

Oh, they'll bitch and moan about "morality" or "religion" and tonnes of other irrelevancies which can be easily shot down, but one will always end up with "fags are yucky." So, one needs to let them know that one isn't fooled. That one is very well aware of why they want gay people to be oppressed and invisible. It isn't because of some valid reason, because there is simply no valid reason and they know it no matter how many smoke screens they try to erect, it's because they have been taught hate and bigotry and just simply don't want to let go of them.

That tends to bring clarity to the situation, because it becomes so readily apparent that we who do not share this simple-mindedness of theirs will rarely, if ever, be able to convince them of anything, because they've no use for actual reflection. What we will be able to do is, though, the same thing we've done with bigots before: outlive them and outnumber them. It isn't the fags and dykes who are the "dead end," as they so like to hope we would be, but it is they who are. And that scares them.

When discussing things with homophobes, the first thing one needs to do is to not give any attention to the "cerebral" (and I use that term oh, so loosely that I should probably not be using it at all) "arguments" (again, oh, so loosely) they've concocted to conceal what lies at their cores: "fags are yucky!"

Oh, they'll bitch and moan about "morality" or "religion" and tonnes of other irrelevancies which can be easily shot down, but one will always end up with "fags are yucky." So, one needs to let them know that one isn't fooled. That one is very well aware of why they want gay people to be oppressed and invisible. It isn't because of some valid reason, because there is simply no valid reason and they know it no matter how many smoke screens they try to erect, it's because they have been taught hate and bigotry and just simply don't want to let go of them.

That tends to bring clarity to the situation, because it becomes so readily apparent that we who do not share this simple-mindedness of theirs will rarely, if ever, be able to convince them of anything, because they've no use for actual reflection. What we will be able to do is, though, the same thing we've done with bigots before: outlive them and outnumber them. It isn't the fags and dykes who are the "dead end," as they so like to hope we would be, but it is they who are. And that scares them.

you know, there are some quasi-valid religious reasons for it, too. many of the most ardent critics of homosexuality are homosexual themselves. it's more complicated than natural revulsion - and insulting everyone who disagrees with you (well, with us) is not productive in the least.

Yes and then in the Vatican followed by Mecca.

Sounds good.

you know, there are some quasi-valid religious reasons for it, too.

"Valid" and "religious" are oxymoronic.

many of the most ardent critics of homosexuality are homosexual themselves. it's more complicated than natural revulsion

That's called "internalised homophobia." Being so scared of and repulsed at what you are, that you put down other fags to deflect attention. Sort of like that religious wacko in the US who was so anti-gay, but sucking male prostitute cock on the side. Fags fag bashing is nothing new. And it's not any less homophobic.

and insulting everyone who disagrees with you (well, with us) is not productive in the least.

You seem to be under the impression I give a patootie about the sensibilities of these people. There will be no "productive" discourse with this ilk - there will be just their marginalisation.

Of course they should be allowed to march. End of

Well, yes if they want to then I wouldn't object. But do they really want to? Doesn't seem like the ideal time to do something like that in that country. I honestly can't see a protest in Israel ending happily for anyone involved...

"Valid" and "religious" are oxymoronic.

with that, my friend, you set yourself up to be marginalised. saying that is one thing in scandinavia - in the rest of the world, that kind of statement gets you nowhere.

That's called "internalised homophobia." Being so scared of and repulsed at what you are, that you put down other fags to deflect attention. Sort of like that religious wacko in the US who was so anti-gay, but sucking male prostitute cock on the side. Fags fag bashing is nothing new. And it's not any less homophobic.

but it does disprove your earlier statement that "homophobia" (what a stupid word, it offends me as a linguist) is always rooted in aesthetic revulsion towards the practices of gay men. some of them are genuinely concerned for ethical reasons, not just disgusted at themselves.

You seem to be under the impression I give a patootie about the sensibilities of these people. There will be no "productive" discourse with this ilk - there will be just their marginalisation.

no, I'm not under that impression - you've made that crystal clear. I'm just asking you to tone it down a little, because the rest of us have to live with people like you making every gay man seem like a militant atheist with no sense of tact.

with that, my friend, you set yourself up to be marginalised. saying that is one thing in scandinavia - in the rest of the world, that kind of statement gets you nowhere.So emigrate. I did.but it does disprove your earlier statement that "homophobia" (what a stupid word, it offends me as a linguist) is always rooted in aesthetic revulsion towards the practices of gay men. some of them are genuinely concerned for ethical reasons, not just disgusted at themselves.Seem being the key word. Argue with any homophobe for long enough, and you will eventually find you've reduced them to an "Eww!". no, I'm not under that impression - you've made that crystal clear. I'm just asking you to tone it down a little, because the rest of us have to live with people like you making every gay man seem like a militant atheist with no sense of tact.They don't tolerate you. Don't empower the fuckers. Refuse, resist & kick ass if you have to.

people of any kind shuld be able to protest for their rights in any country.

So emigrate. I did.

I happen to be extremely religious. of the non-abrahamic persuasion, but extremely religious nonetheless. if I were to emigrate for religious reasons, it would be to brazil or africa...and I don't see myself enjoying africa. either way, this is not a conflict of Bigoted/Religious Vs. Tolerant/Atheist - there are deeply spiritual people on both sides of the fence. and to be frank, I identify with my religion a hell of alot more than I identify as homosexual. of course, in my religion that's not (and has never been) a problem, but all of that's a bit of a moot point.

Seem being the key word. Argue with any homophobe for long enough, and you will eventually find you've reduced them to an "Eww!". They don't tolerate you. Don't empower the fuckers. Refuse, resist & kick ass if you have to.

I'm a pacifist. I was raised by extremely conservative "family activist" parents. by ignoring the issue entirely and loving them unconditionally I made more progress in changing their minds about homosexuality than in a year of the most vehement arguing. "kicking ass" is not going to help this any. humanising the people they're talking about, however, will. the best way to change someone's mind about you is to *not* polarise yourself from them and be as hostile as possible, but to find as much common ground as possible.

I happen to be extremely religious. of the non-abrahamic persuasion, but extremely religious nonetheless. if I were to emigrate for religious reasons, it would be to brazil or africa...and I don't see myself enjoying africa. either way, this is not a conflict of Bigoted/Religious Vs. Tolerant/Atheist - there are deeply spiritual people on both sides of the fence. and to be frank, I identify with my religion a hell of alot more than I identify as homosexual. of course, in my religion that's not (and has never been) a problem, but all of that's a bit of a moot point.Contrary to popular myth, Scandinavia isn't in any way atheist/non-theist or religion-hostile.
The overwhelming majority of Scandinavians are religious. Many of them very much so. There's just a general agreement across Scandinavia that religion is a personal, not a public, matter. Hell, my own lover is a Muslim (though a very moderate one).I'm a pacifist. I was raised by extremely conservative "family activist" parents. by ignoring the issue entirely and loving them unconditionally I made more progress in changing their minds about homosexuality than in a year of the most vehement arguing. "kicking ass" is not going to help this any. humanising the people they're talking about, however, will. the best way to change someone's mind about you is to *not* polarise yourself from them and be as hostile as possible, but to find as much common ground as possible.No. That just makes you an acceptable exception, or worse yet, someone who needs help & appears responsive to it.

Be a pacifist if you want, but never ever run away & don't hurt all your brothers & sisters by rolling over & trying to compromise with people that cannot & will not accpet that GLBTs exist.

Wanna play a controversial negro role in a hollowwood flick? Good, we'll cast you as the servant.

Rallying like that is ok, except when the organisers know beforehand that its almost certainly going to lead to violence. A gay rights march may be fine here, but in a country like israel then someone's gonna get hurt... (edit: ) Or worse yet, anger more muslim extremists

Oh, and gay rights protestors are intolerant of homophobes, a neo-nazi rally with "what holocaust" signs is just trying to persuade people that it might not have happened... A neo-nazi rally, just because they are intolerant, if they are marching about something not intolerant, then what makes that worse that a gay rights march? Just because we dislike neo-nazis doesnt mean they shouldnt get an opinion...

(Im not in favour of a gay rights march OR a neo-nazi rally)

Of course it should take place. If Israel wants to be seen as a normal democratic state in the world then it should have no problem allowing a march like this, a kind of march that takes place in democracies all over the world.

Contrary to popular myth, Scandinavia isn't in any way atheist/non-theist or religion-hostile.
The overwhelming majority of Scandinavians are religious. Many of them very much so. There's just a general agreement across Scandinavia that religion is a personal, not a public, matter. Hell, my own lover is a Muslim (though a very moderate one).

haha, I wouldn't have said anything about it had I not been responding to "valid and religious are oxymoronic" - that wasn't someone accepting religion as personal. that was militant atheism.

Be a pacifist if you want, but never ever run away & don't hurt all your brothers & sisters by rolling over & trying to compromise with people that cannot & will not accpet that GLBTs exist.

there's a difference between not rolling over and alienating everyone you're attempting to convince. I tend to think of all conflict as misunderstanding - not a battle. generally speaking, that approach has worked. if you'd like to see me "rolling over" look here (http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0615,aviv,72805,12.html). My name is Nathan, look for me about midway through the article. I'm not shy or apologetic about what I am. I'm just not immediately ostracising anyone who hasn't grown to understand me, either. there are people in that school who would have continued seeing homosexuals in demonic charicature had I not been willing to interact with them and treat them as friends, even though they disagreed with me. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say.

i think it would be funny if some gays decided to take up arms against you.

*looks at your sig pointedly*

I would be quite happy with the backlash were they to violently rise up in America. To quote an a-hole named George Dubyah: "Bring it on!"

on that note - the homosexual mafia is recruiting in your region. would you be interested in joining? we offer a generous sign-on bonus of near-universal hatred. you'll never be able to go to a family reunion again! I thank my lucky stars every time I think of the invisible nameless imaginary man who recruited me at the age of 3 into homosexuality - believe me, you'll be glad you joined!

Fantastic, if Homosexuality was not widely socially excepted, their numbers would be lower. Is this because they recruit you directly? Or is it because the parade shows their clout, and makes politicians be politically correct and put alternative life-styles teaching in schools, where you learn that it's fine if you wanna be gay?

I don't know about your religion, but in christianity, we're not an orientation. we're a gender. the bible uses standard ancient near-eastern customs to refer to gay men:

"Lev 20:13 If a MAN lies with a MAN, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"



[quote[this website (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm#N1) uses extensive academic sources to demonstrate the fact that the ancient world did not view us as "men". we were not charactorised as being male, and the laws now perceived as being against homosexuality would have meant nothing of the kind back then, as there was no such thing as a "homosexual man" to the ancient mind. they were meant to strictly define gender boundaries - a man did not cross over and *become* a member of the third gender, or vice-versa. we were a third gender, arguably still *are* a third gender, and one that is mentioned only in passing in scripture - and never with reference to our sexual preferences for *eachother* being inappropriate. in fact, the majority of civilisations in the mediteranian basin made extensive use of us, seeing our gender as having natural functions (http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/index.html) just like the males and females did. if you would like to debate semantics in dead languages, lets go ahead and do that. I'll win.[/QUOTE]

Fantastic, unfortunately, this is a shady attempt to put words in the mouth of our saviour. Trying to get Jesus to support your BS claim that you are born gay. How could one become "A eunuch (fag, according to you) for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? Might this not refer to celibacy? Or birth defects, if one is "Born a Eunuch"? I don't much care for whatever nonsense you can spout off from your propagandist website, the fact is Jesus said he did not come to change the law, that includes the above stated law from Leviticus, which explicitly describes precisely what a fag is, unlike your vague manipulation of Matthew.

Just what do you think they'll be doing at this march?!? "Oh look, here comes Felatio Formation."
You feign tolerance, but what you're really pushing is intolerance through ignorance. Pretending they don't exist isn't the same as accepting that they have rights.

Tolerance is not using a shotgun on them. Anything more than that is acceptance. To quote Southpark, "You tolerate a screaming baby on a plane, but that doesn't mean it can't piss you off!" What you preach is acceptance, and that is intolerable to me.

That would be so cool, I would even break my boycott of Israel and go to Jerusalem just to partake in it.



When discussing things with homophobes, the first thing one needs to do is to not give any attention to the "cerebral" (and I use that term oh, so loosely that's I should probably not be using it at all) "arguments" (again, oh, so loosely) they've concocted to conceal what lies at their cores: "fags are yucky!"

Oh, they'll bitch and moan about "morality" or "religion" and tonnes of other irrelevancies which can be easily shot down, but one will always end up with "fags are yucky." So, one needs to let them know that one isn't fooled. That one is very well aware of why they want gay people to be oppressed and invisible. It isn't because of some valid reason, because there is simply no valid reason and they know it no matter how many smoke screens they try to erect, it's because they have been taught hate and bigotry and just simply don't want to let go of them.

Could it be that the reason you are a gay atheist is because you have been taught hate and bigotry of Christianity? I admit that I hate homosexuality. It is evil. I hate Pedophiles and those who commit Bestiality too.

Quite frankly "Oppressed and invisible" is better than you'll get from most of the non-Blue State population of America, who instead believe a more, Medieval, approach is called for (I think death by a hot Poker a la King Edward II is what most would approve of). As I stated before: I am tolerant because I don't want to exterminate these perverts; Or rather because I don't think that's the right course to take. I would rather like it if it were as black and white as "exterminate them", but i don't really believe that.

[quoteThat tends to bring clarity to the situation, because it becomes so readily apparent that we who do not share this simple mindedness of theirs will rarely, if ever, be able to convince them of anything, because they've no use for actual reflection. What we will be able to do is, though, the same thing we've done with bigots before: outlive them and outnumber them. It isn't the fags and dykes who are the "dead end," as they so like to hope we would be, but it is they who are. And that scares them.[/QUOTE]

You dismiss both Morality and Religion, what about science? Can you honestly say that Evolution favours the Gay? Please. It is an evolutionary dead-end, and if you are born gay, then it means you are meant to die out. So the last thing anyone would want is for you to tamper with evolution by turning a disease into a Philosophy/Political Ideology/Religion that you can spread to the uninfected. In other words transferring a Physical affectation into a mental one, and thus messing with evolutionary forces.

To half-quote Plato's reasoning, Heterosexuality serves a purpose: Procreation. Does this mean Heteros can't have sex for pleasure? No. The bible has many instances of "Spilling his seed on the floor", in other words having heterosexual sex for pleasure only. You shouldn't die childless, but you don't have to have a kid every nine months.

Homosexuality serves no purpose. You can't have children, and you have no uniquely non-Hetero purpose either, unless you consider causing the dead-ending of the human race a function. Homosexuality is inherently unnatural, and as Plato said, since it serves no purpose it cannot be beautiful. It is pointless, hedonistic behaviour, and an abomination in the eyes of God to boot.

I'm dont really care much about this gay march.....but...I do find it slightly provactive that gays want to do this in the heart of the holy land of three major global religions. It just seems fucking stupid.

Its like holding a neo-nazi rally in Harlem....which is stupid.

Surely these gays know they are going to offend tons of Christians, Jews, and Muslims....and only God knows how the latter will react. You saw how they reacted to a Danish cartoon, now amplify that to fact that gays will be parading in their holy land, offending their religion ,and desecrating their holy land.

Again, this stuff doesnt really affect me, so I dont care. I just think its a bit "Fuck You, religions of all the world!"...if you guys know what I'm saying.

Again, this stuff doesnt really affect me, so I dont care. I just think its a bit "Fuck You, religions of all the world!"...if you guys know what I'm saying.

That's exactly what it is. And why not? These people are being oppressed by those who speak out against oppression...

...All the better, I say. Exposing people for the hypocrites they are is always exciting, though a stunt like this might turn out deadly.

So, is it a good idea? No, but is it "right"? I think so.

the religious leader which plan big protest against it tell that the jerusalem's rally is un apropriate while the gays can do it freely in tel-aviv without hurt the feeling of the religious people.
what do you think?

Yeah, I thought so. You're condemning "the gays" because they're "hurting the feelings" of the religious people?

Have you ever stopped to think that these religious people have been hurting the feelings of "the gays", as you call them, for countless centuries? They've been denied basic human rights, beaten, imprisoned, and killed, just because of who they are.

Don't give me any shit about people's feelings being hurt. Fucking ridiculous.

That's exactly what it is. And why not? These people are being oppressed by those who speak out against oppression...

...All the better, I say. Exposing people for the hypocrites they are is always exciting, though a stunt like this might turn out deadly.

So, is it a good idea? No, but is it "right"? I think so.

Who is being oppressed, exactly? I chat with some gay people, and I know they are not oppressed at all, in fact, both are pretty normal people.

It is a terrible idea and its not right either. Would it be right for a neo-nazi to walk through a New York Jewish neighborhood and yell "Heil Hitler! Die Juden sind schweinhunde!"....no. Would it be right for the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam to parade through an upper middle class white American neighborhood screaming "Black power! Whitey be holdin' me down!".....no. Just like its not right for gays to go parading through the heart of the religious holy land, which they, by preaching homosexuality, are opposing and insulting.

I for one am not too religious, so like I said, it doesnt effect me, but its too provative and asshole-ish for me to just "meh" over.

Who is being oppressed, exactly? I chat with some gay people, and I know they are not oppressed at all, in fact, both are pretty normal people.

It is a terrible idea and its not right either. Would it be right for a neo-nazi to walk through a New York Jewish neighborhood and yell "Heil Hitler! Die Juden sind schweinhunde!"....no. Would it be right for the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam to parade through an upper middle class white American neighborhood screaming "Black power! Whitey be holdin' me down!".....no. Just like its not right for gays to go parading through the heart of the religious holy land, which they, by preaching homosexuality, are opposing and insulting.

I for one am not too religious, so like I said, it doesnt effect me, but its too provative and asshole-ish for me to just "meh" over.

So you're all for placing limitations on freedom of speech? How unamerican of you.

It is a terrible idea and its not right either. Would it be right for a neo-nazi to walk through a New York Jewish neighborhood and yell "Heil Hitler! Die Juden sind schweinhunde!"....no.

No, that would be bigoted, and thus immoral.

Would it be right for the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam to parade through an upper middle class white American neighborhood screaming "Black power! Whitey be holdin' me down!".....no.

Black Panthers, yes. Nation of Islam, no.

(Though they are not parading through the neighborhood, just the city.)

Just like its not right for gays to go parading through the heart of the religious holy land, which they, by preaching homosexuality, are opposing and insulting.

They are neither opposing nor insulting it.

So you're all for placing limitations on freedom of speech? How unamerican of you.

You cant yell "fire" in a movie theature, can you?

Same idea. This rally, the hypothetical neo nazi rally in a Jewish neighborhood and the black panther/nation of islam rally in a white neighborhood, are all bad ideas that can only lead to attacks, fights, problems.

Its just decency.

No, that would be bigoted, and thus immoral.In your opinion and in mine, yes. But not in theirs.



Black Panthers, yes. Nation of Islam, no.

(Though they are not parading through the neighborhood, just the city.)
....Arnt you White? The black-panthers are exactly the same as a white-supremecist goup, except black. Read up on it at Wiki. The Black panthers advocated socialism, and Black-Nationalism....sound familiar...socialism and white nationalism...nation-socialism.......ringing any bells. Look at this bullshit: "Black Panthers called for Black exemption from military service that would utilize African Americans to "fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black people, are being victimized by the White racist government of America."[2]
I'm so glad our government opposed these assholes..and that the group fell apart.


They are neither opposing nor insulting it.
Yes they are. Homosexuality is considered a sin in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. By marching through the holy land of all three religions preaching homosexuality, where the most hard line people of those religions will be, these people are opposing those religions and insulting them.

No, that would be bigoted, and thus immoral.



Black Panthers, yes. Nation of Islam, no.

(Though they are not parading through the neighborhood, just the city.)



They are neither opposing nor insulting it.

Oh, I see, so anything you think is "Bigoted" is immoral, whereas what you declare to be "Tolerant" is the height of morality, based solely on your word?

Gays shouldn't be allowed to march anywhere, period. What they do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business. What they do in our streets is not. They don't need to be permitted to recruit and corrupt and be accepted rather than merely tolerated, so there.

Recruit? LOL

Hey congratulations on being the forum's newest Nazi Troll, by the way. It's nice to see some new blood... even if it is tainted and corrupt.

In your opinion and in mine, yes. But not in theirs.

So? Is this not a question of moral right?

....Arnt you White?

No. Did I ever say I was?

I'm going to ignore the rest of this, because the Black Panther Party is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes they are. Homosexuality is considered a sin in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

By some.

By marching through the holy land of all three religions preaching homosexuality,

They are not "preaching homosexuality."

where the most hard line people of those religions will be, these people are opposing those religions and insulting them.

They are only opposing bigotry.

Oh, I see, so anything you think is "Bigoted" is immoral, whereas what you declare to be "Tolerant" is the height of morality, based solely on your word?

No, anything that actually is bigoted is immoral.

"Tolerance" is a more complex question.

To OP:

Morally, the gays should be able to do their march in Jerusalem, or wherever they like, for that matter.

Practically, whether they actually should march there is a different matter. I wouldn't for fear of getting killed.

I believe it is more bigoted to deny anyone rights based solely on unproveable religious doctrines, than to go out and enjoy yourself instead of obeying other people's religious doctrines just so you don't annoy them.

Being gay doesn't really hurt anybody, so why should people care about other people's life choices. If I was a hardline christian/muslim/jew/whatever I can only imagine that I would not be gay myself, as the scriptures tell me, but forcing your religious beliefs onto others is pointless, I mean, If they're that evil they would be the ones burning in hell forever, right? Nothing for you to worry about.

EDIT: I may be completely wrong in my assumptions, as I am far too open minded, tolerant and generally indecisive to even imagine ever being a hardline anything, let alone religious bigot.

with that, my friend, you set yourself up to be marginalised. saying that is one thing in scandinavia - in the rest of the world, that kind of statement gets you nowhere.

The lack of such a statement is what is getting the rest of the world nowhere.

but it does disprove your earlier statement that "homophobia" (what a stupid word, it offends me as a linguist)

Are you claiming to be a linguist, but at the same time are ignorant of the fact that as a suffix "-phobia" does not just mean "fear," it also means "aversion to," and thus makes the term very fitting to describe homophobes (people with an aversion to homosexuality) indeed? Allow me then to put your claim into question, lest I assume you find terms like "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" also stupid.

is always rooted in aesthetic revulsion towards the practices of gay men. some of them are genuinely concerned for ethical reasons, not just disgusted at themselves.

As there is nothing unethical about two adults consenting to have sex, your brand of apologetics is stillborn. And, no you have not proved anything - "fags are yucky!" is still why these people do this, straight or gay. The gay ones adapt the attitudes of the straight ones and internalise them (this should not be new to you). Hence "internalised homophobia." For a linguist, you sure do seem to miss the meanings of words...

no, I'm not under that impression - you've made that crystal clear. I'm just asking you to tone it down a little, because the rest of us have to live with people like you making every gay man seem like a militant atheist with no sense of tact.

Sorry, sweetie. We're not all content with being the house ******.

"Tolerance" is a more complex question.

Tolerance is not enough.

Tolerance is not enough.

In this case? No, it isn't. I agree.

The bible has many instances of "Spilling his seed on the floor", in other words having heterosexual sex for pleasure only..

Um... the person who spilled his seed on the floor was zapped by God for it.

Re-read your Bible.

The lack of such a statement is what is getting the rest of the world nowhere.



Are you claiming to be a linguist, but at the same time are ignorant of the fact that as a suffix "-phobia" does not just mean "fear," it also means "aversion to," and thus makes the term very fitting to describe homophobes (people with an aversion to homosexuality) indeed? Allow me then to put your claim into question, lest I assume you find terms like "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" also stupid.



As there is nothing unethical about two adults consenting to have sex, your brand of apologetics is stillborn. And, no you have not proved anything - "fags are yucky!" is still why these people do this, straight or gay. The gay ones adapt the attitudes of the straight ones and internalise them (this should not be new to you). Hence "internalised homophobia." For a linguist, you sure do seem to miss the meanings of words...



Sorry, sweetie. We're not all content with being the house ******.

Glad to see you back and kicking ass again, man.

*ships you a container full of special brownies*

The stronger the objection to gay rights rallies the more need there is for them to take place.

Amen.

Yeah, I thought so. You're condemning "the gays" because they're "hurting the feelings" of the religious people?

Have you ever stopped to think that these religious people have been hurting the feelings of "the gays", as you call them, for countless centuries? They've been denied basic human rights, beaten, imprisoned, and killed, just because of who they are.

Don't give me any shit about people's feelings being hurt. Fucking ridiculous.
where did I said those are MY opinions?
I just state the logic of the religious leaders.
I am for the march, if it help.
for now it seem that the police won't be able to secure the march, and some of the gay leaders trying to get acceptance from the religious lobby in the parlamient for cancel of the march, in return to passing of "civil marriage" law.

I'd appriciate it if you'd get off your band-wagon and actually talk to me.

The lack of such a statement is what is getting the rest of the world nowhere.

for every religion that dislikes homosexuality, there's another that is perfectly accepting. religion has not, even in the majority of cases, been used for manipulating people - or even been centralised or uniform.

Are you claiming to be a linguist, but at the same time are ignorant of the fact that as a suffix "-phobia" does not just mean "fear," it also means "aversion to," and thus makes the term very fitting to describe homophobes (people with an aversion to homosexuality) indeed? Allow me then to put your claim into question, lest I assume you find terms like "photophobia" or "hydrophobia" also stupid.

incidentally, no, I was not claiming to be a linguist. I also don't object to "phobia" I object to the fact that in the origional greek it doesn't indicate even remotely the same thing people take it to mean now. people have been critical of the usage for a long time.

'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it."

As there is nothing unethical about two adults consenting to have sex, your brand of apologetics is stillborn. And, no you have not proved anything - "fags are yucky!" is still why these people do this, straight or gay. The gay ones adapt the attitudes of the straight ones and internalise them (this should not be new to you). Hence "internalised homophobia." For a linguist, you sure do seem to miss the meanings of words...

incedentally, no, people object to it on the basis of a sacramental understanding of marriage and human sexuality - the same reason they object to things like pre-marital heterosexual sex, condoms, and more adventurous sexual practices. it's tied up in an entire worldview that I personally do not subscribe to (and, incidentally, never have). I don't agree with these people either. but at very least subscribe to the adage "know thine enemy" - you're vastly oversimplifying the issue, and to be perfectly frank, you will not succeed if you pit yourself against all religion. it is the most powerful force in the world, and it isn't even necessarily against us. I am quite well aware of what you meant by internalised homophobia - there's a difference between not understanding you and disagreeing with you, and I'm doing the later.

Sorry, sweetie. We're not all content with being the house ******.

you don't know the first thing about how I live or why I'm arguing the way I am. I'm appriciate it if you didn't resort to obscenity. allow me to validate you. I'm very proud of how free-minded and liberated and modern you are. it makes such a contrast to my simple-minded subservience! some day I hope to grow up and be just like you. :rolleyes:

I'd appriciate it if you'd get off your band-wagon and actually talk to me.

And I'd appreciate if you got a clue, but we can't all get what we want in life, now can we?

for every religion that dislikes homosexuality, there's another that is perfectly accepting.

So? That makes religion less stupid because...?

religion has not, even in the majority of cases, been used for manipulating people - or even been centralised or uniform.

Bwahahahahahaha..... no, seriously, bwahahahaha! I doubt you wrote that with a straight face. If you did, kudos, you've more self-restraint than I, but, well, that's not a surprise either.

incidentally, no, I was not claiming to be a linguist.

"it offends me as a linguist"

You said you were a linguist, but didn't claim it? Right... you might want to decide which story you're gonna run with, hmmkay?

I also don't object to "phobia" I object to the fact that in the origional greek it doesn't indicate even remotely the same thing people take it to mean now. people have been critical of the usage for a long time.

Such luck then that we are not speaking "origional Greek" (whatever language that's supposed to be, this "origional" Greek, but for some reason I doubt you're well versed in either the ancient, koiné or modern variety) but English and in my case some other ones.

incedentally, no, people object to it on the basis of a sacramental understanding of marriage and human sexuality - the same reason they object to things like pre-marital heterosexual sex, condoms, and more adventurous sexual practices. it's tied up in an entire worldview that I personally do not subscribe to (and, incidentally, never have). I don't agree with these people either. but at very least subscribe to the adage "know thine enemy

Know thy English - "thine" is predicative, "thy" is attributive. The use of "thine" before nouns commencing with vowels is a corruption.

you're vastly oversimplifying the issue, and to be perfectly frank, you will not succeed if you pit yourself against all religion. it is the most powerful force in the world, and it isn't even necessarily against us.

Powerful, I have never denied. Asinine? Most assuredly.

I am quite well aware of what you meant by internalised homophobia - there's a difference between not understanding you and disagreeing with you, and I'm doing the later.

Latter, I would assume, but not that much unlike understanding me, you do it ever so poorly.

you don't know the first thing about how I live or why I'm arguing the way I am. I'm appriciate it if you didn't resort to obscenity. allow me to validate you. I'm very proud of how free-minded and liberated and modern you are. it makes such a contrast to my simple-minded subservience! some day I hope to grow up and be just like you. :rolleyes:

Honey, you could never be just like me. I have self-respect.

Why not?

Besides, the religious Jews are a minority in Israel. Probably 80% of the Jewish population thers would be described as secular Jews. After all, Israel is a pretty liberal society when it comes to social issues.

Um... the person who spilled his seed on the floor was zapped by God for it.

Re-read your Bible.

He wasn't zapped for spilling his seed, he was zapped for disobeying God by refusing to impregnate his brother's wife. It wasn't even that he enjoyed sex with her and avoided the consequences, it was that he was treacherous.

Could it be that the reason you are a gay atheist is because you have been taught hate and bigotry of Christianity? I admit that I hate homosexuality. It is evil. I hate Pedophiles and those who commit Bestiality too. So in other words, it is Christianity that teaches hate, and not atheists teaching hatred of Christianity.

Quite frankly "Oppressed and invisible" is better than you'll get from most of the non-Blue State population of America, who instead believe a more, Medieval, approach is called for (I think death by a hot Poker a la King Edward II is what most would approve of). Fortunately, these people are increasingly making themselves irrelevant.

As I stated before: I am tolerant because I don't want to exterminate these perverts; Or rather because I don't think that's the right course to take. I would rather like it if it were as black and white as "exterminate them", but i don't really believe that.Uh, no, that's not what tolerant means.

You dismiss both Morality and Religion, what about science? Can you honestly say that Evolution favours the Gay? Yes, given the fact that homosexual animals can help gather food for the group and take care of the young if the parents die.

Please. It is an evolutionary dead-end, and if you are born gay, then it means you are meant to die out. If you're going to invoke evolution in the future, I suggest you research your zoology first. In other words, your argument is false.

So the last thing anyone would want is for you to tamper with evolution by turning a disease into a Philosophy/Political Ideology/Religion that you can spread to the uninfected. In other words transferring a Physical affectation into a mental one, and thus messing with evolutionary forces.Fortunately, homosexuality is not a disease, though it seems as though the particular religion you follow is a mental illness.

To half-quote Plato's reasoning, Heterosexuality serves a purpose: Procreation. Does this mean Heteros can't have sex for pleasure? No. The bible has many instances of "Spilling his seed on the floor", in other words having heterosexual sex for pleasure only. You shouldn't die childless, but you don't have to have a kid every nine months.Science has made heterosexual sex obsolete. Live with it.

Homosexuality serves no purpose. You can't have children, and you have no uniquely non-Hetero purpose either, unless you consider causing the dead-ending of the human race a function. Homosexuality is inherently unnatural, and as Plato said, since it serves no purpose it cannot be beautiful. It is pointless, hedonistic behaviour, and an abomination in the eyes of God to boot.False. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

He wasn't zapped for spilling his seed, he was zapped for disobeying God by refusing to impregnate his brother's wife. It wasn't even that he enjoyed sex with her and avoided the consequences, it was that he was treacherous.

That's true - there is no unambiguous condemnation of sex for pleasure in the Bible.

My only point was that there is also no unambiguous endorsement of it, as the poster attempted to imply. So if the argument is that same-sex intercourse is wrong because it is non-procreative, there is no compelling reason not to apply the same standard to opposite-sex intercourse, and to condemn as such all non-procreative forms of opposite-sex intercourse, including opposite-sex intercourse for pleasure.

Tolerance is not enough.

Incorrect. Tolerance is all that one individual has the right to ask of another. By enforcing anything further than tolerance you are oppressing those whose opinions you dislike.

Incorrect. Tolerance is all that one individual has the right to ask of another. By enforcing anything further than tolerance you are oppressing those whose opinions you dislike.
I haven't progressed enough to read RPP's mind quite yet, but I think what he's saying is that tolerance is not enough- what one needs (to demand) is respect. And I find that to be a position you can very well defend (as far as the issue of homosexuals goes), personally.

In this case? No, it isn't. I agree.

To tolerate something is more or less synonymous with enduring something. If you have to endure something, you are by definition not comfortable with it, and this raises a rather interesting question. We always parade around with "Tolerance, Tolerance, Tolerance!" but if that is all we strive to achieve, then the dislike we felt in the first place is still present, just supressed behind kind words and actions. Have we really changed anything?

Perhaps what we need is not tolerance so much as love and understanding.

To tolerate something is more or less synonymous with enduring something. If you have to endure something, you are by definition not comfortable with it, and this raises a rather interesting question. We always parade around with "Tolerance, Tolerance, Tolerance!" but if that is all we strive to achieve, then the dislike we felt in the first place is still present, just supressed behind kind words and actions. Have we really changed anything?

Perhaps what we need is not tolerance so much as love and understanding.

It is entirely too much to expect of a free individual that they love and understand everyone, not only is it difficult to insure, it is also an overbearing and authoritarian use of authority. Tolerance, is the very most that can be asked, but also the least that can be expected.

Incorrect. Tolerance is all that one individual has the right to ask of another. By enforcing anything further than tolerance you are oppressing those whose opinions you dislike.

Who said anything about "enforcing"?

A morally decent human being does not merely tolerate gays and lesbians. That does not imply that all those who only achieve tolerance should be sent to prison for it.

If Israel wants to prove that they are a modern democratic country, they should allow the rally.

If it pisses off Israelis, I'm all for it.

So in other words, it is Christianity that teaches hate, and not atheists teaching hatred of Christianity.

(To use your terminology) False. Atheism is based almost solely on hatred of religion, and opposition towards it, as you amply demonstrate in your various posts on here. I say almost, because the famous quote "Atheism: The worship of one's own smug sense of superiority" holds true.

Fortunately, these people are increasingly making themselves irrelevant.

It is your kind that is increasingly irrelevant, as the silent majority slowly begins to realize that it is a majority.

Uh, no, that's not what tolerant means.

Yeah, it is. What you call "Tolerance" is actually acceptance.

Yes, given the fact that homosexual animals can help gather food for the group and take care of the young if the parents die.

Heterosexual Animals can help gather food for the familial/tribal unit also, what about homosexuality makes them better at it?

If you're going to invoke evolution in the future, I suggest you research your zoology first. In other words, your argument is false.

If you are going to say my argument is false, why don't you prove it?

Fortunately, homosexuality is not a disease, though it seems as though the particular religion you follow is a mental illness.

Aside from trolling with arbitrary statements do you actually have anything to bring to this debate?

Science has made heterosexual sex obsolete. Live with it.

Every Empire that has accepted homosexuality has fallen, to be replaced by violently anti-gay ones. Live with it.

False. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

This is not an ideal argument. If an animal behaves, through sickness, in a way in which the animal was not designed to, either evolutionarily or by God, it is by definition un-natural. Cows going mad from rabies and attacking people occurs in nature. Does this mean carnivorous cows are natural?

Every Empire that has accepted homosexuality has fallen, to be replaced by violently anti-gay ones. Live with it.I disagree. I think every empire has fallen because they stopped bartering.

It is your kind that is increasingly irrelevant, as the silent majority slowly begins to realize that it is a majority.

You've clearly missed the poll numbers indicating rapidly increasing acceptance of homosexuality, especially among the young.

Your side is losing. Face it.

Heterosexual Animals can help gather food for the familial/tribal unit also, what about homosexuality makes them better at it?

They have to gather food for their children.

Childless social animals can gather food for other people's children.

Every Empire that has accepted homosexuality has fallen, to be replaced by violently anti-gay ones.

Every empire has fallen, eventually. That proves nothing.

This is not an ideal argument. If an animal behaves, through sickness, in a way in which the animal was not designed to, either evolutionarily or by God, it is by definition un-natural. Cows going mad from rabies and attacking people occurs in nature. Does this mean carnivorous cows are natural?

Disease and its consequences are perfectly natural, but homosexuality is not a sickness.

Recruit? LOL

Hey congratulations on being the forum's newest Nazi Troll, by the way. It's nice to see some new blood... even if it is tainted and corrupt.

I'm not a Nazi.

No, anything that actually is bigoted is immoral.

"Tolerance" is a more complex question.

And what is your definition of bigoted? Are you arguing that the concept of Bigotry is universal and not relative? Because it is relative. You, for example, are bigoted against anyone who disagrees with you, a common affliction of the Social Left.

And as for claiming that your view of what is or is not moral is universal and not relative, that's so flawed that it would be self evident even to you, were you not distracted by your own righteousness.

And what is your definition of bigoted? Are you arguing that the concept of Bigotry is universal and not relative? Because it is relative. You, for example, are bigoted against anyone who disagrees with you, a common affliction of the Social Left.

No, I just don't like homophobes and racists.

I don't base my dislike on morally arbitrary standards like sexual orientation, gender, race, or class - rather, on the opinions people hold.

And as for claiming that your view of what is or is not moral is universal and not relative, that's so flawed that it would be self evident even to you, were you not distracted by your own righteousness.

Right, and this does not apply to your view of homosexuality because...?

You've clearly missed the poll numbers indicating rapidly increasing acceptance of homosexuality, especially among the young.

Your side is losing. Face it.

You've clearly missed the poll numbers that state that anti-gay politicians are in charge in Washington. If the Republicans lose this election, it'll be becasue they aren't anti-gay enough.



They have to gather food for their children.

Childless social animals can gather food for other people's children.


But since the homosexual animal (assuming there is such a thing) has no special tie to someone elses children, it has no great incentive to do so.


Every empire has fallen, eventually. That proves nothing.



Disease and its consequences are perfectly natural, but homosexuality is not a sickness.

Based on what?

Mental Illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

Homosexuality impairs an individuals normal Emotional and Behavioural functioning, and is caused most people agree by either Social, Psychological, or Genetic factors. Ergo, there you have it.

No, I just don't like homophobes and racists.

I don't base my dislike on morally arbitrary standards like sexual orientation, gender, race, or class - rather, on the opinions people hold.

Disliking someone for their opinion is a Morally Arbitrary standard.



Right, and this does not apply to your view of homosexuality because...?

I am not the one who denies the validity of moral absolutes, the Political-Correctness-istas, like yourself are. This renders your side inherently hypocritical.

In this way is your argument fatally flawed.

Mental Illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

Homosexuality impairs an individuals normal Emotional and Behavioural functioning, and is caused most people agree by either Social, Psychological, or Genetic factors. Ergo, there you have it.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

You've clearly missed the poll numbers that state that anti-gay politicians are in charge in Washington. If the Republicans lose this election, it'll be becasue they aren't anti-gay enough.Because voting for the people that are more tolerant of homosexuals is what homophobes will do if they are disgruntled by the Republicans for "not being anti-gay enough". :rolleyes:
But since the homosexual animal (assuming there is such a thing) has no special tie to someone elses children, it has no great incentive to do so.Not into biology, are we? There are herd and pack animals that often function as coherent groups. Apart from that, geese have been known to form threesome relationships between two ganders and a goose, sharing duties in caring for the young.
Based on what?

Mental Illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.Now, the problem with that definition is that EVERYONE suffers from mental illnesses. The fact that not everyone is labelled as such depends entirely on the social acceptability of such an illness. Workaholics, for instance, aren't necessarily reviled or labeled as sick in cultures that prize efficiency or economic success.

Homosexuality impairs an individuals normal Emotional and Behavioural functioning, and is caused most people agree by either Social, Psychological, or Genetic factors. Ergo, there you have it.Please don't say that left-handed people are mentally ill. By that definition, they would be, as they are unable to function normally in right-handed society, often requiring special instruments made specifically for them, such as can openers, scissors, sports equipment, etc.

You've clearly missed the poll numbers that state that anti-gay politicians are in charge in Washington.

How could poll numbers state anything of the sort?

If the Republicans lose this election, it'll be becasue they aren't anti-gay enough.

No, if they were any more anti-gay they'd be losing votes for it.

The majority of the population supports benefits for gay couples, though not outright marriage.

But since the homosexual animal (assuming there is such a thing) has no special tie to someone elses children, it has no great incentive to do so.

Yes... yes, it does.

Note the term "social."

Based on what?

Actual science.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem? (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#mentalillness)

Mental Illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

Homosexuality impairs an individuals normal Emotional and Behavioural functioning, and is caused most people agree by either Social, Psychological, or Genetic factors. Ergo, there you have it.

"Normal" does not mean "average," or we would have to conclude that especially intelligent people are also victims of a mental illness.

Nor is homosexuality an "impairment."

Disliking someone for their opinion is a Morally Arbitrary standard.

No, the opinions someone holds are directly relevant to their moral character.

Someone who thinks, for instance, that people should be randomly taken off the street and tortured to death for fun is an immoral person.

I am not the one who denies the validity of moral absolutes, the Political-Correctness-istas, like yourself are. This renders your side inherently hypocritical.

In this way is your argument fatally flawed.

I see, guilt by association.

Sorry, you have no idea what my meta-ethical positions are, and until you do, I suggest you not make assumptions about them.

So in other words, it is Christianity that teaches hate, and not atheists teaching hatred of Christianity.
Christianity teaches love.

Christianity teaches love.

For gays, yes - in the same sense that it teaches love for murderers and rapists.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" has never been a particularly acceptable formulation for me.

If it pisses off Israelis, I'm all for it.
But they're the evil gayz! Allah will surely strike them down! With his Mohamma-rod!

Because voting for the people that are more tolerant of homosexuals is what homophobes will do if they are disgruntled by the Republicans for "not being anti-gay enough". :rolleyes:

No, because voter-participation will go down as anti-Gays lose confindence in the only party that isnt the Democrats.

Not into biology, are we? There are herd and pack animals that often function as coherent groups. Apart from that, geese have been known to form threesome relationships between two ganders and a goose, sharing duties in caring for the young.

I am fully familiar with the concept of social animals, however most non-sense like your goose theory are disproved, after entering the common parlance and continue to be treated as fact after their disproving.

Now, the problem with that definition is that EVERYONE suffers from mental illnesses. The fact that not everyone is labelled as such depends entirely on the social acceptability of such an illness. Workaholics, for instance, aren't necessarily reviled or labeled as sick in cultures that prize efficiency or economic success.

But an extreme workaholic could destroy his life and family because of that illness. Likewise, someone with occasional homosexual thoughts could be said to have the illness of Homosexuality, but it is not extreme enough to cause him to ruin his life and the lives of his fellows by joining the gay community.

Certain mental illnesses are more prone to extreme cases than others, and homosexuality appears to be one of those.

Keep in mind, the Pentagon legally defines homosexuality as a mental illness.

Please don't say that left-handed people are mentally ill. By that definition, they would be, as they are unable to function normally in right-handed society, often requiring special instruments made specifically for them, such as can openers, scissors, sports equipment, etc.

They are able to function normally, as you yourself point out.

No, the opinions someone holds are directly relevant to their moral character.

And by whose moral compass is their moral character to be measured?

Someone who thinks, for instance, that people should be randomly taken off the street and tortured to death for fun is an immoral person.

Exactly, society has to step in and make rulings on what is moral or not, so this means that what the majority considers wrong is wrong, and what the majority considers right is right? But what if the majority disagrees with you?



I see, guilt by association.

Sorry, you have no idea what my meta-ethical positions are, and until you do, I suggest you not make assumptions about them.

I do have an idea, you have stated that "Bigotry" by which you mean "Homophobia", is wrong. Since you believe what you call "Homophobia" is wrong, you most likely believe racism and sexism, for instance to be a part of Bigotry, and therefore wrong as well, yes?

If so then since those were the only assumptions I made regarding your moral compass, it would appear that I do have an idea of what your mete-ethical positions are.

And by whose moral compass is their moral character to be measured?

Mine.

Exactly, society has to step in and make rulings on what is moral or not, so this means that what the majority considers wrong is wrong, and what the majority considers right is right?

No, society does not determine right from wrong.

I do have an idea, you have stated that "Bigotry" by which you mean "Homophobia", is wrong. Since you believe what you call "Homophobia" is wrong, you most likely believe racism and sexism, for instance to be a part of Bigotry, and therefore wrong as well, yes?

Yes.

If so then since those were the only assumptions I made regarding your moral compass, it would appear that I do have an idea of what your mete-ethical positions are.

Do you know what "meta-ethical" means?

Keep in mind, the Pentagon legally defines homosexuality as a mental illness.

The Pentagon has no credibility on the subject.

The experts disagree.

The experts disagree.

Actually, they don't. (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html)

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

*snip*

The experts disagree with the Pentagon, as your link demonstrates.

Incidentally, I posted exactly the same link a few posts back.

I think they should be allowed to have the rally in Jerusalem. They have freedom of speech, after all. However, I would advise against holding it in Jerusalem for reasons of safety.

And if you are an ultra-Orthodox Jew living in Israel, note that while yes, there is a prohibition on homosexual relations, and yes the penalty is death by stoning, the penalty is only to be carried out after a proper trial. Stoning them before this is considered either assault or murder, depending on whether or not the target survives. Both are prohibited under Israeli law and under Jewish law - and the penalty for murder is death by decapitation.

Current Orthodox opinion holds that homosexuality is an aberrant mental condition that can be remedied. I guess they hold it IS an illness. I disagree, but either way, throwing stones at a gay parade is very ossur.

The experts disagree with the Pentagon, as your link demonstrates.

Incidentally, I posted exactly the same link a few posts back.

I know. I felt it needed repeating, what with your formulation and the rut you two had gotten into.

Just wanted to note something relevant to this thread - though maybe a bit beyond its scope - which makes this issue essential and hugely symbolic. Not just symbolic of gay rights, or even of freedom of expression, but of the notion of a pluralistic society:

Israel is constantly being threatened (at least it's a threat in my opinion) by fragmenting into its parts, and adding up to much less than their sum. Already there's a huge divide between the secular bastion of Tel-aviv and religious cities like Jerusalem and B'nei Brak. The fence is going up to seperate Jews and Arabs within Jerusalem itself. People have bandied about the idea dividing the municipality of Jerusalem even further into two sperate ones: 'normal' and ultra-orthodox boroughs that will each have their own schools, public services, by-laws, and so forth. Basically, the question is whether to solve severe conflict by carving areas up into tiny homogenous ghettos, or to actually have a pluralistic society where people are forced to put up with each other and follow the same rules.

Clearly, the entire point of democaracy is the latter, and letting a bunch of ideological thugs literally control the streets of the capital city of Israel bodes extremely poorly. The police force needs to get a backbone and protect the protesters with force, if need be.

Bwahahahahahaha..... no, seriously, bwahahahaha! I doubt you wrote that with a straight face. If you did, kudos, you've more self-restraint than I, but, well, that's not a surprise either.

the vast majority of religions are decentralised, tribal affairs, with no central authority and they tend to be non-absolutist. they aren't the largest adherents-wise by any means, but as far as each unique belief-system counting as a unit un-weighted for size, the majority are not control mechanisms. even within the largely manipulative ones, there's always been a voice of opposition. read St. John Chrysostom and tell me christianity is ENTIRELY about opression.

"it offends me as a linguist"

You said you were a linguist, but didn't claim it? Right... you might want to decide which story you're gonna run with, hmmkay? it's a figure of speech. I didn't intend to start some kind of debate over the meaning and origin of the stupid word - I was expressing an aesthetic preference - apperently I expressed it inappropriately. my apologies. I wasn't expecting you to be so hostile.

Such luck then that we are not speaking "origional Greek" (whatever language that's supposed to be, this "origional" Greek, but for some reason I doubt you're well versed in either the ancient, koiné or modern variety) but English and in my case some other ones.

if you'd like to see the flurry of posts on livejournal I made earlier today regaurding linguistics (in which I refer to koine greek, incidentally), you can see them.

Know thy English - "thine" is predicative, "thy" is attributive. The use of "thine" before nouns commencing with vowels is a corruption.

now you're just being contrary for the hell of it. yes, I validate your brain. you are huge and evolved and your penis-substitute is bigger than my penis-substitute. please, I'm sure you're a wonderful person. we can stop with the ego trip now.

Powerful, I have never denied. Asinine? Most assuredly. in most cases I agree with you.

Honey, you could never be just like me. I have self-respect.

and because I disagree with who you choose to insult and dehumanise I don't? self respect is not about who you disrespect, unless your self-image is caught up with childish superiority complexes.

Every Empire that has accepted homosexuality has fallen, to be replaced by violently anti-gay ones. Live with it.

erm. incidentally, rome didn't fall until *after* homosexuality was frowned upon.

and because I disagree with who you choose to insult and dehumanise I don't? self respect is not about who you disrespect, unless your self-image is caught up with childish superiority complexes.I prophesize a long and frutiful relationship between you and Fass. He has historically enjoyed tossing his points with a good dose of personally-targeted ridicule. Honestly, it's just the way he shows affection.

I prophesize a long and frutiful relationship between you and Fass. He has historically enjoyed tossing his points with a good dose of personally-targeted ridicule. Honestly, it's just the way he shows affection.

*chuckles* I had just made up my mind to either ignore him entirely or try to be friends.

No, because voter-participation will go down as anti-Gays lose confindence in the only party that isnt the Democrats. Wish that were true... *sigh*
I am fully familiar with the concept of social animals, however most non-sense like your goose theory are disproved, after entering the common parlance and continue to be treated as fact after their disproving.Go ahead, prove me wrong. Your statement that the observances are merely a theory or that they never happened isn't enough.
But an extreme workaholic could destroy his life and family because of that illness. Likewise, someone with occasional homosexual thoughts could be said to have the illness of Homosexuality, but it is not extreme enough to cause him to ruin his life and the lives of his fellows by joining the gay community.Still have to prove that homosexuality actually is a mental illness. As I said, what is "illness" and what is not is usually relative to social norms, and hardly fits into any applicable categories.
Certain mental illnesses are more prone to extreme cases than others, and homosexuality appears to be one of those.Appearances can be deceiving. It also appears that living under power lines makes you poor, because mainly poor people live under power lines.
Keep in mind, the Pentagon legally defines homosexuality as a mental illness.Now if the Pentagon were actually an respected institute that did research on mental health, you'd have a point.
They are able to function normally, as you yourself point out.No, actually they are even less able to function in society than homosexuals, as there need to be special tools made for them.

*chuckles* I had just made up my mind to either ignore him entirely or try to be friends.I haven't managed to do the former (since he can be quite interesting), and never even attempted the latter. Happy head-butting!

oh, and this thread needs pictures. of cute Israeli boys.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a140/maayan009/jerusalem_gay10.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a140/maayan009/pride_sm.jpg

Christianity teaches love.So does Islam and Jewislam(sp) (and almost every other religion.)

(To use your terminology) False. Atheism is based almost solely on hatred of religion, and opposition towards it, as you amply demonstrate in your various posts on here. I say almost, because the famous quote "Atheism: The worship of one's own smug sense of superiority" holds true.And, of course, you can point out where I said I was an atheist...

It is your kind that is increasingly irrelevant, as the silent majority slowly begins to realize that it is a majority.As was said by others, the majority of people in the U.S. favor most gay rights.

Yeah, it is. What you call "Tolerance" is actually acceptance.Saying that someone shouldn't be brutally murdered isn't the same thing as tolerating them.

Heterosexual Animals can help gather food for the familial/tribal unit also, what about homosexuality makes them better at it?If every animal had young and foraged for food for their young, the supplies would deplete.

If you are going to say my argument is false, why don't you prove it?http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

With that said, you're welcome to take your own advice.

Aside from trolling with arbitrary statements do you actually have anything to bring to this debate?Aside from trolling with arbitrary statements and hypocrisy, do you have anything to bring to this debate?

Every Empire that has accepted homosexuality has fallen, to be replaced by violently anti-gay ones. Live with it.And those empires in turn, too, have fallen. What's your point?

This is not an ideal argument. If an animal behaves, through sickness, in a way in which the animal was not designed to, either evolutionarily or by God, it is by definition un-natural. Cows going mad from rabies and attacking people occurs in nature. Does this mean carnivorous cows are natural?Yes, it would. Fortunately, homosexuality isn't a disease.

Based on what?

Mental Illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

Homosexuality impairs an individuals normal Emotional and Behavioural functioning, and is caused most people agree by either Social, Psychological, or Genetic factors. Ergo, there you have it.If I were to remove "homosexuality" and insert "Christianity", this statement would have no less validity (not to say it would have more, either).

That's true - there is no unambiguous condemnation of sex for pleasure in the Bible.

My only point was that there is also no unambiguous endorsement of it, as the poster attempted to imply. So if the argument is that same-sex intercourse is wrong because it is non-procreative, there is no compelling reason not to apply the same standard to opposite-sex intercourse, and to condemn as such all non-procreative forms of opposite-sex intercourse, including opposite-sex intercourse for pleasure.

Generally the Bible works on prescribing what you can't do and what you must do.

Something is either mandated or banned. Anything that is neither mandated or banned is up to individuals.

Assuming even that you believe in it.