Gay Muslims Made Homeless By Family Violence

[Rog]

I think you should all stop being so polite to this t***, he is a prejudiced bigot and his views should be reported to the moderator. end off!

 

Why?

 

Is it that decency and good morality is now a thing to be condemned?

 

Maybe my views look different from the gutter than from a decent standpoint.

[jimbms]

Maybe my views look different from the gutter than from a decent standpoint.

Maybe your views are abnormal and devient to the majority

[Rog]

Maybe my views look different from the gutter than from a decent standpoint.

Maybe your views are abnormal and devient to the majority

 

You're probably right.

 

Sad thought though.

 

Indecency is the new decency.

[aimeejulia]

Promiscuity is promiscuity. Casual sex for its own sake. The morality of the slum. End of.

 

As for the rest, I guess it comes down to me being of an age and an upbringing that results in my being comfortable with condemning that which is unhealthy, immoral, and wrong.

 

It’s not a matter of being bigoted, it’s simply having higher standards that those of the gutter, the bordello, or the poufs parlour.

 

I don’t ‘do’ political correctness, I don’t believe that all races are equal, I do believe in the class system, and I do believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong.

 

If that makes me wrong then I don’t want to be right.

 

It is impossible to make a person renounce a belief because this is a result of a long process that begins from childhood. In adulthood we question those beliefs and we make a conscious choice to reaffirm or change those beliefs. You have chosen to reaffirm those beliefs.

 

The higher standards you mention are not higher at all they are just different. The comfort in condemning that which different from your own beliefs is self delusion that comes from the conviction that if you observe your beliefs you are better than those who don't.

 

You said you had beliefs about the races, the class system and absolute right these are all beliefs that you have reaffirmed and therefore no amount of arguments from others will make you change these beliefs unless you come to question them yourself.

 

Even though you said that if that makes you wrong then you don't want to be right it only emphasises how much you not only have gone through great lengths to stick to these beliefs but also that you believe that you are right.

 

I hope sincerely that you will come to question your beliefs and that maybe you may come to terms that it is ok to change them. Then again it might never happen therefore I now don't see the point of trying to have a discussion. In reality you can reiterate you beliefs over and over but unless there is genuine interest in understanding what's behind them then its like having a rant at the wind.

[motormouth mabel]

Maybe my views look different from the gutter than from a decent standpoint.

Maybe your views are abnormal and devient to the majority

 

You're probably right.

 

Sad thought though.

 

Indecency is the new decency.

 

You're looking a bit lonely up there at decent standpoint, the 'ass end' of planet morality. (Pardon the pun) We are all getting along fine 'down here in the gutter! My son came out when he was 16 and when he did he suffered horrendous homophopic bullying. Fortunately he has come through this relatively unscathed. I cannot tolerate those who allow these attitudes to prevail. There is also the theory about those who shout the loudest about this issue????

[Rog]

Promiscuity is promiscuity. Casual sex for its own sake. The morality of the slum. End of.

 

As for the rest, I guess it comes down to me being of an age and an upbringing that results in my being comfortable with condemning that which is unhealthy, immoral, and wrong.

 

It’s not a matter of being bigoted, it’s simply having higher standards that those of the gutter, the bordello, or the poufs parlour.

 

I don’t ‘do’ political correctness, I don’t believe that all races are equal, I do believe in the class system, and I do believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong.

 

If that makes me wrong then I don’t want to be right.

 

It is impossible to make a person renounce a belief because this is a result of a long process that begins from childhood. In adulthood we question those beliefs and we make a conscious choice to reaffirm or change those beliefs. You have chosen to reaffirm those beliefs.

 

The higher standards you mention are not higher at all they are just different. The comfort in condemning that which different from your own beliefs is self delusion that comes from the conviction that if you observe your beliefs you are better than those who don't.

 

You said you had beliefs about the races, the class system and absolute right these are all beliefs that you have reaffirmed and therefore no amount of arguments from others will make you change these beliefs unless you come to question them yourself.

 

Even though you said that if that makes you wrong then you don't want to be right it only emphasises how much you not only have gone through great lengths to stick to these beliefs but also that you believe that you are right.

 

I hope sincerely that you will come to question your beliefs and that maybe you may come to terms that it is ok to change them. Then again it might never happen therefore I now don't see the point of trying to have a discussion. In reality you can reiterate you beliefs over and over but unless there is genuine interest in understanding what's behind them then its like having a rant at the wind.

 

What astounding arrogance!

 

Experience and what I see taking place around me every day, what I read in the newspapers, what I see on the television all clearly show that society today may well be superior in some ways but overall is far poorer than it was even thirty years ago let alone earlier.

 

I’ve traveled the world, I’ve worked cheek by jowl with all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds doing all sorts of things and so if I state that all races are NOT equal it isn’t imagination, it’s gained knowledge.

 

As for questioning my beliefs, the very fact that I openly accept that homosexuality should not be made illegal and that homosexual people though abnormal should not be prevented in any way from leading lives in which they can have as much happiness as they can achieve is in itself a huge movement from the stance that I took in my late teens and twenties.

 

If there are people who should review their opinions and values it’s those who believe that the morality of the gutter and the behaviour of animals should be accepted as being fine and dandy who should be reconsidering their values.

 

There’s nothing wrong with mine.

[Rog]

You're looking a bit lonely up there at decent standpoint, the 'ass end' of planet morality. (Pardon the pun) We are all getting along fine 'down here in the gutter! My son came out when he was 16 and when he did he suffered horrendous homophopic bullying. Fortunately he has come through this relatively unscathed. I cannot tolerate those who allow these attitudes to prevail. There is also the theory about those who shout the loudest about this issue????

 

Ah! All is becoming clear! The Father of the Bride' syndrome.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No.. They’re within the range of social acceptability.

I wouldn't even say that homosexuality is within the realms of social acceptability. It is accepted begrudgingly by many but appears to be simply tolerated by most.

 

I do agree with you entirely Rog on what you say about normativity. It does have meaning and it does have a great deal of currency in modern discourse on sexuality.

 

I think those who think homosexuality IS normal don't really get what is meant by that term and its purpose for use.

 

But you are seemingly incapable of actually discussing why such things matter. Why I should accept such language and why the perspective of sexuality that is dominant is the right one. All it is is a way of marginalising people.

[Chinahand]

Rog, if you can't see the congitive dissonance between these two statement's then you are blind.

Homosexuality [should not] result in a person so afflicted be treated in any way adversly from any other person in a social context .

I strongly get the impression that you are morally and ethically repulsed by homosexuality - you'd reject a child who behaved in such a way - but you seem unable to articulate any reason for this.

 

I am, and I probably would.

 

It’s not a matter of being bigoted, it’s simply having higher standards that those of the gutter, the bordello, or the poufs parlour.

 

I don’t ‘do’ political correctness, I don’t believe that all races are equal, I do believe in the class system, and I do believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong.

 

If that makes me wrong then I don’t want to be right.

 

My understanding of your morality is that you disbelieve that a person could be honest and open in their social and moral behaviour and be a homosexual, or that even if they were then you believe that the physical act of homosexuality, in itself, for no other reason, instantly makes that person incapable of being viewed as being moral.

 

The fact they are entirely honest in their interpersonal dealings, ensure they practice safe sex and that everything they do is consensual and of no wider social consequence etc are all irrelevent - such a person is in your eyes immoral simply because of their homosexuality.

 

You really are obsessed with orifices or something - is masterbation also a perversion, abnormal and the standard of the gutter?

 

I find it absolutely amazing that you also at this point decide to raise a justification for racism, and attempt to say there is an absolute right and wrong - and of course you are on the side of right.

 

Talk about self justification of opinions.

 

Classic conservatism - my way is the right way. Any way I see as being wrong, is axiomatically wrong and I am absolutely right in saying so.

 

And of course Rog is very proud to be like that.

 

As are the militant Mullahs, the fundamentalist fanatics and all absolutist dogmatists - people most of us would call bigots.

[Rog]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that perverts will go to in order to justify and even attempt to normalise their perversion.

It isn't any surprise when you cannot adequately why homosexuality should be considered a perversion; why normality should be recognised in respect of heterosexuality and not homosexuality; and why homosexuality should be considered wrong.

Because homosexual sex is a perversion of natural sex, the act that takes place between man and woman.

 

That which is a perversion is by definition perverted, those who engage in a perversion are perverts.

 

It really is that smple.

[Slim]

Because homosexual sex is a perversion of natural sex, the act that takes place between man and woman.

 

That which is a perversion is by definition perverted, those who engage in a perversion are perverts.

 

It really is that smple.

 

It might be in your horrible little mind, and thats where these kind of thoughts should stay.

 

It's not up to you to define what's normal and what isn't. There's no rule book or specification for humans that we all have to stick to.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Because homosexual sex is a perversion of natural sex, the act that takes place between man and woman.

That which is a perversion is by definition perverted, those who engage in a perversion are perverts.

It really is that smple.

What does natural mean? And why does it have importance to you?

[Chinahand]

homosexual sex is a perversion of natural sex, the act that takes place between man and woman.

 

That which is a perversion is by definition perverted, those who engage in a perversion are perverts.

 

It really is that smple.

And you believe that anyone who is in your definition "a pervert" is immoral and unethical simply because of that fact? Is that what you are saying Rog?

 

I am continually pushing you about what is your ethical or moral problem - how does that moral and ethical problem manefest itself in society? Does it have any OTHER consequences? If your argument is simply - homosexuals are immoral, an ethcial society shouldn't contain homosexuals then it is an empty argument - you could say the same thing about red heads, albinos, bell ringers and football fans.

 

I realize I'm widening this thread further, but Rog started it not me.

 

Rog, do you think there is something intrinsic about different races which makes them different, or is it different social environments - if you took a member of one race as a baby and raised them within an entirely different race would they really behave differently.

 

I fully agree with you that societies are different from each other, and not all societies are as good as each other at meeting the spiritual and material needs of their populations, but when you start saying this is down to racial/intrinsic properties of the inhabitants rather than their environment then we are going to have a rather serious disagreement.

[motormouth mabel]

You're looking a bit lonely up there at decent standpoint, the 'ass end' of planet morality. (Pardon the pun) We are all getting along fine 'down here in the gutter! My son came out when he was 16 and when he did he suffered horrendous homophopic bullying. Fortunately he has come through this relatively unscathed. I cannot tolerate those who allow these attitudes to prevail. There is also the theory about those who shout the loudest about this issue????

 

Ah! All is becoming clear! The Father of the Bride' syndrome.

 

Ah losing battle with you am afraid! you've taken to insulting those who challenge you, also you seem to be too obsessed with linking homosexuality to the sexual act only. PsychoANALysis beckons me thinks!

[Terse]

I’m old enough to remember when homosexuals were referred to in derogatory terms such as “pouf,’ ‘bender,’ ‘ass-bandit’ and so on, and when they were the easy target for almost every comedian. That was when they were almost exclusively portrayed as mincing, lisping and effeminate creatures. They were easy to mock because the kind of sex they preferred was against the law – ever since the morally upright Henry VIII passed the Buggery Act in 1533.

The limited legalisation passed in 1967 - only applying to over-21s, in private (i.e. only 2 people present), and consensual – retained the general prohibitions on buggery and indecency.

For most people of that generation, the whole idea of homosexuality had been presented as being offensive and perverted – which made it difficult to accept, and even more difficult to relate to the way it is presented today.

Personally, I cannot entirely shake off what was instilled in me when I was young about the privacy of sexual relationships – even heterosexual ones, so I suppose that makes me some kind of dinosaur and I still find it almost impossible to accept the sight of two men engaged in any kind of sexually-based activity – even kissing – but I know that I belong to an ever-declining minority.

Perhaps I am fortunate that I have never had to confront the problem on a personal level (I have no idea what the sexual orientation of my friends is – and no wish to know, because its no concern of mine), and my children, as far as I am aware, are quite happy in what Rog would regard as ‘normal’ relationships.

Having given the matter careful thought, I believe that I could never reject any of my offspring if it turned out that they preferred homosexual relationships – they would still be my children. At the same time – and please don’t criticise me too much for this because I am being honest – I would struggle to hide my disappointment.