Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Haydar Husayn

Polyamory - The Next Frontier

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Especially living in the West, mixing religious values with social behaviour towards others may result in very inappropiate attitudes. Homophobia should be totally avoided, and teaching children to respect others without discriminating by their sexual orientation is a key factor to educate them to live in a just society.

Define homophobia. I don't believe in treating homosexuals any different from anyone else in day to day life. My only point here is to emphasise that Islam's traditional view on the subject shouldn't change just because certain societies have decided to legitimise it.

Haydar, you shouldnt fear next generation's approval of homosexuality. If they are taught in a reasonable manner and not in personal traditional prejudices, they won't change their views by propaganda, only by a reasonable debate.

Is that how you believe that the Western societies changed their views? Through reasoned debate?

People can reconcile viewing homosexuality as a sin while conviving and tolerating homosexuals, treating them normally without any prejudice (and only a bigot gay would feel offended by that). That is possible and correct. I have already talked about how they were treated at the time of the prophet (which was indifference, not hate. Check the book by Rowson, the effeminate of early medina, for deeper research). We are not religious judges to discriminate.

Please quote anything I have ever written on the subject that would indicate that I believing in treating homosexuals harshly. That isn't my point at all, which should be clear to anyone who is actually reading what I am writing. As for 'bigot gays', there seem to be a few of them around. You have homosexuals suing bakers for refusing to put a pro-gay marriage message on top of a cake in Northern Ireland (despite gay marriage not being legal there), and then in Germany charges being brought against a minister (by a lesbian lawyer) for saying that changing the definition of marriage in Germany could open the door to marriage between close relatives or marriage between more than two people. How's that for tolerance?

And as a homosexual I can tell you that anti gay propaganda will eventually fail. Homosexuality is a fact, a reality. My father (who is a shia muslim, and was pretty much conservative, to the extreme) used to tell me stories of how they were made gays, or what they do and what they want, and how they could be cured, etc. These stories work for a kid, but when they grow up and met others people who happen to be homosexual, they realize that everything they was taught was fake, intolerance and prejudices. When that happens, everything loses its meaning, even religious laws (which are not prejudices). Of course, for me it became evident all he said lacked all meaning as I knew the truth behind homosexuality much better than he could ever do. So the best way to teach a kid about homosexuality is focusing on facts. It is haraam, a sin, ok. But also make sure they understand there are some people who are either born or choose to live that way, and they shouldn't be discriminated by that, especially in a secular country. Sticking to facts is not more simple and more humane, but a more solid base against the so called "gay propaganda" you address. As prejudices are beaten by prejudices (homophobia is easily beaten by the gay message. Check the book After the Ball, it will shock you how well designed and strong has been the gay message against the american prejudices in the 90s), but reasoned explanations cannot be beaten by prejudices.

Yes, I own the book you speak of, and there is much to be said about it. For now, all I will say is that I don't understand how you can have read that book and then pretend like people's minds are changed through 'reasoned debate'. Where in 'After the Ball' did they ever suggest that?

In my experience through coming out to many muslim people, most of them realized they were wrong in their judgements (due to believing in gay stereotypes), and some of them even rejected the prohibition of homosexuality afterwards (even when I myself hold a neutral position). So I'm talking out of real experience. The stronger the shock due to not fitting with their prejudices, the stronger the reaction against their own beliefs in the prohibition of homosexuality. In the book I mentioned, one of the strategies was precisely showing homosexual people as role handsome models with exemplary behaviour. The fact is that homosexuals aren't different from the rest, there are good and bad, as always. But shocking the audience was a way to break the prejudices. And a society whose position against homosexuality is SOLELY based on prejudices, will easily change its view, in only a decade.

Well, this is the problem isn't it. Hating homosexuals out of prejudice is wrong. No doubt there many are people who are just irrationally bigoted towards homosexuality, and that is a problem. However, stating that homosexuality is a sin according to the religion of Islam is not some irrational hatred, anymore than it is hateful to say that adultery is a sin, or fornication, or theft, or usury, or any of the many other sins that Islam condemns.

I appreciate lecturers like sayyed Ammar who addressed the topic with some compassion and reason. It is more respectful to LGBT and also offers a better insight for muslim people to keep their views on homosexuality as a sin without the need of being complete ignorant homophobes.

And what have I written that would qualify as the statements of an 'ignorant homophobe'?

The acceptance of incest and other sexual behaviours is quite different from a sexual orientation that appears naturally in any human being, regardless of the race, religion, gender, etc.

No it's not, and in fact there are cases going through the courts right now, arguing for the legalisation of incest, using the same arguments homosexuals used. This is something people in the homosexual community were always aware would happen, and you can find plenty of discussion on it online. The reaction mostly seems to be to shrug their shoulders.

As for the ban of alcohol, it is not exclusively an islamic procedure. Albert Camus, on Reflections on the guillotine, argued in favour of the removal of the death penalty under the condition of improving people's life quality and the ban of alcohol. He was an atheist.

So? The ban on homosexuality was far more widespread, and was advocated by atheist as well as religious societies.

As for the anti homophobia laws, I thank God for them. As a teacher, before joining the university, you are asked to make a test and they also address this topic. It is an insult to the academic institution to adopt such behaviour against the intimate life of some people. It is none of our business. You can't imagine the numbers of abuses gay people suffer in schools though... and if it weren't for such education, they would suffer them even at the university.

Anyway... I'm enjoining the debate, interesting inputs.

Yes, I agree that what people do in private is nobody's business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually we are pretty much on the same page through following different approach. But there have been two misunderstandings that i shall make clear.

I didn't mean, of course, that anything of what you said is an argument that would be of an ignorant homophobe. I'm not one of those bigot gays lol. I understand and respect people's beliefs and don't feel offended if someone believes homosexuality is a great sin. I don't consider your arguments ignorant and neither homophobic. I was referring to those with irrational hatred towards homosexuality.

As for the book, I wanted to mean that the American society didn't accept homosexuality out of irrational debate. Actually, as the book argues, there is no room for rational debate in the strategy followed, only for constant, tireless, strong propaganda. From my standpoint, which is a pro-gay standpoint, this is unwanted as well (though it was necessary due to the irrational hatred and not addressing the topic reasonably. The American society totally deserved the brainwash). However, I personally support a rational debate in which we could assure the security for homosexuals (avoiding discrimination and abuses). I know this doesn't get along Islamic sharia, but I believe it can be achieved from a religious perspective in secular governments. Thus, muslims living in countries in which islamic Sharia is not applied to homosexuals, shouldn't discrimimate homosexuals.

I personally appreciate the Pope's standpoint on the topic. He didn't legitimize homosexuality, but condemned homophobia by acknowledging we are none to judge (I understand, though, that christianity doesn't have something like Sharia in today's world, making it easier to adopt such standpoint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been almost a year and a half since I made this thread, and the media has continued to promote this cause, in a way that now appears to be gathering pace, so I thought it would be time for an update.

I read the following article today, and even by the standards of today's debauched society, I couldn't quite believe what I was reading.

Quote

Among those of us who are polyamorous — meaning that we carry on committed relationships with multiple people — there is a lot of talk about jealousy. It’s regarded as an emotion for the weak and unenlightened.

I must be seriously unenlightened then, because I am a jealous, territorial, alpha-kind of man. My husband, Alex, and I have been together for five years. Our boyfriend, Jon, has lived with us for the past two.

For the most part we are happy. Like any relationship, we have our ups and our downs. Some days we are madly in love, other days we’d rather be left alone to watch TV, pay the bills and go about the normalcy of life.

Our relationship allows us a lot of room to explore with other people, both sexually and emotionally. We try to be honest with one another — and we try our best not to hurt one another. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we don’t.

I still get that kind of heart-pounding and burning sensation all over my body whenever I picture either of my men with someone else. I want to stalk their lovers on Facebook. I want to follow Alex and Jon when they leave the house. Go through their phones. If I let myself, I can go a little crazy with jealousy.

Which is difficult, considering our lifestyle and the amount of times they are with other people.

The three of us met on a gay dating app, Scruff. Alex and I had a shared account, so we could talk together to other men we were interested in. When we met Jon, we intended it to be just another three-way. A one night stand. But we found a commonality in Jon: We found aspects of each of us in him, a way for both of us to connect.

Jon kept coming back. For pizza and movies, sleepovers, hikes. We took a trip to Vancouver together. The three of us had our first four-way. We said “I love you.” We introduced Jon to our family members and friends as our boyfriend.

Watching Alex fall in love with Jon was a kind of strange torture. It was also beautiful. Learning to balance the torture with the beauty was a struggle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/i-live-with-my-husband-and-my-boyfriend-heres-how-it-works-a7360086.html

I apologise for having to post this kind of filth, but this is unfortunately the way things are these days, and what children are taught in schools as being perfectly normal. This is absolutely animalistic behaviour, on an incredible scale, but is being promoted by the media as perfectly normal. Incidentally, it tells you just how confident they are after their victory over 'gay marriage', that they feel free to publish this sort of stuff. It would never have happened ten years ago while they were still having to win over the public to the cause of 'gay marriage', and they were busy suppressing the fact that this sort of behaviour was absolutely rampant within the homosexual community. Now, it seems, they are trying to get the rest of the population to follow in their footsteps, or at least to consider it normal.

And, lest you think it was simply the liberal media pushing this, I then came across this from the supposedly conservative Daily Mail:

Quote

Polyamorous mother-of-two plans a three-way wedding after inviting her female lover to share her marital bed (and her husband is delighted!) 

A husband and wife have revealed how they've found the secret to relationship bliss after letting a 20-year-old woman share their bed - and look after their two young children.
Polyamorous mother-of-two DeAnna Rivas, 27, from Florida, says she's now planning a three-way wedding with her husband Manny, 28, and her girlfriend Melissa James, 20, because the set-up works so well. 
The unusual situation came about after Deanna asked her husband if she could take on a female lover, saying their was a hole in the marriage that only a relationship with a woman could fill.  

Manny was cynical at first but soon found he enjoyed the third person in his marriage, and invited Melissa to share the marital bed. 
The three, who share parenting duties over Deanna and Manny's children - Vaneza, seven, and Gabriel, four -  plan to 'marry' each other in the future - although the marriage would not be legal in their home state of Florida, USA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3834037/Polyamorous-mother-two-plans-three-way-wedding-inviting-female-lover-share-marital-bed-husband-delighted.html

I couldn't detect a single hint of disapproval about any of this.

 

Meanwhile, let's contrast this with the attitude towards polygamy:

Quote

 

Polygamy is not a cultural conceit. It is an affront to women

What with being illegal in this country, and so strongly favoured elsewhere by the nastier cult leaders, polygamy has not had the best press in recent years. The polygamy survivor’s memoir, usually detailing protracted slavery and abuse, has proliferated almost into a literary genre, although not, it emerges, one influential enough to have deterred British practitioner Mr Azad Chaiwala from a new campaign to “revive” polygamy.

With two new, polygamy-specialist dating agencies, one for Muslims, one not, Chaiwala plans not only to make money but also, he has been explaining in a remarkably effective publicity campaign, to remove the local taboo and spread understanding of the benefits of wife collecting. “What I’m offering,” he told Vice last week, “is a man with many wives.”

[...]

So far, given that what he proposes is illegal under British law as well as crudely sexist, Chaiwala’s wheeze has had a strikingly respectful reception, at least from non-Muslims. Maybe it was lucky that this exercise in taboo-lifting coincided initially with a local political cataclysm and now, with absorbing disagreements over whether victories by senior Conservative woman can correctly be celebrated as feminist. At any rate, perhaps Chaiwala is right to hope that, as before (recall the initial, “sharia compliant” Law Society advice), scrupulous tolerance for allegedly authentic cultural idiosyncrasies will make a mockery of women’s and girls’ equality and the rule of law.

By way of contrast, the German justice minister, Heiko Maas, has just affirmed the primacy of national legislation where marriage to minors and polygamy are concerned. “No one,” he told Bild, “has the right to put his cultural values or religious beliefs above our laws.” To marry, yet dodge British bigamy law, Chaiwala’s website suggests a compromise. “We advise,” it says, “you still have a ceremony in which your families and the religious community recognise the marriage, even though it may not be legally recognised.” It was left to Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr and a Muslim, to point out that such schemes put “a person in huge peril, because they are not allowed to claim, as a partner, on his estate”.

Polygamists are inviting these second, third and fourth wives to commit, solemnly, to an unequal arrangement that offers them no protection in the event of separation, marital disputes or bereavement, other than might be available, in the case of Muslims, from a sharia council.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/polygamy-uk-sharia-law-home-office-review

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest silasun

My guess is that Haydar Husayn is a Zionist conspiracy to make Shia Muslims depressed at what the heck is going on in the world =/.

That latest post was one of the most revolting things I have read for a while.

Edited by silasun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 1:51 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

When your children are brainwashed at school into believing that such things are morally good, and that any religious objections are backward and to be rejected, then yes, it does affect you.

Believing that doing something is morally good and being tolerant and not discriminating towards individuals who do a certain thing are different things.

People in the western society are tolerant towards homosexuality and homosexuals but they do not believe that it is morally good to be homosexual. They believe that not being discriminating towards people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is mortally good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strangelove said:

Believing that doing something is morally good and being tolerant and not discriminating towards individuals who do a certain thing are different things.

People in the western society are tolerant towards homosexuality and homosexuals but they do not believe that it is morally good to be homosexual. They believe that not being discriminating towards people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation etc. is mortally good.

The West went beyond tolerance a long time ago. They now actively celebrate homosexuality, and want to force others to do the same. As Obama said in the speech below, he wants people to see relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as one between a man and a woman. That isn't simply 'tolerance'.

 

Tolerance doesn't require you to go around the world lecturing other countries on gay rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thinking amoung Western Liberal secularists (most are secular) is that anything that happens between 1, 2, 3, x consenting adults is ok. Their only barriers are that they need to be adults (by their definition) and that there needs to be consent(by their definition) amoung all parties. 

Because most of them either don't believe in God(s.w.a) or don't believe that modern organized religions(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) are revelations from God(s.w.a) they of course do not accept any social laws in which the origins are in divinely revealed religions. 

Although this may sound nice to some, even some muslims (only adulthood and consent are required), it doesn't work in real life. Where I grew up (in California) Western Liberal secularists were the majority. I saw, many times, what actually happens in these sort of 'open' relationships. And this was one of the main things that turned me toward Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 15, 2016 at 0:19 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

The West went beyond tolerance a long time ago. They now actively celebrate homosexuality, and want to force others to do the same. As Obama said in the speech below, he wants people to see relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as one between a man and a woman. That isn't simply 'tolerance'.

 

Tolerance doesn't require you to go around the world lecturing other countries on gay rights.

 

 

On October 15, 2016 at 0:19 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

The West went beyond tolerance a long time ago. They now actively celebrate homosexuality, and want to force others to do the same. As Obama said in the speech below, he wants people to see relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as one between a man and a woman. That isn't simply 'tolerance'.

 

Tolerance doesn't require you to go around the world lecturing other countries on gay rights.

 

Once again, Obama's speech was about American citizens who serve in the military, work jobs, pay taxes, etc. having the same rights as other American citizens. Not hard to follow.

No one is going to be "forced to accept" or " celebrate"  anyone else's lifestyle. ( If you don't believe in same- sex marriage or inter-racial marriage, you're free to believe that...you just have to follow the nation's civil rights laws like everyone else does in your public secular institution or business...which leaves the Churches mostly out...btw...separation of church and state...you can refuse to marry or kick out gay folks and people of color all  day long if you want )

Re: Kenya...well, they may not "accept " our values, but they sure " accept" $700,000,000 plus yearly of  our money. I think that gives us the right to comment on their human rights issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 

Once again, Obama's speech was about American citizens who serve in the military, work jobs, pay taxes, etc. having the same rights as other American citizens. Not hard to follow.

What does this have to do with anything? My point is that his speech clearly goes beyond mere 'tolerance' of these relationships. Never before in human history were homosexual relationships considered 'just as admirable' as those between a man and a woman.

7 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

No one is going to be "forced to accept" or " celebrate"  anyone else's lifestyle. ( If you don't believe in same- sex marriage or inter-racial marriage, you're free to believe that...you just have to follow the nation's civil rights laws like everyone else does in your public secular institution or business...which leaves the Churches mostly out...btw...separation of church and state...you can refuse to marry or kick out gay folks and people of color all  day long if you want )

Why are you attempting to make some kind of equivalence between homosexuality and race? One is a sin, and the other isn't. I was under the impression that you were a Catholic. You do believe in sin as defined in the Bible and by the Catholic Church I take it?

Anyway, as it turns out, I don't think you are correct.

Quote

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Tuesday encouraged his constituents not to eat at a new Chick-fil-A restaurant opening in the city, citing the company’s pro-traditional marriage views.
“What the ownership of Chick-fil-A has said is wrong,” Mr. de Blasio said at a press conference, as reported by DNA Info.
“I’m certainly not going to patronize them, and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them,” he said, adding that “they do have a legal right.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/bill-de-blasio-new-york-city-mayor-tells-citizens-/

So if the CEO of a business has a traditionally viewpoint on marriage, then elected politicians should be calling for a boycott of his business? That isn't forcing people to accept gay marriage? Or do you restrict the meaning of 'force' to mean at gun point? What is clear is that opposing so-called gay marriage is not considered an acceptable position to hold, and if you go public about it, then you will be targeted by the media, business, politicians, and as far as possible, the law.

Meanwhile, I doubt the remaining religious liberties protections that some religious organisations have will last very long:

Quote

2      The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars (see Justice Scalia in Romer v. Evans, and the Wikipedia entry for culture wars, which describes conservative activists, not liberals, using the term.) And they had opportunities to reach a cease fire, but rejected them in favor of a scorched earth policy. The earth that was scorched, though, was their own. (No conservatives demonstrated any interest in trading off recognition of LGBT rights for “religious liberty” protections. Only now that they’ve lost the battle over LGBT rights, have they made those protections central – seeing them, I suppose, as a new front in the culture wars. But, again, they’ve already lost the war.). For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

https://balkin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/abandoning-defensive-crouch-liberal.html?m=1

Note that the author quoted above is a Harvard Law professor.

I could quote even more examples that have come out from all the recent 'transgender' nonsense, but I'm sure you are aware of them.

 

7 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Re: Kenya...well, they may not "accept " our values, but they sure " accept" $700,000,000 plus yearly of  our money. I think that gives us the right to comment on their human rights issues.

You can justify it any way you want, it still supports what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

What does this have to do with anything? My point is that his speech clearly goes beyond mere 'tolerance' of these relationships. 

 

 

So what? 
He wants people treated well under the law. Maybe some day Muslims can actually build a mosques and be welcomed instead of just  " tolerated" and not shot. Imagine that.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

Why are you attempting to make some kind of equivalence between homosexuality and race? One is a sin, and the other isn't. I was under the impression that you were a Catholic. You do believe in sin as defined in the Bible and by the Catholic Church I take it?

 

 

You are using the President of a secular nation delivering a secular speech in a secular setting. I am referring to secular law. Yes, orientation,as well as race or ethnicity,  can be a protected class under US secular law, as it is in my state.
The US does not follow Catholic Canon Law. There is a separation of Church and State and our elected leaders don't promise to be the defenders of anyone's faith.  If the US did follow Canon Law, artificial birth control and remarriage after divorce would be illegal. Guess US Muslims ,among others, are lucky it doesn't , huh?

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:


 

Anyway, as it turns out, I don't think you are correct.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/4/bill-de-blasio-new-york-city-mayor-tells-citizens-/

So if the CEO of a business has a traditionally viewpoint on marriage, then elected politicians should be calling for a boycott of his business? That isn't forcing people to accept gay marriage? Or do you restrict the meaning of 'force' to mean at gun point? What is clear is that opposing so-called gay marriage is not considered an acceptable position to hold, and if you go public about it, then you will be targeted by the media, business, politicians, and as far as possible, the law.

 

Lol.....No, that is not forcing anyone to accept gay marriage. That is calling for a voluntary boycott. You can boycott a business for any reason. Some conservative Christian folks around here tried to start a boycott of businesses that voluntarily gave same-sex couples insurance and survivor benefits  years before marriage equality went through. Last time I checked those businesses were doing fine and so is the local  Chik-Fil-A. It seems not too many people cared to boycott either. There are plenty of people that go there in order to support their position, too. Lol. Nobody has to do what politicians say. 
An opinion not accepting marriage equality may be increasingly unpopular, but it is your right to hold it. It doesn't break any law. Whether or not you decide to go public with an opinion that might affect your business.....your call. You have the right to have your freedom of speech protected. That is the government's  responsibility. You do not have the right to have the success of your business protected. That is your responsibility.

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

Meanwhile, I doubt the remaining religious liberties protections that some religious organisations have will last very long:

https://balkin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/abandoning-defensive-crouch-liberal.html?m=1

Note that the author quoted above is a Harvard Law professor.

 

Harvard law professors know all about the protections afforded the Churches and " religious organizations" enshrined in the Constitution through the separation of church and state. I doubt there will be a problem.
Only the " religious organizations" ...in our case generally fundie Christians....usually show any interest in busting that wall and turning this place into some sort of neo-medieval morass where we can kill homosexuals and " evil moon-worshipping Muzzies" at will.( My Church had control of entire societies once. Not up for another ride on that Merry-Go-Round.)
Most sane folks ,including Christians, are happy with it the way it is.
If Westboro Baptist wants to abuse their privilege and keep trying to crash  funerals with their nasty signs, people will just keep dressing up in angel costumes and standing between them and the grieving families. And both groups will walk away at the end of the day.

In fact, your " Muslim hate preacher" probably wouldn't have gotten in as much trouble here as in the UK. In fact, isn't he from here? Maybe here he kind of got used to speaking his mind...

 

what at we DO have,IMHO, is a small class of professional fundie Christian whiners who are currently having a toddler tantrum over not being able to harm whomever they please and control the narrative anymore after doing so in so many areas for so many years.  They are tiresome. 

 

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

 

You can justify it any way you want, it still supports what I said.

Yeah, I think $700,000,000 justifies a lot. I'm a tough-love kind of mom. You take my money, you take my advice...or you can get off my money roll.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2016 at 0:19 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

The West went beyond tolerance a long time ago. They now actively celebrate homosexuality, and want to force others to do the same. As Obama said in the speech below, he wants people to see relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as one between a man and a woman. That isn't simply 'tolerance'.

I also said 'not discriminating'. Not discriminating would mean you don't treat them any differently. You treat homosexual(and bisexual and others) couples the same as heterosexual ones and you treat homosexual people the same as heterosexual people. He isn't saying anything wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2016 at 11:49 AM, strangelove said:

I also said 'not discriminating'. Not discriminating would mean you don't treat them any differently. You treat homosexual(and bisexual and others) couples the same as heterosexual ones and you treat homosexual people the same as heterosexual people. He isn't saying anything wrong.

They were treated just like everyone else. Now the concept of marriage, which has been around for thousands of years, has been redefined for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/10/2016 at 9:49 PM, strangelove said:

I also said 'not discriminating'. Not discriminating would mean you don't treat them any differently. You treat homosexual(and bisexual and others) couples the same as heterosexual ones and you treat homosexual people the same as heterosexual people. He isn't saying anything wrong.

Yes you should treat them differently. You don't treat the fasiq like the believer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...