[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
They still haven't answered the basic question about their position.
[/QUOTE]
Faisal you are treating as if being gay were a deviant behavior, it is not, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out sodomy laws. That should answer your question.
Well, ofcourse I don't have any bias on this issue. I am just trying to understand your thought process in how you are coming up with your approach.
So, let me get this straight, once more. You favor giving equal spousal rights to gays and lesbians because they "work, pay taxes, have traditional values (?) and have commited themselves to a life together". But you are unwilling to give similar rights to any other group which is either not a heterosexual or a homosexual couple?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
The "harsh on gay" statement should be also under "". Quoted by me from those who have criticized and rejected him for the Commission selection, my pardon.
Regarding tolerance, I dont think these moral issues should be discussed by you. Especially not then when RELIGION/FAITH has a important role to play.
Because when its comes to ISLAM you turn tables.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, on most issues relating to religion and faith and ISLAM, I think you'd find me to be a very accomodating, understanding and tolerant guy. I think that most mainstream Muslims share an awful lot in terms of moral values with conservative christians and that there is a heck of a lot more common ground than differences. And, I think that you have taken my pointed comments directed at specific groups who happen to be Muslim and have generalized them in your mind to think I am including all Muslims. Too bad. You see, I can differentiate between specific people who happen to be Muslim and Muslims generally.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
So, let me get this straight, once more. You favor giving equal spousal rights to gays and lesbians because they "work, pay taxes, have traditional values (?) and have commited themselves to a life together". But you are unwilling to give similar rights to any other group which is either not a heterosexual or a homosexual couple?
[/QUOTE]
No, that is not why they deserve equal spousal rights. No one is advocating changing the laws based on age, consent, # of spouses, family relationhip, type of mammal, inanimate objects or anything else. Just like when blacks asked for the right to vote didn't mean we would then have to extend voting rights to children, animals, relatives that were non-citizens or multiple votes per person. It is including someone who was born a certain way that is outside of what the mainstream wants to accept as normal, deserving of rights or morally and ethically equal. Call me old fashioned, but I think a legally recognized union should be between 2 people of consenting age, who are not related to one another and are in a long term, commited relationship.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Actually, on most issues relating to religion and faith and ISLAM, I think you'd find me to be a very accomodating, understanding and tolerant guy. I think that most mainstream Muslims share an awful lot in terms of moral values with conservative christians and that there is a heck of a lot more common ground than differences. And, I think that you have taken my pointed comments directed at specific groups who happen to be Muslim and have generalized them in your mind to think I am including all Muslims. Too bad. You see, I can differentiate between specific people who happen to be Muslim and Muslims generally.
[/QUOTE]
MV, the differentiation we know from you is a quite different one and this board is proof for it.
The common ground you are talkin about exists only and only in your mind not in your hearth.
To differ between happen to be Muslims and Muslims generally is a valid one.
Now my question is the followin: Was Mr. Attah, the kamikazee pilot of 911, in your eyes a happen to be Muslim or a Muslim generally?!
I'm off the Topic but let us continue...I'm all ears.
Ali_R: Easy question. He was a terrorist thug who happened to be Muslim along with his cohorts. My quarrel with him and the others like him is that they are terrorist thugs not that they happen to be Muslim. I wouldn't like him or hate him any more or less if he were hindu, christian or buddist. I don't make you his brother because you too happen to be Muslim. It's you who do that, not me.
And just so that we relate this back to the topic, I'm against recognizing gay marriages and offering the benefits and privileges associated with marriage to all gays, regardless of whether they happen to be Muslim gays, christian gays, jewish gays or atheist gays. The distinguishing characteristic that is important is being gay just like Atta's important distinguishing characteristic is that he is a terrorist.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ali_R: Easy question. He was a terrorist thug who happened to be Muslim along with his cohorts. My quarrel with him and the others like him is that they are terrorist thugs not that they happen to be Muslim. I wouldn't like him or hate him any more or less if he were hindu, christian or buddist. I don't make you his brother because you too happen to be Muslim. It's you who do that, not me.
And just so that we relate this back to the topic, I'm against recognizing gay marriages and offering the benefits and privileges associated with marriage to all gays, regardless of whether they happen to be Muslim gays, christian gays, jewish gays or atheist gays. The distinguishing characteristic that is important is being gay just like Atta's important distinguishing characteristic is that he is a terrorist.
[/QUOTE]
OK MyVoice its high time to let the PPL know what kind of double game you are playing here and I'm honest I just hate doing this but you dont let me any chance.
Had a search at your posts coz I never could hear you speak out for Islam or their followers the Muslims:
[quote]
"My gut feeling is the only thing powerful enough to convince people to do this is fanatical religious beliefs that equate accomplishment of the political objective with reward in the afterlife."
[/quote]
Muslims without Islam? Islam without fanatics?
[quote]
"You talk about American opinion, British opinion, Canadian opinion German opinion, French opinion, etc. But when it comes to issues relating to countries with large Muslim populations, you talk about "Muslim opinion." This tendency seems to me to be the reason an attack against the Taliban and OBL is somehow converted into an attack against Muslims generally rather than an attack against the government of Afghanistan and a ** few Muslim terrorists.**"
[/quote]
Muslim terrorists?! Hey! Wait....somethings wrong here...
[quote]
"I came with an open mind and you all have convinced me that Islam is a religion of hate."
[/quote]
Oh very interesting...So you can differ between Muslims A and Muslims B. Hmm what went wrong here?!
[quote]
The moderate Muslim clergy has been quite a bit more active over the last week or so denouncing the** fanatical elements of Islam.** I think this is important for Americans to hear. I also think that the average silent majority of Muslims living in America need to speak up and speak out about their total repudiation of Islamic terrorists. You need to speak out loudly for your religion and help Americans understand that the thugs who attacked the WTC are highjacking your religion just like they highjacked those planes.
[/quote]
Islamic terrorists!?!? Hell, waz the difference between Islamic terrorists and Muslim terrorist...but wait...didn't you just say Attah was a terrorist and not Muslim?
MV, I think not even your reply on this post will change the way you play!
I'm an old member so I know what you think and used to think and I'm happy to differ between MyVoice now and MyVoice once and to be honest besides the sanctimony of your character I see no difference.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
Call me old fashioned, but I think a legally recognized union should be between 2 people of consenting age, who are not related to one another and are in a long term, commited relationship.
[/QUOTE]
If the crux of your argument falls on 'considering you old fashioned', then let me say that you may be 'old fashioned', but you, sir, are certainly not 'old fashioned enough' :) And its ok. All of us have our different tolerance levels for life-styles that are different from ours. Your is just a tad bit on the left side of the scale to myvoice, and his may be a bit left to Pat Buchanan. Now we are just arguing on whats a good meeting point where you can all agree, and not really talking about civil rights for all adults. And that was basically what I was saying. Lets not be hypocritical about our positions to assume we are champions of human and civil rights. Our 'old fashion-*ness' will always be a hinderance to our accepting civil rights for all.
As a muslim i am against the concept. But personally in a secular country like the US it should not be problem. By limiting their right to marriage you are violating basic human rights and following a very religious line of thought. Certainly something that does not belong in a country where seperation of church and state is paramount.
Ali_R:
You prove my point that it is you and not I who generalize one Muslim to all Muslims. A terrorist who happens to be Muslim is a Muslim terrorist. This is particularly true when the tenets the terrorist uses to justify his actions is his religion. This is so even though all Muslims are not terrorists. I am careful to differentiate the "fanatical elements of Islam" and "Islamic terrorists" from all of Islam. You, on the other hand, find the one element of shared religion to override any and all other distinguishing features and so generalize an attack against "fanatical elements of Islam" into an attack against all of Islam. Worse, your proclivity to generalize one Muslim as representative of all Mulsims forces you to excuse and condone some of the most disgusting, disreputable, inhumane and uncivilized actions perpetrated by your self-embraced brothers and sisters.
So, back to the topic, my "attack" against Muslim gays and desire to keep them from sharing in certain benefits and privileges offered to married couples is not an attack against all Muslims or Islam generally. Married heterosexual Muslims should share in those benefits and privileges to the same extent as other married heterosexuals.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ali_R:
You prove my point that it is you and not I who generalize one Muslim to all Muslims. A terrorist who happens to be Muslim is a Muslim terrorist. This is particularly true when the tenets the terrorist uses to justify his actions is his religion. This is so even though all Muslims are not terrorists. I am careful to differentiate the "fanatical elements of Islam" and "Islamic terrorists" from all of Islam. You, on the other hand, find the one element of shared religion to override any and all other distinguishing features and so generalize an attack against "fanatical elements of Islam" into an attack against all of Islam. Worse, your proclivity to generalize one Muslim as representative of all Mulsims forces you to excuse and condone some of the most disgusting, disreputable, inhumane and uncivilized actions perpetrated by your self-embraced brothers and sisters.
So, back to the topic, my "attack" against Muslim gays and desire to keep them from sharing in certain benefits and privileges offered to married couples is not an attack against all Muslims or Islam generally. Married heterosexual Muslims should share in those benefits and privileges to the same extent as other married heterosexuals.
[/QUOTE]
To simplify my answer on your post let me contra with this:
There is not difference between ISLAM and ISLAM. And I'm pretty sure all of us here will agree on this.
there might be a difference between human characters, interpretations and race but not A Religion like ISLAM.
And the Religion elements you are refering to are non existant, I know a lot would wish for it, but not for wrong reasons this religion has the name of PEACE!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
To simplify my answer on your post let me contra with this:
There is not difference between ISLAM and ISLAM. And I'm pretty sure all of us here will agree on this.
there might be a difference between human characters, interpretations and race but not A Religion like ISLAM.
And the Religion elements you are refering to are non existant, I know a lot would wish for it, but not for wrong reasons this religion has the name of PEACE!
[/QUOTE]
Tell it to the guys who sing praises to Allah while sawing off the heads of their innocent hostages.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Tell it to the guys who sing praises to Allah while sawing off the heads of their innocent hostages.
[/QUOTE]
Which Islam preaches yo to do so? Can you eleborate?
It' swhen Bush uses phosphor on Iraqis do I have to believe he Christianity is a danger?!
The form and interpretation of Islam that the guys sawing off the heads of their hostages are practicing.
Forms of Islam, I didnt even know that it had FORMS. You know more about my Religion than I know, when I consider some yrs back you didnt even know what Muslims are.
Sad but oh so true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Sad but oh so true.
[/QUOTE]
You wished Myvoice, Seminole...etcetc I dont even know how many nicks you have...see you in hell fire, ILl have a good view on you from above.
KH
People....
Ask yourselves. Think.
U.S.A. Free Country.
A country established by people who fled intolerance. Liberal people who believed and established a constitution granting precedence to individual human rights.
Think about this....
Where in the constitution is it allowable for government to define a family group?
Where does the consitution decree that government can practise moral discrimination?
Tell me this. The conservative party including Bush feel that charity belongs in the religious domain.
Anyhow...Issue of the Moral Right...lack of values by democrats...doesn't belong in the mix.
Why is that the conservative RNC feels government to define marriage..yet the religious domain should handle charitable giving? An Oxymoron?
Civil marriage is state matter.
What is ceasars is Ceasars people...
BTW...note that majority RED STATES have filed suit against Merck...same states that voted a president that includes drug companies in the sphere of Tort reform.