What would be your 'Open Letter To Morrissey'

[scatterkeir]

Conservative followers of all of the Abrahamic religions are uptight about homosexuality, less conservative followers of tham are more relaxed about it.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 112]

Conservative followers of all of the Abrahamic religions are uptight about homosexuality, less conservative followers of tham are more relaxed about it.

Im thinking this has to be Evennow alt avatar.

 

[Stephen Hofmann]

He doesn't though. He's a coward. He supports a far-right party but he says it's because of their famous compassion for animals, which is not at all an excuse for muslim-bashing. He supports a far-right man but says it's only the fairness of the legal process that concerns him. He supports a far-right woman but he says he's just concerned that she did better then the less right-wing people in debates but it was reported that she didn't and that wasn't fair. If you think he speaks his mind you must think he was being straight with all that and that the common denominator of "far-right" is a complete coincidence.

Are you American? You sound like a complete bell-end.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Conservative followers of all of the Abrahamic religions are uptight about homosexuality, less conservative followers of tham are more relaxed about it.

 

[marred]

I'd apologise on behalf of all the snowflake morons.

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 111]

The Dalai Lama stated in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses: (pps 23, 46-47)

"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse [penis and vagina] and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate [mouth, hand, anus] for sexual contact."

 

[Layne]

The Dalai Lama stated in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses: (pps 23, 46-47)

"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse [penis and vagina] and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate [mouth, hand, anus] for sexual contact."

What's his stance on making out then???

 

[vegan.cro spirit# 111]

What's his stance on making out then???

Not acceptable. Mouth is for eating and chanting.
That whole Buddhism/Dali Lama stuff is pretty insane.

 

[Layne]

Not acceptable. Mouth is for eating and chanting.
That whole Buddhism/Dali Lama stuff is pretty insane.

Jesus.

 

[bhops]

Jesus.

No the Dali Lama

 

[Nicko Manuva]

The Dalai Lama stated in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses: (pps 23, 46-47)

"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse [penis and vagina] and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate [mouth, hand, anus] for sexual contact."

The Dalai Lama is Mr Teflon. Buddhism enjoys a similar leeway to the Royal Family in UK with everyone seemingly ignoring the downsides.
Buddhists have carried out terrible violence but you rarely hear about it because everyone in the West has this image of peaceful monks who wouldn’t tread on a beetle.
The Dalai Lama is a jet setting celebrity who tours his platitudes around the world.
As for Islam... yes it’s true that all the religions have their intolerant aspects but really Islam is 400 years behind Christianity in its evolution. It may yet evolve to be more tolerant. It might not. Either way what benefit is it to a country that has already been through the Enlightenment? It’s a retrograde step. It’s like having millions of followers of Westboro Baptist Church come and dwell in the UK.
Hopefully the majority of Muslims coming to the Western Europe will notice that life is a lot better than in their Islamic country of origin so they will adopt Enlightenment values. But they may struggle to do so when there is a threat of violence from the extreme elements in their religion.
Discuss.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Well, I'm not sure that a religion being "pro-homosexuality" is the question. Christianity is becoming more and more lax, and even the most hardcore Christians by and large tolerate homosexuality so long as it doesn't infringe upon their beliefs. This will only improve over the years if we consider recent trends.

As for Islam, when it comes to the West in large amounts, it tends to bring about a process of regression, the opposite of all other religions on the matter. Until that changes, I would suggest that Islam and homosexuality will remain incompatible, and increasingly so the greater the presence of Islam in an area is. Again, based on recent trends, this is observable.

Christianity is more lax towards homosexuality now you say?

https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...osexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question

 

[ExpectingToFly]

I like how the far right are now so concerned about gay people. These people were always the first in line to oppose gay rights over the years.

 

[scatterkeir]

I like how the far right are now so concerned about gay people. These people were always the first in line to oppose gay rights over the years.

See also the "feminism is cancer" crowd that get all concerned about women's rights if they think they can bash muslims with it.

 

[bhops]

I like how the far right are now so concerned about gay people. These people were always the first in line to oppose gay rights over the years.

Who is this 'far right' you speak of? You mean that crazy neo-Nazi crowd? Now to be fair I don't see many of them on this site despite what Uncle Fatso says. I do see however some libertarian conservatives on here and they tend to want to defend the rights of gay people.

 

[bhops]

See also the "feminism is cancer" crowd that get all concerned about women's rights if they think they can bash muslims with it.

In Muslim majority countries such as Saudi Arabia do women have equal rights or not?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

In Muslim majority countries such as Saudi Arabia do women have equal rights or not?

What's your point? I haven't read a single person on here or literally anywhere saying Saudi Arabia is a cool place and your reply might as well be about cricket to somebody talking about football.

 

[bhops]

What's your point? I haven't read a single person on here or literally anywhere saying Saudi Arabia is a cool place and your reply might as well be about cricket to somebody talking about football.

Really?? His comment basically insinuated that a Conservative would only 'pretend' to be worried about women's rights as an excuse to bash Islam. I don't agree at all. Of course I care about women's rights and I see it is in no way as 'bashing islam' to say I think they get a rough ride under that particular ideology. Tell me am I wrong? Why do you get so damn jumpy just having these conversations?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Really?? His comment basically insinuated that a Conservative would only 'pretend' to be worried about women's rights as an excuse to bash Islam. I don't agree at all. Of course I care about women's rights and I see it is in no way as 'bashing islam' to say I think they get a rough ride under that particular ideology. Tell me am I wrong? Why do you get so damn jumpy just having these conversations?

I'm just pointing out horse shit. You know full well that your team are anti-feminist. Always have been. All those equalities that women have fought for your lot have opposed or at least argued weren't inequalities. And like it's been pointed out, you all only give a shit about women's rights when it's a problem with the brown people.

Likewise gay rights. You f***ing well know it too but I already know you'll also deny it.

 

[scatterkeir]

In Muslim majority countries such as Saudi Arabia do women have equal rights or not?

What is your point? Is it that the "feminism is cancer" crowd care deeply about women's rights, and that it's not fair for me to accuse them of arguing in bad faith?