Print Page | Close Window

It�s gay rights laws that are intolerant,

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Description: World Politics
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9003
Printed Date: 28 March 2024 at 2:13pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: It�s gay rights laws that are intolerant,
Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Subject: It�s gay rights laws that are intolerant,
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 4:14pm

It's gay rights laws that are intolerant, says Cardinal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445280&in_page_id=1770 - UK Daily Mail | March 29, 2007
STEVE DOUGHTY

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor accused Labour of "legislating for intolerance" in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies.

The leader of England and Wales's four million Roman Catholics also questioned "whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel".

The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state.

He has already threatened to close nine Catholic adoption agencies if they are forced by the Sexual Orientation Regulations to place children with homosexual couples.

He declared: "For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen.

"But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion.

"We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights."

The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons.

They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said last night: "My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends.

"My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive.

"The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.

"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."

He also fueled speculation that Catholics may order their adoption agencies to break away from links with the state - and forgo their �10 million a year of taxpayers' funds in favour of relying on donations.

The Cardinal said: "I wonder how far we can still claim as British the assumption that if a religious organisation serves the public interest according to its own rights, it has a legitimate claim on public resources.

"I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the church." The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity "so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites.

"When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries."

He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."

Catholic leaders have made a powerful point of their loyalty to the British state since full civil rights were granted to Roman Catholics by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.




Replies:
Posted By: .:: SoHaIB ::.
Date Posted: 30 March 2007 at 5:49pm

I didn't even know what the meaning of the word gay was until i came to CA .... Imagine my uncle telling me 

UNC : " Son there is something u should know "

Me : " O yeah ? "

UNC : " See my good boy, in this country men can marry men "

Me : " ...... "



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 3:16am
Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::. .:: SoHaIB ::. wrote:

I didn't even know what the meaning of the word gay was until i came to CA .... Imagine my uncle telling me 

UNC : " Son there is something u should know "

Me : " O yeah ? "

UNC : " See my good boy, in this country men can marry men "

Me : " ...... "

UNC: "And if something happens to your parents, they can adopt you and raise you as their own!"



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 7:07am
Everyone run the gays are coming and they will take away your democracy and freedom. It has to be the end of the world when churches are forced to accept all members of a community when they receive tax dollars from all of them. Do religious people realize that gays pay taxes so if the church is getting tax payer money they should have to conform to the legal standards and accept all people. I just find it really hard that Jesus would say to someone "no I will not help you because you are gay" I thought Jesus died for all of our sins?

-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: .:: SoHaIB ::.
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 8:43am
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

UNC: "And if something happens to your parents, they can adopt you and raise you as their own!"



What is that supposed to mean ????


-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 8:58am
Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::. .:: SoHaIB ::. wrote:

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

UNC: "And if something happens to your parents, they can adopt you and raise you as their own!"



What is that supposed to mean ????

Didnt you read the article ? It says Gays can adopt children even if the children are Catholic (religious, includes Muslims) and even if they are being kept in adoption agencies belonging to people of faith.

 

So if a childs parents die or are arrested or are found "unfit" to raise their children, then the children are going to adoption agencies.

And then if gays or bisexuals want to adopt the child and raise him/her as their own, they can! and it's illegal even for religious adoption agencies to not allow them to take a child!!!



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 10:02am
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::. .:: SoHaIB ::. wrote:

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

UNC: "And if something happens to your parents, they can adopt you and raise you as their own!"



What is that supposed to mean ????

Didnt you read the article ? It says Gays can adopt children even if the children are Catholic (religious, includes Muslims) and even if they are being kept in adoption agencies belonging to people of faith.

 

So if a childs parents die or are arrested or are found "unfit" to raise their children, then the children are going to adoption agencies.

And then if gays or bisexuals want to adopt the child and raise him/her as their own, they can! and it's illegal even for religious adoption agencies to not allow them to take a child!!!

Do you agree that if certain religions like to discriminate, isolate and judge (don't know ANY religions where that is allowed) other people then they don't have a right to the funds that were put there by the people they are discriminating against? All that this is saying is if you don't conform then you won't have access to public funds but the churches or what not still have the right to be bigots, just not publicly funded bigots.



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: .:: SoHaIB ::.
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 10:21am
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::. .:: SoHaIB ::. wrote:

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

UNC: "And if something happens to your parents, they can adopt you and raise you as their own!"



What is that supposed to mean ????

Didnt you read the article ? It says Gays can adopt children even if the children are Catholic (religious, includes Muslims) and even if they are being kept in adoption agencies belonging to people of faith.

 

So if a childs parents die or are arrested or are found "unfit" to raise their children, then the children are going to adoption agencies.

And then if gays or bisexuals want to adopt the child and raise him/her as their own, they can! and it's illegal even for religious adoption agencies to not allow them to take a child!!!

 

Still i don't know what does it have to do with my comment...

Listen first leave my parents ( may ALLAH ( SWT ) bless them ) out of this

>>> If this was meant as just a comment imsorry i don't know what reference it had to my post

>>> If this was meant as a snide remark.... well u need to work on those a bit ( no offence )



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 12:58pm

Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::. .:: SoHaIB ::. wrote:

Listen first leave my parents ( may ALLAH ( SWT ) bless them ) out of this

????

I said if a child (you at the time, or anyone else) goes to an orphanage for any reason then they may be adopted by gay parents for the rest of their lives. In other words, its shocking enough for someone not living in the west to hear about gay marriages, but even more shocking that they can take little children and raise them as their own !!!



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Do you agree that if certain religions like to discriminate, isolate and judge (don't know ANY religions where that is allowed) other people then they don't have a right to the funds that were put there by the people they are discriminating against? All that this is saying is if you don't conform then you won't have access to public funds but the churches or what not still have the right to be bigots, just not publicly funded bigots.

You guys have totally lost it.

It is bad enough to allow preverse sexual acts, but to actually make it a law that such people are fit for parenting a small child and to even make it illegal for an adoption agency to not hand over an innocent child to them is simply insane.

 



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Do you agree that if certain religions like to discriminate, isolate and judge (don't know ANY religions where that is allowed) other people then they don't have a right to the funds that were put there by the people they are discriminating against? All that this is saying is if you don't conform then you won't have access to public funds but the churches or what not still have the right to be bigots, just not publicly funded bigots.

You guys have totally lost it.

It is bad enough to allow preverse sexual acts, but to actually make it a law that such people are fit for parenting a small child and to even make it illegal for an adoption agency to not hand over an innocent child to them is simply insane.

 

You being a religious person should not judge anyone. Isn't that Gods job? Being from somewhere where you actually can see what good a set of parents can do for a child helps me accept it little more than I guess. It is sad that you would rather a child have no one to love them before letting a gay raise a child. Are you that worried about your sexuality to be bothered by it that much? Myself, I know what I like so they don't scare me like so many others in this world. Guess what----it is not contagious.

 

Edit: I notice you said "hand children over to them" which means you are saying all gays are bad. Do you like when people claim all Muslims are terrorist? See how the judging thing can work against you?



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

You being a religious person should not judge anyone. Isn't that Gods job? Being from somewhere where you actually can see what good a set of parents can do for a child helps me accept it little more than I guess. It is sad that you would rather a child have no one to love them before letting a gay raise a child. Are you that worried about your sexuality to be bothered by it that much? Myself, I know what I like so they don't scare me like so many others in this world. Guess what----it is not contagious.

Do you think it's right for Rapists to adopt children ? If not, why ? Are you so worried your sexuality to be bothered by it that much?

Or, why is it illegal for people to be naked in public or why do toilets have doors ??

The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists.

They are trying to make these things the "norm" and one of the ways to do this is to destroy families (which they have already pretty much succeeded in) and allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thenthe next generation are going to be even more immoral than this generation, and then it will be "ok" to pass even more immoral laws, and so on. They have been doing this for the past few decades thats why people are becoming more and more preverse and immoral.



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

You being a religious person should not judge anyone. Isn't that Gods job? Being from somewhere where you actually can see what good a set of parents can do for a child helps me accept it little more than I guess. It is sad that you would rather a child have no one to love them before letting a gay raise a child. Are you that worried about your sexuality to be bothered by it that much? Myself, I know what I like so they don't scare me like so many others in this world. Guess what----it is not contagious.

Do you think it's right for Rapists to adopt children ? If not, why ? Are you so worried your sexuality to be bothered by it that much?

Or, why is it illegal for people to be naked in public or why do toilets have doors ??

The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists.

They are trying to make these things the "norm" and one of the ways to do this is to destroy families (which they have already pretty much succeeded in) and allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thenthe next generation are going to be even more immoral than this generation, and then it will be "ok" to pass even more immoral laws, and so on. They have been doing this for the past few decades thats why people are becoming more and more preverse and immoral.

 

Gays are not criminals so your analogy of rapists is so far off it is not worth commenting. Myself I am not scared of the gays converting me so I don't really care what they do in the privacy of their own homes. I understand that you do not get the concept of freedom but I do and I don't want anyone, government or religions telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home. I would think what destroys families are abusive spouses, disconnected parents, drugs, alcohol, multiple wives, divorce. But really if a gay adopts a child they will more than likely receive more love from them then some case worker or abusive foster parents but that's just me.

What do you think God would think of you judging another person? Please show me where in the Bible, Koran or any other religious document that it says it is ok for you to judge another human being?

 



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 3:02pm
Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Gays are not criminals so your analogy of rapists is so far off it is not worth commenting. 

That's the whole point, Im against the laws that say homosexuality is not a crime, cheating on your wife or husband is not a crime, having girl friends and sleeping with prostitutes is not a crime, but having more than one wife in a family is a crime!!!

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Myself I am not scared of the gays converting me so I don't really care what they do in the privacy of their own homes. I understand that you do not get the concept of freedom but I do and I don't want anyone, government or religions telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home. 

If it's just "the privacy of their own homes" why do they adopt other peoples children ???

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

 But really if a gay adopts a child they will more than likely receive more love from them then some case worker or abusive foster parents but that's just me.

Heh... well that's the problem you see !

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

What do you think God would think of you judging another person? Please show me where in the Bible, Koran or any other religious document that it says it is ok for you to judge another human being?

 And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in?  Verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.'

(Quran Surah loot 80/81)

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

(Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:9 )



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 3:23pm

They adopt other people�s children when the straight people become too addicted to drugs, alcohol or are just deadbeats and can't raise their own children. Or perhaps, the child�s parents died in an accident and no one is willing to take them in. It is sickening that you would rather a child be moved around, abused or neglected before you would allow a loving gay couple to raise the child.

 

FYI--- I have never seen any report where gay people are adopting just to convert them over.



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: .:: SoHaIB ::.
Date Posted: 31 March 2007 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

You guys have totally lost it.

It is bad enough to allow preverse sexual acts, but to actually make it a law that such people are fit for parenting a small child and to even make it illegal for an adoption agency to not hand over an innocent child to them is simply insane.

 

 

OHhhh Sorry bro the way u wrote it....it looked as if u were .....anywayz leave it, my bad and ur rite ..

 

peace



-------------


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 18 April 2007 at 5:55am

It is an intersting article.

A thought that I have is that Islam does not allow for adoption in the western sense,  am I correct? So when there arew orphans, it is great if they have family but that is not always the case? Where should these children go? Can they be "adopted" by an Islamic family assuming the child retains her or his name?

It is an interesting delimma that there are laws to proctect different peoples' rights. Now how does it work that there are different people with diffrerent beliefs. Most Moslems do not agree with gay and lesbian people and the gay and lesbian people say I  do not agree with mormons who say I do nor believe what Hindus believe. And yet we all exist on this planet...

And I bet you the gay and lesbian people wil lbe hte first to  defend Moslems against discriminatory practices that moslems face. Far  faster then most "traditional" Christians would..

Makes for an intersting world...

And also that I know a single woman,  wh ois probably a Lesbian who adopted to boys who were what are called "crack" babies. Through a long struggle she gave them a future as their lives were difficult.

Is Moslems cannot or will not adopt these children then...

 



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 18 April 2007 at 7:46am
Ops 154 said : I just find it really hard that Jesus would say to someone "no I will not help you because you are gay" I thought Jesus died for all of our sins?

This is the reason why I do not believe Jesus is GOD because GOD could NOT allow human to annihilate the production of human race. I do not believe Jesus is crucified for cleansing our sins. It is wholy wrong conception.

You, however, got a very clear point. Thanks for this.


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 18 April 2007 at 11:40am

I don't believe that homosexual couples should adopt children.  It is because I think the child needs both a male and female for role models as parents.  But it is not because I believe the homosexual couple would not be kind and caring for the child.  I'm sure they would be more kind than many "straight" couples are today.

This is very difficult for me because my own daughter, my first born and only daughter is gay.  My precious child told me on her 18th birthday.  She said she knew from the time she was 11 years old that she was a lesbian.  She never felt any attraction to men, as women usually do.  She is an extremely intelligent professional in the medical field.  She has had the same "partner" for many years and they own a lovely home.  They have both heterosexual and homosexual friends.  She does not care at all for President Bush, the war in Iraq, or any type of discrimination.  She fights for the rights of Muslims and will squash anyone who calls a Muslim a terrorist.  She asks for nothing from anyone and take full responsibility for her life.  My daughter is one of the most caring, respectful, honest people you would ever meet.  She is a Buddhist.  She was baptised a Catholic as a baby, but decided it was not her "cup of tea" and became a Buddhist.  You may feel free to call her perverted, etc., all you like.  She's quite used to it.  But she would never allow anyone to call you, as Muslims, any sort of derogatory name without telling them how wrong they are.

Jesus did not turn away from homosexual persons.....the Bible warns against homosexual sexual acts....not the person.  I pray for my daughter, as I love her from the depths of my heart.  And I pray that no radical anti-gay will take her life without knowing the enormous atrocity they would be commiting in doing so. 

Peace be with you.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 18 April 2007 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

A thought that I have is that Islam does not allow for adoption in the western sense,  am I correct? So when there arew orphans, it is great if they have family but that is not always the case? Where should these children go? Can they be "adopted" by an Islamic family assuming the child retains her or his name?

Islamic law does not forbid adoption, but it is forbidden to lie to the child and you are not allowed to call him/her your son or daughter, but you call the child your Brother or Sister instead.

 

 



Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 2:53am
First of all, isn't homosexuality forbidden in all religion?? Who are we to allow it? Let alone adoption for them. As per islamic laws, adoption does not make them children

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 11:27am

I do not believe that any religious organization should be forced to do something that is against their religion.  Doesn't matter what that is. 

Brigham Young University just got protested by the gay community for their "intolerance" of gay students.  Here's the kicker, BYU makes you sign a code of conduct saying you won't have sex outside of marriage.  If you are found in violation, you are expelled.  Thus, doesn't matter if your gay or not, you have to conform to the religious standards of the Church affiliated school.

I've always been hate the sin, not the sinner.  I'm tired of having other peoples beliefs (on both sides) shoved in my face.  Here in the US, there is a separation of Church and State.  Frankly, I don't want the State telling my Leaders that our Church must conform to their standards and I don't want My or any other faith pushing their beliefs on others.  I would protest if LDS Family Services was told that they couldn't just adopt to LDS Temple Worthy Families.  They don't get money from the state.  However, I would have a problem with Foster Care being told they could only adopt to White Christian families knowing how many non Christian or non White children are in the system.

Its the double standard that's hard for the faithful to walk.  The freedom that allows me to be LDS and Hayfa to be Muslim and follow our faiths, is the same freedom that grants people of "alternate" lifestyles freedom to be open about their lives. 

What do you do?  I don't want a society that's intolerant of humans of any ilk.  Hatred isn't good for anyone.  But I want to protect my children from things I feel are wrong, like abortion or homosexuality. 

I would love to encourage Muslim families to Foster orphans.  Foster Care is a wonderful way to take care of children who need a good home.  Its not adoption, its being a good person.  I'm sure the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) would prefer that a child be raised in a good home with loving adults caring for them, than on the street or in overcrowded orphanages.  And I'm quite sure, God never said that doing the bare minimum was doing enough when you could do more.

 



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 12:05pm

Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

  I'm sure the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) would prefer that a child be raised in a good home with loving adults caring for them, than on the street or in overcrowded orphanages.  And I'm quite sure, God never said that doing the bare minimum was doing enough when you could do more.

I already said that adoption is allowed in Islam but the child doesnt become yours.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 12:14pm
I know...I wasn't disagreeing with you.  It was just an additional comment.


Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I do not believe that any religious organization should be forced to do something that is against their religion.  Doesn't matter what that is. 

Brigham Young University just got protested by the gay community for their "intolerance" of gay students.  Here's the kicker, BYU makes you sign a code of conduct saying you won't have sex outside of marriage.  If you are found in violation, you are expelled.  Thus, doesn't matter if your gay or not, you have to conform to the religious standards of the Church affiliated school.

I've always been hate the sin, not the sinner.  I'm tired of having other peoples beliefs (on both sides) shoved in my face.  Here in the US, there is a separation of Church and State.  Frankly, I don't want the State telling my Leaders that our Church must conform to their standards and I don't want My or any other faith pushing their beliefs on others.  I would protest if LDS Family Services was told that they couldn't just adopt to LDS Temple Worthy Families.  They don't get money from the state.  However, I would have a problem with Foster Care being told they could only adopt to White Christian families knowing how many non Christian or non White children are in the system.

Its the double standard that's hard for the faithful to walk.  The freedom that allows me to be LDS and Hayfa to be Muslim and follow our faiths, is the same freedom that grants people of "alternate" lifestyles freedom to be open about their lives. 

What do you do?  I don't want a society that's intolerant of humans of any ilk.  Hatred isn't good for anyone.  But I want to protect my children from things I feel are wrong, like abortion or homosexuality. 

I would love to encourage Muslim families to Foster orphans.  Foster Care is a wonderful way to take care of children who need a good home.  Its not adoption, its being a good person.  I'm sure the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) would prefer that a child be raised in a good home with loving adults caring for them, than on the street or in overcrowded orphanages.  And I'm quite sure, God never said that doing the bare minimum was doing enough when you could do more.

 

My point is that if you receive state funds then you should have to adopt to anyone that is legally allowed to adopt from the state. If you want to discrimate then so be it but not with state funds.



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 2:48pm

Ops,

No, they shouldn't.  Birthmothers (in most adoptions) CHOSE who does their adoptions.  Or don't you know how it works? 

Okay, here's how it works from the point of view from someone in the middle of adoption attempts.

MOST Adoptions:

Birth Mother Gets Pregnant and decides to give the baby up.

Birth Mother Contacts (Fill in the Black) Organization and gets required counselling.

Birth Mother decides placement is what she wants and that X Organization is the one she wants to handle the adoption.

Agency works to match child with parents that suit Birth Mother's desires (open vs closed, religious, secular, racial).

Parents pay fees, expenses and court costs.  Adoption is finalized with all involved agreeing to it.

 

Now, what you are talking about is STATE adoptions.

State adoptions are like this.

Child is taken by Children's Svcs from the parents or becomes ward of the state upon death of parents and lack of relatives to take child.

Parents rights are terminated and child is placed in Foster Care.

Children are placed into homes through Foster Care and then Foster Parents can adopt through the system.

Sometimes (sometimes) Parents are referred to foster care through independent agencies.

 

So, that being said...

If a birth mother choses to go through Catholic Adoption agencies because she wants a strong christian heterosexual couple to adopt her baby.  Why should the woman be worried that her child will be put to a gay couple?

Why should children suffer because these NON PROFIT agencies no longer have funding to help mother's place these children, leading to rising abortion rates, children in foster care (a financial burden on taxpayers) and underfunded non regulated agencies commiting crimes or mistakes in the adoption process.

The Funding goes to counseling the birthmothers, it goes to their healthcare and to the paperwork and labor that it goes into matching these babies with families.  It is not profit made by a corporation. 

There are plenty of secular adoption agencies that a gay couple could adopt from if the laws in their area permit those kind of adoptions.  Non-profit religious organizations should not be punished because they refuse to go against their beliefs.  Its not going to hurt someone's bottom line.  Its going to hurt the young girls coming to these places and the babies.

If you don't want discrimination, then there are alot of programs that should be reevaluated.  But, fact is, the government gives money to faith groups all the time, here and in England.  Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities. 

My point is, when does discrimination become reverse discrimination.  Why is it that I'm forced to deal with the "rules" of a liberal secular or even atheist society and they don't have to be sensitive to my wants and desires?

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

I don't think that an adoption agency that is partially funded by the state and MOSTLY funded by a Church Group should be FORCED to go against their beliefs.  Perhaps, instead, they should have to fully disclose to all birth mothers that they do not adopt to Non-Christians or Non-Muslims or Non-Jewish families.  In the end, if the Birth Mother wants is, it should be available to her.

 



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 11:18pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Here in the US, there is a separation of Church and State.

Separation between Church and State just means that the State is now the Church.

What are the prerogatives of the Church:
(1) worship
(2) defining morality
(3) defining marriage and divorce

Separation between Church and State means that the politicians will now:
(2) define morality
(3) handle marriage and divorce

So, the State has become the  Church.

Is that better than before? No, because the last people anybody wants to see defining morality and regulating marriage and divorce, are the politicians.



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 8:13am
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Ops,

No, they shouldn't.  Birthmothers (in most adoptions) CHOSE who does their adoptions.  Or don't you know how it works? 

Okay, here's how it works from the point of view from someone in the middle of adoption attempts.

MOST Adoptions:

Birth Mother Gets Pregnant and decides to give the baby up.

Birth Mother Contacts (Fill in the Black) Organization and gets required counselling.

Birth Mother decides placement is what she wants and that X Organization is the one she wants to handle the adoption.

Agency works to match child with parents that suit Birth Mother's desires (open vs closed, religious, secular, racial).

Parents pay fees, expenses and court costs.  Adoption is finalized with all involved agreeing to it.

 

Now, what you are talking about is STATE adoptions.

State adoptions are like this.

Child is taken by Children's Svcs from the parents or becomes ward of the state upon death of parents and lack of relatives to take child.

Parents rights are terminated and child is placed in Foster Care.

Children are placed into homes through Foster Care and then Foster Parents can adopt through the system.

Sometimes (sometimes) Parents are referred to foster care through independent agencies.

 

So, that being said...

If a birth mother choses to go through Catholic Adoption agencies because she wants a strong christian heterosexual couple to adopt her baby.  Why should the woman be worried that her child will be put to a gay couple?

Why should children suffer because these NON PROFIT agencies no longer have funding to help mother's place these children, leading to rising abortion rates, children in foster care (a financial burden on taxpayers) and underfunded non regulated agencies commiting crimes or mistakes in the adoption process.

The Funding goes to counseling the birthmothers, it goes to their healthcare and to the paperwork and labor that it goes into matching these babies with families.  It is not profit made by a corporation. 

There are plenty of secular adoption agencies that a gay couple could adopt from if the laws in their area permit those kind of adoptions.  Non-profit religious organizations should not be punished because they refuse to go against their beliefs.  Its not going to hurt someone's bottom line.  Its going to hurt the young girls coming to these places and the babies.

If you don't want discrimination, then there are alot of programs that should be reevaluated.  But, fact is, the government gives money to faith groups all the time, here and in England.  Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities. 

My point is, when does discrimination become reverse discrimination.  Why is it that I'm forced to deal with the "rules" of a liberal secular or even atheist society and they don't have to be sensitive to my wants and desires?

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

I don't think that an adoption agency that is partially funded by the state and MOSTLY funded by a Church Group should be FORCED to go against their beliefs.  Perhaps, instead, they should have to fully disclose to all birth mothers that they do not adopt to Non-Christians or Non-Muslims or Non-Jewish families.  In the end, if the Birth Mother wants is, it should be available to her.

 

I don't believe any person paying taxes would want that tax money going some place that will use it to discriminate against them for something they have no business asking about. People should have a right to privacy and if it harms no one else then it is no one else�s business. I don't support what they do but I do support freedom of choice as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I'm sorry some people are homophobic and can't learn to accept that people are different and sometimes it doesn't fit their idea of what that person should be. I think if someone is in a position of putting their child up for adoption (by choice) then maybe they should worry more about keeping their legs closed then where the child they don't want goes. When a women or a man gives up their rights to a child then all rights should be given up. They should stop thinking about where the child will grow up and worry more about not getting pregnant again.

Exceptions should only be made for cases of rape and molestation.

 

Quote Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

As someone who doesn't believe I can spend all day long listing laws that prevent the sale of alcohol on Sundays or prevent certain stores within so many feet of a church. How about "In God we trust" on our money? How about the phrase "under god" in our pledge? Do these phrases bother me? No, because it doesn't really affect my life in any real way. Even examples you used were perfect for my argument,  "Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities." Not all of these bad but it is more state funding going to churches.



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 9:55am
Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

Obviously you don't know much about the early Mormon Church.  There were no anti-polygamous laws before the Federal Governments fight with us.  In Missouri, until 1974, it was legal to kill a Mormon on sight.  We were forced to stop Polygamy or face the loss of all our sacred site and once again have them defiled by outsiders.  Even now the ACLU is constantly suing the Church in courts for the right to for Street Preachers to PROTEST during general conference on the grouds (privately owned land) of the Salt Lake City Temple. 

Kevin Smith gets fined $10,000 by GLAAD for one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back.  And yet, someone can call me all sorts of names as a Mormon and there's no recourse for me.  Even MORMON is technically a slur, but we can't do anything about it, so we just roll with it.

I think you're wrong when you think NO taxpayer would want their money going to faith groups that aid children.  Or their money wouldn't be going to these groups.  Face it Ops, secularists like yourself are a minority. 

I don't have a problem with allowing Gay couples to adopt, but I don't think that reverse discrimination should FORCE people to bend to them.  They are for a reason, the MINORITY.  Since when does the Minority rule in any society?  If they want to adopt they can go to a secular agency and adopt there, why would they want to go to an agency that is connected to a group that says they are commiting grave sins that will send them to Hell?  I really think its a bit of a moot point.  Its just a burden on the faith based adoption agencies.  Again, adoption doesn't work that way.  You don't just get to walk in and place your order like a pizza.  Even "traditional" couples are turned away for a variety of reasons.  Couples wait for years and years until a birth mother picks their profile.

Do you really think a young catholic girl who's gone to the Catholic Adoption Agency is going to pick the profile of a gay couple?  The couple's wasting their money ($1000s in application fees) by going to a place like that instead of a secular agency.

In the end, its about the few forcing the many.  I'm being discriminated against because I'm forced to accept something that I feel is wrong. 



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:05am
Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

I think if someone is in a position of putting their child up for adoption (by choice) then maybe they should worry more about keeping their legs closed then where the child they don't want goes. When a women or a man gives up their rights to a child then all rights should be given up. They should stop thinking about where the child will grow up and worry more about not getting pregnant again.

Exceptions should only be made for cases of rape and molestation.

I think you have a very screwed up idea about Birth Mothers.  Coming from a future Adoptive Mother, adoption is the hardest choice.  Abortion is easy, welfare is easy, but placement is a true act of love.  This girls have been down a tough road, had to make hard decisions.  They've had jerks promise them the world and then bail at the first sign of responsibility.  They've had to chose to give their child a better life.  They want to chose the best life for their child, they have EVERY right to say where their baby ends up.  Because ITS THEIR CHOICE IN ACTION.  This is the same as abortion.  ITS ABOUT CHOICE.  Its a woman's right.  No some couch commentator like yourself.  As a woman, my body is my choice.  I have religious choices and secular choices.  Noone can tell me that I can't say my children must go with people who will understand their racial needs or what kind of upbringing I want to give my baby.

My best friend was on this opposite side as a Birth Mother, she felt very strongly that she wanted Jesse to have a strong Christian family that could financially give him the things he needed.  She also felt that he needed to have a family who understoond the hardships of raising a biracial child.  Who's to say she doesn't get a choice in these matters, its her baby until the paperwork is signed?  She obviously has the right to say no to a couple and not sign the paperwork.

You're just as much a bigot as you claim others to be, or more likely a sexist.  Its men like you that keep me Pro-Choice even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.



Posted By: ops154
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

Where can you not talk about Jesus or Muhammad? What are these special protections and where have you been prevented from practicing your religion? What city and state said you couldn't build a church? Please show me some laws that only apply to gays and prevent you from having something they don't?

Obviously you don't know much about the early Mormon Church.  There were no anti-polygamous laws before the Federal Governments fight with us.  In Missouri, until 1974, it was legal to kill a Mormon on sight.  We were forced to stop Polygamy or face the loss of all our sacred site and once again have them defiled by outsiders.  Even now the ACLU is constantly suing the Church in courts for the right to for Street Preachers to PROTEST during general conference on the grouds (privately owned land) of the Salt Lake City Temple. 

Kevin Smith gets fined $10,000 by GLAAD for one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back.  And yet, someone can call me all sorts of names as a Mormon and there's no recourse for me.  Even MORMON is technically a slur, but we can't do anything about it, so we just roll with it.

I think you're wrong when you think NO taxpayer would want their money going to faith groups that aid children.  Or their money wouldn't be going to these groups.  Face it Ops, secularists like yourself are a minority. 

I don't have a problem with allowing Gay couples to adopt, but I don't think that reverse discrimination should FORCE people to bend to them.  They are for a reason, the MINORITY.  Since when does the Minority rule in any society?  If they want to adopt they can go to a secular agency and adopt there, why would they want to go to an agency that is connected to a group that says they are commiting grave sins that will send them to Hell?  I really think its a bit of a moot point.  Its just a burden on the faith based adoption agencies.  Again, adoption doesn't work that way.  You don't just get to walk in and place your order like a pizza.  Even "traditional" couples are turned away for a variety of reasons.  Couples wait for years and years until a birth mother picks their profile.

Do you really think a young catholic girl who's gone to the Catholic Adoption Agency is going to pick the profile of a gay couple?  The couple's wasting their money ($1000s in application fees) by going to a place like that instead of a secular agency.

In the end, its about the few forcing the many.  I'm being discriminated against because I'm forced to accept something that I feel is wrong. 

The church is basically taking money from them and then using it to discriminate against them. 

You keep referring to the mothers but I am talking about the churches. Even if one of these mothers said she would allow an adoption to a gay couple, the church wouldn't. That is why they should not be given tax money for adoptions. I do like how you tried to spin what I'm saying referring to the general aid of children by churches. I thought we were talking about churches using tax money to prevent gay parents from adopting a child. Even though I believe the mother shouldn't have any rights the law says different as you said so ok then, let the mothers choose. As long as the church holds a open policy of not allowing gays to adopt then they should be cut from government funds. Let the people who believe in those types of churches pay for them. The money could go to adoption agencies that don't discriminate and the mother could still choose whatever she wanted through them. What is the difference other than the discrimination?

In the end, the Constitution is there to protect the majority and minority. It's sad so many politicians and most others have forgotten that.



-------------
Get it through your heads that I don't support Bush or the Israeli's! Thank your lucky stars for America is here to stay!!!


Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 4:39pm

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  Where did you get your information.  Could you please explain how you reached this decision?  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?  I would expect you to post your source(s) on this subject.  Do you have any source???

 



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  ...  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?


Sawtul is right. The entire western culture is Satanist, and they do exactly http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - what th http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - e Satanists advocat http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - e : to seek freedom where there really isn't any.

As parents, as fathers, as communities in the West, the government  prevents you from keeping your children away from seeking freedom where there really isn't any: premarital sex, homosexuality, substance abuse, et cetera. The family unit is now dead in the West.

When Bush said about the Muslim fundamentalists "They hate us because they hate our freedom", he was right. There is no freedom to be found by violating the laws of the One God. And now Bush is trying to enforce that kind of freedom across the world. Bush is simply an instrument of Satan.



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 21 April 2007 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  Where did you get your information.  Could you please explain how you reached this decision?  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?  I would expect you to post your source(s) on this subject.  Do you have any source???

 

Sure, I have lots of sources. Here's one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983&q=bohemian+grove&hl=en - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983&a mp;q=bohemian+grove&hl=en

 It's a documentary by a Christian Journalist.

And by the way, I didnt say "culture", I said Government (although the Government does influence the culture through politics and mainstream media).



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 4:13pm

Majority of the responders (not all) are backward thinkers. I'm still trying to figure out how the sexual orientation of an individual effects someone who is not physiologically attached this this person. Meaning, how is it that what one does sexually or profess a sexual orientation different than us shouldn't have the same rights as we do? I remember several decades ago in the United States the states made it illegal for a "colored" person to marry anyone who was white. I remember centuries before that these "negroes" were considered 3/4 of a person.

Now it is 2007 and now we are arguing against "gay rights" as intolerable because it makes other goe against their own conscience? to me that is the most backward thinking of anyone of us. Although we may not agree with the sexual orientation of a gay man or woman does not give us the right to deny them what they are due. I can expect this mentality in an ultra-conservative Muslim country but in the United States I think we are slowly making progress. As Hayfa mention it is these minorities that would defend the Muslims who have been discriminated against and trust me, I personally know some who have marched along side Muslims during the aftermath of 9/11. Most Christian organiszations at this time were scrambling to figure out why Islam is so barbaric when these same people were marching alongside us.

Many of you have a hard time justifying discrimination bny simply saying it goes against the religious conscious. I'm sure Jesus in his time met gay men and women (or those secretly gay) and what do you think he would do?



Posted By: Patty
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 5:26pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Majority of the responders (not all) are backward thinkers. I'm still trying to figure out how the sexual orientation of an individual effects someone who is not physiologically attached this this person. Meaning, how is it that what one does sexually or profess a sexual orientation different than us shouldn't have the same rights as we do? I remember several decades ago in the United States the states made it illegal for a "colored" person to marry anyone who was white. I remember centuries before that these "negroes" were considered 3/4 of a person.

Now it is 2007 and now we are arguing against "gay rights" as intolerable because it makes other goe against their own conscience? to me that is the most backward thinking of anyone of us. Although we may not agree with the sexual orientation of a gay man or woman does not give us the right to deny them what they are due. I can expect this mentality in an ultra-conservative Muslim country but in the United States I think we are slowly making progress. As Hayfa mention it is these minorities that would defend the Muslims who have been discriminated against and trust me, I personally know some who have marched along side Muslims during the aftermath of 9/11. Most Christian organiszations at this time were scrambling to figure out why Islam is so barbaric when these same people were marching alongside us.

Many of you have a hard time justifying discrimination bny simply saying it goes against the religious conscious. I'm sure Jesus in his time met gay men and women (or those secretly gay) and what do you think he would do?

You are so right, Israfil.  I believe Jesus loves everyone of us.  Someday I think professionals in the medical field will prove that this difference in sexual orientation has a beginning even before birth.  CT scans have already shown conclusively that certain areas of the brain are different in homosexual men vs. heterosexual men. 

I realize the Bible is not believed by most muslims; however, there are verses which state the sin is the homosexual act, but never the person.  I will always remember what my daughter said to me once.  She said, "Mom, do you think anyone would deliberately choose to be homosexual or lesbian, knowing the discrimination, even possible murder, that they may have to face?"  I don't think anyone sets out to "become" homosexual or lesbian.  I do believe they are born that way.

What would Jesus do?  HE would wrap His loving arms around this person who needs Him even more than most.  Oh yes, we know what Jesus would do.  But perhaps the question should be, what will YOU do?

God's Peace.



-------------
Patty

I don't know what the future holds....but I know who holds the future.


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Meaning, how is it that what one does sexually or profess a sexual orientation different than us shouldn't have the same rights as we do?

Homosexual have the same rights as we do, because nobody prevents them from engaging in heterosexual activity. We don't have more rights than them, because we are equally well be banned from homosexual activity.

By the way, few homosexuals are completely homosexual. They may be attracted to homosexuality, but many could reasonably well limit themselves to heterosexuality too. By legalizing homosexual activity, these people are encouraged to engage in homosexuality, while otherwise they would not.

What's more, homosexuality is a public health catastrophe, just like drug abuse. Why don't you advocate freedom for drug abusers?
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I remember several decades ago in the United States the states made it illegal for a "colored" person to marry anyone who was white.

Race is not a behaviour. Nobody can change the colour of their skin.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Although we may not agree with the sexual orientation of a gay man or woman does not give us the right to deny them what they are due.

Nobody knows what anybody else does in their bedrooms. They have always had that right. Do you really believe that schools should teach that homosexuality is ok? There are no rights to be found in violating the laws of the One God.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I can expect this mentality in an ultra-conservative Muslim country but in the United States I think we are slowly making progress.

There is no progress to be made by violating the laws of the One God.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I'm sure Jesus in his time met gay men and women (or those secretly gay) and what do you think he would do?

Jesus did not have the authority to set us free from the laws of the One God. Nobody has that authority.

Look, I cannot accept the gift of freedom from the laws of the One God. It is a poisonous gift. It frees me from the One God, but it also enslaves me to Satan. Americans refuse to see that there is no such freedom. They seek freedom where they will only find Satan.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

I believe Jesus loves everyone of us.

The messenger Jesus is dead now, peace be upon him. He does not love anybody any longer.
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

CT scans have already shown conclusively that certain areas of the brain are different in homosexual men vs. heterosexual men.

CT scans cannot free anybody from the laws of the One God.
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

I realize the Bible is not believed by most muslims;

Why would anybody believe emperor Constantine's forgeries?
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

I don't think anyone sets out to "become" homosexual or lesbian.  I do believe they are born that way.

Homosexuality cannot be hereditary. If a homosexual person's ancestors were homosexual, he would not be there. His very presence proves that his ancestors were all heterosexual. Sexual activity is a behaviour, and all behaviours are learned.

If it were really impossible for people to obey a particular rule, the One God would not have instituted that rule. You are asking people to believe you or your politicians instead of the scriptures. We won't believe you. We will believe the scriptures.
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

What would Jesus do?

That depends on who he really was. If he was who the Quran says he was, he would tell us to obey the laws of the One God. If he was who the Jewish and Christian scriptures say he was, he would would probably produce yet a new disgusting heresy.
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

But perhaps the question should be, what will YOU do?

Nobody should advocate breaking the laws of the One God.
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

God's Peace.

You won't have God's peace if you break his laws.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 6:39pm
Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

What would Jesus do?

Jesus cannot make new laws. Your politicians cannot make new laws. Nobody can make new laws,

BECAUSE THE ONE GOD HAS MADE ALL THE LAWS ALREADY.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 10:58pm

Crass allow me to first thank you for dissecting what I've said and so, allow me to commence in a reductio ad absurdum dialogue form:

Crass: "Homosexual have the same rights as we do, because nobody prevents them from engaging in heterosexual activity. We don't have more rights than them, because we are equally well be banned from homosexual activity."

Israfil: The above statement is nonsensical and a sign of confusion. If you are knowledgable of American laws you'd be aware that only four states allow homosexuals to marry: Alaska (which isn't really a state) Vermont and Hawaii (which isn't a state either) as well as Massachusetts. California has also created a legislation that allowed domestic partnerships. Now if you factor in the 5 states that does not amount to the other 45 states which allows heterosexual couples to marry. To me this isn't equality in its absolute form. Also, it would be ridiculous to state that "we are equally banned from homosexual practice" to me is a ridiculous comment because it assumes that homsexuality is an exclusive practice.

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is a choice that we all make and even though our internal/external environment has an influence ultimately, we have the choice to either conform or choose what to do.

Crass: "By the way, few homosexuals are completely homosexual. They may be attracted to homosexuality, but many could reasonably well limit themselves to heterosexuality too. By legalizing homosexual activity, these people are encouraged to engage in homosexuality, while otherwise they would not."

Israfil: Where is your proof?

Crass: "What's more, homosexuality is a public health catastrophe, just like drug abuse. Why don't you advocate freedom for drug abusers?"

Israfil: Another nonsensical statement. So now you equate homosexual behavior to drug addiction, give me a break.

Crass: "Race is not a behaviour. Nobody can change the colour of their skin."

Israfil: True. Nobody can change their natural skin pigmentation, but at the same time most homosexuals make that same statement about their sexual orientation. Many have tried to explain the "phenonmenon" of why some people are attracted to the same sex but cannot quite exactly figure out why this is so. The fact of the matter is whether physiologically related or not does not matter because when people have a feeling of attraction to someone how can you expect them to change this feeling if they believe it to be a natual occurence in their mind? 

Crass:"Nobody knows what anybody else does in their bedrooms. They have always had that right. Do you really believe that schools should teach that homosexuality is ok? There are no rights to be found in violating the laws of the One God."

Israfil: This is pure opinion and you have every "right" to think that way but the fact of the matter is homsexuality exist even within some primates who scientist believe are closer in relation to humans. homosexuality exist in other animal groups as well so there is no such thing as an unnatural occurence in the world which does not effect us. I don't think children should be taught that homosexuality is ok because that would infer an opinion, rather, children should be taught that there is a diversity within sexual orientation in humans. Some humans like the same sex. Some humans like younger humans i.e. small children, babies (which I would call mental instability and pedophilia) some humans are attracted to animals. The fact of the matter is, children should be taught to reserve opinion of other people simply based on their sexual orientation similarly they should resevre opinion on others based upon their race.

Crass: "Jesus did not have the authority to set us free from the laws of the One God. Nobody has that authority.

Look, I cannot accept the gift of freedom from the laws of the One God. It is a poisonous gift. It frees me from the One God, but it also enslaves me to Satan. Americans refuse to see that there is no such freedom. They seek freedom where they will only find Satan."

Israfil:




 



Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 11:39pm
Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

Originally posted by Patty Patty wrote:

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  ...  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?


Sawtul is right. The entire western culture is Satanist, and they do exactly http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - what th http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - e Satanists advocat http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ - e : to seek freedom where there really isn't any.

As parents, as fathers, as communities in the West, the government  prevents you from keeping your children away from seeking freedom where there really isn't any: premarital sex, homosexuality, substance abuse, et cetera. The family unit is now dead in the West.

When Bush said about the Muslim fundamentalists "They hate us because they hate our freedom", he was right. There is no freedom to be found by violating the laws of the One God. And now Bush is trying to enforce that kind of freedom across the world. Bush is simply an instrument of Satan.

Do you realize that there are over 8 million muslims in the US and the number is growing?

When you slander the "west" and you slander The muslims that live here. I resent your calling me  and my family  Satanists. I do not agree with many of the policies and actions of this government, but they are not forcing me to practice elements of Islam that are culturally induced and not necessarily in the Shariah as they do in some "Islamic countries". There is nothing in the Qur'an or Ahadith that states that I can't drive a car! Many muslims move here because in some ways this government follows some of the elements of true Islam. Read the last sermon of the prophet and you will see. I am curious to see if you possess some of the elements of humility.

BTW, are you a former poster that was banned about a year ago for being a bit harsh and attacking others? I think the mods should check your log on and Isp addy....Interesting...



-------------
"Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile.


Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 22 April 2007 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah Sawtul Khilafah wrote:

Originally posted by ops154 ops154 wrote:

You being a religious person should not judge anyone. Isn't that Gods job? Being from somewhere where you actually can see what good a set of parents can do for a child helps me accept it little more than I guess. It is sad that you would rather a child have no one to love them before letting a gay raise a child. Are you that worried about your sexuality to be bothered by it that much? Myself, I know what I like so they don't scare me like so many others in this world. Guess what----it is not contagious.

Do you think it's right for Rapists to adopt children ? If not, why ? Are you so worried your sexuality to be bothered by it that much?

Or, why is it illegal for people to be naked in public or why do toilets have doors ??

The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists.

They are trying to make these things the "norm" and one of the ways to do this is to destroy families (which they have already pretty much succeeded in) and allowing homosexuals to adopt children.

Thenthe next generation are going to be even more immoral than this generation, and then it will be "ok" to pass even more immoral laws, and so on. They have been doing this for the past few decades thats why people are becoming more and more preverse and immoral.

Sawtul, your need to get an education before you make such comments, Rapist are on a sexual offenders list and even getting near children in the wrong manner will land an ex offender life imprisonment. Look what happened to the crazies who abducted Elizabeth Smart. They are doing life, period.

You sound like the Salman that was banned about a year ago, am I right? He made obtuse statements without citing his sources.

Salman, is that you?



-------------
"Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile.


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 12:59am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Where is your proof?

Who do we trust to have the answer to that question, since no conclusive proof is available ... the scriptures or the western propaganda?
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

So now you equate homosexual behavior to drug addiction, give me a break.

Both groups claim that they respond to an irrestible urge. And both groups are a public health disaster.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

children should be taught that there is a diversity within sexual orientation in humans. Some humans like the same sex....The fact of the matter is, children should be taught to reserve opinion of other people simply based on their sexual orientation

We do not believe that. We teach the scriptures to the children. And the scriptures say that homosexuality is wrong. So, that is what we teach.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

they should resevre opinion on others based upon their race.

That is indeed what the scriptures say. Nobody is better or worse because of their race, but because of their piety.

It all revolves around the same question: Are the scriptures wrong or are the politicians wrong? We invariably believe the scriptures and not the politicians.

You can r
epeat your point of view as many times as you want, in as many different forms as you want, it won't help. You will never convince us that homosexuality is ok. Nobody can change that point of view in Islam, because the scriptures cannot be changed.

I simply do not believe statements that contradict the scriptures. No matter how much politicians try and try and try, I will not believe them.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

children should be taught to reserve opinion of other people simply based on their sexual orientation

You teach your children what you believe, and we teach our children what we believe. Any attempt to teach our children what you believe and what we do not believe, will inevitably lead to conflict.

I v
ery well know that your side will not back off. It is so obvious that your side wants to enforce their beliefs unto our children.

As you are probably well aware of, we do not fear this conflict, because we believe the scriptures, which makes us believe that the One God will give us victory. Such is our belief.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 7:39am

So you are like Rami now? everything you've stated in the latter portion of your opinion was "We" as if I'm not Muslim myself. this type of distinction of course is one of the reasons why we are not advance culturally, spiritually and intellectually. Crass you said:

"We do not believe that. We teach the scriptures to the children. And the scriptures say that homosexuality is wrong. So, that is what we teach."

There is a different in saying something is wrong and treating someone in discriminatory fashion. Similarly for Christians it is like saying love the sinner but hate the sin. Even if you were to teach your kids that homosexuality is wrong shouldn't keep you from also teaching your children to teach homosexuals with respect as they deserve as human beings. Saying things like "we believe in scriptures therefore God will give us victory" is self-glorifying at its best and ignorance at its worse. obviously your inability to actually critically think about the situation tells me that its time for me to end my discussion with you.



Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 8:07am
Crass: (adj) st**id; gross [from the Latin �crassus thick, dense, gross]
This is the Collins English Dictionary definition, and I don�t know why
nobody else has picked up on this. Unlike many members (Al-kafir
excepted) this forum member has been strikingly candid in his/her choice
of screen name.

Crass, I am sure you know absolutely NO homosexuals, since none of
them would allow you to make such sweeping declarations of ignorance
as: �By the way, few homosexuals are completely homosexual.� Only
someone intimate with homosexuals could know whether this is true or
not, you are here opening the door to a discussion about bisexuals, since
these people could definitely be accused of being �not completely
homosexual�.

Crass said: �By legalizing homosexual activity, these people are
encouraged to engage in homosexuality, while otherwise they would not.�
What people? You mean bisexuals? Or the sexually confused? In around
2000 years of the history of the world�s great monotheistic religions the
consistent banning of homosexual acts has done nothing to lessen their
appearance. No amount of banning, not even on God�s orders, has wiped
out homosexual practices. Your profound fundamentalist interpretation
of your religion is something you should keep to yourself and not impose
on the rest of us, and definitely not something you should use as a
weapon to insult Christians and Christianity and those who believe in the
Bible which you are ordered in the Koran to respect.

The legalising of drink has not turned entire populations into alcoholics.
The legalisation of homosexuality has not turned entire populations into
homosexuals. Legalising smoking has not resulted in entire populations
of nicotine addicts. On the contrary, wherever these activities are banned,
they become highly desireable and a difficult and persistent underground
culture develops.There is a huge difference between drug addiction and
sexual orientation.

Crass wrote: �Homosexuality cannot be hereditary. If a homosexual
person's ancestors were homosexual, he would not be there. His very
presence proves that his ancestors were all heterosexual. Sexual activity
is a behaviour, and all behaviours are learned.� You have little
understanding of social behaviour and sexuality, which is one reason why
homosexuality frightens you so much (that, and the fact that you have
never known a homosexual person.) There have been many studies which
reflect that sexual behaviour is not a �behaviour�, since this can be
changed at will, but is an instinct, which can be fought, but rarely
changed. You yourself have said that very few homosexuals are
completely homosexual, which means quite a few are capable of normal
sexual relationships, which means quite a few are capable of having
children. Studies have also shown the children of homosexuals do not
show different attitudes towards the opposite sex than children brought
up in heterosexual families.

Human rights encompass all humans, regardless of their sexual
orientation, race or religion. You disagree with human rights for all;
rather they should apply only to a select few, and definitely exclude gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, gay fathers, lesbian mothers, bisexual fathers, gay
poets, writers, cineasts, musicians, and a long etc., of very beautiful
human beings. You are not the first to think this way, others before you
have included famous historical figures such as Churchill and Hitler.




Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 9:10am
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

from the Latin �crassus thick, dense, gross...

Marcus Licinius Crassus (ca. 115 BC � 53 BC) was a Roman general and politician who generalled Sulla's decisive victory at Colline gate, suppressed the slave revolt led by Spartacus and entered into a secret pact, known as the First Triumvirate, with Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Gaius Julius Caesar.

I don't know why the Romans called the general "Crassus". I doubt it was an insult. It was just his family name.
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

Crass, I am sure you know absolutely NO homosexuals

I remember only one. We were actually on friendly terms, and to tell you the truth, I never told him that I believe homosexuality is wrong. What would have been the point of doing that anyway? The most striking thing about him, was his promiscuity. He had lots of one night stands, apparently, as he said. Promiscuity seems to be the norm in homosexual environments:

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

those who believe in the Bible which you are ordered in the Koran to respect.

The Quran does not call the bible authentic.

That's not possible, because, the Quran says that Jesus never said that he was the son of God (which is a blasphemy in both Judaism and Islam), for which the Jewish scriptures claim the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme court, executed Jesus.

Anyway, the bible is simply the collection of forgeries doctored by emperor Constantine. He ordered the destruction of all other, non "official" Christian scriptures, that is, the more truthful ones.

Conclusion: The bible is not respected in Islam. It is considered to be mostly untrue.

Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

You disagree with human rights for all;

We disagree on the definition of human rights: http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html - Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights.
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

You are not the first to think this way, others before you have included famous historical figures such as Churchill and Hitler.

Churchill and Hitler are the products of Christianity and the atheism degenerated out of Christianity.

Especially Hitler, is a very good example of how Christian racism, based on worshipping pictures of a white, European man, loosely related somehow to the Jewish prophet Jesus, and calling that man "God", degenerated in constructing a (pseudo-) science, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics - eugenics , in order to justify the extermination of alledgedly inferior races, in this  particular case, the Jews. In other cases, it was the Aboriginals in Australia, or the Native Americans, who had to be "removed" on "scientific" grounds.

Islam is absolutely not related to the Christian tradition of systematized racism a la Hitler.




Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 10:57am
So promiscuity is exclusive to homosexuals? Great logic hmmm, no what do we make of the countless strippers, prostitutes (males included) and others who engage in heterosexcual sex for both money and pleasure?


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 2:37pm
Crass wrote: "Marcus Licinius Crassus (ca. 115 BC � 53 BC) was a Roman
general and politician who generalled Sulla's decisive victory at Colline
gate, suppressed the slave revolt led by Spartacus and entered into a
secret pact, known as the First Triumvirate, with Gnaeus Pompeius
Magnus and Gaius Julius Caesar."

Do you think any of us really care about Marcus Crassus? You are too
ignorant to even notice the difference between crass and Crassus. The
dictionary definition of crass (which you match, by the way,) is the first
definition of this word, the information on Crassus (who knows, he was
probably as crass as you, but in any case was a conspirator) is secondary.

"The Quran does not call the bible authentic." -I didn't say it did, I said it
tells Moslems to respect those who follow its teachings i.e Christianity

'We disagree on the definition of human rights' oh do WE now? What's
this, a sign of multiple personality disorder?

Until you resolve your personal conflict over your previous existence as a
Christian, you are consistently breaking forum guidelines here and WE
shall all report you every time you do


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

So promiscuity is exclusive to homosexuals?

Definitely not.

I thought his homosexual promiscuity was striking, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't strike me that much any longer, after discovering that the social norm amongst teenagers in the West, is not any longer "dating", but "hooking up", that is, casual sex with strangers. Promiscuity has simply become the norm all across the West.




Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 4:21pm
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

Until you resolve your personal conflict over your previous existence as a Christian

Christianity spawned a widespread and firmly entrenched movement of (atheist) hate of Christianity. Most people in Europe and a large proportion of people in the US are just anti-Christians:

In Paris, over a forty-eight hour period beginning on September 2, 1792, as the Legislative Assembly dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres.

As late as 1799, priests were still being imprisoned or deported to penal colonies and persecution only worsened after the French army led by General Louis Alexandre Berthier captured Rome and imprisoned Pope Pius VI, who would die in captivity in Valence, France in August of 1799.

It is not a personal conflict. I simply agree with the reasons that led the French and Russian revolutionaries to identify Christianity as the root cause for racism and religiously sanctioned social inequality and oppression.

To an important extent, you do have a point. Muslims usually have more respect for Christianity than the vast majority of the population in Europe.
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

you are consistently breaking forum guidelines here and WE shall all report you every time you do

Don't count on the Muslims to protect Christianity from its self-spawned criticism. This is not about Muslims insulting Christianity. This is about Christianity's very nature leading to its own destruction. Were the French revolutionaries influenced by Islam?



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by Duende Duende wrote:

your previous existence as a Christian

So, before adopting Islam, I could happily spit on Christianity, just like everybody else in secular Europe, but after, I would suddenly be required to respect it? Why? I don't think so. I just keep the established right to spit on Christianity, just like before.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 24 April 2007 at 8:44am

(side note to Israfil and others)

I'm not stating that homosexuals should be banned from adopting.  I'm saying that religious groups who believe homosexuality to be a sin should not be forced to adopt children to homosexual couples.  This would be the same if they started forcing christian adoption agencies to adopt to non christians, or (if there were a thing) muslim adoption agencies to adopt to non muslims.

Secondly, I completely agree and in a small way disagree with Patty.  No gay, lesbian or bisexual really choses to be that way.  Why would anyone CHOSE to be a pariah to society and the norm?  Its against human nature.  Our drive goals are to find community and acceptance.  There are many studies that have show the hypothalimus (spelling is off) of the brain is smaller in gay men.  Also, their biological reaction to pheramones given off by the two sexes are reversed from a heterosexual person.  It could very well be genetic.

Now that being said, is it a test?  Many people are tested in many ways.  Physical and mental deformities are trials to face in this life.  Its in a person's belief system that defines there point of view on whether or not homosexuality is a natural acceptable occurance, or a temptation and sin to strive to get past and work against.

Again, from a different thread.  Its God's right alone to judge.  People should mind their own actions and teach their children and set examples.  But, its not our place to judge others.

I do not believe however, that anyone should be forced to participate in something they feel is morally wrong.  Whether thats wearing skimpy clothing, riba, homosexuality, polygamy or birthcontrol. 



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 24 April 2007 at 9:06am

I love when the singling me out part Angela (even though you threw in "and others") but for the most part I agree with you. The only divide in what you say that people are justified in discrimination. Now I would agree that in general "free" people shouldn't be forced to do anything but in making a distinction between private and public business in matters of upholding constitutional law I'll say public businesses that profess a religious group or an association of a religious institution they should conform with the law and understand its significance. very easily one can make the same argument and say "should a racist, be forced to like other cultures?" We could say no. But consciously we think morally speaking people should be accepting of others because we are all humans beings.

Similarly I would say to any religious group that in order to maintain consistency with your own doctrine you must do things that you yourself (as well as what your religion profess) is wrong inherently. Now in matters of adoption it still amounts to discriminating against the person. Even if you say "well Jesus said love the sinner, but hate the sin, yet I don't believe in homosexuals adopting" still contradicts that Biblical philosophy! In a way you're still punishing a man/man woman/woman for who they biologically. so even if the government doesn't force you and you act on religious principle you are still contradicting yourself by disallowing homosexuals to adopt. Rather looking at their ability as parents you look at their sexual orientation which in my mind is unfair and on par with many of those racist in the past who thought it was acceptable to keep minorities from institutions of higher learning, of course, I'm not calling you or anyone else a racist its a simple point.

Now if you're on the private sector of business then that is fine whatever is your business and whatever you do without governmental assistance is your personal thing. Like BYU I really couldn't argue their policies because everyone who attends is on contractual agreement so there really is no dispute...I personally wouldn't go there anyway so it wouldn't be a dispute. what I can say about this issue is we are making slow progress but to make any progress it first starts with us mentally and ends with our actions.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 24 April 2007 at 1:48pm

But, the fact is the law allows gays to adopt, but for example, LDS Family Services only adopts to LDS families who hold valid temple recommends due to our religious belief about eternal families.

Our religious belief is that ever child has a right to the temple blessings, if it was a perfect world, all children would be born within wedlock to already sealed parents.  But, that is not the case. 

Homosexual couples, no matter how loving or great parents cannot be married, they cannot have martial relations within the bounds of religiously recognized marriage and they cannot be sealed together in the temple.  Therefore, under our faith, they cannot adopt through our adoption agency.  It defeats the whole purpose of our belief in the divine nature of the family.

Now...you mentioned "a way you're still punishing a man/man woman/woman for who they biologically" 

A man and a woman come together to produce a child.  Only one animal on earth creates life homosexually, that is a rare lizard that all are female and they create "clones" of themselves after simulated sex with each other.  This is not a biological part of humanity.  A man and a woman are needed to conceive a child.  I'm not punishing them for what they can or cannot do biologically, its a basic rule of nature.

Now, there are options, privately run adoption firms not affliated with religious groups, surrogate mothers and artificial insemination. 

I would like to point out, that its not just a Bibilical thing either.  You will find religious disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle in ALL 3 Abrahamic Fatihs, Hinduism, some Tribal (pagan) faiths and in some Eastern traditions.  The majority of faiths do not support homosexuality.  You have some native american faiths that talk of the twin souls and acceptance in some eastern traditions.  Its said the only true love that can be felt by one Samurai is by that of another Samurai. 

The matter is that I can say love the sinner not the sin and still believe that they should not force religious groups to adopt to gays.  Just because I believe a person to be good, doesn't mean I have to aid in their sinful actions.  There is a fine line between letting someone to their own devices and condoning their activities.  By forcing the Catholic Church in England to adopt to gay couples, they are forcing them to condone a lifestyle they believe is absolutely sinful.

There is a group of LDS men who run a counseling service for gay LDS men.  All of them are themselves gay and have been married to a woman.  They have taken a different road.  They chose instead of living in a homosexual lifestyle to do "the right thing" and enter a marriage.  They are open, out of the closet, and honest with their spouses.  They have families and deal with life daily.

There are many differences of opinion on what to do with separations of church and state and racism/sexism/heterosexism.  You are right, once whites and blacks could not get married.  That is slowly fading as a stigma.  Once it was acceptable for white christian families to steal native children from the reservations and adopt them.  Now its absolutely illegal for a non-native american to adopt a native american child.

Why do I bring that up?  Well, what's right?  Protecting the child's cultural and religious hertiage or adopting to anyone who can be a good parent?  A friend I have from an Infertility support group had a child placed with her through Foster Care, the parents rights were terminated and she was placed for adoption.  But because her mother was 1/2 Cherokee, my friend had to petition the tribe to basically disown the girl so she could be adopted. It took 3 years. 

Now, say a child's muslim and her parents are abusive and neglectful.  And like in so many cases the child is eventually taken from her parents and given up for adoption.  Should the child's faith be considered when placing them? 

What about the Birth Mothers who are willingly giving up their children?  A black woman has a right to demand a black family for her baby?  Why can't a Christian girl demand similar?  Why is it wrong for the latter and not the former?

In the end, if a gay couple wants to be parents, they should expect that they will have to go to services that are sensitive to their wants and needs.  Agencies that work with the law and with the birth mothers who are willing and wanting to give these couples a chance.  Gay couples have extra problems with adoption.  In many states, they can't both be on the adoption certificate.  So in divorce, one gets the child and the other has no rights.  They have to set up things in advance, go extra lengths in cases of custody and guardianship.  And frankly, in some states they cannot legally adopt at all.  (Florida is one I believe), meaning that if they adopt outside the state, its not recognizable in cases of separation, meaning the non adoptive parent has NO legal recourse.

Biologically, a gay couple is infertile.  I suffer from this all the time.  I'm told flat out by the law, that I have no RIGHT to a child.  It is a luxury.  If I have the money to adopt or seek fertility treatments, its all on me.  If a birth mother won't choose me, or I'm not stable financially enough for Foster Care and treatments fail.  I am childless.  Frankly, gay couples should have no more rights than I do.  I can't adopt from some Christian adoption agencies, because I'm Mormon and they don't accept us as Christian.  So, why should a gay couple be allowed to adopt from them.  Its about fairness.  Giving nothing to a group that you aren't giving to anyone else.

Gays have rights, they have options.  Others shouldn't be forced to give up their personal beliefs.  Its a system that frankly doesn't need fixed (except maybe custody laws and florida).  But, they have just as many options as I do.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 24 April 2007 at 9:59pm

Ok Angela I see where you are coming from and for the most part I don't disagree with you. but I disagree that you said "It's a basic rule in nature" we develop laws that states "only a man and woman are allowed to legally marry and have the benefits of this union." Nature didn't create the constitution nor the supplimentary laws that went along with it, we did. So to use the nature argument is moot and even if I were to consider that just focusing in on america alone majority of the laws are in relation to the Judeo/Christian tradition.

Majority of the Anti-Gay movement believe that nature prohibts same sex union. well, it is their free right to state such opinions even though I may disagree. By the way the lizard you mention I'm sure what lizard you refer to but it's important to note that there are far more creatures that engage in homosexual activity then just the lizard. there are primates (for instance some Chimps) engage in homsexual behavior. But I understand where you come from and like I said before  if it is a private institution they can do whatever you want but if its in a public sector then we must uphold the standards that this country supposedly was built on.

I still think that the view that "gays shouldn't adopt Christian children because of their lifestyle" is inherely discriminatory plain and simple. Regardless how you word it, frame it or even recite it from doctrine it is still discriminatory. Just because there are other religious cultures both popular and small reject homsexuality does not mean their believers are immune to having such tendencies. I know for a fact there are gay Muslims, Jews, Christians Sikhs Hindus, Polytheist, Pagans, Wiccans just a small amount of people in these religious traditions you mentioned there are gays in every single one of them.

But in the end the issue is resolved with a simple disagreement/agreement and eeryone has the right to believe what they believe and I respect that even though  I may disagree.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 3:55am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

In a way you're still punishing a man/man woman/woman for who they biologically.

Is is so hard to accept the gender you were born with? Don't we all have to do that?
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I still think that the view that "gays shouldn't adopt Christian children because of their lifestyle" is inherently discriminatory plain and simple.

I have no problem whatsoever that gays adopt the children that are the product of gay sex.  If gays want to adopt the products of heterosexual sex, they can only obtain from us, to the same extent as they supply to us.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 8:26am

"crasss"

Is is so hard to accept the gender you were born with? Don't we all have to do that?

Being homosexual is not about rejecting your gender, its about your sexual orientation and your decision of choosing your partner.

"crass"
I have no problem whatsoever that gays adopt the children that are the product of gay sex.  If gays want to adopt the products of heterosexual sex, they can only obtain from us, to the same extent as they supply to us. 

Your above paragraph does not make any sense whatsoever so i'll try to decipher what you were saying. Judging from the first sentence are you  referring to gays adopting children from other gay families? Because, from what I initally read there is no such thing as children being products of 'gay sex.' In the second sentence what does that mean when you said "as they supply us?" I really had a hard time understanding you here.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 9:01am

Do me a favor all?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit - https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit

Take this test.  I found I'm slightly favorable to Muslims, Slightly favorable to whites, and a moderate preference for Gay people.

The tests are said to be the most accurate indicator of things.

We are all bias.  This country is where the minority rule, the majority live in fear of being catagorized as racist, sexist, or intolerant.

Yes, discrimination happens.  But, if you believe in God and an organized faith.  Then your beliefs are going to affect you.

If you don't believe in a tenet of your faith, perhaps you should really look at that part of yourself. 

Do you believe the Quran is the word of God? the Torah? the Bible/Injeel?

 

 



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 12:43pm

Angela the latter part of what you said was something used against me to show the illegitimacy of my own faith. I've been judged as a non-muslim for majority of the time I've congregated to the mosques and chat here. I made no illusions when I first started chatting here and outside this website that I was totally orthodox. A lot of very conservative muslims are definitely absolutionist (meaning you either believe and accept everything or nothing anf by nothing you remain excommunicated). I know I have unorthodox beliefs. I know that almost everything I mentioned in relation to Islam not all muslims agree.

The fact of the matter is like you mentioned here we are all motivated by our religious convictions be those orthodox or unorthodox. I think it strikes a nerve to me when the issue of gay rights come up the inevitable question is "my faith." For those interpreting the verses since God rejects homosexuality so too I must reject homosexuality. I'm sure if I said I slightly disagree with God many conservatives would excommunicate me for the simple fact that, as a human I maybe disagree with God on this matter. Of course such words are taboo in the communities therefore some may not utter them similarly some muslims who are gay will not willingly and openly admit to it either.

My understanding of divine scriptures is limited and I personally feel that i'm not even worthy to even utter the words and translate them. No human is and this is at least one element of Judaism I respect. What I mean here is that even through research and studies within our respective doctrines our leaders still reamin fallible as the very people they teach. The only difference is with strict knowledge we only further the gap of us making a mistake......hmmmm profound?

I make the similar statement with a professor who is highly skilled in a particular field of study. A person who teaches is always susceptible of being wrong so in that respect in relation to the doctrine of Islam as it relates to this subject I would say how do we know God rejects gays or for that matter homosexuality? In discussions such as these we've always talked around God's infallibility but those of you who claim to be so righteous and upright in God's word make God to be fallible. i've noticed many of you say homosexuality is a curse. A disease. Something which is against nature. Oh, and my favorite a manifestation of the devil.

Let me make a simple argument and say, in matters of causality if we hold God to be the artisan of this universe and perfect yet, we believe homosexuality is a natural mistake then, in essence God is the one who made this mistake. Since it has been shown in corrwlational studies that the homosexual brain is slightly different than the heterosexual one then we can say that the tendency (which comes about through the neurotransmitters in the brain, most notably from the hypothalamus) is natural. Again, if we go back to doctrine stating god rejecting homosexuality then we can ask ourselves why within creation does this tendency exist? We cannot say God willed it so they can know the errors of their ways because God gave us the mechanisms to have these tendencies in the first place!

We can't say its a curse God gave to humans because why would God curse people at birth for a crime they didn't commit? Hence my rejection of original sin and this mott argument against homosexuality. Yeaqh, I may sound like that I'm slightly going against traditional theology here but I have a conscious and I cannot consciously reject another human being simply because of their sexual orientation. I, on the other hand can expect (in american at least) priviledged white individuals in this country to look at things different than I do. I look at things from the underpriviledged perspective and this includes my priviledged religious position as well.

I also know that I'm biased like every other human and perhaps what separated me from other muslims is my view on this and I know conservative muslims would call me a Kafir because i believe this. But one thing I do know is if such a great, powerful God condemn a petty microorganism such as myself to hellfire simply because I'm interpreting this subject only as a human then that is no god of mine.Similarly I would say if such a god condemns a creature (esp. one who lives his/her life right) only because of their sexual orientation is a fallible creature only conceived by human dellusion.

Not saying you are Angela but I love conservatives who challenge me especially those with narrow views of the world because it definitely expose their ignorance to this matter. For those of you who don't believe in equal rights extended to all human groups maybe one day that gay,woman,black,dwarf human person will save your life one day. That is how I look at things.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 2:32pm

I think you keep missing the point here.

Gays are allowed to adopt in most states.  There are more NON faith based organizations than faith based that do adoptions.  Many adoptions are done through private groups and online postings.  There is very little stopping a homosexual couple from adopting.

I'm saying you cannot FORCE religiously based groups to extend their services to people that are outside what they consider religiously acceptable. 

I haven't said don't let them adopt.  I keep trying to say you can't discriminate against the beliefs of others by forcing them to do what is against their religion. 

Or do you keep missing that?  Gays have their options for adoption.  They don't need to force the Catholic Church to give them MORE options. They already have numerous ways to adopt.

Gay civil unions are an inevitable fact of life.  I'm against a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.  I think its a violation of the First Amendment.  But, just because Civil Unions are in place or marriage, doesn't mean the Local Priest has to marry them.  Or even give them access to temples and mosques. 

The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is this... let them live as they want... don't force others to abandon their beliefs.

The rights are being extended... by the "secular" government and secular society.  That doesn't mean, that everyone has to be on the bandwagon. 

Its like the French banning the Hijab and all other religious symbols in school.  Because they made it "fair" for all, many young muslim girls are forced to not follow their faith. 

Fairness for all is IMPOSSIBLE.  But, if you put the compromises in there, then it can be as best as it can be.   Let them adopt from secular groups and federal programs like foster care.  Don't force the religious groups to go against their beliefs.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Because, from what I initally read there is no such thing as children being products of 'gay sex.'

Really? I thought gay sex was equivalent and had equal worth? You're not going to tell me that heterosexual sex has more capabilities than gay sex, such as producing children, and is therefore inherently superior? That is discriminatory!

No, we must assume that gay sex and heterosexual sex are equal. Therefore, if you can make children with heterosexual sex, we must assume that you can also make children with gay sex.

Therefore, homosexuals must use their own "worthy" sexual methods to produce their children, and not try to leech and profiteer from heterosexual people.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I'm sure if I said I slightly disagree with God...in essence God is the one who made this mistake....why within creation does this tendency exist?...if such a great, powerful God condemn a petty microorganism such as myself to hellfire simply because I'm interpreting this subject only as a human then that is no god of mine.

If you jump from a skyscraper into the void, you may change your mind while you are falling, but to no avail, because you won't be able to avoid the inevitable effects of the laws of gravity. Can you still request the One God for an exemption from the laws of gravity? No.

If you are a woman, and you don't know you have AIDS, the child you are pregnant with, will be likely to inherit the disease from you.

The universe as created by the One God is governed by lots of inevitable laws, some of which you may occasionally want an exemption from. You won't get such exemption.

The clue is to accept this and be grateful anyway, that the One God created the universe as it is, for us to be sometimes happy and to sometimes suffer.

The One God is sovereign. Nothing else is, however. You can refuse to accept everything else, and question that, and fight against that, but you can't fight the One God.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 6:15pm

[QUOTE=crass]

Really? I thought gay sex was equivalent and had equal worth? You're not going to tell me that heterosexual sex has more capabilities than gay sex, such as producing children, and is therefore inherently superior? That is discriminatory!

No, we must assume that gay sex and heterosexual sex are equal. Therefore, if you can make children with heterosexual sex, we must assume that you can also make children with gay sex.

Therefore, homosexuals must use their own "worthy" sexual methods to produce their children, and not try to leech and profiteer from heterosexual people.

This makes absolutely no sense to me

[QUOTE=crass]

If you jump from a skyscraper into the void, you may change your mind while you are falling, but to no avail, because you won't be able to avoid the inevitable effects of the laws of gravity. Can you still request the One God for an exemption from the laws of gravity? No.

If you are a woman, and you don't know you have AIDS, the child you are pregnant with, will be likely to inherit the disease from you.

The universe as created by the One God is governed by lots of inevitable laws, some of which you may occasionally want an exemption from. You won't get such exemption.

The clue is to accept this and be grateful anyway, that the One God created the universe as it is, for us to be sometimes happy and to sometimes suffer.

The One God is sovereign. Nothing else is, however. You can refuse to accept everything else, and question that, and fight against that, but you can't fight the One God.





Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 7:15pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me

Why don't homosexuals accept all the consequences of their own choices?

If they believe that gay sex is equivalent to normal sex, and they want children, they should use their gay sex to produce children. Why do they want to adopt children that are the result of normal sex?




Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense to me

Isn't all of this self-evident?

If you are a man, and you want children, you have to set up an arrangement with a woman, and have sex with her.

If you have sex with another man, the sex will be sterile, and you won't produce children. This kind of sex is therefore inferior.

Next, you need to maintain the long-term (life-long) relationship required to educate the children till they reach adulthood. If either of both walks out halfway, it poses a serious risk for these children. Apparently, a child is really better off with both its parents involved in its education.

Therefore, boyfriend sex, casual sex, groupsex, prostitution sex, et cetera, are also inferior types of sex. They are not "fruitful".

In order to reproduce successfully, we must stick to a system of marriage, even it is sometimes tempting to do otherwise. Such marriage must necessarily be between a man and a woman.

Why don't you simply accept the inevitable truth?



Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 25 April 2007 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:


Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">This makes absolutely no sense to me
Why don't homosexuals accept all the consequences of their own choices?If they believe that gay sex is equivalent to normal sex, and they want children, they should use their gay sex to produce children. Why do they want to adopt children that are the result of normal sex?


good point


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 12:51am
AK_M_F you smoking the same brand of hashish as crass? His was definitely not a good point in fact, it does not make any kind of sense whatsoever. First off, crass I'm quite such gays don't think gay sex is an equivalent to heterosexual sex with the obvious reason that one cannot produce children like the other. The only reason you find gay sex inferior is because it doesn't produce children but then again why are we even discussing this issue? Again, your views on this issue are nonsensical. Crass how about this. Chalk this up as you and I disagree on this matter and leave it be.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 2:03pm
Israfil:
Did you see the AID ridden Africans babies piled up in the mud & straw huts during American Idol show asking for the donations on Fox tv. The scene was so horrible that made my kids cry you know!
If not, try finding the footage it might be enlightening for your God critical mind about the miserable consequences what the indiscriminate sex and homosexuality in Africa have helped spread!
I did not hear a word of analysis how the whole misery came about but parade of sickness, poverty and bad news. To make it poignant one of the MC was a lesbian TV show host, you guess who?
There is no debate on this issue in Islam There is no way you are going to get special rights for being homosexual rather you be punished with lashes on on your butt  and woman a life imprisonment. That is the Quraanic edict. I have seen the homosexuals behavior from a very close vantage point, they are just sick and religion is a joke for them.
I have seen them destroy the peace of their own families; talk about them adopting other kids, BAD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE< furthering the issue pure evil.
BTW why the Jews & people in show biz are disproportionately higher numbers in this life style?
Then they die with AIDs
 


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 26 April 2007 at 10:54pm

Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:

Israfil:
Did you see the AID ridden Africans babies piled up in the mud & straw huts during American Idol show asking for the donations on Fox tv. The scene was so horrible that made my kids cry you know!
If not, try finding the footage it might be enlightening for your God critical mind about the miserable consequences what the indiscriminate sex and homosexuality in Africa have helped spread!
I did not hear a word of analysis how the whole misery came about but parade of sickness, poverty and bad news. To make it poignant one of the MC was a lesbian TV show host, you guess who?
There is no debate on this issue in Islam There is no way you are going to get special rights for being homosexual rather you be punished with lashes on on your butt  and woman a life imprisonment. That is the Quraanic edict. I have seen the homosexuals behavior from a very close vantage point, they are just sick and religion is a joke for them.
I have seen them destroy the peace of their own families; talk about them adopting other kids, BAD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE< furthering the issue pure evil.
BTW why the Jews & people in show biz are disproportionately higher numbers in this life style?
Then they die with AIDs
 

Sign Reader,

Your view is not even coming from a valid statistical analysis of the current situation in Africa, and by the way you wer watching American Idol for God sakes! I will agree with you in that the situation in Africa is not heavily discussed at our mosques and in mainstream Islamic media (if such a thing exist). The latter goes along with the whole cultural bias scheme i've been screaming for the longest here. There are several reasons why AIDS is so prevelant in Africa therefore we simply cannot rest on the belief that indiscriminate sex and homosexuality alone is the cause of such. Other factors such as cultural myths (such as the myth that AIDS does not exist) or the lack of knowledge of AIDS and abstinence are other factors as well.

Sign Reader the latter portion of your statement again is purely opinionated and not really based on valid evidence therefore I cannot say much but "that is your opinion."



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 11:53am

Sign*Reader,

One of the largest growing groups of AIDS victims is heterosexual women.  There is even evidence that the first cases of AIDS were related to the practice of eating Bush Meat (monkeys, chimps and gorillas).  AIDS spreads through Heterosexual sex just as easily as Homosexual sex. 

The Gay community is actually one of the few seeing a reduction in the spread of the disease.  Why, because they are educating each other about it.  They are wearing condoms and asking questions.  Things just not done in the areas of Africa where the disease is spreading like wildfire amoung heterosexual families.

Men are having sex with infected prostitutes and other women, getting infected from drug needles and bringing it home to their innocent wives who then spread it to their babies.

AIDS is an issue that should be discussed openly.  I know a couple from my home town.  Heterosexual, Married and faithful to each other.  He was in a car accident, got a blood transfusion in the early 90s.  He was infected with AIDS, and spread it to his wife and unborn child. 

There are many victims of this disease that are innocent.  Making it a "gay" disease, or blaming it on the "gays" is just another way to ensure more people die.  Blame it on the Bush Meat.  Blame it on the lack of education in the populations.  Blame it on the lack of teachings about safe sex, abstinence and monogamy.  And the lack of medical services in the area.

But, don't diminish the problem by calling it a "gay" disease.



Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Sign*Reader,

One of the largest growing groups of AIDS victims is heterosexual women.  There is even evidence that the first cases of AIDS were related to the practice of eating Bush Meat (monkeys, chimps and gorillas).  AIDS spreads through Heterosexual sex just as easily as Homosexual sex.


That brings another worst class of people who are bisexuals, they should be classified as criminal / hypocrites of the carnal world. If these heterosexual woman have extra marital sex they deserve what is happening to them. If the husband brought it, they should sue or shoot their asses and let them face the consequences. I am not kidding!
The Bush meat gave me chuckle but you know if they are so indiscriminate in their consumption, then might as well pay for their habits. Are they that moronic how do they go about getting this meat or they live in the jungles with the chimps?

Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

The Gay community is actually one of the few seeing a reduction in the spread of the disease.  Why, because they are educating each other about it.  They are wearing condoms and asking questions.  Things just not done in the areas of Africa where the disease is spreading like wildfire amoung heterosexual families.

Men are having sex with infected prostitutes and other women, getting infected from drug needles and bringing it home to their innocent wives who then spread it to their babies.

They should be sued and removed from societies without any mercy.

Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

AIDS is an issue that should be discussed openly.  I know a couple from my home town.  Heterosexual, Married and faithful to each other.  He was in a car accident, got a blood transfusion in the early 90s.  He was infected with AIDS, and spread it to his wife and unborn child.

This is an exception, I am sorry for this family.

Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

There are many victims of this disease that are innocent.  Making it a "gay" disease, or blaming it on the "gays" is just another way to ensure more people die.  Blame it on the Bush Meat.  Blame it on the lack of education in the populations.  Blame it on the lack of teachings about safe sex, abstinence and monogamy.  And the lack of medical services in the area.

But, don't diminish the problem by calling it a "gay" disease.

OK Angela: How many places you can buy Bush meat in the US? When the AIDS was discovered in the US it was mostly amongst gays males, lo life druggies who could buy drugs to shoot but not the needles, and African Americans (still is over represented in the current cases) and the show biz people. Were they consuming the Bushmeat? come on Angela let us get real !

Would you like to change the name to Bush Disease; it will be so hilarious with current POTUS being in the picture all the time. Lot of sites do call him that anyways!

Read this an old report and then comment:

http://www.actupny.org/YELL/catholicpriests.html - - Report: Priests hit hard by hidden AIDS epidemic






-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 4:10pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

situation in Africa, and by the way you wer watching American Idol for God sakes!


The kids and their mom had heard about their plan and wanted to contribute some money for the African relief; it isn't my age bracket & then from Fox TV


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 6:45pm
Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:

http://www.actupny.org/YELL/catholicpriests.html - - Report: Priests hit hard by hidden AIDS epidemic

The Catholic church never meant priests and nuns to be really "celibate".  The idea was that they couldn't marry, and especially, that they could not recognize any children, who would subsequently inherit any privileges from them. A priest was supposed to keep his relationship with an unmarried wife discrete.
http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Celibacy.html -
At the time, most Catholic priests were married. Married men want to financially support their wives and children. Kings and nobles donated property to the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for the faithful service of priests. Some priests tried to leave this property to their heirs. In addition, they had loyalty to the nobles who provided them with homes. Pope Gregory wanted to protect Church property, and to ensure that the loyalty of the priests went to the Pope and not to secular rulers. And he wanted to prevent laymen from �interfering� with the Catholic Church. He made this clear when he said, �The church cannot escape from the clutches of the laity unless priests first escape from the clutches of their wives.� Pope Gregory abolished clerical marriage. He passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests.

Nuns weren't actually really required  to be celibate either. The convents took in orphans, to justify the presence of children in the convent, and to cover up the fact that a lot of these "orphans" were simply the illegitimate children of sexually active nuns.

Same thing for monogamy. The nobles were not supposed to be truly monogamous. The social rule was that they could only recognize one wife, who was the daughter of another noble, and that only these children could inherit from him. Of course, the nobleman had other unmarried wives, but the nobleman was simply forbidden from marrying (commoner) concubines or recognize their children.

Celibacy is not about not being sexually active, but about being discreet about it.

The nuns were noble daughters for whom an acceptable marriage (with a nobleman) could not be arranged. These noble daughters could not marry below their class and rank. At the same time, excess noble sons who would not inherit their fathers title (only one son could), would become high-ranking clergy. So, what to do with the inevitable surplus of noble daughters? They were forced to live in a convent. Of course, it would have been cruel to truly prevent these poor girls from being sexually active.




Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 1:55am
Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:

When the AIDS was discovered in the US it was mostly amongst gays males, lo life druggies who could buy drugs to shoot but not the needles, and African Americans (still is over represented in the current cases) and the show biz people. Were they consuming the Bushmeat? come on Angela let us get real !


http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1998/se980201.html - The first published article related to AIDS was in 1981. The principal author�s name was Michael Gottlieb and it appeared in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for June 5th. This article reported that there was a random increase in pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare lung infection.

A short while later, on July 3rd, another article reported eight outbreaks of Kaposi�s Sarcoma (KS) in young homosexual males in New York. This was surprising because Kaposi�s Sarcoma was a rare form of cancer that normally showed up in older people.

AIDS has no particular or specific symptoms. Patients always die from another disease. Fifty years ago, these patients would have been classified as pneumonia and cancer patients.

If AIDS were around before 1959, how could anybody know? There is actually no conclusive reason to believe that AIDS is a new disease. AIDS could have been around a thousand years ago. What wasn't around a 1000 years ago, is a society in which homosexuals openly celebrate their estranged sexual orientation in promiscuous sex parties.

And even then, it isn't necessarily AIDS that will kill them:

http://www.new-life.net/hmsxl01.htm - Surprisingly, AIDS has only a modest effect on the average life expectancy of a homosexual male. The average age of men dying from AIDS is 39. The average age of homosexuals dying from all other causes is even more revealing: 41. Only one percent die of old age. In study after study, less than three percent of all homosexuals surveyed are over the age of 55. Why is homosexuality such a dangerous lifestyle? Part of the reason is the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals.

If sexual promiscuity leads to lower life expectancy, and given the current casual sex habits of teenagers in the West, the general life expectancy in the West will soon start dropping, just like it is already rapidly dropping in Africa and in Russia.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/etc/facts.html - Infertility is increasing by more than 3% a year, and 75% of all pregnant women in Russia have a serious pathology during their pregnancies...In a 1998 poll, Russian high school seniors ranked prostitute and hired assassin above scientist, engineer and researcher as attractive career choices.

AIDS is just one consequence of disobedience to the One God, and the only way to save (some of) these people is to convince them to submit to the One God and His laws.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 10:01am
Crass, it's obvious you and I don't believe in the same thing


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 6:17pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Crass, it's obvious you and I don't believe in the same thing

I believe that breaking the laws of the One God, is futile. Which law of the One God do you believe can be broken without the resulting situation eventually backfiring?



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 10:00am

Sign*Reader,

The oldest known case of AIDS is in Africa.  The cases in the US from the Gay men can be traced to a flight attendant (gay man) in the 80s, however, since then, the epidemics in Africa and the US had grown far more complicated.

Bush meat is a problem in Africa, not the US, however, the AIDS virus is already out there.  Sexual promiscuity and the refusal to wear condoms.  But AIDS is being spread by HETEROSEXUAL SEX. 

AIDS can be contracted from drug needles and blood transfusions.  Also, in placed like Africa where the health system is underfunded, legitimate medical procedures and bad dysinfecting techniques can lead to many victims that were not engaging in sinful behavior.

As for the women in Africa, who is protecting them?  In Darfur, there is documented practices of genocide by rape.  They rape the women using soldiers infected with HIV.  Who is protecting them?

You cannot blame all cases of AIDS on gay men.  Within the US and such, education is key.  To teach its a gay problem is to trick ourselves into thinking that its never going to happen to us.

All it takes is for a poor nurse to accidently jab herself with a needle that has been infected and an entire family could be affected.

To just say sue them or shoot them?  What about all the innocents?  More victims of AIDS are innocents than are guilty.  Wives of promiscuous truck drivers in India or of louts in Africa.  Children infected because of poor conditions or their mother's being raped by guerrilla fighters in the various conflicts. 

There is alot of evil out there.  And there is more maliciousness done by heterosexual men than by gay men.

If REAL MEN did their jobs and took care and protected the women of society.  This wouldn't happen.  But, the answer is always more brutality, more war and more death.   If men learned that guns and violence never solve anything then, you would not see the degrading of society.  I blame the wars of Men for societal ills.  Everything can be brought back to WAR.  Instead of suing the gay man for AIDS, I'd rather sue men for mismanaging the world in general. 

If men did their God sworn duties, women would not be abused in any way.  If men did their duties, there wouldn't be starving orphans and widows all over the world.  Women wouldn't be forced to degrade themselves for survival, men would have no need to force women into sexual slavery and then blame the women. 

I love how it all comes back to the fault of the women for being promiscous.  But, men are the dogs.  They are the "stronger" sex.  The leaders and the ones in control.  Its their faults.  I thought Islam absolved Eve.  But I can see that men will always blame the woman and never look at their own failings.

Its not the Gay man that makes me afraid, its the Manly Straight Man who feels he needs to prove his machismo.

Rape and Sexual Violence Fuels AIDS Spread among Women
 

LONDON - December 1 - Needless deaths by HIV/AIDS continue to occur amidst statistics of increased danger to women and young people.

In the capital city of Kenya, Nairobi, women from conflict-ridden countries in Africa and disaster-hit countries in Asia are discussing how, many of their own, are fast becoming part of the statistics, courtesy of men�s brutality and beastly sexual acts.

�As the world pays attention to stopping deaths by guns, lives of hundreds of thousands of women are shattered by rape and sexual violence beyond generations,� says Aline Aliyene Cinanula, a 16-year-old victim of sexual violence from DR Congo.

�Action should be taken to ensure no one ever goes through what women in conflicts have gone through,� adds Aline.

The world must tame the pandemic from the bud. Otherwise it will just be business-as-usual as women continue to die.

�The conventional approaches of abstain, be-faithful and use-condom do not work for women. We need to be deliberate about the focus on women to deal with this fast-growing pandemic,� says ActionAid Women�s Rights Coordinator in Africa, Mary Wandia.

�What choice does a woman in conflict situation have?� asked Jessica Nkuhe of ISIS WICCE � a global resource centre for women issues based in Kampala, Uganda.

�The world is not paying attention to how violence against women and conflict is increasing women�s vulnerability to HIV yet every year we churn out statistics showing how women are the most affected,� added Mary.
 

Participants drawn from across Africa and Asia dropped their heads in grief as women speakers from conflict countries narrated the silent toll on women, of the genocide of rape and sexual violence in conflicts.

�The very forces that are supposed to protect people are killing women. They keep ladies in their camps and wander around the displaced people�s camps saying it is a market place for sex. When they get infected they come back to their �supposed� wives and tell them, we bought it for money but we are now giving it to you for free �(referring to HIV/AIDS),� Therese Nahompagaze of National Council Against AIDS in Burundi told the participants.

�It is the un-equalness between men and women that is fuelling this. If camps for displaced people were managed by women and more women were recruited to lead peace keeping forces, this would not be the case. Similarly if women had access to productive resources they would not go around selling their bodies,� adds Jessica.

�It is on this basis that ActionAid has joined other like minded organizations to ensure HIV/AIDS responses recognize unique women�s situations in conflicts and emergencies,� concludes Mary.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

If men did their God sworn duties, women would not be abused in any way.

An unequal society will disarm the serfs. In order to maintain and enforce social inequality, the serfs may not possess weapons.

Only a small separate group of men will be armed, and in theory the purpose of arming these men, is to maintain law and order, but in reality, the upper class will pay them to enforce social inequality.

If one group of men is armed and another is not, the group who is armed will inevitably be corrupted to oppress the group who is not.

An ugly side effect of disarming the serfs, is the inability for the serfs to protect their women and children. It is of course their false religion that makes serfs accept the situation. It is just another price people pay for believing in a false religion.

Possession of weapons, acquiring the ability to use them, and joining spontaneous militia, are religious obligations. Men cannot allow the rulers to disarm them. It is simply a religious obligation to depose the ruler who insists on disarming the men.

The men in Darfur are Christians, and therefore serfs, and therefore inherently unable to protect their women and children.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 1:50pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

If men learned that guns and violence never solve anything then, you would not see the degrading of society.  I blame the wars of Men for societal ills.  Everything can be brought back to WAR.

Being unarmed, is an open invitation to war, to the ones who are armed.

At the same time, there is this dangerous phenomenon, in which the beneficiaries of the war, the upper financial class, does not participate in the fighting and does not run any of the risks of the war.

The American soldiers in Iraq are fighting on behalf of a group of American financiers, who have never been in Iraq, but instigate the war for their profits, without bearing any of the risks.

If the American serfs do not restrain their own financial upper class, sooner or later, it is inevitable that someone else will.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 2:17pm

Crasss, that was to all men.  Not just the hawks of the US.  The Soviets destroyed one of the most progressive Islamic countries out there when they invaded Afghanistan and destroyed their economy, way of life and freedoms.

Wars have been used by the powerful since history has been recorded.  God's had to destroy the earth once because of man's failings.

Do I say my country is innocent?  No... however, the world's gone to hades many, many, many, many times over the 1000s of years since civilization grew out of the Tigris and Euphrates area.... And guess what, we've only been on the stage 230 years.  That's nothing compared to the civilizations that have pummeled the world's peace.

I'm just tired of the US being blamed on societal ills that have been around long before the US.  Has the land of my birth fallen into the trap of these ills?  Yes, but they are just the latest. 

There are also other horrible actions being done all over the world for which none of you complain about nearly as much.  What about the oppression of the Chinese people by their government, or the thousands (maybe millions) starving in North Korea?  What about the corrupt governments of the middle east and their inability to work together to help the poor while building grand palaces with oil money they are so eager to get from the pockets of the American Serf?

Crasss, the difference between the US and other nations that have corruption and greed problems..... I can openly denounce my governments actions and join in groups that try to bring about change through peaceful means.  I don't have to worry about being silenced by censorship ministries.  I don't have to worry about being drug off the street and fined because someone things I've got too much bangs sticking out of my babushka (headscarf).  I can write political blogs and vote against the leadership. Tell me one middle eastern nation that has those freedoms.  One...where you don't have to worry about your freedom to change what you see wrong in the government.

It is a double edged sword.  Since I have the right to lobby against our unconditional support of Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians.  It does give the right of others to do the opposite.  Freedoms of speech and religion come with the hardship of having to deal with things you don't agree with.  So, you take on the responsibility to raise your children with the proper ideals.

Its a fight even amoung my faith.  We are in a constant war with pop culture and our children.  Teaching them modesty, chastity and honesty.  Teaching them faith in God ABOVE what society accepts.  This is where I get in trouble with others on my view of the minority versus the majority.  I have to teach my children that they have moral responsibilities as set forth by God Almighty.  They are men and women, they are to be chaste and faithful even if that means they are unpopular to "cool" society.  They are to be modest.  They must get married if possible, have children if possible and follow the laws that God has commanded.

Israfil calls it bigotry and discrimination to be against open acceptance of homosexuality.  I call it obedience.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 2:19pm

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:



The men in Darfur are Christians, and therefore serfs, and therefore inherently unable to protect their women and children.

Only half are Christian, the other half is Muslim.  If you ask me, it has less to do with religion and more with culture.  Neither Religion teaches that kind of barbaric cruelty.  Neither faith would allow those kind of actions.  Being Christian and being Muslim has alot more to do with actions than labels.  I've known more people who've claimed a faith than I would ever really say followed their faith.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 3:03pm

I had to laugh.....

Funny how the topic started out discussing gays, then gay rights, then AIDsm then AIDs epidemic, then Darfur Sudan, then serfs...BTW why call unarmed Christians Serfs?



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

while building grand palaces with oil money they are so eager to get from the pockets of the American Serf?

By the way, the American serf is not paying any longer for oil supplies, but borrowing the money at gunpoint. That problem results from the fact that the American serf does not produce anything anybody needs anywhere.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I don't have to worry about being silenced by censorship ministries.

The situation is degrading rapidly in the US. The population is now already generally under surveillance. Censorship is the next step.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I can write political blogs and vote against the leadership.

Ha ha. You can vote for the republicrats or else for the demolicans. Whichever way you vote, you know that they will come up with yet another series of new laws that nobody asked for. Why are the American serfs so fond of new laws? Aren't there already enough new laws in the US, to satisfy the demand in new laws for the next five centuries?
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Tell me one middle eastern nation that has those freedoms.

The freedom to chose the people who will restrict your freedom with new laws ... What kind of freedom is that?
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

One...where you don't have to worry about your freedom to change what you see wrong in the government.

How do you get rid of people who want to make new laws to restrict your freedom? You have to abolish the entire system for that.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

It is a double edged sword.  Since I have the right to lobby against our unconditional support of Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians.  It does give the right of others to do the opposite.

And the ones who have the most money will win. It is very profitable for one group of people to support Israel, and it doesn't cost much to anybody else that the Palestinians pay the bill. So, what do you think will happen?

Another problem is, of course, the fact that Christians buy in to the idea that particular races are superior to other ones. That is simply part of any religion worshipping pictures. So, Israel is better than Palestine, if only, on racist grounds.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

We are in a constant war with pop culture and our children.  Teaching them modesty, chastity and honesty.  Teaching them faith in God ABOVE what society accepts.

It won't work. You have to enforce this, and if you do that, the government will enforce YOU. Whether you are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, it doesn't make any difference. The laws of Satan prevail in the US.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I have to teach my children that they have moral responsibilities as set forth by God Almighty.

At the same time, your religion says that you must obey the government, which is now run by Satan. So, your religion instills obedience to Satan.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

They are men and women, they are to be chaste and faithful even if that means they are unpopular to "cool" society.  They are to be modest.  They must get married if possible, have children if possible and follow the laws that God has commanded.

...and that the government has commanded. But the government does not follow the laws that God has commanded. So, now you are hosed. That blanket instruction in Christianity to obey the government, now forces all of you and especially your children to worship Satan, his music and his movies; and then the chastity and faith go out of the window.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Israfil calls it bigotry and discrimination to be against open acceptance of homosexuality.  I call it obedience.

You are right. Unfortunately, your religion also leaves you no choice. The day they vote laws that outlaw "homophobia", you will have to throw away your bible, because it is "homophobic".

There is a little, dirty secret concerning the American revolution: it was seriously unchristian. Christianity bans serfs from insurging against their tyrants. Your religion mandates that the American serfs be obedient to the English Lords. The US is built on that contradiction. It promotes a religion that forbids its very creation and existence.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Look at what un-serf-like and anti-Christian things the American serfs wrote. They just knew that this Christian religion was a threat to their freedom. They were simply lucky that the English Lords backed off, or they would have had to do the same as the French revolutionaries, and go after the Christian clergy.

The belief system that caused all these problems, and that they wrote these things against, is still there. So, the entire problem just re-emerges.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 3:33pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

BTW why call unarmed Christians Serfs?

Being unarmed, while someone else is armed, inevitably turns you into a serf. Christian religion mandates this: either you are a Lord, or else you are a serf.

The Lords are armed, and the serfs are not. That is the natural basis for their power. A slightly more complicated variation, consists in arming some serfs, disarming the other ones, and then you pay the armed ones to oppress the unarmed ones.

In other words, the power of money simply evaporates, if everybody is armed and determined to use their arms.

Anybody who is unarmed, while others are, simply fails to his religious duty. The Quran clearly states that it is your obligation to defend the laws of the One God. How can you do that, if you are unarmed?



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 30 April 2007 at 8:07pm
Well you....nevermind.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 May 2007 at 8:24am

crasss,

You seriously have no understanding of Christianity or of serfdom.  I think you confused European Society with Christian Theology.

I think you need to step back and separate them.  Just like separating Middle Eastern Culture with the teachings of Islam.  It can be difficult because after 1400 years they have become interlaced.  But there are distinctions to be made.  The same is with Western Culture and Christianity.  When you went off on the pollution of Christianity by the Romans, you were correct.  But, it is natural human failures that you are thinking are theological doctrine. 

Jew and Gentile... the big debate by the Apostles was whether Christianity was for some or all.  The same thing was addressed by the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in his Last Sermon.  Humans have a natural tendency to place their own race above another.  Tutsi vs Hutu, Aryan vs Non Aryan, Chinese vs Japanese, Arab vs Non Arab.

This also can go towards ideologies.  Democracy vs Communism.  Republics versus True Democracies.  Socialism vs Communism.  Monarchy vs Oligarchy.  Theocracy vs Secular Government.

People are naturally arrogant.  You call the leadership of the US Satan.  (With Bush, I almost have to agree...less than a 1/3 of the country likes him)  But, you cannot see fault with any of the Middle Eastern or Central Asian rulership?????  Which of these countries to do you consider an Ideal Islamic State?  Caliphs are to be fair and just.  I don't see that in Tehran, Islamabad, Amman, Damascas or Riyadh.  Which of these governments would you wish to lead your people back to prosperity and peace?

The US cannot do it.....we are too wrapped up in our own ideas of perfect government.  Which doesn't work for every culture.  I told my husband after I started learning about Islam that the US needs to pull out of Iraq.  Culturally and religiously, Republican Democracy (representative government) will not work in a tribal and sectarian society that's perfect form of government is a Theocratic Monarchy.  When al-Maliki fired the successful Sunni generals that were pursuing the Shia Death Squads, I just looked at my husband and said, "Told you so."

Crasss, if you read the Bible, Torah, and Apocrypha.  The teachings of Christ in no way say you must obey your government.  However, killing is still a sin.  Thou Shall Not Kill.  Kinda plain.  A civilized society doesn't walk into a neighborhood and killed twenty men because they belong to the opposite political party.  This country is verging on another change like what happened in the 1960s.  The government has waged an unjust war and the people are stirring.  The next election will seriously determine the course of the war and foreign policies.  Yes, there are only two parties, but in those candidates, there are a variety of opinions and methodologies.  Republican Democracies are cyclical...  periods of high corruption and house cleaning.  If you studied our history you would see that.  Men of corruption like Andrew Jackson, followed years later by men of integrity like Abraham Lincoln.  Its and up and down....right now we're in the down....a very low...pathetic, needless down.  But I have confidence that it will go back up.

Quote G�ring:Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
G�ring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

  • In an interview with Gilbert in G�ring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946),


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 May 2007 at 8:58am
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

You seriously have no understanding of Christianity or of serfdom.  I think you confused European Society with Christian Theology. I think you need to step back and separate them.

Teaching the kids to "praise the Lords!", "give thanks to the Lords!", "we love the almighty Lords!", while the guy who exploits the village is also called a Lord. There is an undeniable pattern here ...
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Humans have a natural tendency to place their own race above another.  Tutsi vs Hutu, Aryan vs Non Aryan, Chinese vs Japanese, Arab vs Non Arab.

I agree. But religion should not endorse or reinforce this tendency.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Which of these countries to do you consider an Ideal Islamic State?

I don't expect too much from any state. As long as they do not violate the laws of the One God, and do not forbid what the One God has permitted, I can't actually be bothered too much with who exactly is running the show.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Caliphs are to be fair and just.

Caliphs are not to be too powerful.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I don't see that in Tehran, Islamabad, Amman, Damascas or Riyadh.  Which of these governments would you wish to lead your people back to prosperity and peace?

At this time, the only thing any government can do, is to sit out the storm, and hope this deluge of western filth does not drag too many people along with it, down the drain.

Given the circumstances, these governments are not doing too bad. It could be a lot worse. They are keeping quite a few of the bad ideas, the devilish movies and satanic music, out. The population is apparently learning to say "no" to all of this.

They still got to do some more work to keep the political pressure and military threats at bay. The Iraqi, Afghan, Somali, and Palestian resistance is helpful here.

These countries will define their own way to what they see as "prosperity". That does not need to include gas-guzzling SUVs and credit card debts for all.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

The teachings of Christ in no way say you must obey your government.

It is not Jesus who came up with that idea, but emperor Constantine.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 May 2007 at 10:38am

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

  Teaching the kids to "praise the Lords!", "give thanks to the Lords!", "we love the almighty Lords!", while the guy who exploits the village is also called a Lord. There is an undeniable pattern here ...

Well, when you are talking about translations, it does get messy.  But, first off.  Its the difference between THE LORD and Lord....There is only ONE ALMIGHTY.  Its Praise the Lord... and that's really more of an evangelical thing.  But seriously, what's the difference between Christians teaching their children to Praise the LORD and those who teach children to yell "Allah Akbar" when a bomb goes off in a market place killing not soldiers but innocent people.  Its a wrong that ills all societies.

 


Quote
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Humans have a natural tendency to place their own race above another.  Tutsi vs Hutu, Aryan vs Non Aryan, Chinese vs Japanese, Arab vs Non Arab.

I agree. But religion should not endorse or reinforce this tendency.


Christianity doesn't support this.  Where does it support this?  I thinkt he whole Good Samaritan story was to intentionally teach against this tendency.  Where in the BIBLE do you find that one is superior to another that isn't a historical accounting?  All the crap about the children of Ham or the decendents of Cain is the false philosophies of men, not supported by the Bible no matter how hard you try.  Again, this is the failings of men, not of the religion.  I have seen on several muslim boards complaints by Black Muslim sisters that when the Black Muslim brothers ask the Imams and Sheiks to find them a wife, the Middle Eastern born Imam finds them an Arab wife instead of matching them with one of the black single sisters.  Its a human failing.  Its not the failing of the Faith.  Islam is one of the least racist religions, yet it still happens.  Only God is perfect.


Quote
Given the circumstances, these governments are not doing too bad. It could be a lot worse. They are keeping quite a few of the bad ideas, the devilish movies and satanic music, out. The population is apparently learning to say "no" to all of this.

Nooo, not bad at all.  Gasing their own people, starving children in the streets picking garbage to survive, women beaten and killed by their spouses without any protections under the law.  Children without education while leaders drive western cars, dine on caviar and kobe beef and sleep on silk bed sheets.  But, the people are safe from music and movies.  I'm sure that hungry child is thrilled that he has no food, but he doesn't have to worry about the hedonism and excesses of Hollywood. 

Quote
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

The teachings of Christ in no way say you must obey your government.

It is not Jesus who came up with that idea, but emperor Constantine.

EXACTLY!  Yet you insist on blaming it on Christianity.  I grew up in an Eastern Orthodox Church....I converted to Mormonism.  But, I have never been attracted to the Western Churches.  The ones established by Paul and his successors.  The Roman Empire, Dark Ages, Inquisitors, and restrictions of thought and progress.

The model to be looked at is Moorish Spain.  Jew, Christian and Muslim lived in harmony.  Education was at its height.  However, there are no governments in the Middle East that are prepared to offer their people that kind of freedom.  They will use perversions of Islam to keep their people from understanding the freedoms that the Quran teaches.  They will use perversions of Christianity and Judaism to make their people afraid of the other Peoples of the Book.  And they will use the sad reality of a disintegrating West to keep their people in poverty and fear. 

They aren't holding the West at Bay, the leaders are enjoying the benefits of the West.  They are however, using the screen of piety to keep their people from attaining the heights of Islamic Society as in the times of the Moors and the Great Caliphs of the Middle East.

Corruption and Greed are possible to all, doesn't matter religion or race.  And before you Blame the west and call us Satan again.

Remember, every man is responsible for his own sins, there is no original sin or savior in Islam.  If the Devil Tempts you, you are responsible to say no.  The sin is no the temptation, its giving into that temptation.  So, if Muslims blow each other up rather than fight the invaders, the sin is theirs.  If Arab leaders oppress their people, the sin is theres.  Only they are responsible for their own actions.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net