Max.. You're not talking about religious law, but the people were talking about are... And clearly, the uk situations lean towards that. If you say it couldn't happen here, then why are you so up in arms about people who say that there are people who would like for it to happen here (there clearly are... See the Amish, Mormons, etc) and that they don't want it to. I was listening to the tv this morning talking about an honor killing either here or in Canada. That word is only defined in religious context and is meaningless under us law... So don't tell me someone won't argue that their religion lead them to do it, and that as a result, they shouldn't be tried. Now I agree with you that won't win... But is it entirely unimaginable that at some point it could? Who would have thought 50 years ago we would have people refusing treatment on religious grounds or having assisted suicides. Very little is impossible.

Second, if they wanted to ban being gay, they would have said so. The bible doesn't just talk about sodomy, but about man laying with man. It would have been easy... In 1500 and 1860, by your own admission, they weren't really worried about offending gays... They would have just said being gay was against the law. They didn't. Not because they were trying to be gay friendly... But because they were REALLY interested in controlling morality... Regardless of the participants. I don't deny that it has the effect of banning being gay, but the intent was clearly to do more than that.

In a thread where you are accusing people of over-reacting, I think you are clearly doing the same. Especially when you add in people responding to questions posed of them... Hey newt, what do you think about the uk where sharia law is being used to settle disputes... Well, I think it is bad and don't want it to happen here... And then the headline is... Newt thinks sharia law coming here!! I think they both even implied as I said that it was currently far fetched..

(01-28-2012 09:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 07:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

It's also, by a large margin, the most African American State... If I did not believe you were incapable of correctly using statistics I might believe you hate black people.

Mississippi is actually # 17 behind your beloved Florida which happens to be # 2. If I did not believe you were a serial liar I might believe you hate black people.

(01-30-2012 01:30 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 09:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 07:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

It's also, by a large margin, the most African American State... If I did not believe you were incapable of correctly using statistics I might believe you hate black people.

Mississippi is actually # 17 behind your beloved Florida which happens to be # 2. If I did not believe you were a serial liar I might believe you hate black people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic...ted_States

Mississippi is 37% African American, Florida is 16% African American. If I did not realize you were lumping all non white races as being the same I'd think you were a racist.

If you need a picture..



Thanks for playing..

(01-30-2012 12:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Max.. You're not talking about religious law, but the people were talking about are... And clearly, the uk situations lean towards that. If you say it couldn't happen here, then why are you so up in arms about people who say that there are people who would like for it to happen here (there clearly are... See the Amish, Mormons, etc) and that they don't want it to. I was listening to the tv this morning talking about an honor killing either here or in Canada. That word is only defined in religious context and is meaningless under us law... So don't tell me someone won't argue that their religion lead them to do it, and that as a result, they shouldn't be tried. Now I agree with you that won't win... But is it entirely unimaginable that at some point it could? Who would have thought 50 years ago we would have people refusing treatment on religious grounds or having assisted suicides. Very little is impossible.

Second, if they wanted to ban being gay, they would have said so. The bible doesn't just talk about sodomy, but about man laying with man. It would have been easy... In 1500 and 1860, by your own admission, they weren't really worried about offending gays... They would have just said being gay was against the law. They didn't. Not because they were trying to be gay friendly... But because they were REALLY interested in controlling morality... Regardless of the participants. I don't deny that it has the effect of banning being gay, but the intent was clearly to do more than that.

In a thread where you are accusing people of over-reacting, I think you are clearly doing the same. Especially when you add in people responding to questions posed of them... Hey newt, what do you think about the uk where sharia law is being used to settle disputes... Well, I think it is bad and don't want it to happen here... And then the headline is... Newt thinks sharia law coming here!! I think they both even implied as I said that it was currently far fetched..

I'm not saying there aren't Muslims who would like to live under Sharia law or even impose it on us. They can't do it though. I'm up in arms because this anti-Sharia law talk is part of a larger Islamophobic movement to breed hate. It's similar to the hysteria in the 19th century over Jewish religious law.

Yes, it is entirely unimaginable that it could. For a religious honor killing to be legal you would need to change the criminal code in that state.

Sodomy encompasses being gay. Specific anti-gay laws would be unnecessarily duplicative because sodomy covers it. Your original statement was that liberals were hysterical to suggest that conservatives want to criminalize being gay. Well, that's what anti-sodomy laws, which conservatives fought to protect, were for, among other things.

Newt did not simply say Sharia was a bad idea. Here's what he said:

"Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it."

Yes, I would call that hysteria, and promoting hate and hysteria.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinio...erica.html

Quote:MORE than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”

This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)

During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).

Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.

This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.

America’s exceptionalism has always been its ability to transform itself — economically, culturally and religiously. In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.

Anti-Shariah legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.

Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, is the author of the forthcoming “The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism.”

(01-30-2012 02:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 12:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Max.. You're not talking about religious law, but the people were talking about are... And clearly, the uk situations lean towards that. If you say it couldn't happen here, then why are you so up in arms about people who say that there are people who would like for it to happen here (there clearly are... See the Amish, Mormons, etc) and that they don't want it to. I was listening to the tv this morning talking about an honor killing either here or in Canada. That word is only defined in religious context and is meaningless under us law... So don't tell me someone won't argue that their religion lead them to do it, and that as a result, they shouldn't be tried. Now I agree with you that won't win... But is it entirely unimaginable that at some point it could? Who would have thought 50 years ago we would have people refusing treatment on religious grounds or having assisted suicides. Very little is impossible.

Second, if they wanted to ban being gay, they would have said so. The bible doesn't just talk about sodomy, but about man laying with man. It would have been easy... In 1500 and 1860, by your own admission, they weren't really worried about offending gays... They would have just said being gay was against the law. They didn't. Not because they were trying to be gay friendly... But because they were REALLY interested in controlling morality... Regardless of the participants. I don't deny that it has the effect of banning being gay, but the intent was clearly to do more than that.

In a thread where you are accusing people of over-reacting, I think you are clearly doing the same. Especially when you add in people responding to questions posed of them... Hey newt, what do you think about the uk where sharia law is being used to settle disputes... Well, I think it is bad and don't want it to happen here... And then the headline is... Newt thinks sharia law coming here!! I think they both even implied as I said that it was currently far fetched..

I'm not saying there aren't Muslims who would like to live under Sharia law or even impose it on us. They can't do it though. I'm up in arms because this anti-Sharia law talk is part of a larger Islamophobic movement to breed hate. It's similar to the hysteria in the 19th century over Jewish religious law.

Yes, it is entirely unimaginable that it could. For a religious honor killing to be legal you would need to change the criminal code in that state.

Sodomy encompasses being gay. Specific anti-gay laws would be unnecessarily duplicative because sodomy covers it. Your original statement was that liberals were hysterical to suggest that conservatives want to criminalize being gay. Well, that's what anti-sodomy laws, which conservatives fought to protect, were for, among other things.

Newt did not simply say Sharia was a bad idea. Here's what he said:

"Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it."

Yes, I would call that hysteria, and promoting hate and hysteria.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinio...erica.html

Quote:MORE than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”

This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)

During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).

Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.

This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.

America’s exceptionalism has always been its ability to transform itself — economically, culturally and religiously. In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.

Anti-Shariah legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.

Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, is the author of the forthcoming “The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism.”

Its curious that the article mentions an "Abrahamic ethic". I'm assuming the author is referring to Abraham of the Holy Bible as being the father of both Islam and modern day Christianity. What's curious is that when "Abram" actually fathered Ishmael with Sarai's maidservant Hagar, the union was not what the Lord wanted. Thus Ishmael was banished along with his mother Hagar to perish in the wilderness. Only after Sarai conceived a child with Abram was her name changed to Sarah because she had at that time fulfilled the covenant. It was then that Abram's name was changed to Abraham which means "Father of Many Nations". Ishmael would later found what is now practiced as Islam because the Lord also said he would bless Iahmael as a father of a great nation because he was also a son of Abram. I think its very telling that a bastardo son of Abram who was banished to the wilderness to die with his mother because his birth didn't fulfill the covenant Abram made with God is the father of Islam.

Its also curious you mention this as you believe all of this to be a fairy tale. Maybe you should travel to Afghanistan and begin telling the tribal leaders how their system of beliefs are all fantasy and we'll see how you are treated. I think in the modern era Christians are remarkably tolerant towards those who attack our faith.

I didn't write that article and that's not at all why I quoted it and you are correct, I don't give a flying #### about your bronze age storybook.

(01-30-2012 05:37 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I didn't write that article and that's not at all why I quoted it and you are correct, I don't give a flying #### about your bronze age storybook.

I realize you didn't write it that's why I used the word "author"....it is curious that you would quote that article given your obvious disdain for any kind of organized religion and lack of knowledge of any kind of religion.

If you agree to fly to Afghanistan I'll buy your ticket...chickensnit!

How about you agree to my nutsack?

(01-30-2012 05:44 PM)Max Power Wrote:  How about you agree to my nutsack?

clever...What is it about your nutsack that requires my agreement? Please be specific. I'm sure everyone would like to know.

Well, given that The Koran DOES talk about conquering the infidels, and not via peaceful mesns, i don't think saying that sharia is a threat to freedom is an overstatement at all. It is their specific stated goal.

As to your continued rant... You're truly funny... Yes... Henry the 8th... Republican homophobe

In 1860, the Texans fought the Mexicans over sodomy laws... Right.

If the law wasn't written FOR you, and only a hysteric would say it was, then you can't draw the conclusion that 120 years later, with the law unchanged on the books... No exceptions for marriage, or consenting opposite sex partners or whatever... That the ONLy reason someone would still support the law is because they hated gays. You are truly reaching and being hysterical and have proven my point.

How can you deny the simple fact that in 1500, 1860 and for the most part in 1986, people weren't really afraid of bashing gays.... And you are labeling literally 100mm people because if your opinion about what some groups reasoning was. Silly really. Can you show me a bill where heterosexual sodomy was going to be allowed, but not homosexual sodomy? If so, how didn't do?

You may as well argue that Newt is being anti-Christian, because despite the fact that he's talking about sharia, it would apply equally to Christianity. nEWT is ant-Christian. PROOF!! And I'm pretty confident I can find some athiests who would take what newt said, and say.. Sure... The only thing more dangerous to freedom in America than sharia is every other religion

(01-30-2012 05:46 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:44 PM)Max Power Wrote:  How about you agree to my nutsack?

clever...What is it about your nutsack that requires my agreement? Please be specific. I'm sure everyone would like to know.

I think we can all agree he doesn't have one. Though I bet he got an A in acting like one in law school.

(01-30-2012 07:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, given that The Koran DOES talk about conquering the infidels, and not via peaceful mesns, i don't think saying that sharia is a threat to freedom is an overstatement at all. It is their specific stated goal.

As to your continued rant... You're truly funny... Yes... Henry the 8th... Republican homophobe

In 1860, the Texans fought the Mexicans over sodomy laws... Right.

If the law wasn't written FOR you, and only a hysteric would say it was, then you can't draw the conclusion that 120 years later, with the law unchanged on the books... No exceptions for marriage, or consenting opposite sex partners or whatever... That the ONLy reason someone would still support the law is because they hated gays. You are truly reaching and being hysterical and have proven my point.

How can you deny the simple fact that in 1500, 1860 and for the most part in 1986, people weren't really afraid of bashing gays.... And you are labeling literally 100mm people because if your opinion about what some groups reasoning was. Silly really. Can you show me a bill where heterosexual sodomy was going to be allowed, but not homosexual sodomy? If so, how didn't do?

You may as well argue that Newt is being anti-Christian, because despite the fact that he's talking about sharia, it would apply equally to Christianity. nEWT is ant-Christian. PROOF!! And I'm pretty confident I can find some athiests who would take what newt said, and say.. Sure... The only thing more dangerous to freedom in America than sharia is every other religion

First of all, all Muslims don't interpret those passages literally as a command for today. Like the passages in the Christian Bible saying your must stone people who work on Sundays, tie knots and what have you. Only a very small segment of fundamentalist Muslims walk around with the idea that they have a duty to kill all nonbelievers. Those passages are exploited by terrorists like bin Laden to get them to do their dirty work and achieve their political goals.

I agree Sharia is antithetical to freedom though. But like I said, it's nothing to be afraid about because you or I aren't going to be subject to Sharia now or in the foreseeable future. Only if overall Muslim population approaches a majority in this country will it be an issue, and that isn't happening this century. So to talk like Newt has about it being a "mortal threat" to our "survival" is hysteria.

The original sodomy laws may not have been written only for gays but it was certainly meant to encompass them. Once that law is passed there is no reason to pass a specific anti-gay law because that covers it. There really is no point in making a specific law criminalizing heterosexual sodomy because it will rarely be prosecuted.

Look, whatever the origin, the fact is that throughout history being gay was indeed a crime. If you choose to believe the original drafters just hated all BJs, you're entitled to your opinion, but in practice that wasn't how it was applied. Even if you're right though, being gay was still a crime.

(01-30-2012 05:46 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:44 PM)Max Power Wrote:  How about you agree to my nutsack?

clever...What is it about your nutsack that requires my agreement? Please be specific. I'm sure everyone would like to know.

Don't answer my question with a question.

(01-30-2012 01:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:30 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 09:22 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-28-2012 07:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Mississippi is the most conservative state in the nation according to Gallup with 50.5% of residents ID themselves as conservative and is also the state with the lowest cumulative IQ (94.2) GAME,SET & MATCH

It's also, by a large margin, the most African American State... If I did not believe you were incapable of correctly using statistics I might believe you hate black people.

Mississippi is actually # 17 behind your beloved Florida which happens to be # 2. If I did not believe you were a serial liar I might believe you hate black people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic...ted_States

Mississippi is 37% African American, Florida is 16% African American. If I did not realize you were lumping all non white races as being the same I'd think you were a racist.

If you need a picture..



Thanks for playing..

So Peanut, Im still waiting you were saying?

(01-31-2012 11:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 07:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, given that The Koran DOES talk about conquering the infidels, and not via peaceful mesns, i don't think saying that sharia is a threat to freedom is an overstatement at all. It is their specific stated goal.

As to your continued rant... You're truly funny... Yes... Henry the 8th... Republican homophobe

In 1860, the Texans fought the Mexicans over sodomy laws... Right.

If the law wasn't written FOR you, and only a hysteric would say it was, then you can't draw the conclusion that 120 years later, with the law unchanged on the books... No exceptions for marriage, or consenting opposite sex partners or whatever... That the ONLy reason someone would still support the law is because they hated gays. You are truly reaching and being hysterical and have proven my point.

How can you deny the simple fact that in 1500, 1860 and for the most part in 1986, people weren't really afraid of bashing gays.... And you are labeling literally 100mm people because if your opinion about what some groups reasoning was. Silly really. Can you show me a bill where heterosexual sodomy was going to be allowed, but not homosexual sodomy? If so, how didn't do?

You may as well argue that Newt is being anti-Christian, because despite the fact that he's talking about sharia, it would apply equally to Christianity. nEWT is ant-Christian. PROOF!! And I'm pretty confident I can find some athiests who would take what newt said, and say.. Sure... The only thing more dangerous to freedom in America than sharia is every other religion

First of all, all Muslims don't interpret those passages literally as a command for today. Like the passages in the Christian Bible saying your must stone people who work on Sundays, tie knots and what have you. Only a very small segment of fundamentalist Muslims walk around with the idea that they have a duty to kill all nonbelievers. Those passages are exploited by terrorists like bin Laden to get them to do their dirty work and achieve their political goals.

I agree Sharia is antithetical to freedom though. But like I said, it's nothing to be afraid about because you or I aren't going to be subject to Sharia now or in the foreseeable future. Only if overall Muslim population approaches a majority in this country will it be an issue, and that isn't happening this century. So to talk like Newt has about it being a "mortal threat" to our "survival" is hysteria.

The original sodomy laws may not have been written only for gays but it was certainly meant to encompass them. Once that law is passed there is no reason to pass a specific anti-gay law because that covers it. There really is no point in making a specific law criminalizing heterosexual sodomy because it will rarely be prosecuted.

Look, whatever the origin, the fact is that throughout history being gay was indeed a crime. If you choose to believe the original drafters just hated all BJs, you're entitled to your opinion, but in practice that wasn't how it was applied. Even if you're right though, being gay was still a crime.

So Christians in general hate gays, but not all Muslims interpret the Koran literally... Interesting.


As to being a crime, not many people were prosecuted for being gay either. I'm not saying it never happened, but you make it sound like gays were being arrested at random for being gay. That certainly wasn't the case n Houston. Now, when OThER crimes were committed, like public lewdness, I don't doubt that the sodomy charge was added. FTR, the same charge was added to hetero bjs in the strip clubs.. But nobody cares about that, right?

What I notice, and I hope you do too... Is that you react with passion and conviction and without regard to facts when you believe that something is wrong... As does everyone else. You might consider cutting everyone else the same slack you cut yourself, and Muslims.

(01-31-2012 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 11:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 07:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, given that The Koran DOES talk about conquering the infidels, and not via peaceful mesns, i don't think saying that sharia is a threat to freedom is an overstatement at all. It is their specific stated goal.

As to your continued rant... You're truly funny... Yes... Henry the 8th... Republican homophobe

In 1860, the Texans fought the Mexicans over sodomy laws... Right.

If the law wasn't written FOR you, and only a hysteric would say it was, then you can't draw the conclusion that 120 years later, with the law unchanged on the books... No exceptions for marriage, or consenting opposite sex partners or whatever... That the ONLy reason someone would still support the law is because they hated gays. You are truly reaching and being hysterical and have proven my point.

How can you deny the simple fact that in 1500, 1860 and for the most part in 1986, people weren't really afraid of bashing gays.... And you are labeling literally 100mm people because if your opinion about what some groups reasoning was. Silly really. Can you show me a bill where heterosexual sodomy was going to be allowed, but not homosexual sodomy? If so, how didn't do?

You may as well argue that Newt is being anti-Christian, because despite the fact that he's talking about sharia, it would apply equally to Christianity. nEWT is ant-Christian. PROOF!! And I'm pretty confident I can find some athiests who would take what newt said, and say.. Sure... The only thing more dangerous to freedom in America than sharia is every other religion

First of all, all Muslims don't interpret those passages literally as a command for today. Like the passages in the Christian Bible saying your must stone people who work on Sundays, tie knots and what have you. Only a very small segment of fundamentalist Muslims walk around with the idea that they have a duty to kill all nonbelievers. Those passages are exploited by terrorists like bin Laden to get them to do their dirty work and achieve their political goals.

I agree Sharia is antithetical to freedom though. But like I said, it's nothing to be afraid about because you or I aren't going to be subject to Sharia now or in the foreseeable future. Only if overall Muslim population approaches a majority in this country will it be an issue, and that isn't happening this century. So to talk like Newt has about it being a "mortal threat" to our "survival" is hysteria.

The original sodomy laws may not have been written only for gays but it was certainly meant to encompass them. Once that law is passed there is no reason to pass a specific anti-gay law because that covers it. There really is no point in making a specific law criminalizing heterosexual sodomy because it will rarely be prosecuted.

Look, whatever the origin, the fact is that throughout history being gay was indeed a crime. If you choose to believe the original drafters just hated all BJs, you're entitled to your opinion, but in practice that wasn't how it was applied. Even if you're right though, being gay was still a crime.

So Christians in general hate gays, but not all Muslims interpret the Koran literally... Interesting.


As to being a crime, not many people were prosecuted for being gay either. I'm not saying it never happened, but you make it sound like gays were being arrested at random for being gay. That certainly wasn't the case n Houston. Now, when OThER crimes were committed, like public lewdness, I don't doubt that the sodomy charge was added. FTR, the same charge was added to hetero bjs in the strip clubs.. But nobody cares about that, right?

What I notice, and I hope you do too... Is that you react with passion and conviction and without regard to facts when you believe that something is wrong... As does everyone else. You might consider cutting everyone else the same slack you cut yourself, and Muslims.

So your opinion on what happened in Houston is "fact"? Really?

(01-31-2012 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 11:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 07:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, given that The Koran DOES talk about conquering the infidels, and not via peaceful mesns, i don't think saying that sharia is a threat to freedom is an overstatement at all. It is their specific stated goal.

As to your continued rant... You're truly funny... Yes... Henry the 8th... Republican homophobe

In 1860, the Texans fought the Mexicans over sodomy laws... Right.

If the law wasn't written FOR you, and only a hysteric would say it was, then you can't draw the conclusion that 120 years later, with the law unchanged on the books... No exceptions for marriage, or consenting opposite sex partners or whatever... That the ONLy reason someone would still support the law is because they hated gays. You are truly reaching and being hysterical and have proven my point.

How can you deny the simple fact that in 1500, 1860 and for the most part in 1986, people weren't really afraid of bashing gays.... And you are labeling literally 100mm people because if your opinion about what some groups reasoning was. Silly really. Can you show me a bill where heterosexual sodomy was going to be allowed, but not homosexual sodomy? If so, how didn't do?

You may as well argue that Newt is being anti-Christian, because despite the fact that he's talking about sharia, it would apply equally to Christianity. nEWT is ant-Christian. PROOF!! And I'm pretty confident I can find some athiests who would take what newt said, and say.. Sure... The only thing more dangerous to freedom in America than sharia is every other religion

First of all, all Muslims don't interpret those passages literally as a command for today. Like the passages in the Christian Bible saying your must stone people who work on Sundays, tie knots and what have you. Only a very small segment of fundamentalist Muslims walk around with the idea that they have a duty to kill all nonbelievers. Those passages are exploited by terrorists like bin Laden to get them to do their dirty work and achieve their political goals.

I agree Sharia is antithetical to freedom though. But like I said, it's nothing to be afraid about because you or I aren't going to be subject to Sharia now or in the foreseeable future. Only if overall Muslim population approaches a majority in this country will it be an issue, and that isn't happening this century. So to talk like Newt has about it being a "mortal threat" to our "survival" is hysteria.

The original sodomy laws may not have been written only for gays but it was certainly meant to encompass them. Once that law is passed there is no reason to pass a specific anti-gay law because that covers it. There really is no point in making a specific law criminalizing heterosexual sodomy because it will rarely be prosecuted.

Look, whatever the origin, the fact is that throughout history being gay was indeed a crime. If you choose to believe the original drafters just hated all BJs, you're entitled to your opinion, but in practice that wasn't how it was applied. Even if you're right though, being gay was still a crime.

So Christians in general hate gays, but not all Muslims interpret the Koran literally... Interesting.


As to being a crime, not many people were prosecuted for being gay either. I'm not saying it never happened, but you make it sound like gays were being arrested at random for being gay. That certainly wasn't the case n Houston. Now, when OThER crimes were committed, like public lewdness, I don't doubt that the sodomy charge was added. FTR, the same charge was added to hetero bjs in the strip clubs.. But nobody cares about that, right?

What I notice, and I hope you do too... Is that you react with passion and conviction and without regard to facts when you believe that something is wrong... As does everyone else. You might consider cutting everyone else the same slack you cut yourself, and Muslims.

Hey, I think it's interesting too. Christians seem to pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament to follow. They ignore the part about not eating shellfish like lobster or pork, but when it comes to gay bashing they're all in. Maybe you can explain it.

If the police broke into the Houston apartment and a heterosexual couple was having sex, would they have been arrested? I doubt it.

I have no doubt that a sodomy charge was added by prosecutors when appropriate to other crimes. The laws though completely criminalize one class of people (gays) while allowing for lawful sex by another class (straight). And they were cited by hatemongers to justify discrimination against gays.

And in fact, some states' sodomy laws did explicitly target gays, including the Texas one struck down in Lawrence, prohibiting:

Quote:"engaging in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex,"

Others made exceptions for heterosexual couples, married or not.

I'll react with passion when I see injustice and unequal rights, and I hope I never lose that passion.

It's not my opinion, Robert. I live here. I lived here in 1986 when the law was being debated. My favorite uncle was gay. My sister in law sings on broadway now but at the time was quite big in the Montrose gay community cabaret scene very near rice university. Some of her shows were "awareness" rallies. I was in my early 20s and there were a number of porn theaters near rice at the time... While I don't claim to know what gay people were feeling, I certainly now what they were saying.

Where were you and max in 1986?

I won't give you a full lesson on Christianity... But the new testament changes some of the rules for salvation. I'll leave it at that. Once agan, you're ok with Muslims who pick and choose, but Christians who do are evil?

Interesting max that you wrote what you quote, and leave out the very next line "prohibiting anal and oral sex between members of the same sex."

How can you read that and argue that gays are being singled out??

As to justice, I go back to the opinion you mention... Which wasn't unanimous, and was actually favored more by the right wing than the left... Justice is a matter of perception. You have no problem crying about injustice as you see it, and then engage in ad-hominym attacks on those who see justice differently.

Sorry to disappoint you, but MOsT Christians don't really care if someone is gay

(01-31-2012 12:38 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Hey, I think it's interesting too. Christians seem to pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament to follow. They ignore the part about not eating shellfish like lobster or pork, but when it comes to gay bashing they're all in. Maybe you can explain it.

The stupidity of your generalizations is only surpassed by your ignorance of the context of scripture in the Old Testament. This topic has been discussed numerous times on this forum. A simple google search would get you what you need as to the difference between dietary restrictions mentioned in the OT, that aren't all encompassing or meant to be, and homosexuality.

Several here could attempt to explain it to you, but you'd never grasp it.

I do find it fairly hysterical you have no issue with bigotry against Christians yet you do against Muslims. I guess you are true to the liberal orthodoxy of politically correct hatred is confined to your hatred of Christians.

Bigot.