Killing gays for being gay isn't homophobic. Warning them they might be killed is

[Starlight]

Starlight Did you perchance restrict your checking to page 1?

No.
Did you confuse results about other countries as being about Palestine? Did you confuse multiple reports about a single person charged with multiple things as being about separate incidents?

[Starlight]

The statement "do you know what they do to gays in Gaza?" is more of a statement of incredulity that gay people could be supporting Hamas than anything else.

There can be reasons for knowingly supporting a group that doesn't like you:

1. Basic human rights are universal. You can support them for others, even knowing they don't support them for you, because you are a good person who wants to work toward a world where everyone has basic human rights.

2. In hope they will see your support and feel more positively about your group as a result. Perhaps your support might improve their negative feelings toward your group. And perhaps the target audience for such logic isn't Hamas itself (who are unlikely to see a Western protester waving a 'gays for Palestine' flag in a Western country), but the people who have moved to the western country from that part of the world, who might have brought with them negative attitudes towards gay people, but who could have those attitudes improved if they get the perception that gay people are on their side in their protest movement.

It would be like coming across a group of black people protesting FOR the KKK.

No, because the primary purpose of the KKK is to be against black people. Black people supporting them isn't going to change that.

Gaza might not be a great place for gay people to live, but hating gay people is sure not the primary point of Hamas. Hamas' purposes are charity (its original reason for existence) and active opposition to Israel (its more modern reason for existence). Neither of those necessitate a negative view of gay people, and it's perfectly conceivable that someone could achieve an alternate world in which Hamas was positive toward gay people.

[whag]

Worth pointing out that Christian intolerance of homosexuality is dramatically different from Islamic intolerance.

That would seem to be due to eliminating the pesky law rather than sudden tolerance of homosexuality. Maintaining the law was inefficient and slowed church growth, since there weren’t a lot of men volunteering to have their penises clipped. The law was done away with to accommodate the new untapped market of gentiles.

To imply that had anything to do with superior morality and not sheer convenience of conversion is naive.

[seanD]

Indeed.

Had Rogue just said that in the OP instead of engaging in his lengthy homophobic fantasizing about gay people being thrown off roofs, there wouldn't have been much of an issue. (Aside from his usual misunderstanding of the incident his OP article was referring to).

You're splitting hairs. The point is that in most Islamic countries, homosexuality would likely result in death, either state instituted, or just mob violence.

In the bigger picture, it exemplifies the irony and bizarre juxtaposition of how the left embraces Islam (i.e. "Queers for Palestine") in contrast to how they vilify anything associated with Christianity when it's Islam that is actually less tolerant of LGBTQ than Christianity is in the west.

[oxmixmudd]

That would seem to be due to eliminating the pesky law rather than sudden tolerance of homosexuality. Maintaining the law was inefficient and slowed church growth, since there weren’t a lot of men volunteering to have their penises clipped. The law was done away with to accommodate the new untapped market of gentiles.

To imply that had anything to do with superior morality and not sheer convenience of conversion is naive.

That would be an inaccurate assessment of how circumcision came to no longer be a requirement in Christian faith ...

But the principle that we no longer live by, nor are required to live by, the Mosaic covenant does come into play when discussing the issue of homosexuality.

[Starlight]

You're splitting hairs.

No. Rogue's OP dwelt on both the method of execution, and the certainty of it. As a result, nearly all of Rogue's own words in the OP were 100% wrong.

In the bigger picture, it exemplifies the irony and bizarre juxtaposition of how the left embraces Islam (i.e. "Queers for Palestine") in contrast to how they vilify anything associated with Christianity when it's Islam that is actually less tolerant of LGBTQ than Christianity is in the west.

Christianity used to be just as bad or worse on the subject. Christian countries improved due to the actions of activists. There's no particular reason to think that Islamic countries can't be improved in the same way the West was.

[Mountain Man]

We don’t stone street thugs or blasphemers. Any society that stoned gay people or disobedient children would look like a Shirley Jackson short story.



I didn’t say it was mob justice or vengeance. I acknowledged the rule to kill homosexuals as written was met with due process. I grant you they were caught in bed, a trial commenced, and all evidence clearly proved two men were gay. In that instance, they stoned men for being attracted to men.

We put thugs in prison, but prisons weren't practical for a nomadic people who lived in tents.

And, no, it wasn't a matter of mere attraction but the actual homosexual act that was condemned.

[Mountain Man]

That would be an inaccurate assessment of how circumcision came to no longer be a requirement in Christian faith ...

But the principle that we no longer live by, nor are required to live by, the Mosaic covenant does come into play when discussing the issue of homosexuality.

Only in so far as the penalty is concerned. Homosexuality is still explicitly condemned under the New Covenant.

[Mountain Man]

Thanks for giving me a good laugh.

I'm not sure what you find so amusing. I'm sure those homosexuals brutally murdered by intolerant Muslims would have much preferred the treatment they would have received at the hands of intolerant Christians.

[Starlight]

I'm sure those homosexuals brutally murdered by intolerant Muslims would have much preferred the treatment they would have received at the hands of intolerant Christians.

Gay man faces the death penalty in Christian Uganda.

It similarly once carried a death penalty in the US, in the UK, and in Australia.

Intolerant Christians seem awfully like intolerant Muslims.

[whag]

We put thugs in prison, but prisons weren't practical for a nomadic people who lived in tents.

They enslaved their enemies. Thugs could be enslaved and not stoned to death.

But you do bring up a good point that slaying enemy nations rather than enslaving them or incorporating them into reproduction was complicated.

And, no, it wasn't a matter of mere attraction but the actual homosexual act that was condemned.

Didn’t Jesus say that imagining was the equivalent? Did you not imagine as an adolescent?

[whag]

Gay man faces the death penalty in Christian Uganda.

It similarly once carried a death penalty in the US, in the UK, and in Australia.

Intolerant Christians seem awfully like intolerant Muslims.

The legislation has drawn widespread criticism outside the country and prompted the World Bank to halt loans to Uganda earlier this month.

Several people have been arrested this month for allegedly engaging in same-sex activity.

Tolerance is woke. Must ladle shame, make miserable, and shed blood.

*throws stone that hits meanie homosexual person on the temple*

I wonder how they felt throwing those things.

[seanD]

No. Rogue's OP dwelt on both the method of execution, and the certainty of it. As a result, nearly all of Rogue's own words in the OP were 100% wrong.

No, he didn't say they did do it, he said they WOULD do it, meaning based on the ideology of Islam, as demonstrated in multiple countries and their treatment of homosexuals, it's pretty logical guess that this is likely the treatment leftist queers would get in Palestine.

Christianity used to be just as bad or worse on the subject. Christian countries improved due to the actions of activists. There's no particular reason to think that Islamic countries can't be improved in the same way the West was.

Used to be?

Please. When was there ever a time Christians executed homosexuals and sanctioned violence against them worldwide in multiple countries at once equal to that of Islam even in the last 2,000 years, let alone in our present time? This is what I mean and how bizarre it is. Leftists like you have this view about Islam comparative to Christianity that completely distorts reality.

[Starlight]

No, he didn't say they did do it, he said they WOULD do it, meaning based on the ideology of Islam

So you think he's just fantasizing about what they might do in the future based on his own beliefs about them? Rather than, for example, looking at what they actually do, the way normal sane people check facts?

When was there ever a time Christians executed homosexuals and sanctioned violence against them worldwide in multiple countries at once equal to that of Islam even in the last 2,000 years, let alone in our present time?

Can't tell if you're trolling or just ridiculously ignorant of history.

Over Christian history, a death penalty for homosexuality has been reasonably common among Christian-identifying countries. That, presumably, primarily owes itself to the OT passage that seemingly calls for the death penalty for gay sex that Whag quoted earlier. There are no historically-Christian countries in which homosexuality hasn't been illegal at some point in their history.

In the US for example:

During the colonial era of American history, the various European nations which established colonies in the Americas brought their pre-existing laws against homosexuality (which included capital punishment) with them. The establishment of the United States after their victory in the Revolutionary War did not bring about any changes in the status of capital punishment as a sentence for being convicted of homosexual behavior. Beginning in the 19th century, the various state legislatures passed legislation which ended the status of capital punishment being used for those who were convicted of homosexual behavior. South Carolina was the last state, in 1873, to repeal the death penalty for homosexual behaviour from its statute books.

As the quote above notes, the reason the early colonies in the US had the death penalty for homosexuality was because the various nations of Christian Europe at the time had it. Wikipedia has an incomplete list of people executed in Europe for homosexuality.

Leftists like you have this view about Islam comparative to Christianity that completely distorts reality.

It's called knowing some history. You should try it sometime. Christianity has really improved over recent centuries, and is not nearly as barbaric now as it used to be, with slavery, inquisitions, and death penalties for homosexuality like it used to have. (I would add torture to the list of past Christian barbarisms, but Bush W's torture regime shows it isn't a 'past' barbarism of Christianity) During some periods of history, Islam was far more civilized than Christianity. In the present time I agree it's reasonably clear cut that current Islam is worse than current Christianity. That doesn't mean that Islam can't improve, or Christianity can't regress, as they have done in the past.

[seanD]

So you think he's just fantasizing about what they might do in the future based on his own beliefs about them? Rather than, for example, looking at what they actually do, the way normal sane people check facts?

Can't tell if you're trolling or just ridiculously ignorant of history.

Over Christian history, a death penalty for homosexuality has been reasonably common among Christian-identifying countries. That, presumably, primarily owes itself to the OT passage that seemingly calls for the death penalty for gay sex that Whag quoted earlier. There are no historically-Christian countries in which homosexuality hasn't been illegal at some point in their history.

In the US for example:

During the colonial era of American history, the various European nations which established colonies in the Americas brought their pre-existing laws against homosexuality (which included capital punishment) with them. The establishment of the United States after their victory in the Revolutionary War did not bring about any changes in the status of capital punishment as a sentence for being convicted of homosexual behavior. Beginning in the 19th century, the various state legislatures passed legislation which ended the status of capital punishment being used for those who were convicted of homosexual behavior. South Carolina was the last state, in 1873, to repeal the death penalty for homosexual behaviour from its statute books.

As the quote above notes, the reason the early colonies in the US had the death penalty for homosexuality was because the various nations of Christian Europe at the time had it. Wikipedia has an incomplete list of people executed in Europe for homosexuality.

It's called knowing some history. You should try it sometime. Christianity has really improved over recent centuries, and is not nearly as barbaric now as it used to be, with slavery, inquisitions, and death penalties for homosexuality like it used to have. (I would add torture to the list of past Christian barbarisms, but Bush W's torture regime shows it isn't a 'past' barbarism of Christianity) During some periods of history, Islam was far more civilized than Christianity. In the present time I agree it's reasonably clear cut that current Islam is worse than current Christianity. That doesn't mean that Islam can't improve, or Christianity can't regress, as they have done in the past.

It's not "fantasizing." It's based on conventional sentiment in the near east and how the Islamic faith treats LGBTQ in that part of the world. The only way your outrage makes any sense if you had maybe statistics from Palestine and their view about LGBTQ that contradicted Islamic convention, then maybe you might have a case against rogue. Your over-the-top reaction to this looks more like cognitive dissonance. You as an avowed leftist see the conflict of being both "Queer for Palestine" and pro-LGBTQ at the same time, and know this is obviously a dissonance problem.