Home›Homosexuality›So, Australians have voted in favour of legalising ‘same-sex’ marriage. This points to a fatal weakness in the secular democratic system
So, Australians have voted in favour of legalising ‘same-sex’ marriage. This points to a fatal weakness in the secular democratic system
“And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about ‘the shadow of an ass,’ which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil – what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?”
Plato, Phaedrus
At the time of this writing, hours have passed since the Supreme Court of Australia decreed that homosexuals have a “basic civil right” to marry someone of the same sex. Whether these Golden State solons will follow up their remarkable finding with a ruling to the effect that an ass is the same as a horse, it is too early to say; but they have already gone well beyond the sophistical orator of Plato’s dialogue in “confounding good with evil,” not to mention reason with insanity. Malcolm Muggeridge famously said that “without God we are left with a choice of succumbing to megalomania or erotomania.” The court’s majority, in declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under law of the family and sodomy, would appear to have gone Muggeridge one better by succumbing to both at once.
The reference to God is apropos. The successes of the movement to recognize “same-sex marriage” have been nothing if not sudden. Just over a decade ago the very idea would have been laughed off as crackpot or extreme; now it is those who oppose it who are frequently labeled crackpots and extremists. But equally sudden has been the rise of ostentatious unbelief as the de rigueur position of the smart set. Mainstream progressives and non-conformists of earlier generations would have found it necessary to profess belief in at least a “social gospel” and to hide their doubts about the metaphysical claims of religion behind a haze of pseudo-theological psychobabble. Yet atheist chic is now, out of the blue as it were, the stuff of best sellers, celebrity endorsements, and suburban reading groups. It is as if the urbane cocktail hour secularist liberalism of the twentieth century has, by way of the slow but sure inebriation produced by an unbroken series of social and judicial triumphs, now become in the twenty-first century fall-down-sloppy drunk and lost all inhibition, by turns blaspheming, whoring, and otherwise offending against all sane and decent sensibilities as the mood strikes it.
Even if a given issue has no relation to one’s religious convictions: the possibility exists that majority be – as a matter of fact – wrong about something. That the minority should be dragged along and down into the implications and consequences of the decision made despite them seems rather like a poor state of affairs.
The possibility also exists that the minority, in issues of civil liberty, could also be wrong. Letting the minority dictate policy to the majority seems to me to be a *worse* idea. After all, upon what do we then base policy?
If we go by faith, which faith? And what *interpretation* of that faith? And is it then fair to expect everyone else to follow the rules of that faith?
If you’re objecting to a majority vote impacting a decision, it is tacitly implied you would prefer the minority dictate policy. If that is not what you meant, then what precisely would you do to make policy?
What other conclusion can be drawn? It is also the implication of the original post. ‘The majority cannot be trusted’. Who therefore, can? The faithful? Which faith? Which version of it? These are questions I have asked before, and never received a satisfactory answer to.
I would ask the same of Ken or any of the other Christians here. To expand upon the premise put forward by the original post (Paul has made his disdain for democracy clear in the past), if not through votes and elections, how should we govern?
If your moral values equate the family with sodomy then I’m really sorry for the state of affairs that you put yourself under, when humanity has unanimously condemned it and put it under the same banner as bestiality but it’s only in the 21st when some beings started to push for it.
Talk about dramatically conflating the issue. How does the right to marry have anything to do with sodomy? Would you ban any and all heterosexual sexual practices that don’t lead to reproduction? To what extent does the religious right wish to interfere with people’s sex lives?
The comparison of homosexuality to bestiality is unfortunately typical of the sort of ruse often used by the religious right to demonise homosexuals.
Do you have anything substantial to contribute to the discussion? Perhaps *you* would care to venture why we should substitute democracy for a different form of government?
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
It’s a presumption that all marriages are about having children. Plus, permitting same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we’re all suddenly going to be *expected* to marry someone of the same sex, so the idea that the human race is in danger of going extinct is pretty far fetched!
Islam is not like any other religion….it is submission to the rule and will of God. Nature is in a state of Islam, ergo Nature cares about Islam in its most basic form and definition.
Every religion will make these claims. I also refer to my previous point – which religion and which version of it should therefore be treated as the basis of civil rights and government policy?
Wow. It appears I’ve riled some anonymous soul up enough to make up a username. Good to know. I wonder if you would have the courage and conviction to discuss honestly?
I was told earlier that Islam (and we can assume other faiths operate with the same idea) is in balance with nature. If we are take that as true then we should bear in mind that homosexuality exists in nature too.
Equating homosexuality with bestiality is of course a gigantic non sequitur. We have consenting adults on one hand, and non-consensual activities on the other. I am curious as to why this fallacy keeps coming up when it is easily debunked.
It seems to me that your own ideology is a form of pseudo-religious belief, and that you are a radical fundamentalist in your own right, willing to judge and excommunicate anyone who does not agree with your own narrative world view.
Which version of democracy should we accept as the basis of civil rights and government? Corporate fascist democracy? Western style democracy? Oligarchy disguised as democracy? Absolute democracy? Tyrannical democracy? Imperialist colonialist democracy? Communist democracy (i.e China)? democratic socialism? theocratic-democracy? there are so many to choose from and this is just the short list.
And once we decide on a form of democracy, how can we be assured that the majority won’t vote our civil rights away? How can we assure that a powerful few won’t manipulate the “democratic process” for their own benefit? How can we be assured that secular fundamentalists, (i.e. Homo-sexuals, etc.) won’t co-opt the political process to “vote” in their own forms of governance and rule?
Don’t get me wrong, there is much I admire about democracy, but it seems simplistic of you to act like democracy is the ultimate answer to all our woes.
If I am judging people, then what are and many other posters here doing that is any different? There have been numerous posts here that judge homosexuality, that judge atheists, and that judge Christians, whilst some of the Christian posters have done likewise. The difference – I don’t seek to tell you ‘you can’t practice your beliefs or worship in your holy places’, whereas the religious right (particularly the extreme end) is *very* keen to tell others what they can and can’t do, even in the privacy of their own homes.
So I will repeat the question – which religion takes preference as a basis for rights and rule? Each will proclaim to be divine and beyond repute. Each *variation* of each religion will make that claim.
Meanwhile, with democracies, we generally have safeguards and protection to prevent the majority (or the few) from creating laws that would discriminate. Democracy is not perfect, but the alternatives are worse. It is quite a stretch to suggest that homosexuals who seek equality are akin to the religious fundamentalists, considering one party seeks equality and the other would happily take rights away.
Darth,
Any discussion about other forms of governance would be in theory only, and in that regard we could talk all day. Realistically speaking, we are already living and working under a democratic system in the west. With that in mind, see my recent reply to Paulus below (8:39pm) which may help clarify some things.
I was told earlier that Islam (and we can assume other faiths operate with the same idea) is in balance with nature. If we are take that as true then we should bear in mind that homosexuality exists in nature too.
Just an interjection…..
The christian faith explicitly states that nature is not as it should be, and that the lord has given it over to satan. Hardly what we could call in balance with nature.
As a side note, this conflating of religious beliefs – based, seemingly, on ignorance – is why most of the new atheists (apart from Sam Harris) have failed to successfully find support for their criticisms of islam. Muslims typically defend their faith by arguing that all religions are violent, when, in fact, they are not.
But, yeah, christians definitely do not believe that nature is at it should be.
Reblogged this on Coalition of the Brave and commented:
Here we have yet another demonstration of the false equivalence game, especially in the comments. I invite readers to view them, and discuss!
False equivalence again. Homosexuals don’t need saving, unless you count saving from the centuries of persecution they have faced from religious extremists, ranging from outright execution to denial of equal rights.
So I guess Indonesia, the worlds largest Muslim majority nation and a democracy, befalls the axe of Bilal.
But like we’ve seen in the past, when the majority in Indonesia voted in a Christian, all hell broke loose among the radical Muslims. Much like those on this blog.
Perhaps this issue in Australia could have ended differently had the Muslims here decided to not remain silent? I put some of the blame squarely on their shoulders for not wanting to upset their homosexual allies.
@ Paulus,
The Indonesians were not upset because a Christian was running for election. Rather, the outrage was due to that Christian politician making blasphemous remarks insulting Islam and degrading the Qur’an. Imagine if a Muslim politician in a western country, publicly insulted and degraded Christianity and the Bible, how do you think fundamentalist Christians would react?
The Alternative lifestyle movement was achieved through secularist society, which was birthed by the Christian west…..now you want to blame Islam for what your own religion allowed to occur in the first place. Take some responsibility.
Btw, I said “some” of the blame. Had the Muslims not remained silent things may be different. Instead they chose to side with the “alternative lifestyle” crowd. Quite ironic really
Paulus,
I will agree that “some” of the blame sits with Muslims, there is plenty of blame to go around.
However, we must ask what is the cause for this ironic situation. Both Muslims and Christians agree on most basic morals and values issues, and both religions should be close allies in the “culture wars.”
But this has not happened because rather than uniting with their natural Muslim allies on these issues, fundamentalist, evangelical, Zionist Christian groups have chosen instead to concern themselves more with attacking and demonizing Islam, in an attempt to isolate Muslims from the political process and delegitimize Islam as a religion. The rabid, venomous and Islamophobic attacks from the Christian right initially caused the Muslim community to close ranks but subsequently caused Muslims to seek out political allies anywhere they can in order to simply defend and preserve their own civil rights. This is why we see Muslims working together with the Black civil rights movement, Latino’s and immigrants, Asian minorities, and many other disenfranchised groups.
Therefore, it is the short sighted right wing Christian religio-political strategy that has driven Muslims into the arms of the LGBQT (etc.) community which is also struggling for their own rights as well.
Inshallah, this will turn out for the benefit of the Muslims. Because while right wing Christians continue their politics of hate and division Muslims are building bridges with many different communities. People from many different walks of life are getting to know Muslims personally, and discovering that they can stand united with Muslims to defend a common cause. What at first seemed a negative, has turn out to be positive.
Although, religiously speaking, the situation is not ideal for Muslims, it is most expedient, given the Christian refusal to partner with Muslims politically. A political partnership with the LGBQT community does not necessarily mean that Islam or Muslims endorse that lifestyle. It simply means that we agree to defend one another’s right to live peacefully in the way that each of our communities choose, without harming others. One would think that Christians could get behind that idea too, but Christian exclusivity knows no bounds.
Believe me, as a Muslim I do not approve or endorse the Gay lifestyle. But that doesn’t prohibit me from interacting with Gay people when necessary and in a positive manner while maintaining my own religious beliefs.
I think Muslims would love to partner with Christian friends various political issues that would be mutually beneficial. But that seems to be impossible when bottom line – it is not the Gay community that is attacking and demonizing my faith, Prophet and religion…….it is the mostly the right wing fundamentalist Christian community that is doing so, (with help from some other Islamophobic co-antagonists).
In the end it will be fundamentalist Christians who are left out in the cold.
Darthimon, you seem to have typical liberal values and you also seem to be critical of religion-based values, at least to the extent to which they conflict with yours and also when they conflict with what you perceive as other people’s basic rights. I’m interested in knowing what the source of your values are.
Blogging Theology 
It’s only a weakness if you practice a religious faith.
LikeLike
“And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse puts good for evil being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about ‘the shadow of an ass,’ which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil – what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?”
Plato, Phaedrus
At the time of this writing, hours have passed since the Supreme Court of Australia decreed that homosexuals have a “basic civil right” to marry someone of the same sex. Whether these Golden State solons will follow up their remarkable finding with a ruling to the effect that an ass is the same as a horse, it is too early to say; but they have already gone well beyond the sophistical orator of Plato’s dialogue in “confounding good with evil,” not to mention reason with insanity. Malcolm Muggeridge famously said that “without God we are left with a choice of succumbing to megalomania or erotomania.” The court’s majority, in declaring by sheer judicial fiat the equal dignity under law of the family and sodomy, would appear to have gone Muggeridge one better by succumbing to both at once.
The reference to God is apropos. The successes of the movement to recognize “same-sex marriage” have been nothing if not sudden. Just over a decade ago the very idea would have been laughed off as crackpot or extreme; now it is those who oppose it who are frequently labeled crackpots and extremists. But equally sudden has been the rise of ostentatious unbelief as the de rigueur position of the smart set. Mainstream progressives and non-conformists of earlier generations would have found it necessary to profess belief in at least a “social gospel” and to hide their doubts about the metaphysical claims of religion behind a haze of pseudo-theological psychobabble. Yet atheist chic is now, out of the blue as it were, the stuff of best sellers, celebrity endorsements, and suburban reading groups. It is as if the urbane cocktail hour secularist liberalism of the twentieth century has, by way of the slow but sure inebriation produced by an unbroken series of social and judicial triumphs, now become in the twenty-first century fall-down-sloppy drunk and lost all inhibition, by turns blaspheming, whoring, and otherwise offending against all sane and decent sensibilities as the mood strikes it.
LikeLike
Even if a given issue has no relation to one’s religious convictions: the possibility exists that majority be – as a matter of fact – wrong about something. That the minority should be dragged along and down into the implications and consequences of the decision made despite them seems rather like a poor state of affairs.
LikeLike
The possibility also exists that the minority, in issues of civil liberty, could also be wrong. Letting the minority dictate policy to the majority seems to me to be a *worse* idea. After all, upon what do we then base policy?
If we go by faith, which faith? And what *interpretation* of that faith? And is it then fair to expect everyone else to follow the rules of that faith?
LikeLike
I said nothing about letting the minority dictate, neither was I referring to such a scenario.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re objecting to a majority vote impacting a decision, it is tacitly implied you would prefer the minority dictate policy. If that is not what you meant, then what precisely would you do to make policy?
LikeLike
You may have seen such tacit implication because perhaps your perspective is strictly binary. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What other conclusion can be drawn? It is also the implication of the original post. ‘The majority cannot be trusted’. Who therefore, can? The faithful? Which faith? Which version of it? These are questions I have asked before, and never received a satisfactory answer to.
LikeLike
Why is it that you value my personal, in no way representative of Islām or Muslims opinion so?
LikeLike
I would ask the same of Ken or any of the other Christians here. To expand upon the premise put forward by the original post (Paul has made his disdain for democracy clear in the past), if not through votes and elections, how should we govern?
LikeLike
I was merely pointing out a weakness in your objection; doing so doesn’t necessitate offering a viable alternative to democracy.
LikeLike
@darthtimon
If your moral values equate the family with sodomy then I’m really sorry for the state of affairs that you put yourself under, when humanity has unanimously condemned it and put it under the same banner as bestiality but it’s only in the 21st when some beings started to push for it.
LikeLike
Talk about dramatically conflating the issue. How does the right to marry have anything to do with sodomy? Would you ban any and all heterosexual sexual practices that don’t lead to reproduction? To what extent does the religious right wish to interfere with people’s sex lives?
The comparison of homosexuality to bestiality is unfortunately typical of the sort of ruse often used by the religious right to demonise homosexuals.
LikeLike
Poor Darth so many questions in a senseless universe
LikeLike
Very few answers of any sort from the religious universe.
LikeLike
poor chap
LikeLike
Do you have anything substantial to contribute to the discussion? Perhaps *you* would care to venture why we should substitute democracy for a different form of government?
LikeLike
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
LikeLike
Nope
LikeLike
Thought so.
LikeLike
It’s a weakness because homosexuality means no babies and no babies means the end of the road.
Nature doesn’t care about democracy.
LikeLike
It’s a presumption that all marriages are about having children. Plus, permitting same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we’re all suddenly going to be *expected* to marry someone of the same sex, so the idea that the human race is in danger of going extinct is pretty far fetched!
LikeLike
Musegel,
“Nature doesn’t care about democracy.” – good point.
Islam = Submission to the will of God.
Nature is subject to the rule of God.
Therefore, Nature is in a “state of Islam.”
Democracy can either be in a state of Islam or in a state of rebellion against the will of God. Most often it is the latter.
Islamic law agrees with the laws of nature (male & female procreation, etc.).
LikeLike
Nature doesn’t care about religion either. Some species eat their young, with others the newborns literally eat their way out of their mother.
LikeLike
Darth,
“Nature doesn’t care about religion..”
Islam is not like any other religion….it is submission to the rule and will of God. Nature is in a state of Islam, ergo Nature cares about Islam in its most basic form and definition.
I refer you to my previous email again.
LikeLike
Every religion will make these claims. I also refer to my previous point – which religion and which version of it should therefore be treated as the basis of civil rights and government policy?
LikeLike
@darthimon
You’re making the naturalistic fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Just because some animals eat their babies doesn’t make it ethical for human beings.
Equating sodomy and bestiality with marriage has been unanimously rejected by every revealed religion and every culture until the turn of our century.
LikeLike
Wow. It appears I’ve riled some anonymous soul up enough to make up a username. Good to know. I wonder if you would have the courage and conviction to discuss honestly?
I was told earlier that Islam (and we can assume other faiths operate with the same idea) is in balance with nature. If we are take that as true then we should bear in mind that homosexuality exists in nature too.
Equating homosexuality with bestiality is of course a gigantic non sequitur. We have consenting adults on one hand, and non-consensual activities on the other. I am curious as to why this fallacy keeps coming up when it is easily debunked.
LikeLike
It seems to me that your own ideology is a form of pseudo-religious belief, and that you are a radical fundamentalist in your own right, willing to judge and excommunicate anyone who does not agree with your own narrative world view.
Which version of democracy should we accept as the basis of civil rights and government? Corporate fascist democracy? Western style democracy? Oligarchy disguised as democracy? Absolute democracy? Tyrannical democracy? Imperialist colonialist democracy? Communist democracy (i.e China)? democratic socialism? theocratic-democracy? there are so many to choose from and this is just the short list.
And once we decide on a form of democracy, how can we be assured that the majority won’t vote our civil rights away? How can we assure that a powerful few won’t manipulate the “democratic process” for their own benefit? How can we be assured that secular fundamentalists, (i.e. Homo-sexuals, etc.) won’t co-opt the political process to “vote” in their own forms of governance and rule?
Don’t get me wrong, there is much I admire about democracy, but it seems simplistic of you to act like democracy is the ultimate answer to all our woes.
LikeLike
If I am judging people, then what are and many other posters here doing that is any different? There have been numerous posts here that judge homosexuality, that judge atheists, and that judge Christians, whilst some of the Christian posters have done likewise. The difference – I don’t seek to tell you ‘you can’t practice your beliefs or worship in your holy places’, whereas the religious right (particularly the extreme end) is *very* keen to tell others what they can and can’t do, even in the privacy of their own homes.
So I will repeat the question – which religion takes preference as a basis for rights and rule? Each will proclaim to be divine and beyond repute. Each *variation* of each religion will make that claim.
Meanwhile, with democracies, we generally have safeguards and protection to prevent the majority (or the few) from creating laws that would discriminate. Democracy is not perfect, but the alternatives are worse. It is quite a stretch to suggest that homosexuals who seek equality are akin to the religious fundamentalists, considering one party seeks equality and the other would happily take rights away.
LikeLike
Darth,
Any discussion about other forms of governance would be in theory only, and in that regard we could talk all day. Realistically speaking, we are already living and working under a democratic system in the west. With that in mind, see my recent reply to Paulus below (8:39pm) which may help clarify some things.
LikeLike
darthtimon
Just an interjection…..
The christian faith explicitly states that nature is not as it should be, and that the lord has given it over to satan. Hardly what we could call in balance with nature.
As a side note, this conflating of religious beliefs – based, seemingly, on ignorance – is why most of the new atheists (apart from Sam Harris) have failed to successfully find support for their criticisms of islam. Muslims typically defend their faith by arguing that all religions are violent, when, in fact, they are not.
But, yeah, christians definitely do not believe that nature is at it should be.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Coalition of the Brave and commented:
Here we have yet another demonstration of the false equivalence game, especially in the comments. I invite readers to view them, and discuss!
LikeLike
Religion is in tune with nature.
Legislating same sex marriage isn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Denying people their rights because of religion seems unnaturally cruel to me.
LikeLike
unnaturally cruel
LikeLike
This is like saying holding back an insect from flying into a light source and getting zapped seems unnaturally cruel.
LikeLike
False equivalence again. Homosexuals don’t need saving, unless you count saving from the centuries of persecution they have faced from religious extremists, ranging from outright execution to denial of equal rights.
LikeLike
I didn’t say homosexuals need saving( that’s christianspeak my friend )
I’m saying Homosexuality is to society what the meteor was to the Dinosaurs.
LikeLike
Somehow, I doubt homosexuality will doom the human race.
LikeLike
“Somehow, I doubt homosexuality will doom the human race”
Tell that to the rapidly aging Western societies with below replacement birth rates.
LikeLike
So I guess Indonesia, the worlds largest Muslim majority nation and a democracy, befalls the axe of Bilal.
But like we’ve seen in the past, when the majority in Indonesia voted in a Christian, all hell broke loose among the radical Muslims. Much like those on this blog.
Perhaps this issue in Australia could have ended differently had the Muslims here decided to not remain silent? I put some of the blame squarely on their shoulders for not wanting to upset their homosexual allies.
LikeLike
@ Paulus,
The Indonesians were not upset because a Christian was running for election. Rather, the outrage was due to that Christian politician making blasphemous remarks insulting Islam and degrading the Qur’an. Imagine if a Muslim politician in a western country, publicly insulted and degraded Christianity and the Bible, how do you think fundamentalist Christians would react?
The Alternative lifestyle movement was achieved through secularist society, which was birthed by the Christian west…..now you want to blame Islam for what your own religion allowed to occur in the first place. Take some responsibility.
LikeLike
Ok, what did this Christian say that was so offensive? How did he insult and degrade the Koran?
You may be surprised by what you find. I’ll waiting with great interest for your response…
LikeLike
Btw, I said “some” of the blame. Had the Muslims not remained silent things may be different. Instead they chose to side with the “alternative lifestyle” crowd. Quite ironic really
LikeLike
Paulus,
I will agree that “some” of the blame sits with Muslims, there is plenty of blame to go around.
However, we must ask what is the cause for this ironic situation. Both Muslims and Christians agree on most basic morals and values issues, and both religions should be close allies in the “culture wars.”
But this has not happened because rather than uniting with their natural Muslim allies on these issues, fundamentalist, evangelical, Zionist Christian groups have chosen instead to concern themselves more with attacking and demonizing Islam, in an attempt to isolate Muslims from the political process and delegitimize Islam as a religion. The rabid, venomous and Islamophobic attacks from the Christian right initially caused the Muslim community to close ranks but subsequently caused Muslims to seek out political allies anywhere they can in order to simply defend and preserve their own civil rights. This is why we see Muslims working together with the Black civil rights movement, Latino’s and immigrants, Asian minorities, and many other disenfranchised groups.
Therefore, it is the short sighted right wing Christian religio-political strategy that has driven Muslims into the arms of the LGBQT (etc.) community which is also struggling for their own rights as well.
Inshallah, this will turn out for the benefit of the Muslims. Because while right wing Christians continue their politics of hate and division Muslims are building bridges with many different communities. People from many different walks of life are getting to know Muslims personally, and discovering that they can stand united with Muslims to defend a common cause. What at first seemed a negative, has turn out to be positive.
Although, religiously speaking, the situation is not ideal for Muslims, it is most expedient, given the Christian refusal to partner with Muslims politically. A political partnership with the LGBQT community does not necessarily mean that Islam or Muslims endorse that lifestyle. It simply means that we agree to defend one another’s right to live peacefully in the way that each of our communities choose, without harming others. One would think that Christians could get behind that idea too, but Christian exclusivity knows no bounds.
Believe me, as a Muslim I do not approve or endorse the Gay lifestyle. But that doesn’t prohibit me from interacting with Gay people when necessary and in a positive manner while maintaining my own religious beliefs.
I think Muslims would love to partner with Christian friends various political issues that would be mutually beneficial. But that seems to be impossible when bottom line – it is not the Gay community that is attacking and demonizing my faith, Prophet and religion…….it is the mostly the right wing fundamentalist Christian community that is doing so, (with help from some other Islamophobic co-antagonists).
In the end it will be fundamentalist Christians who are left out in the cold.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m still waiting…
LikeLike
Darthimon, you seem to have typical liberal values and you also seem to be critical of religion-based values, at least to the extent to which they conflict with yours and also when they conflict with what you perceive as other people’s basic rights. I’m interested in knowing what the source of your values are.
LikeLiked by 1 person