CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it hipocritical to defend gay rights, and at the same time defend muslims?
It's a well known fact, that, when it comes to "gay rights", all muslim counties are home to what we call "bigots".
There isn't a single muslim country, that does not condemn gays and their lifestyle.
In many of these countries, gays are sent to jail, or executed.
Yet, there are some people, who make an agenda of defending muslim "rights", and protecting them from "hatred", - while being pro-gay at the same time.
The question I'd like to ask those people is: Why don't you try to preach your "gay agenda", among those Muslim communities, which you defend against "hatred".
Of course, the answer is: they want to stay alive.
......................
Still, you find it OK to attack Christians, since they do not retaliate.
Since when is this cowardice? Just seems like good thinking to me.
I ask you this: What is the realistic potential gain for the gay community to actively attack muslim governments?
And this: What is the risk incurred by those who choose to actively attack muslim governments?
It's not a question of cowardice, it's a question of intelligence. Here is a parallel: Is it cowardice for a white guy dating a black girl to refrain from introducing her to his family, knowing his family is active in the KKK? I think not.
If an extremely risky action carries a a reasonable chance of success, one can consider that action to be brave. If an action leads to pretty much certain death with little chance of success, one can consider that action to be foolish.
I ask you this: What is the realistic potential gain for the gay community to actively attack Muslim governments?
1. Just to make sure we put the same meaning into terms: "attack" here does not mean verbal attack, right? Not war, or anything like that.
2. You have just answered your own question: it's cowardice, since the LGBT agenda folks are quite comfortable when attacking Christian communities, which never speak in favor of killing, or oppressing gays. At the same time, they never attack the Muslim communities for being anti - gay, because that would make them sitting ducks for the rest of their lives. A whole army of fanatics would crave for their death. And that's what they are afraid of.
Yes, I'm referring to a verbal attack, activism, not military action.
And no, its not cowardice. It's called choosing your battles.
-In the areas where LGBT activism is a thing, Christians significantly outnumber Muslims AND are far less violent. As such, attacking christians is both safer and more effective than attacking muslims. It's not a question of bravery, but intelligence.
-Christians do oppress gays in their own way. Muslims in first world countries typically go for more direct, violent approaches, whereas Christians attempt to use the government and legislation as a tool of oppression. Again, attacking christians is both safer and more effective than attacking muslims. Not a question of bravery, but intelligence.
Suppose you have two roads to walk down.
One of them is straight and level, and you can see your destination at the end.
The other one is longer, slower, winds up and down mountains filled with bandits, with sheer drop offs here and there, unsure footing, etc. You can see that this road is going in the general direction of your destination, but you can't actually see it.
Children will tell you that its braver to take the mountain road. A reasonable person will tell you that it is simply foolish.
Simply but, discretion is the better part of valor.
I can only speak for myself but I don't believe anybody should be persecuted for the colour of their skin, religion, sexuality or whatever, I have noticed on here anyway that it is Christians who are more homophobic and use the bible to try and support their views so they are more likely to get "attacked", you would find that the same would happen on here if Muslims did the same.
I am no fan of Christians, but I believe they are much much less homophobic than the Muslims. At least the Muslims in the Islamic countries. I thought the president of Iran came out and said they didn't have the gay problem in Iran. It totally sounded like it was because they executed all of them.
That's why I said on here ie: createdebate, I haven't a clue who's worst in the real world and remember that Islamic countries do not speak for all Muslims worldwide
No problem and you guessed right I was aware about that of worldwide Christians although the fact that they can never seem to agree with each other seems quite a common occurrence wherever you are.
What is the debate? Gays vs. Muslims? Seems apples to oranges to me; a false dichotomy. It is not logically inconsistent or hypocritical to support both, oppose both, or support one and oppose the other.
You seem to be of the mind that supporting one thing by necessity means opposing another. This is only true in the case of dichotomies, and this is not one.
I agree with thousandin1 if you support gay rights and Muslims rights to be free from hatred and you are not a member of either community then you would support the all about human rights side because that is were you are arguing from, its a human rights issue and I don't see how it is hypocritical.
I often defend Muslims on here but if there was a debate about gay rights and a Muslim was being homophobic I would defend the gay rights side as I don't believe someone's right to practice the religion of their choice should encroach on the rights and freedoms of someone else.
Out of interest what is your stance on gay rights and Muslims, do you believe they should be allowed the same freedoms as straight people or be allowed the freedom to follow the religion of their choice?
I presume that you were speaking about Muslim countries, or countries where gays are actually being oppressed (not through words that make them feel uncomfortable).
Well, I hold the middle ground. I don't think anyone should be executed, or jailed, just for being homosexual. That said, I am all for laws that would prevent the gays from spreading their propaganda, under the guise of "education", e.t.c.
This kind of law has been adopted in Russia, and it's one of the few initiatives of my parliament, that I support.
I meant worldwide as both groups are spread worldwide, so you think gay people should have their freedom of speech oppressed, what about your freedom of speech to preach about how wrong being gay is or about how great being Christian is, should that be allowed?
1. About Muslims: if we're talking about their countries, yes they have a right to say anything, if saying it does not contradict their laws, thats pretty much by definition. If we're speaking about America or Russia, the the answer is no, they cannot openly speak in favor of criminal actions, such as killing gays.
2. Speaking worldwide: both groups have the right to say whatever they want, if saying it is not illegal in their country. There's no global police force around, that could stop them.
3. I never said being Christian was great, I definitely do not see myself as a Christian preacher. Only a person who does not sin, can be one.
4. Regarding "speaking how wrong being gay is". I think it's not a right, but an obligation. People should not be deluded into thinking their lifestyle is "harmless", because it is not. Numerous scientific articles, and medical statistics, provide proof to this claim. So, this is not a question of right, but responsibility: if someone promotes an agenda, which speaks in favor of smoking, or alcoholism, that person should be held responsible by the state. The same for spreading lies about the harmlessness of the gay lifestyle. So, I think this kind of "freedom of speech" should be oppressed, regardless of whether it's a gay, or straight person, spreading dis-information.
I don't think that I have ever heard a homosexual say that being Gay was harmless but its no more harmful than being a heterosexual, if your sexually active and not careful then you run the same risk of catching something nasty and anyone who believes different is an idiot.
So you think Muslims are fine and entitled to freedom of worship and speech as long as they don't break laws but gays freedom of speech should be oppressed by law now whose being hypocritical
Just to make myself clear: I'm talking about gays, not lesbians, who are an entirely different case.
I should have been more accurate in the way I put this. What I call a lie is the statement that the gay lifestyle is "no more harmful", than the heterosexual.
QUOTE: I don't think that I have ever heard a homosexual say that being Gay was harmless but its no more harmful than being a heterosexual, if your sexually active and not careful then you run the same risk of catching something nasty and anyone who believes different is an idiot.
The CDC is one of the major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services.
According to the CDC, you are completely wrong. The statistical data gathered in 2010 shows that gays are 44 times more likely to be infected with HIV, and 46 times more likely to be infected by syphilis (primary and secondary), than straights.
This was just one source, relevant just one aspect of the "wonderful" life of gays.
I didn't want to make this argument too long.
QUOTE: So you think Muslims are fine and entitled to freedom of worship and speech as long as they don't break laws but gays freedom of speech should be oppressed by law now whose being hypocritical
As I've already said, I think the laws should prohibit everyone from spreading dangerous dis-information. It doesn't matter if the people who spread it are Muslim, gay, or straight. Freedom of speech is fine, but nobody has the right to spread propaganda that, for example, being a smoker is "no more dangerous" than being a non-smoker. Or, to put this more clearly: if I use my freedom of speech, to teach kids that they are free not to look at the cross-lights, when they cross the street - I would be a criminal.
Everyone who has sex is at risk of a STD, the only way to try and prevent this is by raising awareness and the only way to do that is through education, so its access to information that is key not preventing peoples access to information. People will have sex with the people they are sexually attracted to regardless, so its better to educate people that being gay isn't a sickness but that you need to be careful.
Yes, it makes sense. Defending Muslims' freedom of religion is not the same as defending Muslims' (hypothetical) right to act upon said beliefs in a way that is detrimental to people.
Rights are rights, if you stand for rights in general then that's different than if you stand for what the specifics of the religion are on the rights of other individuals.
It's like the saying "I don't agree to what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
You can defend a Nazi's right to freedom of speech whilst defending a Judaism it doesn't make you a hypocrite it just means that you understand that for freedom of speech to work it has to apply to everyone even if you don't agree with them ever heard the quote "I might not agree with what he's saying but will defend to the death his right to say it" (something like that anyway)
But supporters of the LGBT agenda don't just want freedom of speech for themselves - they seek to suppress freedom of speech, for others - those who they call "bigots". And they label you "bigot", just for criticizing the gay agenda, and saying the truth about the consequences of the gay lifestyle.
At the same time, some of them see themselves as defenders of the Muslims, from "hatred". Yet, again, Muslims are only being criticized for their aggressive behavior, not for speaking about their faith.
Some LGBT supporters might but there are a lot of Christians who are so anti gay they seek to suppress freedom of speech for the LGBT community, I believe they are both wrong but I have found more of the latter in this world than the former.
You do realise that not all Muslims are aggressive, I only defend the normal ones not the extremists, a lot of people who criticize Islam don't just criticise the extremists but blame the actions of extremists on all of Islam and give all Muslims a hard time.
All of that "extremism" is hard-coded into Islam. You can't be a Muslim, without taking up that "extremist" position:
Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"
Hadith, which is respected and followed by all Muslims:
Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".
Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."
So, these "extremists" are just followers of the Islam and the prophet Muhhamad. So, the "normal ones" that you defend, are not really Muslims.
Your stereotyping all Muslims extremist is xenophobia, it would be like saying all Jews are mean, you might not have said explicitly you don't like gays but you make it pretty clear. If you didn't have a problem with gay people you wouldn't have a problem with them having equal rights etc.
I think you are really wrong here. Muslims are not a race, so being hostile towards them is not "Xenophobia". It should be called "Islamophobia".
I guess you could have called me an Islamophobe, given the position I had, when I started this debate. But my views have actually changed, I now understand that Islam is really not an extremist or aggressive religion. This becomes obvious, if one reads the Quran, not just some quotes from it, but the whole suras. I am grateful to Dana, for revealing me the truth.
About gays: I don't hate them, I think they are sick people who need to be cured, not encouraged (and by gays I always mean male homosexuals). I hate the agenda that encourages sick people to continue being sick, and indirectly recruits more people (mainly teens, yes its real), into this sickness. Now I can support this claim (of their sickness, like being 44 times more likely to have AIDS), with multiple links to scientific and US government sources. But that's outside of the scope of this debate.
Not hypocritical at all. One does not have to support another parties agenda and beliefs in order to support their right to have said agenda and beliefs. Or rights, for that matter.
I definitely support the religious freedom of Muslims, to hold their beliefs and practice their religion.
I strongly disagree with many of their beliefs, and I also believe that their right to practice their religion ends at the point where they start encroaching on the rights of others (eg. mistreating women, homosexuals, those of other faiths).
I definitely support the rights of gays, to enjoy the same legal and civil benefits as everyone else.
That said, I must admit to being somewhat homophobic, and I can't deny being offput by, say, displays of PDA amongst the homosexual community.
Ultimately, my stance on human rights supercedes my personal opinion on many things, and I don't consider it hypocritical at all.
But supporters of the LGBT agenda don't just want freedom of speech for themselves - they seek to suppress freedom of speech, for others - those who they call "bigots". And they label you "bigot", just for criticizing the gay agenda, and saying the truth about the consequences of the gay lifestyle.
At the same time, some of them see themselves as defenders of the Muslims, from "hatred". Yet, again, Muslims are only being criticized for their aggressive behavior, not for speaking about their faith.
I'm just going to have to generally dispute this. You're extending the actions of minorities within both groups to the whole. That's pretty much all that can be said on the matter.
I am a supporter of the LGBT agenda, and I have no interest in suppressing the freedoms of others.
I'm a defender of the muslim faith, as I do not believe they deserve to be hated as a whole for the actions of the few.
Hey. As much as I hate bigotry, we're supposed to tolerate people shouting it. And I can respect that. They just can't y'know, apply a physical nature to the practice.
There are peaceful Muslims who do not attack the gay community, it is not their fault other followers of their religion harbour violent views and commit atrocities. So what? Almost everyone belongs to a race, political ideology, religion, &c;, that has committed horrific violence and hatred.
QUOTE: "There are peaceful Muslims who do not attack the gay community, it is not their fault other followers of their religion harbor violent views and commit atrocities."
Those "peaceful Muslims" don't attack the gay community, for two reasons:
1. It simply does not exist in their country.
2. They have no chance to attack it, since they live in a country where "executing" gays for being gay, is a crime.
QUOTE: "Almost everyone belongs to a race, political ideology, religion, &c;, that has committed horrific violence and hatred."
1. Belonging to a race does not require you to embrace any specific ideology.
2. Political ideologies tend to clearly draw the lines between themselves, and their previous, "evil" versions. It's even done by communists in Russia now, however pathetic they may sound.
3. Violence is not hard-coded into Christianity. Those who killed in the name of Christ, were not Christians. The situation is very different for Islam.
I dispute 3 heavily. They were Christians, I re-enact a period when my entire country was Christian, the 12th century. Are you to say that the entire fighting force of Britain, of most of Europe, were not Christian- just because they killed believing in their king who was intended by God to rule their country, that he was right? They were ordained by their church. Violence is 'hard coded' into the central text and history of Christianity- right down to the symbol of the religion itself. Violence, hate, evil, is part of everything anywhere. You can't separate yourself from it, really.
I could go on arguing here, but I see no point in this.
I have acknowledged being wrong in one of my main theses: that Islam is an inherently violent religion. I have read the relevant surahs in the Quaran, and saw that it speaks of violence to the unbelievers, but only as retaliation to violence, or if the unbeleivers knowingly insult Allah. It also states clearly, that followers of Muhammad, have no right to forcefully recruit anyone into Islam. It prohibits them from trying to control the actions of the unbeleivers (literally: "you are no managers over them").
About Christianity: I see a big difference between calling yourself Christian, or belonging to a church - and actually being Christian.
You can defend the right to hold Muslim beliefs without condoning the behavior of Muslims as a whole. When people try to reduce the hatred of Muslims, they are saying target your hate at the person taking an action, not group as a whole.
being gay is a right. so is being muslim. it all depends upon your choice, as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else, your pretty much allowed to do what you like.
No. Not all Muslims are bastards. I know a libertarian Muslim who voted for Gary Johnson. Listen, the Quran says that religion is not supposed to be by compulsion, meaning that freedom of believe is a right.
And have you ever read the next part of that Surat:
Allah is the ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light. And those who disbelieve - their allies are Taghut. They take them out of the light into darknesses. Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.
There not being compulsion in following Islam, does not imply that those who go with Taghut, should not be punished.:
(8:36) Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.Thats 100% about the gay agenda.
(8:39) And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
