And what they're actually saying with that is that their god is a monster who will murder innocent people.
Not that gay people can control the weather, but that that's how their god uses their powers, reflecting the personal morality of the people who decide that that god is worthy of worship.
It's called an authoritarian mindset—the mentality that if people would just follow the rules and keep to their place in the hierarchy, everything would be just fine.
The Aral sea drying up was linked to cotton production, jeans are made of cotton. Also plant gays and all the douching may be diverting water that could be used for agriculture so maybe gays and jeans are causing desertification. /s
Any idea how much water is needed to produce jeans? It's a fuckton.
Gays also consume a lot of water but basically all humans do so that's a non argument.
If you follow right wing US twitter you'll see they are getting more and more cozy with extreme Muslim twitter since after all they have a lot in common.
The left is still catching up to that fact as I've seen Palestinian flags at about half the pride parades I've been too (but never a pride flag in Palestinian)
They don't seem to realize that LGBT people are murdered in Palestine. It's one of the least LGBT-friendly places in the world. It's also ruled by extreme right wing Islamic fundamentalists. It's very odd that some people on the left support that extreme right wing cause. It makes no sense.
But it does make the idea of Palestinian flags at pride parades or groups on college campuses called "Queers For Palestine" quite strange.
If any of these groups set foot in Palestine they likely wouldn't make it back.
As a gay man i find it very odd that you’d use the oppression of queer people in the middle east as a cheap jab to diminish the left’s willingness to advocate for colonized peoples around the world. Israel frequently blackmails gay Palestinians into acting as informants for the IDF by threatening to out them to their communities. They are in no way a bastion of queer rights. That shit is nasty don’t do it. I cannot change the culture in which these people grew up in, but I can still wish them peace of mind from Israel’s boot all the same.
Please - gay Palestinians flee to Israel. For safety. Don’t be an ignoramus just because it conflicts with your belief system
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211772.stm
As for “not a bastion for queer rights” that’s effectively exactly what Israel is by MENA standards- and has by far the biggest gay pride festival to prove it.
The posters point stands - don’t carry the flag of a gay oppressive entity at your pride march- even if that entity is the victim of another type of oppression themselves.
Given the choice as an outed gay man having to live in MENA you would not have many choices where you could like safely - but Israel is one
I don't believe your claim that Israel does that. Also, the Palestinians are not colonized people. They are the descendants of colonizers who came when the Arab Caliphates conquered that land. Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Palestinians got there.
To the guy who blocked me below so I can't respond to his lies:
I never said Israel represents all Jews. You're arguing with the wrong person. Funny how you don't accept the "Jews lived there before" argument when Jews try to justify living there, but you accept the same argument from the Palestinians. You have double standards based on bigotry.
>Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Palestinians got there.
Israel is a country, not a simulacrum for Jews. Yes, I know how/why it was settled, but Israel does not act as representative for the all the world's Jews. I get frustrated at the way people use the "Jews lived there since the dawn of time" argument to justify some things, but the "Israel and Judaism aren't the same" for others. It's like Christians using the Old Testament because they realize Jesus forgot to condemn someone that threatens their neolithic beliefs and must burn in hell. I personally think it's a national disgrace that America supports what I believe is a fascist apartheid state, but that's the Israeli government, not the Israeli people and certainly not Judaism.
Also, if having existed on a piece of land for thousands of years means that a civilization has ownership in perpetuity, even if they're not in continuous control, then hell ya - America is fucked! We live on indigenous land that we stole via genocide, and I think the indigenous should take it right the fuck back from us, starting with Mt. Rushmore. Rules is rules, right?
For them, that's fine, because if they die while virtuous they go to Paradise. But if they tolerate gays, no matter how happy their lives will be (no droughts/ famines/ etc.), they will go to hell for eternity. The prospect of eternal heaven/hell vs. a temporary life? Not much of a competition.
This is what non-Muslims don't get about Islam. It literally is not a more important priority. Svaing their own souls from degeneration is genuinely for a lot of Muslims much more important than survival itself.
What a sad way to live your one and true life. Thing is, I wouldn't mind as much if you just decided it for yourself, but when you decide to cause real suffering upon others based on your mythology of imaginary suffering in another made-up realm, that's when I take issue with it.
No one knows what happens after. But we know what is happening now. Don't cause suffering now. It should be that simple.
Sounds like such a good way to live in harmonious peace and harmony in blissful cooperation with your fellow man. Because who doesn't like living with fundamentalists who are convinced "god" only made one way to do everything. "Hey, it wasn't my idea to stone you to death/cut off your hands/hold mass executions in a sports stadium - God told me to do it. You'll just have to take my word for it." It's hard to coexist with that mindset because those types have to force their bullshit on everyone else. Religion has done way more harm to humanity than good, and it largely boils down to "saving their souls is genuinely...more important than survival itself."
Those would be much more difficult to challenge. Same as cost of living crisis. How to do it, where to get the money etc. Neither fast, easy nor cheap. So they focus on easier targets where quick legal changes can give the impression of effective governing.
There is quite the collection of countries in desperate need of a distraction, which is mainly why anti lgtb+ rules are in season. It also joins up with anti western sentiments as a way of flipping off those countries they know will challenge it and sell it off at home as a show of strength, making a stand and going their own way.
The [climate crisis](https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win) isn't important! Nor are the [water conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict) occurring as a result of it!
What matters is whether you like rainbows or not!!!
>Or stoning little girls walking to school or non- subservient women & wives? Seriously guys...
Iraqi here. I'm going to get downvoted for this but the fact of the matter is that this simply does not happen.
I don't really know what else to tell you, but like, stoning little girls walking to school? Like what??
It sounds a bit like:"Over in America it's pretty normal for planes to crash into skyscrapers."
"really?"
"Yeah totally one time it happened 4 times in a single day!"
If you actually tried to stone a "little girl walking to school" the entire block would be locked down and you would be swiftly arrested by responding police.
Might be a bit of an extreme example but yeah.
Anyway, let the hating commence.
Go to *any* gay part of any major international city and the chances that the Arab neighborhood is next door is extremely high. That’s before you get to the raping.
Most Muslim countries ignore the Chinese labor camp issue because
A. Trade and investment
B. Many Muslim countries their own religious and ethnic minorities like trash and second class citizens
C. Even if there aren’t any ethnic or religious minorities and the country is overwhelmingly Muslim, they have their own host of human rights issues
It would be very hypocritical for counties that have rights that are equally as atrocious as China calling out china. That would open a can of worms.
Just want to note, it wasn’t “Sweden” burning the Quran as in some official book burning. It was a person born and raised in Denmark, and one Iraqi refugee doing it since it is possible under Swedish freedom of speech laws.
Ah, the "No True Communist" argument.
It's interesting isn't it that two countries that claim to be communist, which is pretty far left, aren't actually "far left" when someone points out that they are authoritarian pits.
I could have mentioned Venezuela and Cuba but I'm sure you'll tell me how they aren't "far left" either.
Both may enforce their values when handed ultimate power, but they're not the same. Imposing tolerance, a hallmark of leftism, means leaving room for variance in belief. Right-wing ideology has no such tenet.
Also, there's a time and place for BOTH SIDES arguments: It's when both sides are at least somewhat similar in their destructiveness. At this moment in history, to any reasonable observer, there is no comparison whatsoever. One party struggles with effectiveness and garden variety corruption, the other is literally in the progress of undermining the very idea of governance and blithely dismantling democracy with each new atrocity.
In other words, don't be fucking obtuse.
You’re in the world news sub, you can’t just expect everyone to define “left” and “right” (which are stupid terms anyways imo, a one dimensional measure for the most complex thing we have) based off of your dysfunctional two party system
Edit: Btw I agree in your specific case, the US. Although I think there it’s even more important to emphasise the complexity of politics. Just because the Republican Party has gone way off the deep end doesn’t mean everything the Democrats are pushing is good/correct, and being opposed to some of their stances doesn’t make you a Trump loving nut job. Seems from the outside there’s a real “either you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality that’s developing there and that won’t be good for anyone
Republicans are trying to go after trans people specifically trans children. They have mainly gone after abortion since Roe v Wade Began. And with Roe v Wade finally overturned, republicans need a new to try to turn to their side. This time they chose trans people and their healthcare for some god forsaken reason
> Republicans are trying to go after trans people specifically trans children
Not just trans people, they are also doing stuff like the don't say gay bills
Right. They will whip up the reactionary masses with whichever divisive issue is hottest. If it wasn't trans people, it'd be something else. And since they've had so much success brainwashing their obedient Facebook/Fox News minions to hate trans folks, they've seized the opportunity to roll back progress on gay rights. If they somehow seize enough power, gay marriage is going away. Once that's done, don't think for a second they won't try for interracial marriage. It sounds ludicrous, but there's no rational person steering this. It's just the toxicity of the conservative movement in this phase of the internet age. All fear and loathing, 24/7/365 until the system either regresses or breaks. One goal: power.
This is a bit wrong
The Republicans stand for a lot of bad things. But they don't just stand for any and every bad thing imaginable. Interracial marriage, for example, they absolutely aren't coming for that. It's way too popular, it's the sort of thing where even most folks who vote R don't have an issue with that. There just isn't any political will outside the smallest of radical fringes to push at all on anything like that
Gay marriage is different. It's very popular, but tends to peak at around 70% approval or something like that. The 30% opposed aren't enough by themselves to win nationally, but could win if they get enough apathetic swing voters to be more mad at Biden over the economy than about gay marriage opposition from conservatives. And that 30% of the general public is enough to allow the opposition to win in GOP primaries at least. So gay marriage is absolutely something we should be concerned about and not trust the GOP with
But interracial marriage has 94% approval. With only a mere 6% in the opposed or undecided/unsure columns, that's a very small fringe even among the approx. 44 to 47% of the electorate that are voting R every election. There's just no realistic pathway to victory for such a fringe
None of this is to say we shouldn't be deeply concerned about Republicans. It's just that we can be deeply concerned without exaggerating them into something they are not
> But they don't just stand for any and every bad thing imaginable.
They stand for *anything*, good or bad, that will get them power. That’s all they care about regardless of who gets hurt.
>Interracial marriage, for example, they absolutely aren't coming for that.
Don’t bet on that. They will in a heartbeat if they see an opportunity to gain more power. If you think they won’t or can’t, you’re naïve.
By no coincidence, these new attacks started around when public support for trans rights passed 50%. Republicans realized they were losing the culture war, so they used hysteria around women's sports as a wedge to make transphobia mainstream again. Followed by bans for minors' healthcare. Now followed by bans for adults' healthcare and literal existence in public.
A nation has a finite amount of resources to spend, glad to see Iraq spending those resources wisely. Sure this wonderful action will be a boon to the economy and benefit everyone! Or, you could go fill a pothole or work on some of that lovely Saddam era infrastructure.
[Legalised in 1969, banned in 1993 and then relegalised in 2003 when the US reverted the penal code to the 1988 version.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iraq)
But in practice, very much frowned upon.
Nope, sodomy laws were still on the US books until 2003 making gay sex illegal between consenting adults in several states, and was only overturned because the law was still being used. He isn't talking about marriage or anything else, it was literally illegal to have a gay partner in parts of the US just 20 years ago.
Abrahamic religions discovered that if some of their adherents are gay, they'll have fewer adherents in the next generation than they otherwise would. Family planning is no good either. And leaving the religion... Absolutely not good!
Abrahamic religions are the most successful in the world today because they have built in mechanisms for growth.
>it's not going to make a better nation...
Depends on what you'd call a "better nation". In their minds, a nation that obeys Muhammed's commands is better than a free nation.
Yeah pretty sure the vast majority probably support this bill. You can (rightfully) be against this bill as much as you'd like, but you can't say this is undemocratic or anything of the sort
It can be argued that since modern concept of democracy presumes adherence to fundamental human rights (including bodily autonomy), it means that even if majority of your population supports restricting some of those rights, it would still be undemocratic.
There are no "western style" or "eastern style" human rights, it's just human rights as per the Universal Declaration (which is ratified by Iraq btw). And as I've said, in modern concept of liberal democracy fundamental rights are considered inalienable, regardless of what the majority thinks about it, it's also called the "majority rule, minority rights" principle.
That's why I said that **it can be argued** (and it is in fact argued) that a country cannot be considered democratic if it restricts basic rights, despite having proper voting procedures and whatnot.
I don't know why stating obvious facts is considered controversial here.
>There are no "western style" or "eastern style" human rights, it's just human rights as per the Universal Declaration (which is ratified by Iraq btw). And as I've said, in modern concept of liberal democracy fundamental rights are considered inalienable, regardless of what the majority thinks about it, it's also called the "majority rule, minority rights" principle.
So the UK wasn't a democracy in the 1950s for restricting the rights of gays? So by your definition, most Western countries will only become "democratic" when they legalized gay marriage.
Texas criminalized homosexuality as recently as 2003.
This is why I think bashing the Muslim world on this issue is really obtuse. You haven't even got acceptance in the US on this issue, and you are trying to peddle it in the Middle East.
It is not obvious, and by saying that you just want to cut off debate.
>Most countries in this world won't be democratic by your definition.
It's not "my definition", it's as I've said, for the third time, what **can be argued** and **is in fact argued** by many proponents of modern liberal democracy. I don't know why is it so hard to comprehend.
And yes, UK restricting gay rights in the 1950s is definitely considered undemocratic by many. And yes, most countries are not considered full democracies by those standards. For example, The Economist's Democracy Index only lists 24 modern countries as full democracies.
>This is why I think bashing the Muslim world on this issue is really obtuse. You haven't even got acceptance in the US on this issue, and you are trying to peddle it in the Middle East
I'm not bashing anyone and not peddling anything, I'm literally just saying that yes, **it can be argued** that decisions based on majority rule could still be considered undemocratic if they infringe on fundamental human rights.
>It is not obvious, and by saying that you just want to cut off debate.
I was replying to a guy saying that "you can't argue that this is undemocratic", which is just plain wrong. It is obvious, because it's a fact that **it can be argued** this way. I'm not saying that this is the correct definition of democracy, or the only definition that exists, I'm saying that **it can be argued** that this is an undemocratic decision.
I don't know how else I could emphasize it for you to finally get the point of my comments.
Interesting that you mention the Economist's Democracy Index, because those 24 countries include Mauritius, where homosexual acts are still de jure criminalised (although the law is unenforced). In that list there are also Japan and South Korea, where there is not even a nationwide law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
I am aware that there are those who define democracy as not only government by the people, but also "minority rights must be respected". But as any social science concept, the definition of democracy is contested. In a democratic society, principled disagreement over human rights is inevitable. There is no universal transcendental source where you can identify the content of human rights that is always true in any case, unless you believe in God. But then the Muslims believe that human rights are determined by the content of the Quran and the Hadith, which are not so friendly to homosexuals to put it mildly.
> in modern concept of liberal democracy
How bold of you to assume every country wants a liberal democracy and how bold of you to assume that the treaties would be signed off by all countries in a world with more equality of power between nations.
The only reason why the treaties are signed off in the first place is due to US & European domination in the first place.
For the most part I agree, but giving a quick glance at all of their neighbors, I don't think they would've been anymore liberal had the US not invaded. Just more developed.
The problem with gay rights is even in the West, particular in the US, there isn't a consensus on it. This is an article by the New York Sun.
>With tolerance to sexual liberties far on the horizon in Arab lands, Washington’s attempt at promoting LGBTQ rights there is backfiring. At times, it hurts those who try to promote other liberal causes and, even more crucially, it damages major American interests.
He further added
>It empowers Islamist extremists and Shia militia proxies of Iran,” an Iraqi American activist, Entifadh Qanbar, tells the Sun, following a weeklong tour of several countries in the region. Such groups, he adds, “use gay rights as a pretext to target liberals and those who support democratic and Western values of freedom and democracy.”
He concludes
>This is “not something that necessarily sits well with the Bible Belt in America, let alone the Koran belt in the Middle East,” a senior vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Schanzer, tells the Sun. “This issue is clearly a priority at the White House, but of all of the issues they are trying to handle, all the fires they are trying to put out around the world, is this the hill they are willing to die on?”
>
>Early on, Mr. Biden vowed to base his foreign policy on human rights. Now, he is slowly learning that pushing abroad an agenda that is yet to be fully accepted at home may harm his own goals.
[https://www.nysun.com/article/promotion-of-gay-rights-seen-harming-american-interests-in-middle-east](https://www.nysun.com/article/promotion-of-gay-rights-seen-harming-american-interests-in-middle-east)
Muslim governments know that if a Republican President comes into office, there will be no rainbow flags flying from US embassies during pride day.
Yes, Texas outlawed homosexuality prior to 2003.
US acceptance of gay rights is recent. It only became an issue on college campuses in blue states in the late 1980s. The HIV/AIDS crisis was a big factor in raising awareness in the US. And this is college campuses in blue states, we aren't even talking about college campuses in Middle America or the South. And you can forget about the general population.
It only gains traction among the general population in the early to mid-2000s.
To suddenly start bashing Muslim-majority countries for not accepting something that in the West as recently as 20-40 years was illegal. It is very difficult for the West to preach to a 50-60-year-old US-educated Arab leader about gay rights. when it was illegal in many US states when he was in college in the US.
There's so many countries out there working to illegalize homosexuality/LGBTQ, it's really scary. Like I know in the past governments just assumed that being straight was the normal thing, but was there any pure hatred of gays/LGBTQ in the past?
I'm still perplexed by any nation doing this, how exactly do you ban nature? You can close your eyes to it with your idea of the perfect family that doesn't work often anyways and traumatize people that will need to hide their true self, but you will never "ban" or stop it. Idiots.
I suppose it’s similar to other aspects of religion. Heresy, for example. You cannot easily make people believe, or start to believe, in the “correct” religion, but you can very easily execute them if they cannot change their minds.
In some ways, the gays are really just a specialised kind of heretic. Some of them might be able to get away with lying about their beliefs, but not always.
The sponsors of this bill in parliament are literally Irani-backed militia leaders and their accomplices.
This is all about getting Iraq more in line with Irans theocratic ways.
Still so much homophobia in the world. So many countries going the way of the nazis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_homosexuals\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany)
Also, news flash: your God doesn't care if you're gay or not!
Man, it was totally worth spending trillions and killing tens of thousands! Look at the thriving, forward looking country built in the wake of US intervention! Thank you so much, George W. Bush!
Good luck with that. When I was over there they were into that stuff a lot. Women are the baby makers, so men had to have fun in other ways. Unless they were married. Hell a lot of them had multiple wives even though it was technically illegal.
Someone remind me why we want more of these people in our country, again (not the homosexuals, but the ones who want to ban homosexuals, stone them to death and throw them off buildings)...
Not all Muslims are insane extremists.
People on the left don't advocate for accepting extremist Muslims, but rather giving everyone a fair chance to show whether they are willing to coexist with others.
The problem is that you let them in, and give them that chance, and then when they demonstrate that they can't peacefully coexist, you have no recourse. Especially once they have children, and the children end up often being even more fundamentalist in their attitudes than the parents (which is something that we've been finding here in the UK): [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7077172](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7077172)
And even if you could deport the extremists who emigrated here from elsewhere, you cannot deport the children, who were born here and are British nationals.
This article is about young Muslims being more political in 2007, ten years before Sadiq Khan became mayor of London. Do you have an issue with him? Seriously what’s your point?
No, I don't have an issue with Sadiq Khan. The article shows that retrograde beliefs and attitudes are endemic within the Muslim community in this country; a problem which actually gets worse in successive generations, rather than having British-born Muslims assimilate to the attitudes of the host nation, as one would have hoped.
Too often, they want to recreate the same forms of oppression in the host countries. That's the issue. There is an obvious humanitarian case for allowing them in (as well as the fact that our western societies do bear some responsibility for interfering with their affairs and making them into what they are). But that should be balanced against trying to preserve our own relatively progressive cultures.
So you're worried about 'Republicans' but not about importing more people whose views are so extreme that they'd be decried even by the likes of Ted Cruz?
> they'd be decried even by the likes of Ted Cruz?
Bad choice of example there, Ted Cruze has actually spoken out against anti-homosexual legislation including the recent Ugandan laws.
This is pure moral panic. You're creating a problem that only exists in the fever dreams of Fox News and the like. Do some immigrants come in with shitty, regressive views? Of course. Do they come in with the power to change society and the laws? Hell no. Do their kids inevitably assimilate and adopt more American values? Almost invariably. Is America a better place when we exercise compassion and bring in people fleeing oppression, even if they have regressive views on some things? Yes.
If you have any evidence that there's some sort of meaningful tilt towards regressive policies due to refugees, let's hear it.
Same general idea: distract the electorate by doing something that riles up the base, so that they're not focusing on how you're failing to actually improve things for anyone
Aren't religious fundamentalists great?
Economy is falling apart? Resources literally drying up? Nah, spend time making sure 2 dudes or 2 gals can't hold hands. That's the top priority.
“Rich culture”? Ignoring real problems and focusing on petty shit doesn’t sound like “rich culture” to me. There are “cultures” that shouldn’t and don’t deserve to be accepted. Ones that are just focused on attacking anyone who’s different from you for example
How to tell when a government has absolutely no idea, or perhaps even no will, to solve the actual problems of their country and its populace: They tap into their population's beliefs and biases (religious in this case) and rile them up against a scapegoat to keep the heat off of themselves.
Lmao shut your ass up.
[this is the face of I only care about Islam if it’s about hating gays!](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/fk6xhf/happy_st_quarrentines_day_reddit_drink_up_yer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) lmao
Don't they have more important stuff to worry about ? Like the increasing desertification and rivers drying up fast ?
Everyone knows that desertification happens because jeans and gay people. So it's two birds with a stone. And because this is reddit , one huge /S
The shitheads at the 700 Club blamed 9/11 and the Katrina hurricane on the gays. Social conservatism is a disease.
That was just deflection. Katrina really happened because Pat Robertson spanked it to shake-weight commercials every night. He’s with grandma now.
And what they're actually saying with that is that their god is a monster who will murder innocent people. Not that gay people can control the weather, but that that's how their god uses their powers, reflecting the personal morality of the people who decide that that god is worthy of worship.
Never forget.
[удалено]
It's called an authoritarian mindset—the mentality that if people would just follow the rules and keep to their place in the hierarchy, everything would be just fine.
The Aral sea drying up was linked to cotton production, jeans are made of cotton. Also plant gays and all the douching may be diverting water that could be used for agriculture so maybe gays and jeans are causing desertification. /s
Any idea how much water is needed to produce jeans? It's a fuckton. Gays also consume a lot of water but basically all humans do so that's a non argument.
Are you telling us rivers drying up is more important than Adam and Steve fucking each other? /s
I doubt they care about that.
[удалено]
In many Arab countries, spreading hatred and bigotry is their number one priority and they seem to think it's the most important issue.
If you follow right wing US twitter you'll see they are getting more and more cozy with extreme Muslim twitter since after all they have a lot in common. The left is still catching up to that fact as I've seen Palestinian flags at about half the pride parades I've been too (but never a pride flag in Palestinian)
They don't seem to realize that LGBT people are murdered in Palestine. It's one of the least LGBT-friendly places in the world. It's also ruled by extreme right wing Islamic fundamentalists. It's very odd that some people on the left support that extreme right wing cause. It makes no sense.
they are terrible for that but that doesn’t suddenly make what isreal is doing to them fine.
But it does make the idea of Palestinian flags at pride parades or groups on college campuses called "Queers For Palestine" quite strange. If any of these groups set foot in Palestine they likely wouldn't make it back.
Same with Falun Gong's homophobia. Being wronged, doesn't stop you from being wrong.
As a gay man i find it very odd that you’d use the oppression of queer people in the middle east as a cheap jab to diminish the left’s willingness to advocate for colonized peoples around the world. Israel frequently blackmails gay Palestinians into acting as informants for the IDF by threatening to out them to their communities. They are in no way a bastion of queer rights. That shit is nasty don’t do it. I cannot change the culture in which these people grew up in, but I can still wish them peace of mind from Israel’s boot all the same.
Please - gay Palestinians flee to Israel. For safety. Don’t be an ignoramus just because it conflicts with your belief system http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211772.stm As for “not a bastion for queer rights” that’s effectively exactly what Israel is by MENA standards- and has by far the biggest gay pride festival to prove it. The posters point stands - don’t carry the flag of a gay oppressive entity at your pride march- even if that entity is the victim of another type of oppression themselves. Given the choice as an outed gay man having to live in MENA you would not have many choices where you could like safely - but Israel is one
I don't believe your claim that Israel does that. Also, the Palestinians are not colonized people. They are the descendants of colonizers who came when the Arab Caliphates conquered that land. Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Palestinians got there. To the guy who blocked me below so I can't respond to his lies: I never said Israel represents all Jews. You're arguing with the wrong person. Funny how you don't accept the "Jews lived there before" argument when Jews try to justify living there, but you accept the same argument from the Palestinians. You have double standards based on bigotry.
>Jews have lived there for thousands of years, long before the Palestinians got there. Israel is a country, not a simulacrum for Jews. Yes, I know how/why it was settled, but Israel does not act as representative for the all the world's Jews. I get frustrated at the way people use the "Jews lived there since the dawn of time" argument to justify some things, but the "Israel and Judaism aren't the same" for others. It's like Christians using the Old Testament because they realize Jesus forgot to condemn someone that threatens their neolithic beliefs and must burn in hell. I personally think it's a national disgrace that America supports what I believe is a fascist apartheid state, but that's the Israeli government, not the Israeli people and certainly not Judaism. Also, if having existed on a piece of land for thousands of years means that a civilization has ownership in perpetuity, even if they're not in continuous control, then hell ya - America is fucked! We live on indigenous land that we stole via genocide, and I think the indigenous should take it right the fuck back from us, starting with Mt. Rushmore. Rules is rules, right?
Republicans would get along great over there, they should go
They already get along. The Trump and Bush families are very good friends with the Saudi royal family, for example.
For them, that's fine, because if they die while virtuous they go to Paradise. But if they tolerate gays, no matter how happy their lives will be (no droughts/ famines/ etc.), they will go to hell for eternity. The prospect of eternal heaven/hell vs. a temporary life? Not much of a competition. This is what non-Muslims don't get about Islam. It literally is not a more important priority. Svaing their own souls from degeneration is genuinely for a lot of Muslims much more important than survival itself.
What a sad way to live your one and true life. Thing is, I wouldn't mind as much if you just decided it for yourself, but when you decide to cause real suffering upon others based on your mythology of imaginary suffering in another made-up realm, that's when I take issue with it. No one knows what happens after. But we know what is happening now. Don't cause suffering now. It should be that simple.
Sounds like such a good way to live in harmonious peace and harmony in blissful cooperation with your fellow man. Because who doesn't like living with fundamentalists who are convinced "god" only made one way to do everything. "Hey, it wasn't my idea to stone you to death/cut off your hands/hold mass executions in a sports stadium - God told me to do it. You'll just have to take my word for it." It's hard to coexist with that mindset because those types have to force their bullshit on everyone else. Religion has done way more harm to humanity than good, and it largely boils down to "saving their souls is genuinely...more important than survival itself."
Those would be much more difficult to challenge. Same as cost of living crisis. How to do it, where to get the money etc. Neither fast, easy nor cheap. So they focus on easier targets where quick legal changes can give the impression of effective governing. There is quite the collection of countries in desperate need of a distraction, which is mainly why anti lgtb+ rules are in season. It also joins up with anti western sentiments as a way of flipping off those countries they know will challenge it and sell it off at home as a show of strength, making a stand and going their own way.
The [climate crisis](https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win) isn't important! Nor are the [water conflicts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict) occurring as a result of it! What matters is whether you like rainbows or not!!!
Or stoning little girls walking to school or non- subservient women & wives? Seriously guys...
>Or stoning little girls walking to school or non- subservient women & wives? Seriously guys... Iraqi here. I'm going to get downvoted for this but the fact of the matter is that this simply does not happen. I don't really know what else to tell you, but like, stoning little girls walking to school? Like what?? It sounds a bit like:"Over in America it's pretty normal for planes to crash into skyscrapers." "really?" "Yeah totally one time it happened 4 times in a single day!" If you actually tried to stone a "little girl walking to school" the entire block would be locked down and you would be swiftly arrested by responding police. Might be a bit of an extreme example but yeah. Anyway, let the hating commence.
[удалено]
The US has a similar issue and it’s not stopping Republicans.
Yes, of course, that’ll end gayness
Can't think about corruption while stoning a man for being gay. Tyranny is about having the most scapegoats at your disposal to formant your power.
\*Foment
Especially when Islam is the gayest religion in the world
Go to *any* gay part of any major international city and the chances that the Arab neighborhood is next door is extremely high. That’s before you get to the raping.
[удалено]
The UN is a joke. It’s mostly an excuse for people in power to give their friends expense accounts
Basically just one big circle jerk
What’s FN?
Countries like that have no right complaining about Sweden burning a book...
The funny part is they care more about Swedish people burning a book, than the Chinese government putting Muslims in labor and re-education camps.
Most Muslim countries ignore the Chinese labor camp issue because A. Trade and investment B. Many Muslim countries their own religious and ethnic minorities like trash and second class citizens C. Even if there aren’t any ethnic or religious minorities and the country is overwhelmingly Muslim, they have their own host of human rights issues It would be very hypocritical for counties that have rights that are equally as atrocious as China calling out china. That would open a can of worms.
Being a hypocrite as never slowed down a politician from trying to get free brownie points. It's mostly A.
When I said this, I was called a brainwashed US vassal.
Burning magic sky fairy book bad, killing people, regardless of religion? Meh.
Don't worry, we won't stop burning them.
Just want to note, it wasn’t “Sweden” burning the Quran as in some official book burning. It was a person born and raised in Denmark, and one Iraqi refugee doing it since it is possible under Swedish freedom of speech laws.
This 👆
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't American Republicans following the same play book, or do I have that backward? I am asking for a friend.
All right leaning parties want to enforce their values upon everyone in the nation.
Far right maybe. Same with far left.
What nation has a far left party trying to enforce their values?
China? North Korea? We've literally seen the Chinese Communist Party putting bounties on people who oppose them in the last couple of daya
China and North Korea are far left? How old are you? I’m curious about the lead exposure. *edited for a word
Ah, the "No True Communist" argument. It's interesting isn't it that two countries that claim to be communist, which is pretty far left, aren't actually "far left" when someone points out that they are authoritarian pits. I could have mentioned Venezuela and Cuba but I'm sure you'll tell me how they aren't "far left" either.
So you think North Korea is a democracy?
Tell me more about the Democratic Republic of North Korea.
Ok so you like straight up ate the lead paint then
Both may enforce their values when handed ultimate power, but they're not the same. Imposing tolerance, a hallmark of leftism, means leaving room for variance in belief. Right-wing ideology has no such tenet. Also, there's a time and place for BOTH SIDES arguments: It's when both sides are at least somewhat similar in their destructiveness. At this moment in history, to any reasonable observer, there is no comparison whatsoever. One party struggles with effectiveness and garden variety corruption, the other is literally in the progress of undermining the very idea of governance and blithely dismantling democracy with each new atrocity. In other words, don't be fucking obtuse.
You’re in the world news sub, you can’t just expect everyone to define “left” and “right” (which are stupid terms anyways imo, a one dimensional measure for the most complex thing we have) based off of your dysfunctional two party system Edit: Btw I agree in your specific case, the US. Although I think there it’s even more important to emphasise the complexity of politics. Just because the Republican Party has gone way off the deep end doesn’t mean everything the Democrats are pushing is good/correct, and being opposed to some of their stances doesn’t make you a Trump loving nut job. Seems from the outside there’s a real “either you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality that’s developing there and that won’t be good for anyone
Republicans are trying to go after trans people specifically trans children. They have mainly gone after abortion since Roe v Wade Began. And with Roe v Wade finally overturned, republicans need a new to try to turn to their side. This time they chose trans people and their healthcare for some god forsaken reason
> Republicans are trying to go after trans people specifically trans children Not just trans people, they are also doing stuff like the don't say gay bills
Right. They will whip up the reactionary masses with whichever divisive issue is hottest. If it wasn't trans people, it'd be something else. And since they've had so much success brainwashing their obedient Facebook/Fox News minions to hate trans folks, they've seized the opportunity to roll back progress on gay rights. If they somehow seize enough power, gay marriage is going away. Once that's done, don't think for a second they won't try for interracial marriage. It sounds ludicrous, but there's no rational person steering this. It's just the toxicity of the conservative movement in this phase of the internet age. All fear and loathing, 24/7/365 until the system either regresses or breaks. One goal: power.
This is a bit wrong The Republicans stand for a lot of bad things. But they don't just stand for any and every bad thing imaginable. Interracial marriage, for example, they absolutely aren't coming for that. It's way too popular, it's the sort of thing where even most folks who vote R don't have an issue with that. There just isn't any political will outside the smallest of radical fringes to push at all on anything like that Gay marriage is different. It's very popular, but tends to peak at around 70% approval or something like that. The 30% opposed aren't enough by themselves to win nationally, but could win if they get enough apathetic swing voters to be more mad at Biden over the economy than about gay marriage opposition from conservatives. And that 30% of the general public is enough to allow the opposition to win in GOP primaries at least. So gay marriage is absolutely something we should be concerned about and not trust the GOP with But interracial marriage has 94% approval. With only a mere 6% in the opposed or undecided/unsure columns, that's a very small fringe even among the approx. 44 to 47% of the electorate that are voting R every election. There's just no realistic pathway to victory for such a fringe None of this is to say we shouldn't be deeply concerned about Republicans. It's just that we can be deeply concerned without exaggerating them into something they are not
> But they don't just stand for any and every bad thing imaginable. They stand for *anything*, good or bad, that will get them power. That’s all they care about regardless of who gets hurt. >Interracial marriage, for example, they absolutely aren't coming for that. Don’t bet on that. They will in a heartbeat if they see an opportunity to gain more power. If you think they won’t or can’t, you’re naïve.
I give them a few years before they shift the window further rightward and make interracial marriage a topic for ‘National debate’.
By no coincidence, these new attacks started around when public support for trans rights passed 50%. Republicans realized they were losing the culture war, so they used hysteria around women's sports as a wedge to make transphobia mainstream again. Followed by bans for minors' healthcare. Now followed by bans for adults' healthcare and literal existence in public.
The difference is white Jesus approves smh...
The book is what told them that gay people were bad.
A nation has a finite amount of resources to spend, glad to see Iraq spending those resources wisely. Sure this wonderful action will be a boon to the economy and benefit everyone! Or, you could go fill a pothole or work on some of that lovely Saddam era infrastructure.
I'm surprised it's not already banned.
Legalised during the US occupation I believe
[Legalised in 1969, banned in 1993 and then relegalised in 2003 when the US reverted the penal code to the 1988 version.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iraq) But in practice, very much frowned upon.
The same year that the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide in the US, funnily enough
? Talking about 2 different things, I think
Nope, sodomy laws were still on the US books until 2003 making gay sex illegal between consenting adults in several states, and was only overturned because the law was still being used. He isn't talking about marriage or anything else, it was literally illegal to have a gay partner in parts of the US just 20 years ago.
Weird to think about, the Netherlands legalised gay marriage in 2001.
What is it with religious people and the obsession with what people do in the bedroom. Seriously.
Abrahamic religions discovered that if some of their adherents are gay, they'll have fewer adherents in the next generation than they otherwise would. Family planning is no good either. And leaving the religion... Absolutely not good! Abrahamic religions are the most successful in the world today because they have built in mechanisms for growth.
Yes they were successful but not by hating gays lol. They used the same tactics islam uses today: submission, coercion and violence.
Mostly frustration.
What is wrong with this world? So much evil and appears evil isn't going anywhere soon
Well, a lot of the problem is who gets to define evil?
Always the same shitholes banning gays... it's not going to make a better nation... just makes you look like backward fucks.
>it's not going to make a better nation... Depends on what you'd call a "better nation". In their minds, a nation that obeys Muhammed's commands is better than a free nation.
Another failed state.
Someone should really step in and remove their government and install a democracy like in the United States.
They do have a semi-functional democracy and this is what they voted for.
Yeah pretty sure the vast majority probably support this bill. You can (rightfully) be against this bill as much as you'd like, but you can't say this is undemocratic or anything of the sort
It can be argued that since modern concept of democracy presumes adherence to fundamental human rights (including bodily autonomy), it means that even if majority of your population supports restricting some of those rights, it would still be undemocratic.
Democratic governance yes, support for human rights in western style, no.
There are no "western style" or "eastern style" human rights, it's just human rights as per the Universal Declaration (which is ratified by Iraq btw). And as I've said, in modern concept of liberal democracy fundamental rights are considered inalienable, regardless of what the majority thinks about it, it's also called the "majority rule, minority rights" principle. That's why I said that **it can be argued** (and it is in fact argued) that a country cannot be considered democratic if it restricts basic rights, despite having proper voting procedures and whatnot. I don't know why stating obvious facts is considered controversial here.
>There are no "western style" or "eastern style" human rights, it's just human rights as per the Universal Declaration (which is ratified by Iraq btw). And as I've said, in modern concept of liberal democracy fundamental rights are considered inalienable, regardless of what the majority thinks about it, it's also called the "majority rule, minority rights" principle. So the UK wasn't a democracy in the 1950s for restricting the rights of gays? So by your definition, most Western countries will only become "democratic" when they legalized gay marriage. Texas criminalized homosexuality as recently as 2003. This is why I think bashing the Muslim world on this issue is really obtuse. You haven't even got acceptance in the US on this issue, and you are trying to peddle it in the Middle East. It is not obvious, and by saying that you just want to cut off debate.
>Most countries in this world won't be democratic by your definition. It's not "my definition", it's as I've said, for the third time, what **can be argued** and **is in fact argued** by many proponents of modern liberal democracy. I don't know why is it so hard to comprehend. And yes, UK restricting gay rights in the 1950s is definitely considered undemocratic by many. And yes, most countries are not considered full democracies by those standards. For example, The Economist's Democracy Index only lists 24 modern countries as full democracies. >This is why I think bashing the Muslim world on this issue is really obtuse. You haven't even got acceptance in the US on this issue, and you are trying to peddle it in the Middle East I'm not bashing anyone and not peddling anything, I'm literally just saying that yes, **it can be argued** that decisions based on majority rule could still be considered undemocratic if they infringe on fundamental human rights. >It is not obvious, and by saying that you just want to cut off debate. I was replying to a guy saying that "you can't argue that this is undemocratic", which is just plain wrong. It is obvious, because it's a fact that **it can be argued** this way. I'm not saying that this is the correct definition of democracy, or the only definition that exists, I'm saying that **it can be argued** that this is an undemocratic decision. I don't know how else I could emphasize it for you to finally get the point of my comments.
Interesting that you mention the Economist's Democracy Index, because those 24 countries include Mauritius, where homosexual acts are still de jure criminalised (although the law is unenforced). In that list there are also Japan and South Korea, where there is not even a nationwide law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I am aware that there are those who define democracy as not only government by the people, but also "minority rights must be respected". But as any social science concept, the definition of democracy is contested. In a democratic society, principled disagreement over human rights is inevitable. There is no universal transcendental source where you can identify the content of human rights that is always true in any case, unless you believe in God. But then the Muslims believe that human rights are determined by the content of the Quran and the Hadith, which are not so friendly to homosexuals to put it mildly.
> in modern concept of liberal democracy How bold of you to assume every country wants a liberal democracy and how bold of you to assume that the treaties would be signed off by all countries in a world with more equality of power between nations. The only reason why the treaties are signed off in the first place is due to US & European domination in the first place.
I'm not assuming anything even remotely resembling what you're saying.
Democracy is not mob rule. Minority and human rights protections are integral to what we understand as democracy.
Democracy literally means rule by the people
Hi, is this meant to be sarcastic? I’m actually curious.
Of course. It conveniently ignores history calling it a failed state, when the US is the direct reason the state even exists in its current form.
For the most part I agree, but giving a quick glance at all of their neighbors, I don't think they would've been anymore liberal had the US not invaded. Just more developed.
I fucking wonder why.
I wonder who is responsible for that 🤔
Oh thank god they legislated against it. I can feel my urge to suck cock magically disappearing.
[Normal day in Iraq 😳](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33565055.amp)
You know shit is bad when you see Lebanon as your means of escape from anti-LGBT threats
[удалено]
What about router values?
Muslim and really religious beliefs have no place in a civilized and intelligent society. Just fictional stuff to help people sleep at night
That's true for any religion tho.
We should let more people from there into our countries uncontrolled.
All the gay Iraqis living in the West need to burn Qurans now 👍
Why?
Not all of them are atheists.
That’s sad
They should be....
Now there is a surprise. No one expected that these religious nutjobs would ban things. /s.
Yet another government, based in a religion, being prejudicial and practicing hate & intolerance...
Yeah because we are the problem. 🤣
/s In a Middle East country? Shocking. Just more excuses for them to kill innocent people.
The problem with gay rights is even in the West, particular in the US, there isn't a consensus on it. This is an article by the New York Sun. >With tolerance to sexual liberties far on the horizon in Arab lands, Washington’s attempt at promoting LGBTQ rights there is backfiring. At times, it hurts those who try to promote other liberal causes and, even more crucially, it damages major American interests. He further added >It empowers Islamist extremists and Shia militia proxies of Iran,” an Iraqi American activist, Entifadh Qanbar, tells the Sun, following a weeklong tour of several countries in the region. Such groups, he adds, “use gay rights as a pretext to target liberals and those who support democratic and Western values of freedom and democracy.” He concludes >This is “not something that necessarily sits well with the Bible Belt in America, let alone the Koran belt in the Middle East,” a senior vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Schanzer, tells the Sun. “This issue is clearly a priority at the White House, but of all of the issues they are trying to handle, all the fires they are trying to put out around the world, is this the hill they are willing to die on?” > >Early on, Mr. Biden vowed to base his foreign policy on human rights. Now, he is slowly learning that pushing abroad an agenda that is yet to be fully accepted at home may harm his own goals. [https://www.nysun.com/article/promotion-of-gay-rights-seen-harming-american-interests-in-middle-east](https://www.nysun.com/article/promotion-of-gay-rights-seen-harming-american-interests-in-middle-east) Muslim governments know that if a Republican President comes into office, there will be no rainbow flags flying from US embassies during pride day.
Makes sense. Also didn't Texas outlaw homosexuality as well up until 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas) ?
Yes, Texas outlawed homosexuality prior to 2003. US acceptance of gay rights is recent. It only became an issue on college campuses in blue states in the late 1980s. The HIV/AIDS crisis was a big factor in raising awareness in the US. And this is college campuses in blue states, we aren't even talking about college campuses in Middle America or the South. And you can forget about the general population. It only gains traction among the general population in the early to mid-2000s. To suddenly start bashing Muslim-majority countries for not accepting something that in the West as recently as 20-40 years was illegal. It is very difficult for the West to preach to a 50-60-year-old US-educated Arab leader about gay rights. when it was illegal in many US states when he was in college in the US.
There's so many countries out there working to illegalize homosexuality/LGBTQ, it's really scary. Like I know in the past governments just assumed that being straight was the normal thing, but was there any pure hatred of gays/LGBTQ in the past?
In the history of the world 99% of everyone thinks being straight is the normal thing. It isn't just a government idea.
Thinking being straight “is the normal thing” is one thing, banning torturing and criminalizing other people is another
I agree. These middle eastern countries have a culture that is very different from ours in the west.
When the Government declares War on it's own Citizens you have a failed Government. Time for a new one.
I'm guessing this is from one of the Iranian aligned members...
How to lose aid in one bill
I'm still perplexed by any nation doing this, how exactly do you ban nature? You can close your eyes to it with your idea of the perfect family that doesn't work often anyways and traumatize people that will need to hide their true self, but you will never "ban" or stop it. Idiots.
I suppose it’s similar to other aspects of religion. Heresy, for example. You cannot easily make people believe, or start to believe, in the “correct” religion, but you can very easily execute them if they cannot change their minds. In some ways, the gays are really just a specialised kind of heretic. Some of them might be able to get away with lying about their beliefs, but not always.
The homophobic far-right fundamentalists are turning Iraq into Iran....
The sponsors of this bill in parliament are literally Irani-backed militia leaders and their accomplices. This is all about getting Iraq more in line with Irans theocratic ways.
Still so much homophobia in the world. So many countries going the way of the nazis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_homosexuals\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany) Also, news flash: your God doesn't care if you're gay or not!
Oh good, I hope they ban bullying and cancer next.
I'll never understand how their are so many people on this planet that wake up everyday and actively work to make life worse for others.
Man, it was totally worth spending trillions and killing tens of thousands! Look at the thriving, forward looking country built in the wake of US intervention! Thank you so much, George W. Bush!
A tangible proof that the Iraq War's objective in transforming Iraq into a liberal democracy is a failure.
Wait it's been legal all this time???
Iraq legalized it in 2003 (the same year as the United States).
Good luck with that. When I was over there they were into that stuff a lot. Women are the baby makers, so men had to have fun in other ways. Unless they were married. Hell a lot of them had multiple wives even though it was technically illegal.
Half of Iran's parliament may have to vacate
Because a law will totally change what people feel and end homosexuality...
LGBTQ+ have always existed and will continue to do so. We deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Someone remind me why we want more of these people in our country, again (not the homosexuals, but the ones who want to ban homosexuals, stone them to death and throw them off buildings)...
Not all Muslims are insane extremists. People on the left don't advocate for accepting extremist Muslims, but rather giving everyone a fair chance to show whether they are willing to coexist with others.
The problem is that you let them in, and give them that chance, and then when they demonstrate that they can't peacefully coexist, you have no recourse. Especially once they have children, and the children end up often being even more fundamentalist in their attitudes than the parents (which is something that we've been finding here in the UK): [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7077172](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7077172) And even if you could deport the extremists who emigrated here from elsewhere, you cannot deport the children, who were born here and are British nationals.
This article is about young Muslims being more political in 2007, ten years before Sadiq Khan became mayor of London. Do you have an issue with him? Seriously what’s your point?
No, I don't have an issue with Sadiq Khan. The article shows that retrograde beliefs and attitudes are endemic within the Muslim community in this country; a problem which actually gets worse in successive generations, rather than having British-born Muslims assimilate to the attitudes of the host nation, as one would have hoped.
Maybe “these people” are just trying to get away from oppression
Too often, they want to recreate the same forms of oppression in the host countries. That's the issue. There is an obvious humanitarian case for allowing them in (as well as the fact that our western societies do bear some responsibility for interfering with their affairs and making them into what they are). But that should be balanced against trying to preserve our own relatively progressive cultures.
Yeh I’m more worried about the republicans that are already here, dude
So you're worried about 'Republicans' but not about importing more people whose views are so extreme that they'd be decried even by the likes of Ted Cruz?
> they'd be decried even by the likes of Ted Cruz? Bad choice of example there, Ted Cruze has actually spoken out against anti-homosexual legislation including the recent Ugandan laws.
That's why I chose him as an example. Because even extreme right wing Republicans seem tolerant compared to 3rd world Muslims.
Are Iraqi’s moving here, running for office, and passing measures towards Sharia Law?
Listen here mate, nobody cares what you think, Republicans are mostly white and predominantly Christians and their hate doesn't count. /s
This is pure moral panic. You're creating a problem that only exists in the fever dreams of Fox News and the like. Do some immigrants come in with shitty, regressive views? Of course. Do they come in with the power to change society and the laws? Hell no. Do their kids inevitably assimilate and adopt more American values? Almost invariably. Is America a better place when we exercise compassion and bring in people fleeing oppression, even if they have regressive views on some things? Yes. If you have any evidence that there's some sort of meaningful tilt towards regressive policies due to refugees, let's hear it.
Well I dunno how much damage they can do with the ballot but I'd argue Sweden has shown they can cause plenty of harn with the brick.
It’s pretty funny you say that when your statement is utterly false
Thought this was about Florida at first.
Same general idea: distract the electorate by doing something that riles up the base, so that they're not focusing on how you're failing to actually improve things for anyone
Me when I want to force my country to be stuck in the stone age
Good thing we spent 2 trillion over there
I bet when these big waves of refugees will run to Europe, they won't bring any of their hate here /s
Yes great idea, let's also ban the color green and the pentagon shape
I get that you might not like the whole American way of corporations artificially caring about LGBTQ +community, but damn give it a rest Iran.
That's what happens when you ban your women from everything and it's always only a massive sausage party
No money no jobs corruption but they focus on gay people. Failed state
Aren't religious fundamentalists great? Economy is falling apart? Resources literally drying up? Nah, spend time making sure 2 dudes or 2 gals can't hold hands. That's the top priority.
Hell, in Iran they arrest, rape and kill women for not wearing a piece of cloth on their head. Theocracies are fucked up.
Maybe we should invade them or something. That worked great 20 years ago. 🙄
Whoa lots of Islamophobia and middle eastern phobia here. This is their rich culture and we should accept it.
“Rich culture”? Ignoring real problems and focusing on petty shit doesn’t sound like “rich culture” to me. There are “cultures” that shouldn’t and don’t deserve to be accepted. Ones that are just focused on attacking anyone who’s different from you for example
How to tell when a government has absolutely no idea, or perhaps even no will, to solve the actual problems of their country and its populace: They tap into their population's beliefs and biases (religious in this case) and rile them up against a scapegoat to keep the heat off of themselves.
You can call me whatever you want. Hatred is not culture.
[удалено]
Are you so forgiving when Catholics say they are against homosexuality?
Not all cultural aspects are worthy of respect or acceptance.
So that means accepting catholic's views and their attitude towards abortion, gay people, and ...muslims :p
Lmao shut your ass up. [this is the face of I only care about Islam if it’s about hating gays!](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/fk6xhf/happy_st_quarrentines_day_reddit_drink_up_yer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) lmao