Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims

[Pangean]

Since you obviously missed the point, I'll repeat and make it even clearer:

- What you call extremism isn't really seen as extremism in those Islamic cultures
Unlike in Western culture. Where appeals like killing gays, and other deplorable stuff, are greatly looked down upon.

- Which also implies that Christian terrorism in the West, or even in general, doesn't have the amount of passive and active support that Muslim "extremism" has
Congratulations on finding a lunatic pastor claiming his interpretation of sinful behaviour in the Bible is the correct one. How many people actually started killing gays because of what he said though? Now, compare that to the number of LGBT crimes in Islamic culture. For the sake of completeness, compare the number of Imams calling for violence against the LGBT community with the number of Christian pastors doing the same.

However, the biggest difference between a Christian and Islamic preacher representing their faith is the little part of history where the Renaissance happened. Since the Renaissance, Christianity became largely entwined with philosophical humanism - basically making Christians value (non-religiously based) universal rights over blindly following a holy book. The same point cannot be made for Islam, which hasn't seen such an historical event. There's only one interpretation of the Quran, else you're not a true Muslim.
This major detail is enough for the (at first sight hypocritical) statement: One cannot blame the entirety of Christianity for individual actions; yet it is possible to do that for Islam.

Let Islam go through a Renaissance-like period first, essentially modernizing it, before you compare "Christian" terror with Islamic terror - or even more strict: Before you compare behaviour of Christians with behaviour of Muslims.

And as we know the Renaissance period stopped the killings of gays and other deplorable stuff in countries that went through that. I guess you might want to explain the killings of gays by the Nazi's. In England being gay was illegal till 1967. How about Atascadero State Hospital where gays were sent and underwent forced lobotomies and castrations.

Hoiw about this?:

"Nonetheless, studies on violence against lesbian
and gay adults in the 1970s and 1980s provide clues to its prevalence
during the middle adulthood years of today’s older gay and lesbian
Realities of Hate Crimes 157
cohort. Jay and Young (1977) found that 27% of 4,400 gay males and
14% of 1,000 lesbians had experienced physical assault in connection
with their homosexuality.
http://sageatl.org/docs/hatecrimes.pdf

They didn't kill them they just beat them. I guess those folks missed the renaissance as well. And if you think that the community in general spoke out against this you are deluding yourself.

"Gay men and women were labeled “deviants,” “degenerates,” and “sex criminals” by the medical profession, government officials, and the mass media. The federal government banned the employment of homosexuals and insisted that its private contractors ferret out and dismiss their gay employees, many state governments prohibited gay people from being served in bars and restaurants, Hollywood prohibited the discussion of gay issues or the appearance of gay or lesbian characters in its films, and many municipalities launched police campaigns to suppress gay life. The authorities worked together to create or reinforce the belief that gay people were an inferior class to be shunned by other Americans. Sodomy laws that exclusively targeted same-sex couples, such as the statute enacted in 1973 in Texas (1973 TEX. GEN. LAWS ch. 399, §§ 1, 3), were a development of the last third of the twentieth century and reflect this historically unprecedented concern to classify and penalize homosexuals as a subordinate class of citizens. -Http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1539#sthash.FuPBFvo9.dpuf

Guess they all missed the renaissance as well and a whole lot of universal rights were being respected by the above behavior.

Anyways the relative acceptance of gays in the west is relatively recent. The 60's were the the actual start of the turning point in the West. And that's because gay's rioted when police raided a club. . And if you think the culture in the west didn't use their bible to justify what they did prior to this you are deluding yourself. And if you think that pastor is lone example you are further deluding yourself.

[Dextroden]

I am sure out of the 430 who complained, the one that used the argument of "cultural insensitivity", was certainly a Muslim. Just as "proximity to places of worship" most probably is. Those using the arguments over "the number of families with young children living nearby", "brain diseases/malfunction", "incorrect thinking" could be any social conservative individual of any faith who filed those complaints. There are Muslims who obviously do not have any issue with homosexuals. And so the cultural thing is just an excuse. Just as the Christian woman in the US who refused to wed gay couples who got so much attention a while back due to her "religious freedom" being allegedly trampled on. That's not a problem with Christians. That's a problem with social conservative Christians. Just as it is a problem with social conservative Muslims. These social conservatives have a mental issue of homophobia and fail to understand how it is non of their business how other people live their lives.

So again, let's bash homophobic and prude attitudes. That is what this story is about.



Yes. And I haven't claimed the contrary. Another true statement out of the blue: Many Christians are homophobic...

But many muslims are also not homophobic. Also true. Many Christians are not homophobic. Also true. So why bring in the religion of the individual holding the homophobic attitude? Let's just call it what it is. Social conservative individuals being homophobic and wanting to have a say in how other people live their lives.

It's brought up because it was used as an excuse for homophobia. Just the same way Christianity is torn down for excusing homophobia.

Why is it so hard for people understand why people dislike the current excuse for homophobia?

[RickJamesLich]

Yes. And I haven't claimed the contrary. Another true statement out of the blue: Many Christians are homophobic...

But many muslims are also not homophobic. Also true. Many Christians are not homophobic. Also true. So why bring in the religion of the individual holding the homophobic attitude? Let's just call it what it is. Social conservative individuals being homophobic and wanting to have a say in how other people live their lives.

Do you feel it's dishonest though to compare Christians with Muslims when Muslims commit far worse atrocities to homosexuals? A gay person is far more likely to experience discrimination in a muslim nation compared to a christian nation.

[Zarc]

It's brought up because it was used as an excuse for homophobia. Just the same way Christianity is torn down for excusing homophobia.

Why is it so hard for people understand why people dislike the current excuse for homophobia?

Yes it is used as an excuse for homophobia. Just as Christianity is. Or "traditional values", etc. I am not saying it shouldn't be in the article as it was in the source article over at Luton Today. It is part of the truth of what happened, so it should be in there. Completely legit. But it's part of the truth, not the whole truth. When I said why bring it up I mean why would you, and how could you, bring it up to be the main thing when it is just a part of it - namely that some of the homophobic people complaining used their Muslim faith as a reason for doing so - and have the heading of what is essentially this story:

A gay sauna expressed interest in selling sex toys and showing adult films, which caused some individuals in the neighborhood to express homophobic, hateful and unacceptable attitudes towards them. And that the Police Commissioner suggested to the Council that they give in to the complaints because it could stir unrest.

.. be set to: "Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims"

When the police commissioner did no such thing for no such reason, and that among the people who complained it is not explicitly stated that out of the 430 individual complaints 430 were all Muslims, also, there is nothing to say that it would offend Muslims in general, but rather social conservative Muslims who as such are homophobic. So this heading set by Luton Today makes sense: 'Gay sauna’s bid for sex entertainment licence prompts ‘homophobia and hate’'. That sets up the debate to condemn homophobia regardless of the religious faith of the person holding that view, but in the article the truth of the matter that among the people complaining were Muslim individuals. But the heading of this thread: "Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims" is not only factually incorrect, it so obviously set up to bash on Muslims in general.

[Xarkan]

.. be set to: "Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims"

If i understood correctly a Police and Crime Commissioner is not the same as a police commissioner anyhow?

The correct parts of the title then becomes: "Gay sauna because it would offend".. better click bait too [no police commisioner, no ban, no muslims exclusively]

[Dextroden]

Yes it is used as an excuse for homophobia. Just as Christianity is. Or "traditional values", etc. I am not saying it shouldn't be in the article as it was in the source article over at Luton Today. It is part of the truth of what happened, so it should be in there. Completely legit. But it's part of the truth, not the whole truth. When I said why bring it up I mean why would you, and how could you, bring it up to be the main thing when it is just a part of it - namely that some of the homophobic people complaining used their Muslim faith as a reason for doing so - and have the heading of what is essentially this story:



.. be set to: "Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims"

When the police commissioner did no such thing for no such reason, and that among the people who complained it is not explicitly stated that out of the 430 individual complaints 430 were all Muslims, also, there is nothing to say that it would offend Muslims in general, but rather social conservative Muslims who as such are homophobic. So this heading set by Luton Today makes sense: 'Gay sauna’s bid for sex entertainment licence prompts ‘homophobia and hate’'. That sets up the debate to condemn homophobia regardless of the religious faith of the person holding that view, but in the article the truth of the matter that among the people complaining were Muslim individuals. But the heading of this thread: "Police commissioner bans gay sauna because it would offend Muslims" is not only factually incorrect, it so obviously set up to bash on Muslims in general.

Okay, stop. I've had enough of the "But Christians..." excuse. It's not fine if either does it. So, bringing it like a petulant child that wants to go out late because his brother snuck out is high tier lameness.

You know why the Muslim bit comes up? Because the commissioner made 8th about culture. Because that mosque was the thing people were concerned about. If it was purely just homophobia on the signature sheet, I could give more possibility to random dbags. But it's just too blatant.

[Zarc]

Do you feel it's dishonest though to compare Christians with Muslims when Muslims commit far worse atrocities to homosexuals? A gay person is far more likely to experience discrimination in a muslim nation compared to a christian nation.

I don't compare. I simply state fact; that there are Christian individuals, as there are Muslim individuals, who are homophobic. Just as there are Christian individuals and Muslim individuals who are not homophobic, but rather tolerant and socially progressive in such issues such as same-sex marriage and not trying to have a say in how other people opt to live their lives. It is not to say that the share of homophobic people within Christianity is the same as the share within Islam. It is not to say that many Muslim-majority countries have the death penalty for homosexuality whereas the worst Christian-majority country on this issue has life imprisonment for homosexuality (some African countries). I think we should bash those countries for it. We shouldn't bash Muslims in general for it. We should bash countries for denying what is human rights to people. Let's remember that homosexuality bore the death penalty in the UK up until 1861 and was criminal for another 100 years after that, and wasn't fully legalized until 1982. With the same legal rights as heterosexual couples with marriage and all that coming even more recently. This is not that long ago. Was the UK a Christian-majority country in 1850? Yes it was. More so than today I reckon. Not to imply anything by that. It's not about Christianity. It's about social progressiveness. So are most Muslim-majority countries behind many Christian-majority countries in terms of social progressiveness? Yes. As is some Christian-majority countries of Africa. And Russia, although not as much. What is my point? Mostly laying out facts, really. The truth remains that this is not an issue of Muslims, simply because homophobia is not a trait of all Muslims. It's an issue of social conservative homophobia, beliefs that are held by some Muslims but not all, just as they are held by some Christians, but not all. Without saying anything about the share of people of either religion who holds those views. So I guess the point is that this thread has twisted a piece of news about homophobia to be about Muslims. Which isn't accurate, as every Muslim is not homophobic. So let's condemn homophobia and talk about how it is unacceptable in our societies and how the human rights we have achieved over the last 150 years should be defended at home and championed abroad.

[Endus]

Okay, pretty much nobody's discussing the actual subject, and are instead playing at brinksmanship with regards to religious and race discussion. So I'm locking this here.