Let's Be Like Pakistan!
- Thread starter Minor Axis
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
85Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
I just bumped across this 'piece' and thought this might be of interest to many.....
Purity Codes of Leviticus
Krista mentions that the purity codes found in Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, condemn homosexuality and other practices now considered morally neutral. Below are a couple examples:
(05:38–06:32) Music Element
"Bella by Barlight" from Winter Was Hard, performed by Kronos Quartet
(05:45) Reading from Romans 1
A common passage cited by conservative Christians as an explicit condemnation of homosexual relationships is the first chapter of the book of Romans. Read an extended version of this New Testament writing of the version heard in the broadcast:
Purity Codes of Leviticus
Krista mentions that the purity codes found in Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, condemn homosexuality and other practices now considered morally neutral. Below are a couple examples:
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death — their blood-guilt is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother—his bloodguilt is upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)
They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. (Leviticus 21:7)
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death — their blood-guilt is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother—his bloodguilt is upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)
They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. (Leviticus 21:7)
(05:38–06:32) Music Element "Bella by Barlight" from Winter Was Hard, performed by Kronos Quartet
(05:45) Reading from Romans 1
A common passage cited by conservative Christians as an explicit condemnation of homosexual relationships is the first chapter of the book of Romans. Read an extended version of this New Testament writing of the version heard in the broadcast:
For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.] For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
(03:26) Audio Clip of President Bush
The actuality of President George W. Bush was excerpted from a June 5, 2006 address at the White House in which he endorsed the Marriage Protection Amendment that would ultimately be defeated in the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives:
President George W. Bush delivers a statement proposing a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriages on February 24, 2004. White House photo by Paul Morse. Listen to the entire February 24, 2004 press conference of President Bush announcing that he would propose a constitutional amendment to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and ban gay marriage:
(03:26) Audio Clip of President Bush
The actuality of President George W. Bush was excerpted from a June 5, 2006 address at the White House in which he endorsed the Marriage Protection Amendment that would ultimately be defeated in the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives:
You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am proud to stand with you.
This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city can have serious consequences throughout the country.
In March 2004, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings to consider a proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively banning same-sex marriages.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear:
* I'm not asking anyone to leave, just moderate their input which seems to be unlikely.
* I know Maz is going to vigorously disagree with me, but this is not intended to be a "hazing" thread. It's ment to offer him some perspective on what he is doing in this forum with a multitude of his mostly anti-Western perspective posts and his one sided views. (my opinion) In contrast, this is just a single thread focused on Pakistan based on information in the news.
Lots of forum participants post U.S./Western critical posts. No problem. I'm happy to criticize the U.S. What bugs me is when we have someone from what I consider to be a relatively intolerant country in this forum constantly ragging on the U.S with a completely one sided view. Again in many cases the U.S. deserves to be ragged on.
BTW, I'm not trying to say the U.S. and other Western countries are the same. They all have different perspectives and different political agendas, but as a broad generalization you will find the most progressive/modern views in the West regarding liberties, sexuality, and other social issues. I consider this good and don't expect everyone to agree.
I also realize that this post can/may have turn into a personal assault on one of our forum members (with his input of course) so for the purpose of harmony, I'm asking the moderators to close this topic because ultimately I don't think Mazhur is a bad person. I could be wrong but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think we will ever see eye to eye, but Mazhur I apologize for picking on your country.
I'd also like to emphasize, that I fully support the ability of forum members to create this kind of thread. If this forum is about debate and criticism, then this kind of a post is fair game, falling within the limits as set forth by OTZ. Free speech, the ability to disagree is a good thing!
Last edited by a moderator:
And you accuse us of having a bias against the poor in your country. That smacks of hypocrisy Maz.
You accuse us of having a bias against the poor in your country and then are surprised I asked if you care about the poor in your own country. Considering your response, I think my question was right on target.
Some are trying to run you off OTz Maz because they think you're a troll, perhaps not even a Pakistanian. If they're right then I hope they succeed. But for the moment, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. So I'm trying to determine if you know what compassion is. You seem very callous to the suffering of others. I don't know what your life has been like and what made you into the person you are. But I'm trying to understand.
No, I don't have the money. I don't know if I have the guts to visit you. I'm not sure I could trust you. Are you trustworthy?
Stop making personal remarks!! You have no right to be judgmental about me personally .....
All you stated above is false and frivolous and uncalled for, hence denied and refuted in toto.
I am as trustworthy as the American, EU and japanese visas on my passport!! Go figure!!
As my access to the forum is restricted I preferred to post this for your possible interest and pleasure...enjoy!
Actuality from Wedding Ceremony
The audio clip was excerpted from a report by the Canadian Broadcasting Company (RealAudio, 2:00). In the report, Michael Stark and Michael Leshner recite their marriage vows, shortly after an Ontario higher court upheld a lower court ruling to allow same-sex marriages.
(01:58) Reference to Legality of Gay Marriages
During the 2004 election, 11 states proposed, and voters overwhelmingly approved, amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as a heterosexual institution—effectively banning same-sex marriages. The states passing the amendments were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Utah. At the third presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry at Arizona State University, the president defended his position on gay marriage:
In 2004, newly elected mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, endorsed the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The edict was overturned, but not before 4,000 same-sex couples were married. The first same-sex couple to be legally wed in the United States was Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin on February 13, 2004. The pair had been committed for over five decades and are well-known activists in the gay and lesbian community.
Read an article and view photographs about the ceremony and the other day's events as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. (03:26) Audio Clip of President Bush
The actuality of President George W. Bush was excerpted from a June 5, 2006 address at the White House in which he endorsed the Marriage Protection Amendment that would ultimately be defeated in the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives:
You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am proud to stand with you.
This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.
Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city can have serious consequences throughout the country.
A common passage cited by conservative Christians as an explicit condemnation of homosexual relationships is the first chapter of the book of Romans. Read an extended version of this New Testament writing of the version heard in the broadcast:
All you stated above is false and frivolous and uncalled for, hence denied and refuted in toto.
I am as trustworthy as the American, EU and japanese visas on my passport!! Go figure!!
As my access to the forum is restricted I preferred to post this for your possible interest and pleasure...enjoy!
Actuality from Wedding Ceremony
The audio clip was excerpted from a report by the Canadian Broadcasting Company (RealAudio, 2:00). In the report, Michael Stark and Michael Leshner recite their marriage vows, shortly after an Ontario higher court upheld a lower court ruling to allow same-sex marriages.
(01:58) Reference to Legality of Gay Marriages
During the 2004 election, 11 states proposed, and voters overwhelmingly approved, amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as a heterosexual institution—effectively banning same-sex marriages. The states passing the amendments were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Utah. At the third presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry at Arizona State University, the president defended his position on gay marriage:
I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
As of July 2006, 45 states have barred gay marriage or implemented laws known as Defense of Marriage Acts. These acts define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.In the rest of the world, four countries have legalized gay marriage: Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon
(02:24) Mayoral Edict Allowing Gay Marriage Overturned In 2004, newly elected mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, endorsed the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The edict was overturned, but not before 4,000 same-sex couples were married. The first same-sex couple to be legally wed in the United States was Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin on February 13, 2004. The pair had been committed for over five decades and are well-known activists in the gay and lesbian community.
Read an article and view photographs about the ceremony and the other day's events as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. (03:26) Audio Clip of President Bush
The actuality of President George W. Bush was excerpted from a June 5, 2006 address at the White House in which he endorsed the Marriage Protection Amendment that would ultimately be defeated in the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives:
You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am proud to stand with you.
This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.
The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.
President George W. Bush delivers a statement proposing a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriages on February 24, 2004. White House photo by Paul Morse.
Listen to the entire February 24, 2004 press conference of President Bush announcing that he would propose a constitutional amendment to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and ban gay marriage:Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city can have serious consequences throughout the country.
In March 2004, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings to consider a proposed federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively banning same-sex marriages.
Bush's Evangelical Faith and Moral Issues Frontline produced a documentary, The Jesus Factor, tracing the Evangelical roots of President Bush and how it has influenced, and continues to inform, his policy decisions while holding office
Purity Codes of Leviticus Krista mentions that the purity codes found in Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, condemn homosexuality and other practices now considered morally neutral. Below are a couple examples:
Bush's Evangelical Faith and Moral Issues Frontline produced a documentary, The Jesus Factor, tracing the Evangelical roots of President Bush and how it has influenced, and continues to inform, his policy decisions while holding office
Purity Codes of Leviticus Krista mentions that the purity codes found in Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, condemn homosexuality and other practices now considered morally neutral. Below are a couple examples:
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death — their blood-guilt is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother—his bloodguilt is upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)
They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. (Leviticus 21:7)
Reading from Romans 1 If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death — their blood-guilt is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother—his bloodguilt is upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)
They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. (Leviticus 21:7)
A common passage cited by conservative Christians as an explicit condemnation of homosexual relationships is the first chapter of the book of Romans. Read an extended version of this New Testament writing of the version heard in the broadcast:
For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.] For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/gaymarriage/particulars.shtml
Mouth Odour Can Affect Your Marriage
26 Mar 2009 ... The problem of bad breath or mouth odour and the effect of it in a ... in some people can affect their relationships due to the discomfort ...
www.shvoong.com ›
http://www.sinuswars.com/badBreath.asp
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/gaymarriage/particulars.shtml
Mouth Odour Can Affect Your Marriage
26 Mar 2009 ... The problem of bad breath or mouth odour and the effect of it in a ... in some people can affect their relationships due to the discomfort ...
www.shvoong.com ›
http://www.sinuswars.com/badBreath.asp
The reason I asked is because in a post awhile ago you told someone he was fortunate he wasn't in your country because he would rightly be executed. It seemed to me his only crime was disagreeing with Islam. Since I'm an atheist, I wasn't sure why you were inviting me to your country. If you didn't say that and I am remembering wrong then I apologize.
I questioned your compassion because I have yet to hear you denounce the execution of women for being raped. It's not her fault she was raped. Why should she be executed? And also you speak ill of your fellow Pakastanians for being poor. Perhaps some of them are lazy but I can't believe all of them are. I truly hope you are a compassionate person and I have misjudged you. So please set me straight. How do you feel about executing women if they are raped?
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members