Brunei plans to pass law to stone homosexuals

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Who does that help? Who does it protect? What good does it do?

It removes the sexually deviant, punishes them for their sickening ways, and betters society, they deserve a slow death. It also protects society, by ensuring they will never again be able to conduct their crimes, saves us money by removing parasites, especially if they only get 1 appeal, would speed things up.

How exactly are they committing a crime when they don't even harm another human being's body? You can't kill or deprive someone off of their material possessions by sharing a kiss or holding hands in public, nor can you do any psychological harm in a monogamous and consensual relationship. How, exactly, is homosexuality supposed to be a crime? And the Bible is not a proper source as it is not verified by any peer-reviewed scientific literature and no magical deities or spiritual beings exist. It's nothing more than fairytale. Why, pray, should we literally massacre entire groups of the population based on some fucked up verses from a novel written thousands of years ago? The only luck we have is people like you will never realistically seize power in the West, as your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the one used by ISIL or the various christian fundamentalist groups in the world.

[Novus America]

Sure, but it is impossible to pretend the majority of Islam today has severe problems.
Sure not all Muslims want to enforce the brutality of the Hadith.
But most do believe the Hadith is divinely mandated.

Lol

That most Muslims accept the Hadith? That the Hadith is full of bad stuff?

[Astoriya]

I apologise, I was reading the wrong link
Anyway
It only mentions a few (only Iran and Saudi Arabia) - all the rest have not recently executed
(as the executions are carried out extrajudicially, or by militias (ie. unofficial armed thugs) as regards Iraq & Somalia, they don't count)

try again? (if this gets annoying, just say so)

It is getting annoying. And you cannot keep moving the goalposts and say “try again” as a valid debate tactic.
You said name an Islamic country besides Iran.
Easy, Saudi Arabia. Question answered, we are done now.

(I guessed so - I'll stop )
Now that's just a lazy answer - just one nation
Which makes your point invalid, doesn't it ?

And you cannot keep moving the goalposts and say “try again” as a valid debate tactic.

i only do so when you keep perversely evading the question

[Yusseria]

Why does Iran not count? They are a Muslim theocracy!

Because it's much more a dictatorship than a theocracy, IMO

>name me Muslim-majority nations that do this, but this Muslim-majority nation doesn't count

Oh yeah, I can tell you're totally being honest.

Attempting to get away from the question, are we ?

No, I'm pointing out that you're being laughably disingenuous. You asked for Muslim-majority countries. Iran is a Muslim-country.

[Crockerland]

It's always great when people's responses are answered by the posts they quote


Christians do not follow the law of Leviticus and are not bound by it at all. Even if this were in reference to gay people in general, it wouldn't really matter, as I already explained.

And, again, the idea that this is about gay people in general is rather dubious, hence why gay people don't get put to death in Israel either. Leviticus 20 is dealing with the people of Israel falling back on unholy religious practices, just reading the first few verses makes this rather apparent:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20&version=KJV
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

The word for "detestable" in the verse you provided, also sometimes rendered as "abomination", is from a Hebrew word, toevah (תֹּועֵבָה), it has no direct translation to English. Toevah contains explicit connotations with the religiously profane, such as Moloch sacrifices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/have_you_committed_an_abominat.html

So is there any religious connotations to sexual acts of such a nature? Well, the Bible actually names this practice outright in Deuteronomy

[url]https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:Deuteronomy.23:17–23:18[/url]
No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

Yep, there were shrine prostitutes, both gay and straight, who had sex with worshipers for religious reasons.

Many people in ancient Israel participated in many perverted or violent acts as part of profane rites that were considered detestable, including gay shrine prostitutes derived from earlier Canaanite religion, and so the book of Leviticus condemned them. This does not constitute a condemnation of all gay people by Christianity. A similar rule applies for Leviticus 20:18's influence on couples who have sex during the woman's period.

Again though, even if that wasn't the case, and you (wrongly) interpret this law to apply to all gay people (again it doesn't) then the Bible really isn't that nebulous on the issue: You shouldn't kill people for sexual immorality, according to the messiah himself.

Enough cherry picking.

Did you hear "cherry picking" on a podcast or something and just think it was a generic insult? Explaining the linguistic and and contextual background of a verse that condemns one specific historical group of gay people to show that it doesn't condemn all gay people isn't cherry picking, or borderline cherry picking, or even related to cherry picking at all.

What does that have to do with this?

Well I guess you should tell me, you're the one who decided to bring up nonexistant Christian doctrine condemning gay people to death as if it's somehow relevant. Don't blame me for pointing out that the condemnation you're citing doesn't actually exist.

[Astoriya]

Because it's much more a dictatorship than a theocracy, IMO

Attempting to get away from the question, are we ?

No, I'm pointing out that you're being laughably disingenuous. You asked for Muslim-majority countries. Iran is a Muslim-country.

And I already explained why - take it or leave it, it's up to you

-snip-

I think he's just trolling, don't feed him

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

I disagree.

Edit: Some people need a good stoning, and, worse. Personally, I'd go further if I were in charge, rapists, pedo's, other sexual deviants, (those who commit bestiality for example) Would have their limbs broken, be stuffed into a large sack with live poisonous snakes, and tossed into the nearest river.

Yes, the Bible says they should be put to death. Although, with modern society, perhaps an exception could be made, criminalizing, and, reeducating those affected by this mental disorder would be more proper.

It removes the sexually deviant, punishes them for their sickening ways, and betters society, they deserve a slow death. It also protects society, by ensuring they will never again be able to conduct their crimes, saves us money by removing parasites, especially if they only get 1 appeal, would speed things up.

Money saved, people protected, scum removed, sets an example, etc. is none of this ringing a bell?

Not slow enough imo.

Edit: Also not painful enough.

NSG is not the place for your torture porn. Due to the volume and severity of the trolling here, we're going to skip over the 3 day ban and go straight to 7.

*** 7 day ban for trolling ***

I care little about what a bunch of "monoculturalism is good but not here" morons think.
Any individual that unironically supports "letting be" a primitive nation that punishes homosexuality with stoning to the death because "it's their culture" doesn't deserve to be heard. Any individual that supports the same because "national sovereignty" doesn't deserve to live.

This is minor by comparison, but you've got multiple recent warnings and calling people morons and saying they don't deserve to live is not an acceptable way to handle opinions you disagree with.

*** 1 day ban for trolling ***

Thank you... I couldn't keep listening to that sick man's ramblings anymore. Literally advocating the genocide of a particular political group based solely on religious literature promoted thousands of years ago is just off the rails and deranged. It was about time he was taught that such poison does not belong here.

[Novus America]

It is getting annoying. And you cannot keep moving the goalposts and say “try again” as a valid debate tactic.
You said name an Islamic country besides Iran.
Easy, Saudi Arabia. Question answered, we are done now.

(I guessed so - I'll stop )
Now that's just a lazy answer - just one nation
Which makes your point invalid, doesn't it ?

And you cannot keep moving the goalposts and say “try again” as a valid debate tactic.

i only do so when you keep perversely evading the question

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state really less oppressive than one who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

[Yusseria]

No, I'm pointing out that you're being laughably disingenuous. You asked for Muslim-majority countries. Iran is a Muslim-country.

And I already explained why - take it or leave it, it's up to you

-snip-

I think he's just trolling, don't feed him

Considering that you're being dishonest I think I'll leave it, thanks.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

(I guessed so - I'll stop )
Now that's just a lazy answer - just one nation
Which makes your point invalid, doesn't it ?

And you cannot keep moving the goalposts and say “try again” as a valid debate tactic.

i only do so when you keep perversely evading the question

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

Dude, everyone knows by now that Islam is anti-gay and wants to purge them from society if full sharia is implemented. They never had a reformation or an enlightenment like we do due to the influence of constant militarism, rigid traditions that prohibit anyone from deviating from the Quran or Hadith, and of course, declaring anyone that rejects the "haram" provisions as a "takfir" (Heretic) and then massacring them. Just this alone should tell you Islam is a herculean task to reform, if ever.

[Greater Gilead]

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

Dude, everyone knows by now that Islam is anti-gay and wants to purge them from society if full sharia is implemented. They never had a reformation or an enlightenment like we do due to the influence of constant militarism, rigid traditions that prohibit anyone from deviating from the Quran or Hadith, and of course, declaring anyone that rejects the "haram" provisions as a "takfir" (Heretic) and then massacring them. Just this alone should tell you Islam is a herculean task to reform, if ever.

Personally, I respect Muslims for sticking to their guns, something you can't say for most Christians, sadly.

[Novus America]

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

Dude, everyone knows by now that Islam is anti-gay and wants to purge them from society if full sharia is implemented. They never had a reformation or an enlightenment like we do due to the influence of constant militarism, rigid traditions that prohibit anyone from deviating from the Quran or Hadith, and of course, declaring anyone that rejects the "haram" provisions as a "takfir" (Heretic) and then massacring them. Just this alone should tell you Islam is a herculean task to reform, if ever.

Well apparently not everyone is willing to admit to the above, true as it might be.

[Crockerland]

Okay, then when was the last time a Christian executed a gay person?

Then tell us when was the last time a Muslim-majority nation executed gays?
(NB: the so-called "Islamic" State doesn't count - and neither does Iran)

Caucasus Emirate - 2017 (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-paper-chechnya-killed-these-27-men-in-anti-gay-purge)
Palestine - 2014 (https://www.newsweek.com/prominent-hamas-commander-was-executed-after-accusations-gay-sex-432343)
Somalia - 2013 (https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2013/03/gay-teen-stoned-to-death-in-somalia.html)
Iraq - 2012 (https://76crimes.com/2012/09/28/iraq-has-become-a-death-trap-for-gay-men/)
Saudi Arabia - 2002 (https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/saudi-arabia-protest-death-penalty-homosexual-conduct-saudi-arabia)

Try again?

[Astoriya]

[

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

I did not say that the armed militias were used by the state
If all countries that have the death penalty for homosexual acts (if we're being precise) are Islamic, then how do you explain the case of Nigeria, where Christianity and Islam are almost 50-50, population wise?
And also, if most non-Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality, then please explain the cases of South Sudan, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cameroon, Chad, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Botswana, eSwatini, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, Bhutan, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu?

[Alvecia]

[

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

I did not say that the armed militias were used by the state
If all countries that have the death penalty for homosexual acts (if we're being precise) are Islamic, then how do you explain the case of Nigeria, where Christianity and Islam are almost 50-50, population wise?
And also, if most non-Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality, then please explain the cases of South Sudan, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cameroon, Chad, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Botswana, eSwatini, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, Bhutan, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu?

IIRC a lot of African nations are somewhat influenced by extreme fundamentalist christian "missionaries" that can't find an audience in the West, which is likely the cause.
Also in some of those places, the laws are essentially the "never enforced" kind. Like the recently repealed blasphemy law in Ireland, or laws against premarital sex in Virginia

[Novus America]

[

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

I did not say that the armed militias were used by the state
If all countries that have the death penalty for homosexual acts (if we're being precise) are Islamic, then how do you explain the case of Nigeria, where Christianity and Islam are almost 50-50, population wise?
And also, if most non-Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality, then please explain the cases of South Sudan, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cameroon, Chad, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Botswana, eSwatini, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, Bhutan, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu?

In Nigeria the death penalty for homosexuality is in the Muslim majority states.
“Three of the main religious groups are Muslim at 50%, Christian at 40% and other indigenous beliefs at 10%.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria
Nigeria is Muslim majority though not by a large amount.

Sure some non Islamic do criminalize it. But not MOST. I Explain those by pointing out those countries do not make up the majority of non Islamic countries.

[Alvecia]

[

I answered the question. Saudia Arabia is a valid answer.
Also punishments imposed outside the normal judiciary but effectively condoned by the state do count. A state using extrajudicial death squads does not make the state less oppressive than on who explicitly legalizes such death squads.

And these are facts.
Fact: all countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic.
Fact: no non Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality.
Fact: most Islamic countries outlaw homosexuality.
Fact: most non Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality.

Now this is not to say all Muslims are bad, but that much of modern Islam has severe problems that need to be addressed.

I did not say that the armed militias were used by the state
If all countries that have the death penalty for homosexual acts (if we're being precise) are Islamic, then how do you explain the case of Nigeria, where Christianity and Islam are almost 50-50, population wise?
And also, if most non-Islamic countries do not outlaw homosexuality, then please explain the cases of South Sudan, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cameroon, Chad, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Botswana, eSwatini, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guyana, Bhutan, Myanmar (Burma), Singapore, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, the Cook Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu?

You should probably double check that list actually. According to Wikipedia, Gambia (the second one on your list) is 95.8% Islamic

Edit: Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Chad are also all majority islamic.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I have an even better hot take.

Stoning people is bad. It’s not 1600 anymore. BC, not AD.

I disagree.

Edit: Some people need a good stoning, and, worse. Personally, I'd go further if I were in charge, rapists, pedo's, other sexual deviants, (those who commit bestiality for example) Would have their limbs broken, be stuffed into a large sack with live poisonous snakes, and tossed into the nearest river.

I disagree more, the state outside of war should not and does not have the right to decide to condemn a citizen to death.

[Free Arabian Nation]

I disagree.

Edit: Some people need a good stoning, and, worse. Personally, I'd go further if I were in charge, rapists, pedo's, other sexual deviants, (those who commit bestiality for example) Would have their limbs broken, be stuffed into a large sack with live poisonous snakes, and tossed into the nearest river.

I disagree more, the state outside of war should not and does not have the right to decide to condemn a citizen to death.

What if I don't like them?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I disagree more, the state outside of war should not and does not have the right to decide to condemn a citizen to death.

What if I don't like them?

Even if you don't like them.

[Free Arabian Nation]

What if I don't like them?

Even if you don't like them.

Awww

(For the record, I was being sarcastic)

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

You said Christian's as in the people, not nations.

Okay, then when was the last time a Christian executed a gay person?

2011 in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. At least that is what the defence claimed.

[Josip-Broz]

Western nations should allow refugee to all homosexuals from Brunei. It is a moral duty to response properly to this obvious violation of human rights. Also, this would not happen if Europeans did not interfere for centuries in internal affair of Brunei.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Law yes, hating people who may not agree with it no

Sure, but it is impossible to pretend the majority of Islam today has severe problems.
Sure not all Muslims want to enforce the brutality of the Hadith.
But most do believe the Hadith is divinely mandated.

Much of the Hadith is completely disgusting.

No Muslim believes Hadiths are infallible. Rather Hadiths are ranked according to different levels of reliability, with Sunnis and Shi'ites having differing opinions--for example, Sunnis revere A'ishah, whereas Shi'ites consider her the devil for leading an insurrection against Ali at the Battle of the Camel. So Haidths recounted by Ayesha are accepted with reverence by Sunnis, but rejected completely by Shi'ites.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Even if you don't like them.

Awww

(For the record, I was being sarcastic)

I know

*hugs*