Starbucks is GAY?

[-Serenity-]

Ahem! Sometimes some nomads are too caught up in taking sides

Ma anaad i haysata Baashiyoow? LoL. I don’t really see any1 taking sides. Perhaps, being the manly-man that you’re, you can just call a spade a spade and let me know? (I might just join in favour of the underdogs)

 

Altho my stance on the ‘issue’ is quite clear and not debatable (I’ve no desire to reconsider it ), I will not be joining hands with the unrefined nomads hurling underhanded insults at Castro.

 

Originally posted by MR O:

I see which pigeon hole you belong to now.

Subhaanallah Qowmu luut

Originally posted by Kashafa:

Never thought I'd see Somali men( both fathers too, for God's sake!!!) condone Homosexuality.

And of course… Good Xiin who I feel like quoting in his entirety.

 

I don’t know… but it seems some of us do really suffer from bad comprehension skills (Damn! NG is right again!)… or maybe we are just too eager to mob feisty Castro. :cool:

 

Anyways, ha idiin macaanaato.

[Baashi]

No Miss Athena. Addi kuma heesto. Sometimes nomads are indeed caught up in taking sides. That's what I have noticed lately on how folks go about foruming. Stop being paranoid

 

Nomads have weighed this issue and at the end disagreed. Not bad at all. My amigo Castro is a good debater and he has made his case. Some of us saw wisdom in his tolerant and whishy-washy views. Others mostly principled-centered allowed him to air his views but disagreed on the validity of his argument. Both sides understand this is a forum and that everyone is entitled to their opinions; so what's the fuss is all about.

 

I like the manliness of all of us...terrific

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by 7 0f Nine:

And of course…

Good Xiin

who I feel like quoting in his entirety.

 

I don’t know… but it seems some of us do really suffer from bad comprehension skills (Damn!

NG

is right again!)… or maybe we are just too eager to mob

feisty Castro

. :cool:

 

Anyways, ha idiin macaanaato.

Oo Xiin Muxuu kuu dhimay,walaal?

[Castro]

All this Starbucks nonesense is making you all miss a very interesting matter over in another section. Something or other about reform in Islam. And some new kid on the block called Rushdie.

[-Serenity-]

Xiin, Waxba walaal.. You is good people (unprovoked). :cool:

 

Castro, in the words of AF - 'deeg'(dhiig) karka naga daa.

[Baashi]

Now the word is out, I hope we will turn a new page and respect each others' views. I expect from the nomads who wish to participate in the discussion on that "great" article to not engage/resort to underhand dig

[Valenteenah.]

The content of this thread makes me feel nauseated. I must be losing my touch.

 

 

Originally posted by Kashafa:

quote:

---

Um..I dunno? Maybe because I don't like highly gutless people? Go figure, lad.

That's a direct provocation, O White, Blessed, Fair Maiden. But as a ranking Gentleman of the First Order, I cannot take offense and will respond with a smile that will melt even the most coldest of hearts:

Gentleman of the First Order, that's good of you. It wasn't meant to provoke. Um..ok, maybe it was. But not by much.

[Viking]

Castro,

Simple question mate, do you believe that homosexuality is wrong? Just a simple yes or no would suffice. Support your reasons with religious, scientific or whatever text you deem fit for the argument. It would be hypocritical to simply say "Islam forbids it" if you don't really believe it to be wrong. I ask this because you seem to be leaning towards the "It is genetic" argument.

 

PS: Don't be afraid of the 'slippery slope', that's where the true colours come shining through!

 

 

NGONGE,

I am all too aware that you are endowed with a massive appetite for writing lengthy replies and love to have the reputation as someone who likes to stir things up, but your semantic-powered puss-yfooting doesn't do you or others any favours.

 

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Many ignore the ‘argument’ and waste their time second-guessing the ‘arguer’s’ beliefs, motives and goals.

You have used the opinions of people like Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie's to whip up a debate, you've called people who try to reason from an Islamic point of view "Pseudo-Mullahs" etc etc. If you play with words the way you do, some people will lash out at you (and some -like I do- will ask for clarification), but then again, you always reserve the right to use the "Pseudo-Mullah", "obtuse" or "you have bad comprehension skills" card. But hey, maybe I'm just one of those [with impaired comprehension] who don't understand your genius. Isn't that just lovely!

[Castro]

Originally posted by Viking:

Castro, Simple question mate, do you believe that homosexuality is wrong? Just a simple yes or no would suffice.

Homosexuality is not a choice, so no.

[NGONGE]

Viking,

 

Dry your eyes out, saaxib. That last post was something even a fifteen-year-old girl with a hormone imbalance would be ashamed of writing (at least Xiin hid his little digs behind a story).

 

Are most of the artificial-mullahs on here anything but what I said? What reasonable person tried to engage me from an ‘Islamic point of view’ and was rejected? Other than Nur, Mutakalim (stop shaking that head, saaxib) and Xiin (when he wants to be serious and stop the duplicitous nonsense) I have not come across any knowledgeable or reasonable Mullahs in here. Yet, one can’t move for these damn beard-strokers and Xijaab-adjusters!

 

As for using the arguments of Irshad (I’ve used her articles long enough, I now feel I could call her by her first name) and Salman Rushdie, what exactly is wrong with that? You are talking nonsense, Viking. This is worse than not being able to read! This is censorship.

 

I can’t help it. I am going to have to rant again. Here comes another long reply.

 

The owners of this site have banned the use of tribe names, use of bad language and direct insults in the hope that such rules will help in improving the quality of the site and differentiate it from other vulgar places. This was a form of positive censorship. I believe that such rules only serve to hide the dust under the carpet but nonetheless appreciate the chance to read posts without seeing any four-letter words or direct attacks on tribes and people. It’s a form of censorship I can live with (alas it does nothing when it comes to improving quality). Your type of censorship on the other hand, is something I can’t accept. The irony of course is that you’re too duplicitous to even make it as a fake-mullah!

 

I assumed this was a public site and that public topics could be discussed here. I could easily write a long post about the devil and all his tricks and manners without being censored. In fact, many beard-strokers will over do it with the ‘jazaka Allah’, ‘baraka Allah’ and ‘axsant’ praise. Yet, if I quote Irshad you all act as if I urinated on your prayer mats! Come out of your mosque confinement and look around you, saaxib. Such opinions and arguments are out there in the real world. Your attitude towards them and childish censorship is what overworked mothers say to their two-year-olds when they’ve done something wrong; ceeb, ceeb, ceeb! At least the mother can claim to be overworked when one asks her why did she not explain the reasons things are considered ‘ceeb’. You have no excuse. You want topics and discussions stopped simply because YOU don’t like them! The more you write, the worse it gets.

 

Get your act together or just stop wasting my time, Viking.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Shukri Rabi:

^How did you reach that conclusion? Like viking said, what is your support/evidence of your claims?

You're not really interested in how I reached that conclusion, are you? If you were, you would know this isn't the forum to extract conclusion making (or breaking) knowledge. What do you care any of what I believe? What do you care further how I reached that belief? And finally, what do you care of the evidence when none of it will be of use to you. Please, crawl back under the rock whence you came and spare me the oblique interest in my evidence, my claims and my beliefs. Better yet, have Kashafa add you to the list of those against homosexuality and you can sleep better knowing that the whole world (or SOL) knows you to be a faggot hating, god fearing manly man or woman. Capisce?

 

I'm done here.

[Faarax-Brawn]

I'm done here.

 

I dare you Fidel!!

 

Plus u were late anyway, I was done a long time ago when Kashafa called me pro Gay. I am yet to come out of the closet. uh huh. I refuse.

[Mutakalim]

My intial response to this thread was a disdainfully veiled allusion to an allegedly homoerotic poem by an arabic poet, Abu Nawas. It was a natural reaction to errant nonsense. However, after closer inspection, I find that my initial annoyance has blossomed into alarm. It seems, that some have, for better or for worse, espoused, a peculiar strain of "beast philosophy", viz., that homosexuality, and, by extension, other aberrations are natural sexual orientations. Now, if one has heartfelt intuitions or emotional inclinations that homosexuality is "natural" (what does it mean to say that a sexual preference is natural?) then in such circumstances, learned persons must find better partners of discussion.

 

Biologists have yet to conclusively determine the cause of homosexuality, so the jury is still out. Pyschologists, on the other hand, have opinions about the nature of this phenemoneon. Anyone who has read the newly acclaimed philosophical essay "On Bullshit", by the princetion philosopher and professor, can ill afford to take many pyschologists seriously. It were to be desired then if our rainbow-flag waving Nomad would furnish us with more than nauseatingly nebulous reasons for his stance. I would fain read the research of recognized biological, medical, or pyschological journals. What conclusive information have you come across that I am guilty of not reading.

 

Finally, the insinuation of the "Problem of Evil" would be interesting had it not been dissolved many moons ago. God creates homosexuals (i.e. it is natural), then he condemns them for the way he created them. There are stronger versions of the argument, though I doubt many are equipped with the "sense of abstraction" to apprehend it. No matter. Assuming that God created them that way and subsequently condemned them, why believe in the justice of such a God (assuming of course you believe in Divine Justice, or that God is Just)? Is this not a case of Injustice?

[Castro]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

What conclusive information have you come across that I am guilty of not reading.

LeVay, Simon: The Sexual Brain.

 

Xq28

 

Conclusive? Please. Research for a college paper. Just enough, however.

[Pig]

Oh, the messenger who spins bogus scientific research into a "vile theology" of his own.

 

Brave Castro, less perverse mind would inquire about the research itself without any underhand dig.

 

 

"Simon LeVay is presently Chair of the Steering Committee of the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education, West Hollywood, a new college for the gay and lesbian community in Southern California."

 

Levay's famous paper "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men" studied the brains of "only" 41 dead males and was highly open to doubt and inconsistent with other findings.

 

Scientific integrity? biased research? Suspicious? the jury is out!

 

 

I come short of indicting (brave castro, a good debater) of having a "heavy agenda" that is indicative of a "shady" orientation. That is unbecoming of a nomad such as good cRiTiCa to even entertain. But, I prefer to do the honors in debating the validity of the claims put forth by brave Castro from a “scientific integrity†standpoint.

 

Sagging thoughts!