Young Gay Man Executed in Iran

[Alessandro17]

Frankly, I don't think we even established whether the 'offence' was consensual or not, since Sodomy is considered rape whether consensual or not in Iran.

 

Thanks for that, it is what I have been suspecting all along.

[Rez.]

Albeit I can't quite prove it, it would seem that "anal rape" and sodomy are being used with the same meaning:

 

The Wiki link to "Buggery" is non existent, So I'm not sure where that quote came from. There's a much better definition of the word under (Believe it or not) Sodomy.

 

Elsewhere the legal use of the term "sodomy" is restricted to rape cases where an act such as anal penetration has taken place.

 

I don't believe that is relevant, because in my quote: <Snip>

 

If you don't see the relevance in properly quoting your sources, Then Ok.

 

Not necessarily, but it does prove that the man was unlawfully executed.

 

It proves he was the victim of a screwup in the Iranian Justice System. No bearing regarding wether he was executed for being a Homosexual, Which was my originall point.

 

It seems this thread is headed for a {censored}storm anyway.

[macgirl]

Why people still thinking "this" is a country, this is NOT a country, this is a place, a virtual one that has it's data in some country.

 

As many countries, here, we have rules and tolerance but don't think we have your country's rules.

[Alessandro17]

The Wiki link to "Buggery" is non existent, So I'm not sure where that quote came from.

 

There is something wrong with redirection in Wikipedia, but search for "buggery" in Wikipedia and you'll find it.

[borisbadenov]

I thought that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that there were no homosexuals in Iran. Therefore, this story must be false.

 

 

Some left-wing nut {censored} censored my post in an attempt to stifle the 1st amendment.

I wonder why people hate freedom so much? I guess they just want their sick opinion shown, and

no one else's.

 

Is this at all a surprise to you? Liberals tolerate other viewpoints only as long as you agree with them. Take the term "bipartisan". If a liberal cannot advance their agenda, they will blame it on the lack of bipartisan support. If a conservative asks for bipartisan support, they are ridiculed for having an unpopular agenda and out of touch with the mainstream

[JonTheSavage]

You really are a very angry person, aren't you?

 

It would be nice to see some civilised debate in this forum as opposed to childish mudslinging at people; resorting to slagging off their political views as opposed to posting constructive criticism and explaining why you think your views are superior. May I point out at this juncture that mannerisms such as yours are responsible for a large proportion of the distaste for the American people which seems almost universal more than about 5 miles out of your soverign waters. But hey, we will have your freedom imposed upon us, whether we want it or not.

 

Frankly, I don't think we even established whether the 'offence' was consensual or not, since Sodomy is considered rape whether consensual or not in Iran. Nor did we establish whether or not he actually commited the 'crime' anyway, which seems unlikely in light of the withdrawl of the 'victims' accusations.

 

I don't think you can say it is reasonable in a supposedly developed world for somebody to be killed, or even persecuted just because they want to express themselves in a different manner to the majority of the population. So long as anything they do is consensual and does not harm others, I think that persecution should be considered a breach of 'global' benchmark Human Rights. Stoning people because they have commited a {censored} act is ridiculous and has no place in a civilised world.

 

Religious directives have throughout history been interpreted in different ways by different people. I don't care what you say about Islam and Judaism keeping to much older traditions and 'following the word of God' more closely than Chritianity and other religions, their rules have changed over the years just as much, if not more. It would be perfectly possible to interpret the rules differently to allow homosexuality, and numerous muslims outside these 'wacky' countries are perfectly sane, reasonable individuals who support the ideals of individual freedom. The fact remains that people in said countries are indoctrinated with homophobia, male chauvinism and numerous other ideas that I dare not speak of from a very young age, with the excuse that these are the teachings of a religion.

 

Religious figures have far too much political control, even in the world of today, and it's hard to see how they truly represent the original ideology of the religions they claim to represent, which were designed to encourage a sense of community, personal and group worth and numerous other positive concepts. I am fully in favour of people practising whatever they want so long as it harms no others, however, I feel that a separation of state and religion is essential to prevent the persecution and outcast of those with different views in today's society.

 

Babies know best.

 

Its not up to you, or anyone else what Iran's leader does in his own country.

[gwprod12]

Boris: your statement about bipartisanship is intellectually unsound. Both parties act exactly the same way in respect to bipartisanship. Had you replaced every Democrat with Republican and every Liberal with Conservative, your statement would still be true. (Unless you were being sardonic, in which case, never mind.)

 

The moderator, who may or may not be a left-winger, explained himself quite clearly. I thought. He himself censored one of my posts (many moons ago) and sent me a nice little note explaining why. In the US, as any constitutionalist can tell you, people have an absolute right to freedom from government interference in what they have to say. That does not mean that there aren't other consequences. I.E. The 1st Amendment will not stop someone from punching you because you called his sister a whore.

 

I disagree with the entire concept of censorship on the internet and I wish it hadn't been done. When anyone starts censoring stuff I don't like, inevitably stuff I do like will also be censored. I'd rather have both what I like and dislike than have neither.

 

If we were to start censoring [you know who] every time he called someone a name, all his posts would be gone, and he'd be forced to leave the board in shame... wait... Why was that a bad idea again?

 

 

JonTheSavage: Agreed. (With provisos)

[Alessandro17]

I disagree with the entire concept of censorship on the internet and I wish it hadn't been done. When anyone starts censoring stuff I don't like, inevitably stuff I do like will also be censored. I'd rather have both what I like and dislike than have neither.

 

gwprod12

 

without censorship a forum would easily turn into a whorehouse, and we have many such examples on the internet. Is that what we want? I don't think so.

[JonTheSavage]

gwprod12

without censorship a forum would easily turn into whorehouse, and we have many such examples on the internet. Is that what we want? I don't think so.

 

Thus are the words of tyrants.

 

What Alessandro17 is really saying:

 

"Because I disagree with this person, his or her posts should be censored, and only my opinions, and my friend's opinions should be posted because we think we are right. I like free speech, as long as it applies to me, and nobody else. Anyone that disagrees with me, is a member of a.. so called whorehouse."

[Azurael]

Look. Face it. You don't have freedom of speech on this privately-owned forum. The forum owners can set whatever rules they like, because they own the place. If you want to talk on a forum where the rules are different, start your own.

 

End of absolutely ridiculous discussion, OK?

[Alessandro17]

Thus are the words of tyrants.

 

What Alessandro17 is really saying:

 

"Because I disagree with this person, his or her posts should be censored, and only my opinions, and my friend's opinions should be posted because we think we are right. I like free speech, as long as it applies to me, and nobody else. Anyone that disagrees with me, is a member of a.. so called whorehouse."

 

A lot of nonsense, OryHara (why are you posting with another nick, BTW?)

It applies to me as to anybody else. I was reprimanded by Sabr myself once. True, I didn't find it very fair because of the story behind that single instance, but I didn't throw a fuss anyway.

If what I say isn't true, let's make an experiment: I'll call you a lot of names and let's see how do you like it.

[Azurael]

Babies know best.

 

Its not up to you, or anyone else what Iran's leader does in his own country.

 

If he genuinely has the support of everybody in his country, then hell, you're right. I doubt you are though.

 

So its OK for people to be killed for something you don't consider a crime because it's happening somewhere else? Sure, you can say they could leave their countries and go somewhere free, but that's not really an option for many, is it?

 

I suppose you also think it was OK for the KKK to be killing black people, because the majority in the South supported it?

 

You are clearly an isolationist, oppressive moron, OryHara. Yet you claim to stand for Freedom, right? Just not other peoples'...

[JonTheSavage]

If he genuinely has the support of everybody in his country, then hell, you're right. I doubt you are though.So its OK for people to be killed for something you don't consider a crime because it's happening somewhere else?Just like it was OK for the KKK to be killing black people, because the majority in the South supported it?You are clearly an isolationist, oppressive moron, OryHara. Yet you claim to stand for Freedom, right? Just not other peoples'...

Non-interventionist. Choose your words wisely. I choose not to live in an Empire. How would you like it if China came to your country, and said we don't like what you are doing, so we are going to change it?

A lot of nonsense, OryHara (why are you posting with another nick, BTW?)It applies to me as to anybody else. I was reprimanded by Sabr myself once. True, I didn't find it very fair because of the story behind that single instance, but I didn't throw a fuss anyway.If what I say isn't true, let's make an experiment: I'll call you a lot of names and let's see how do you like it.

Now you lie about it. That is classic.You are sounding more, and more like the Bush administration."We do not torture."

[hecker]

I guess the kids in this forum aren't used to get their snouts washed out with soap these days any more, hehe.

Mom, dad, you can't tell me what to do because I'm 15 and the whole world revolves around me and my fixed ideals!

[Alessandro17]

I guess the kids in this forum aren't used to get their snouts washed out with soap these days any more, hehe.

Mom, dad, you can't tell me what to do because I'm 15 and the whole world revolves around me and my fixed ideals!

 

[Azurael]

Non-interventionist. Choose your words wisely. I choose not to live in an Empire. How would you like it if China came to your country, and said we don't like what you are doing, so we are going to change it?

 

It's nothing to do with interventionism. I don't think that going in and bombing people is the answer, unlike the US government.

 

But my country doesn't execute people for being {censored} or sex outside of wedlock!

 

If my country was a blatant abuser of fundamental human rights as these nations clearly are (and we're getting close to it - detention without trial 'n all), I'd expect the rest of the world to do something about it, because for that to happen, something, somewhere in the national psyche has gone seriously wrong if the government is genuinely supported by it's people. I think you'll find in many cases that while that's the impression you might get of such countries, it's not true. Not many people spoke out against the Nazis while they were in power either.

[JonTheSavage]

It's nothing to do with interventionism. I don't think that going in and bombing people is the answer, unlike the US government.

 

But my country doesn't execute people for being {censored} or sex outside of wedlock!

 

If my country was a blatant abuser of fundamental human rights as these nations clearly are (and we're getting close to it - detention without trial 'n all), I'd expect the rest of the world to do something about it, because for that to happen, something, somewhere in the national psyche has gone seriously wrong if the government is genuinely supported by it's people. I think you'll find in many cases that while that's the impression you might get of such countries, it's not true. Not many people spoke out against the Nazis while they were in power either.

 

Don't worry. You will have your way one day. In tyranny.

[mifki]

lol, fundamental human rights.