Irrelevant to the argument.
What!?
You're invoking "brief moments in history" where homosexuality was accepted as evidence for your argument, and when I ask you to define the moments in history you're referring to (i.e. how brief they were, when and where, etc) you say it's "irrelevant to the argument"?
So basically, you want to be allowed to make whatever claim you please, and when asking to elaborate on it, you want to say: "Nah, I don't have to. That's irrelevant!"
Well....okay. Fair enough. You can do that if you want. Just don't expect me to waste too much time addressing such arguments when that fact alone entitles me to dismiss them out of hand
As I have previously stated, refrain from erroneous selective reasoning.
I'm not being selective at all (although you most certainly are, as I'll later demonstrate).
Yes, there have been incidents tied to religious ideology that stopped progress, and there have been incidents not tied and against religious ideology who also stopped progress.
While I'd certainly agree that this is the case, I would argue that religion has a near perfect track record of retarding societal progress. I cannot actually think of a single instance where adherence to religious dogma has ever improved the human condition in any way, and every single advancement ever made appears to have been the result of secular action, unattached to religious teachings (which isn't surprising, because I can't think of a single religion that doesn't contain teachings that conflict with reality).
One
possible exception might have been the spread of literacy in some parts of the world being due, in large part, to the requirement to be able to read religious texts. Although I suppose you have to counterbalance that with the fact that, during the dark ages, religious rule dictated that education was the sole purview of the clergy and the rich; thus creating centuries of church enforced ignorance and societal standstill (to say nothing of their approach to science and discovery).
If there is evidence to be derived from that is that societal progress or scientific progress is independent from sexual matters.
On the contrary, I would argue that repression of homosexuals has always coincided with a regressive stage in civilization. Again, any change that makes society less fair and equal is, by definition, regressive. But I suppose, given you're unable to tell us what periods in history you're talking about, how brief they were and so on, the argument is a little moot.
I don't care enough to address an argument that you don't care enough about to properly define what your claim is
And no, Islamic Golden Age and the Renaissance have had immense contributions to the Enlightenment Era
And they were both secular movements, not religious ones.
The Islamic Golden Age began due to an effort to translate the knowledge of comparatively advanced civilizations like Greece, China, Egypt etc This was a secular movement, where reason and discovery were placed before religious dogma (funny how no holy book ever written contains
any of this advanced knowledge, isn't it? It's almost as though men know things that gods don't). The exact opposite of which was seen at the end of this period, where Islam began - almost immediately - to become sectarian and has remained so ever since, with religious doctrine become more important than the secular knowledge that made the golden age successful and a return to the notion of "revelation" rather than philosophy and science being the best source of understanding.
Which, of course, worked out swimmingly for them.
The Renaissance, similarly, was a secular movement at its heart; brought about by the rise of humanist methods of thought and study, rather than the traditional church doctrines that had been enforced during the medieval era.
In both cases, these exceptional periods of human progress were brought about through means that were wholly secular, and through knowledge that was not found in
any religion. And, also in both cases (one before and one after), a period of strict adherence to religious doctrine resulted in a severe
loss of knowledge and a sharp backward slide in societal progress.
Whether Enlightenment is pro or anti religion is beside the point
How on earth could that
possibly be besides the point?
The Enlightenment was simply a continued shift in the direction European society was already moving; a rediscovery of the knowledge of the Greeks and a shift away from religious doctrine that, essentially, gave birth to the modern age. Whether or not it was a shift away from religious doctrine seems to be
exactly the point, and your attempt to sidestep that as being somehow irrelevant is very telling.
Historical evidence demonstrates that the acceptance of gay unions has no correlation to societal progress.
Given you won't tell us what periods you're talking about, how long they lasted, or what brought them to an end, I suppose I can't really comment on that except to say: "Prove it".
Constant misrepresentation of the arguments laid, selective reasoning in all angles, etc. Yes, all your arguments have been soundly shot down.
Really? All of them? Would you like to go back to the 88 pages we've been talking where your every positions has been demonstrated to be utterly without foundation (often repeatedly since you keep making the same arguments that have already been demonstrated to be flawed, all the while dishonestly claiming that no such demonstration has been made)?
You implied that it's due to the rise of Muslim population that terrorism has arisen.
Um....no I didn't. Terrorism has been going on for quite a while, and often quite independent of Islam. What I
did imply was that Islam currently does seem to play a rather major role in global terrorism.
How about throwing away your vanity and loaning some humility when you're making this many errors?
How about you stop cherry picking?
Remember that accusation of being selective that I said I'd come back to? Well, hang onto your butts, kids.
This is the democracy index 2015:
http://www.yabiladi.com/img/content/EIU-Democracy-Index-2015.pdf. It scores countries based on a variety of factors related to societal health; Pluralism, Civil liberties and Political culture. Let's take a look at the top scoring countries...
1.Norway (score: 9.93)
2. Iceland (score: 9.58)
3. Sweden (score: 9.45)
4. New Zealand (score: 9.26)
5. Denmark (score: 9.11)
6. Switzerland (score: 9.09)
7. Canada (score: 9.08)
8. Finland (score: 9.03)
9. Australia (score: 9.01)
10. Netherlands (score: 8.92)
As of 2015, these are the countries that are most successful at being democratic. They are more free, fair and equal than any of the other countries measured. (As a point of interest, the United States occupies spot 20, with a score of 8.05).
Now, would you care to hazard a guess as to where Muslim countries fall on the list? If it makes life easier, it's probably better to start near the bottom and work your way up.
You see Hara, it's
possible to cherry pick examples (like Japan's shockingly poor mental health care) and hold it up as a blight on Western civilization. But is that
honest? The answer is no; you may notice that my original statement was that such countries "consistently" score higher than do Islamic countries; I did not say "always".
What we look for in order to determine these things, Hara, are not individual anomalies. We instead look for trends. The very fact that you would rush to cherry picked examples as your very first attempt to refute what I'd said demonstrates both your dishonesty, and your lack of understanding.
The argument was about history's take on the acceptance of gay unions
The argument appears to be over. You've actively refused to properly define the time periods you're talking about or to expand upon your assertions in that regard. Until you do, there's nothing to discuss.
Yes, she did.
Was there some problem?
