That's my point. There are things that are wrong, regardless of what the majority wants. And when you have a ruling class, even if it is democratically elected, whose ONLY responsibility is to rule as best as possible according to a religion, there is a huge problem. Because there is noone that can hold them responsible to things that are wrong regardless of what their religion says about them.
It depends. If someone wants to work as a prostitute and is not being forced to do it, that has nothing to do with slavery. But, as we know, in many cases of prostitution the prostitutes are being put in a position where they have no choice, either because they are threatened with violence, or because they are addicted to drugs that they won't get unless they work and so on.
The problem here is that the "business men" who are running the prostitution business have too much power over the prostitutes. At the same time, you can't just say "we will end prostitution", because noone ever succeeded. Prostitution exists in every country. As long as there are customers who want to hire prostitutes, there will be a business.
So what the government decided to do here in Holland, is to legalize prostitution. They did this precisely so that the prostitutes would be in a better position, that they would not have to hide from the police and depend even more on their "employers". Of course that doesn't mean that the whole problem is solved, but it's a better system than one in which they are thrown in jail.
Noone in Europe is disputing whether homosexuality should be a crime. It is simply, legal. The fact that homosexuals don't have all the rights that heterosexuals have does not change this. Their basic right to be homosexual, to live with other homosexuals if they want, is there.
What people are disputing is whether, for example, they should have the right to adopt children. That is the sense in which is disputed. It is NOT disputed "whether it should be legal".
Finally you agreed with something Martin,this what i was also talking about,the thing the people right to elect is something,and whether that thing is wrong or bad is another thing.Obama is the US president because majority of Americans voted for him,not because he is good,maybe people thought he is good and he is really good,or maybe people thought he is good and in fact he is bad,i always think that if 04 election is repeated now most of Americans would choose Kerr.And that's a disadvantage in Democracy TBH,sometimes maybe what is elected by minority is better than what is elected by majority,but in the end what the majority elected for wins.
And that was exactly my point regarding Hijab in France,i see that girls can just go wearing Hijab like how it is in the secular India,BUT at the same time French government has the right to ban Hijab,why? not because it's good to ban Hijab but it's the right of their goverment to do what they see good for their society,now whether the decision is right or wrong that's a different issue.
And the same goes of Homosexuality,maybe you right and we are wrong,but it's our right to prohibit it or not,as it's also any country's right to prohibit it or not.And that what i wanted to say,i didn't want to discuss it's good or bad.
Regarding Prostitution.
Let me be brutal and write what you really mean. What you really mean is that you are free to ask for clarifications about what you have to obey, and for explanations (even if this can be risky sometimes) for the reasons behind these rules. But you are not in any way free to question the rules, to criticize them, to claim that they are wrong or to suggest changing them.
Well my friend, this is not what is intended when one talks about democracy.
Martin,criticism of Islam is allowed whether publicly or not,i think naggar misused the term 'criticism'.What is not allowed is isulting,abusing,and making fun.and BTW even abusing and making fun of other religions' figures is not allowed,and that's mentioned clearly in Quran.
Non-Muslims during prophet Muhammad time used to go to him and debate and criticise what he says publicly,and we all have this written in our History,and in fact if you don't know,the criticism of Muhammad was even mentioned in Quran itself (i mean what non-muslims siad about him)
I will not get offended if you say you don't agree with some things in Islam or you don't believe in God,i will get offended if you make fun of my religion or insult my prophet or something like that.
The way you are debating and criticising now is fair enough,and i'm not offended at all
Btw, is/was there a voting system in Islam states back then? or the holly men used to give orders without asking opinions? serious question, really..
Ya Snoop,we don't have holly men in Islam,we don't have popes or priests,no one is holly in Islam and each and every muslim can face criticism and you must be knowing that very well my friend.The only one who we believe had a contact with God is Muhammad and he died,and when he died he left the matter to the people to choose whoever they want,and the very first caliph in Islam who was Abu Baker was choosen by people,in a time when all the world leaders were nothing but Kings and Emperores.How don't you know that mate?