I still am curious - what is a hypocrite? For example, I believe in equal rights for all human beings, whatever their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc etc. And this is what I am defending. If I believe and act in the same way, how can this be hypocritical? Is it just some random term you are using because you don't share this belief in universal human rights?
The particular Muslims who throw around the insult 'hypocrites' are sometimes using a rough English translation of the term منافقون ('munafiqun'). This latter term refers for example to people who perform the actions of Muslims (eg prayer) but are doing this superficially or for the wrong motives. It is slightly different to the English word 'hypocrite', which contrasts behaviour and expressed opinions, and is more like how the Koine Greek term ὑποκριταί is used (for example) by Jesus towards his fellow teachers to refer to them being actors in a role rather than sincere in what they do. However, the careless application of the term منافقون to others (rather than as an examination of one's own motivations) shuts down discussion, as it implies that the other person's intentions are not from the heart. It is much like the way in which Trump spits out the word 'fake' to avoid meaningful dialogue.
Yes! I think we can all agree with that! I for example feel so sad about homosexuals having to pretend to be heterosexual, and even get married to someone of the opposite sex, living the lie so that society does not condemn them. So glad that more and more societies are starting to recognise that all human beings have value, and that they all have the same rights (eg to happiness). Thanks for the inspiring comment.
@Away54 had to open a new thread because of Duolingo.don't worry, English is not my native tongue as well but I think you get your point across just fine. So, you say, no matter how old the book, the contents and guidelines are still relevant there. I beg to disagree because in my culture i am raise to review norms and standards occasionally to keep up with scientific discoveries and achievements. I also very sorry to tell you that my environment is quite areligious (about 80% of the population are atheists) so the argument of tradition doesn't hold up very well. I raise you to bring external, falsificable evidence to your claims! Then I will accept them as valid. Cheers
@Sophia_Eressea, Ok ok
Hi, Yes I know, You've said about your belief in another thread.
In some Programming Language Community, I've met Atheist acquaintances also, they told me that nowadays mostly their surroundings take the concept of "God is Dead". Or are most of people who claim themselves as Atheists : Deists? It seems they are Deists and not Atheists.
No problem, I just want to share another belief (as you said you really wanted to know). In my belief, we are not allowed to force others to take what we believe :)
For your saying "no matter how old the book": that's why I try to study Quran by learning Classical Arabic. So, at least I want to prove what some people call "the old book" to myself if it's truly relevant. The result is awesome! الحمد لله.
Many of us, Muslims ourselves, couldn't differentiate between the Truly Faith and the Culture/Tradition. I don't know whether they really don't know or don't want to know. In short, we should not take people's saying blindly.
For your saying "I raise you to bring external, falsificable evidence to your claims": Your statement is too general. What should I prove, Sophia?
Or can you bring some people's saying that Quran is outdated? Then, I'll bring you the evidence that their saying is a fault.
Or you may try to read the Quran? If you have a question, you may ask. Studying Quran is really interesting, I guarantee Your time will not be wasted :D
Hey, good morning to you, too. Let's adress a number or things. An atheist is not a Deist, I encourage you to diffentiate more than "true faith" and "not true faith". I said I wanted to know, that doesn't mean that I have to approve, automatically, nor let half-baked arguments slide. I center my thinking around the value of human life as first established by Bentham. Imho, this leads to accepting every human as they are unless inconveniencing other persons. But even if you think that a god created the person's, then you have to accept that they are created gay by this supreme power. Why argue against it, then? As for my "prove it" I think I was referencing to the relevance of your book in modern society. Can you? Cheers!
Sophia_Eressea, Good Evening! :D
Hey, Yes I know Deist and Atheist are not the same. But some people, when they say that they are Atheists, actually their ideology look Deists. At least, they are people who I've met.
For I encourage you to differentiate more than "true faith" and not: Well, we will need a thick book for this :)
Faith is based on God Revelation while Culture/Tradition is based on Human Habits.
these Habits have been practiced for many generations, then they thought the Habits are part of Faith.
Oftentimes Folks and True Stories are difficult to be differentiated, right? True Stories could be believed as Folks for those who disbelieved while Folks could be thought as True Stories for those who blindly accepted.
For I said I wanted to know: Yes, I know.
Like I said, No problem at all whether my words are accepted or not. You have a question, so I just want to help you to answer it. :)
For Bentham - unless inconveniencing other persons : Oh I see, iI guess this idea is taken by Human Right.
According to this thought, as far as not insult others, Fornication, Adultery, etc. are permissible! Am I correct?
If that so, well, it's a derivative of Ancient Greek or Babilon thought, far older than Quranic Revelation.
For they are created gays by this supreme power: Pardon me, it's not they but Allaah only.
Yes, Allaah created ALL, everything.
Allaah has TWO Wills (just for simplification in explanation), ie. kauniyah and shari'iyah. And, you only mentioned the FIRST Will and forgotten about the SECOND which Allaah wanted you to have the BEST.
Taking only FIRST Will and abandoning the SECOND Will has the similarity with Qadariyya or some other Islamic Deviant Sects, which also took/were derived from Ancient Greek or Persian Majusi. This is just a very very ancient ideology, far older than Quranic revelation.
Following is some Verse for each Will.
Examples Verses of FIRST Will:
إِنَّمَآأَمْرُهُ إِذَآأَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَن يَقُولَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ
"His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is."
(Yaaseen / 36 : 82)
فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ ۖ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ
"So whoever Allah wants to guide - He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe."
Example Verse of Second Will:
... يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلَا يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ “…[Al-Baqarah/2 : 185]
"... Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful." (Al-Baqarah/2 : 185)
Not only Allaah created us and wished us to have the BEST but also given us the free will to choose and didn't want to force us to be The BEST!
As good parents, we will not force our childs to do what we want, right? But we just give some advice and trying to educate them as well as possible.
Following is the "free will" of Human:
"... مِنْكُمْ مَنْ يُرِيدُ الدُّنْيَا وَمِنْكُمْ مَنْ يُرِيدُ الْآخِرَةَ..."
"Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter." (Ali-Imran/3 : 152)
For can you?: I'm so sorry I couldn't follow Old Babilonian Idea! The authors just reshaped their Old ideology with new covers :(
Nb: Some of Ancient Barbaric Arabs were also Atheists. Here's some Verse:
وَقَالُوا۟ مَا هِىَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا ٱلدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَآ إِلَّا ٱلدَّهْرُ...
And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." (Al-Jatsiya / 45 : 24)
Trust me, mate, I know that I am not a Deist and i am inclined to find it offensive that you insinuate I do my research the same sloppy way as you do. Bentham and Babylonian? Perhaps you live in another reality than mine. Utilitarism as a gateway to fornication? I wish... I for what I was curious about was in another post, you jumped onto that and started lecturing me and the worst kind, honest. I can't stand people not reading my texts, then imagining what i possibly could have asked and even then not answering them. I don't do cyclic logic. Neither should you because it makes you look like a fool just as I was a fool were I to continue this so-called-debate. You will never convince someone with this nonsense.
For Deists: they are other persons and not you :)
For Babylonian: it's a difficult topic! So skip it.
I'm so sorry if you think me giving you a lecture. I have told you that English is not my first language, never use it in daily life/conversation. So, perhaps, I have misunderstood your words.
Ok I have already told you also : I don't try to convince you
Bye, I hope you're doing great there! :)
I, as a Muslim, believe that Islam teaches us to leave gay/lesbian/bisexual people alone AS LONG AS they keep it to themselves. That's their problem and between them and God. We just don't want them to shove it in our faces. Do your business privately please. Same goes to straight people who make out in public.
The situation that you describe would be progress! In many societies, gays and lesbians are as discreet as they can be, but are still arrested/ stoned to death if caught (fortunately, the horrors of Islamic State are behind us, but there are others... especially States which confuse religious beliefs and secular laws, and use the power of the courts and the police to catch, prosecute and punish people for "doing things in their own bedroom". So I, as a human-rights defender, believe that every single human being has a place in society, and should be afforded the same rights.
I agree but on the other hand, "doing as a heteronormal couple would do" i. e. bringing your SO to a family /friends gathering, letting them sign greeting cards, pose on cute couple pix or whatever is seen as "shoving their lifestyle down some else's throat." There is a fine line between that and walking around in bondage tripping acid or holding public orgies at a pride parade which is exactly the intent of hitting normies with flamboyant otherness, I think. OTHERS might say that these aren't intents of projecting an image but the strengthening of community bonds... So at what point exactly are the gays - in your opinion - crossing the line?
Sophia_Eressea, some part of your comment "I'm not trolling" or "I really want to know" is not sent because of the emoji!
By the way,
Answering your question, "So at what point exactly are the gays - in your opinion - crossing the line?"
In Islamic Jurisdiction, Gays (male - male) are condemned as one of the major sins. Ancient Arabs didn't even imagine this act except after they recited Quran Verses. They were surprised that the act had been existing, once at the previous old nation.
So yes, it's Crossing the Line.
So, summa summarum, they cross the line by existing? I was reflecting on @Verda656570's statement above who is fine with gays as long as they do not make a show of it. So, I wondered which part of living is shoving your lifestyle into other people's faces and and which is ok?
as to your statement @Away54, I am not held by Islamic Jurisdiction but on the other hand firmly believe in human rights . I guess your statement about islamic scholars being surprised by homosexuality existing is merely hyperbolic since there is homosexuality everywhere, from the animal world to Classic times and further. I doubt that their bright minds might have escaped that
Sophia_Eressea, thanks for replying my comment.
Oh I see, well, if that so, only Verda could answer this.
(For this matter, I don't have my own opinion except based on the Islamic way).
About Islamic scholars: I'm not talking about Islamic scholars but Ancient Arabs who some of them rejected Islam while others accepted. And, it's not a hyperbolic statement.
Their sayings were told around 600 AD. Arabs Jahilia lived between desserts, and the dominance of Romans and Persians, so they looked being "locked up". The culture wasn't influenced by outsiders (like Barbaric - without Internet, Book, or anything except fews)
Some of them killed their own daughters (by burrying them alive??) because of shame. But, they couldn't imagine that male would like male, never thought in their minds.
So, when they knew "Gays" for the first time, they thought this act was evil beyond any evil!!!
so, this being a 6th century opinion about homosexuality, why is it still relevant? I am not going to insult your scholars by saying that they couldn't keep up with times or are unable to meditate upon this world... but how can for some people ignorant, barbaric sayings (your words) be a guideline for living in the 21th century?
Answering your first question: it's because the opinions were/are/will be based on Quran. It's because Quran was/is/will always acceptable in every age. If the opinions are on the contrary to Quran, we will not follow them also!
We know every age will have different relevancies but the point/center of each issue will actually the same.
For a very simple example:
In murder cases, once it was a sword, now we have a gun. Both are the same in term of taking away lives.
I told you about the Barbaric people just for comparison. Those Barbaric people were surprised when they were told by Quran, but why do we not? One possibility is that: our souls are numb, deluded by 21th surroundings!
I think my comparison's point is not catched.
So, in short...
We don't take Barbarians' thought as our Guideline but follow Quran.
Nb: I'm so sorry that English is not my native, I find difficulties for explaining this!
There are more than two dozen countries where same-sex marriage has legal status, including much of the Americas, Europe, and Australasia. Conversely, there are a number of countries where it is banned, including much of northern Africa and the middle East, and the post-Soviet states.
Please stop spamming. Even if your message were relevant to the Arabic language, it would be inappropriate to post it multiple times over.
Regarding your objection, consider that /uttering/ a sentence is different from /endorsing the content/ of that sentence. There are many times when I say things that I myself don't necessarily mean or agree with. For example: if I quote someone else, if I am acting in a play, if I am reading aloud. (Or: if I am learning a language! The goal is to eventually grasp the full space of meaningful utterances - not just the ones that I actually plan to utter.)
Consider also that a sentence like this could show up somewhere for you to encounter (you are watching a movie, you are reading a book) and your opposition to the content of the sentence has no bearing on whether you can understand it.
Consider also that, irrespective of your feelings, gay people exist and sometimes get married. Hence, gay marriage can meaningfully be spoken about (in Arabic, or any language).
Consider also that this is a free language-learning Platform, and if you don't like a sentence about gay people, you don't have to be here.
Let them express themselves. If we believe in freedom of speech, then they must be allowed to respond to Duo. It upsets them? Good! It will help them learn better. In the meantime, the rest of us can continue working towards a world where all human beings are treated equally, in dignity, whatever the religion, ethnicity, sexual identity or orientation, or whatever. I'm pretty sure that this agenda is not anti-God! Take care, stay safe and enjoy learning Arabic.
I support freedom of speech! Also on an app on the internets which at best should bow to the declaration of Human Rights! Tbt, I thought OP would be referencing the meme (totally HARAM - continue) but there are people actually serious about what they are saying! Guys, get yourself some education how the gay works! You are born with it and either taught to express it or repressed for what you are. Didn't think I had to say that in the 21th century. Sincerely, an outspoken atheist
The above statement has already hurt both many Muslims (by using l#sb##n statement) and Arabic linguists (or learners who know the Grammar) whether he/she is Muslims or not (by using Slangs زوجتِك). It's a big failure from Duolingo, they couldn't recognise the sensitive matter and consistently mix Arabic with Slangs.
It's disingenuous to say that this sentence has "hurt" people. There is a difference between taking offense and being hurt. If this sentence has truly hurt you, then I think it's also fair to say that your vocal opposition to the sentence (and to letting LGBTQ people be spoken about in Arabic) is hurtful.
For hurt: I will give you a simple example. Like when we say n#gr# in some region, some people in this World will be hurt. It sounds racialism.
So avoid the sensitive case, simple like that.
هي زوجتك، يا محمد
she is your wife, Muhammad.
By this example, there will be no hurt.
Can't say much about the slang part, as i'm still only learning. But for the lesbian part i'd like to know how you feel about this: in many of the muslim theocracies (at least as far as I know) women's rights aren't held highly to say the least (e.i. in Afghanistan).Should we remove sentences like "Rania is a professor" or "Maha is an engineer/doctor" too because it might hurt people? How about a sentence like "Rania drinks wine" ? Is that hurtful too? Would "Carrie drinks wine" be better? Because of the western name? Because if so...the above sentence has western names too. And as for your comparison to the N-word: yes that word would offend basically all poc, with the potential exception of it being used among them, and even then not all would react well. But "gay" and "lesbian"? They use these words to describe themselves and each other. They will only be hurt by it, if you use it with the intent to insult, and then they are not hurt by the word, but by the intent. Your comparison is wayyyyy off! I know a whole lot of straight people who wouldn't be offended by being called gay (christian, muslim, atheist, other), they would just kindly correct you, or, if the intent was to insult, be offended by that or by the homophopbia. I know a lot of muslim and christian people who don't use religion as an excuse for homophobia. I know a lot of gay people. I know muslim gay people. I come from a country where homosexual marriage is thankfully legal. For me, knowing how to say "your wife" to a female person or "her wife" in arabic might actually be useful one day. You should keep in mind, that this course is mostly for people who don't yet speak arabic and might come from countries where the situation for gay people is vastly different. I'm sorry that you feel this way about gay people and hope that at some point you might realize, that a relationship between consenting adults does hurt neither them nor anyone else.
"Your comparison is wayyyyy off"
I forgot to respond this.
Well, I think we have misunderstanding about the hurt meaning.
Here Hurt is like in this narration:
قال الله عز وجل: يؤذيني ابن آدم يسب الدهر.
For an easier example:
When we have a child, then he/she do what we think it's not correct. We, as his/her parents, will feel hurt by our child's behaviours even though our child doesn't intent to insult us. Just by his/her single word/act that we see, as a parent, we will feel hurt....
For woman cases: If what you're saying is true, well, Muslims are not Islam. I spoke about Islam while you argued Muslims. Both are different.
For wine: It's also an inappropriate example.
For Western naming: It's still okay.
For your Muslim friends: There are many practices that are forbidden by Islam but Muslims do.
Again, Islam is not Muslims. Many Muslims don't follow the Quranic way.
For "this course for mostly for people who don't speak Arabic yet and might come from countries where the situation for gay people ...": Well, some beginner Arabic learners who start their learnings has left Duolingo because of this sentence, if you notice that.
Also, your comment is a proof of the Luth's story 'alaihis salaam that has been mentioned in Quran Verses.
Of course you can express it. And no, you children will not "learn" homosexuality at all. They might learn to hide their homosexuality, if they are in a society that frowns upon it. But they won't learn it. And I am not sure I agree about the anti Islam. Maybe you mean "contrary to the precepts of Islam"? Take care, thanks for sharing.
Well, many Muslims were hurt by those words. Duolingo failed to acknowledge this matter. Rather than fixing the Grammar/lessons, Duolingo brings sensitive issues. In another context, we may see it's something like "Black Live Matter" that happens in US.
For Quran, we should recite it first, understand its language's eloquence, then may make a conclusion. But don't try to understand it with Arabic Duolingo as it's containing a lot of Grammar errors.
Sure, you may claim Quran and "haraam" aren't supported by other legal/authentic books. However by this saying, you're already judging Quran, your opposite view.
Also, you would be debated by thousands of scholars if they read this. And they would say the opposite thing: permissibility of lesbian is supported by very few references compared to the sources that forbid lesbian.
This matter isn't correlated with "Carrie and Judy are Muslims or not" or "let them free." It's simply another failure understanding. Your sayings could be meant that it's simply that Muslims should respect others and give in many things no matter what happens.
Furthermore, Duolingo has also already wounded the Arabic language in general as they tried to mix it with Slangs/Dialects. Many people who know Arabic Grammar well (Muslims or not) are feeling uneasy when read the Duolingo Grammar. Linguists/Arabic experts will not teach with "masmak" or "masmik" (or "zaujatik" in this lesson). You may ask them by yourself if you don't believe it....
Hope you understand, thank you so much.
Stating that there are different worldviews than Quran doesn't make it a judgment upon it. It is just observing that Quran isn't the only standard existing. If you are hurt by that, you are in for a difficult life. Don't you think non-muslim AND some muslim are hurt by people shouting at them that they are worthless or the way they live is forbidden because of a private matter?
Again, the arabic course on Duolingo wasn't meant for the study of the Quran alone neither for muslim people alone. Many are the people who speak arabic and don't believe in the teachings of the Quran, and some believe in other religions.
I'm not claiming Quran and haraam are not supported by other legal and authentic books: it is a fact. Think about the different laïc laws existing, or other religions books.
Yes I do think that the world we live in would be a better place if people, no matter what their religion is, would respect others that don't belong to their community or don't share the same ideals, if no one gets hurt.
Ideas and principles are worth criticizing, I think. People don't deserve bashing.
The arabic that we learn here is spoken not only by the people who made it. I 'm aware that it is'nt MSA, and I think they made an mistake here by not adapting the lessons from their own dialect to MSA, but it's a valid language too.
Hope you understand my point of view.
I don't think it's accurate to say that people are being "hurt" by this sentence.
You dislike the sentence, you don't think it should be here, it offends your religious sensibilities - sure.
But if this sentence truly "hurts" you (i.e., if this is what we mean by "hurt") then it's plainly the case that you are hurting LGBTQ people.
For difficult life: YES, many Muslims live in difficult life nowadays. Most of them only cry at their home as they aren't allowed to speak anything publicly. They give some advise privately then being rejected. End case.
For judgement: who is judging who? As here, saying okay and saying forbidden both couldn't be compromised. Therefore, "okay" is judging "forbidden" while "forbidden" is judging "okay" then?
For studying Arabic for Muslims and not: that's the reason why we should use neutral statement for any side, rather than picking up a sensitive issue. So all people can get the best environment for studying.
For valid language: Arabic has its own Grammar, structured by hundreds of years. Not created by some Duolingo moderators. Linguists will feel painful by this Mixing if they know it.
Conclusion: Arabic course should be improved by using nice statements and good grammars. Therefore, I support a mod who still want to make it better even though he is limited.
For hurt: I will give you a simple example. Like when we say n#gr# in some region, some people in this World will be hurt. It sounds racialism.
So avoid the sensitive case, simple like that.
هي زوجتك، يا محمد
she is your wife, Muhammad.
By this example, there will be no hurt.
Personally, I think that it's fine for you (or anyone) to dislike this sentence, or to point out that it refers to a homosexual couple, and homosexuality is haram in Islam.
What's not acceptable is to declare /this sentence/ haram or to demand that Duo remove it. I am not a scholar of the Qur'an but I would be extremely surprised if it indicated that talking about haram topics is, itself, haram. (This would be self-defeating. How would anyone teach their children about what is or is not haram?)
There are many other better ways to study Arabic without insulting anyone.
Also instead of taking some sensitive issues, this Arabic Duolingo course should improve their lessons. If we blindly defend this unique Duolingo Grammar quality, many Arabic linguists wouldn't agree with us. It's not surprising if the moderators/contributors are just native speakers and not Arabic experts!
As a programmer I understand that the phrases in Duolingo are generated randomly. The app just have a list of names, verbs an other grammatic structures and it just glue them together following the grammatical rule of the lesson. All this talk about gay propaganda and gay agenda are delusional nonsense and the real danger of these days. Here in Brazil we got a president who's been elected with this speech and guess what? Once sworn in he never touched the subject again, he gives away government positions to militaries and shields his sons from being investigated for crimes. Also he's a total disaster managing the corona virus spread on the country, denying the dangers, encouraging the people to break the quarantine and to use untested medication without medical prescription.
AlbertoMelo5: DL uses database system for each page/lesson (not merely random by some codes or its app). Please kindly visit the course via DL site, you may see many things.
So part of your words is correct, but unfortunately, part of them is not.
Lastly, I hope your country will be okay soon!
As a programmer I understand that the phrases in Duolingo are generated randomly. The app just have a list of names, verbs an other grammatic structures and it just glue them together following the grammatical rule of the lesson. All this talk about gay propaganda and gay agenda are delusional nonsense and the real danger of these days.
AlbertMelo5, they have database, a big one (ie. it's far more complex than code stuff only), so the sentence doesn't just glue them together randomly following the grammatical rule.
For propaganda, yes, I agree with you at some point. Still, it's not an inappropriate example.
In terms of linguistics, it is important to use words precisely. What is a hypocrite? I ask, because I do not detect anyone saying one thing whilst doing the opposite. And who is imposing anything? Is anyone forcing Muslims to renounce their faith or beliefs? You are right to denounce hypocrisy and to denounce the suppression of religious freedom, but I can't see them anywhere.
Slitinsky: "What's next duolingo? Teaching us 'Mahmud is eating a ham sandwich'? Not ok."
Just for your information, not all Arabs are Muslims (and not all Muslims are Arabs, for that matter). Incidentally, I happen to know quite a few Muslims who eat ham and drink alcohol -- we are only human after all, and not all of us always do what we are supposed to.
We speak Arabic here in the US. How would you even criticize a same-sex marriage here in the US without being able to say "your wife" to a female? You'd just look even more ignorant trying to say the wrong word because Duolingo only taught you the hetero way of describing it.
Just going through the comments before I evean say anything and IMO I DO NOT CARE who down likes my comment.. All this social justice and gender confusion should NOT be shoved down the throats of people who don't want to hear that BS. To each his own and I have no problem with someone wants to do with themselves but Duolingo coming all sideways like this when I am trying to learn a language and not participate in such total BS in a comment thread is pathetic. If I wanted this crap I would just turn of Fake News CNN. FYI, I upvoted everyone that had negative points for your comment. Haters need to understand, which they never will, that this is an unnecessary distraction that Duolingo should be ashamed of. Trying to inject their politics on everyone. Shameful.
Who are the haters? What gender confusion? What politics being injected on everyone? What's wrong with social justice? Same sex relationships are not "gender confusion". Same-sex marriage is alhamdulillah a legal fact in many countries now. And writing about something does not force you to agree with it. I prefer to to live and let live, and be open to other people having a different viewpoint (and being able to express it) without shouting at them.
Well, I disagree, I think on the contrary that it does enhance educational aspects of language learning. But I'm not an expert. But, back to my question: can you define hypocrite? If you are referring to the term منافقون, it is used in a very specific way to describe people who pretend to be Muslim but have a different agenda. Somehow it doesn't seem to apply here. That's my opinion. I respect your opinion - you don't like the concept of same-sex marriage. But I don't see anyone here - neither you, nor Duolingo - as being hypocritical. I certainly hope that I am not a hypocrite!