There’s an awful lot of fuss about ‘gay marriages’ and rights in the US and several European countries.Yet in most of the Arab world,homosexuality is forbidden.End of story.And I don’t see many politicians leaping up and down to condemn this and demand rights for gay moslems.So why is a ban on homosexuality such an affront in America and seen as perfectly OK in the islamic world?Is it purely because it’s islamic,so we can’t criticize them,but have to accept it as part of their culture.Or is there more to it?
Here’s one: Irshad Manji. Female and author of the book “The Trouble with Islam” and openly lesbian.
Forgot the link: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
But I suppose she doesn’t count as she’s Canadian.
6p: And I don’t see many politicians leaping up and down to condemn this and demand rights for gay moslems.
There aren’t many US politicians demanding rights for gays anywhere, you know: only the most liberal of US politicians will state openly that they favor full civil rights for American homosexuals, including same-sex marriage. Given how daring and controversial even that position is considered to be, it’s not surprising that such politicians are not expending energy on publicly condemning discrimination against homosexuals in Islamic countries—or, for that matter, in Catholic countries such as Ireland and Poland. That doesn’t mean that they think such discrimination is okay, though.
So why is a ban on homosexuality such an affront in America and seen as perfectly OK in the islamic world?
Strawman argument. Please provide a cite for any supporter of gay rights in the US thinking that it’s “perfectly okay” for Islamic countries to discriminate against gays.
Is it purely because it’s islamic,so we can’t criticize them,but have to accept it as part of their culture.
Another strawman argument. Please provide a cite for any gay rights supporter thinking that it’s unacceptable to criticize any aspect of fundamentalist Islam or Islamic culture.
On the off-chance that you’re actually interested in the issue of advocacy for gay rights in Islamic countries, you will find a lot of useful information at the GayMiddleEast website.
(By the way, six, nobody much minds if you prefer not to use capital letters in your posts; but if you are going to follow convention in capitalizing names like “European”, “Arab”, and “America”, it is a bit impolite not to do so for similar names such as “Moslem” (or “Muslim”) and “Islamic”.)
Perhaps the reason that people criticise Europe or the US when they consider them to be socially ‘backwards’ in some manner is because they can. The very foundation of Western democracies is open dissent and debate. Try that in Iran and you’ll be grabbed by the mullahs (which, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, can be as agonisingly painful as it sounds).
Islamic law is barbaric and a culture which represses homosexuals is a savage one. There, I said it. And my mullahs remain ungrabbed.
However, I recognise that my statement, which might have some tiny weight in a Western democracy, is simply weightless in the Arab or Muslim world. All that the West can do is encourage democracy and provide an example of civilisation for those future electorates to follow. One way it does this is by granting asylum to political activists who speak in favour of homosexuality and suffer reprisals for doing so. Another is by providing communications infrastructure which the state has difficulty blocking (surely a Muslim had a hand in this site?)
It’s an affront everywhere, but Americans live in America, and therefore have the most interest in getting America to change. I don’t see why this should be surprising to you in the slightest. If I want something to change, I don’t write to the ruling junta in Myanmar, or the President of Burkina Faso, I write to my MP.
Your assertion that there is no criticism of Islamic repression of homosexuality is also false; I regularly see articles and protests here in the UK regarding Islamic oppression of women and gays. Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent gay campaigner, for better or worse) makes a point of attempting citizen’s arrests on any visiting heads of state he feels oppress gay people. Egypt is regularly excoriated for its latest incarcerations of gay “offenders”.
Basically, there’s no shortage of condemnation of Islamic oppression, but it’s entirely natural to try and change one’s own circumstances first. So, what was your point again?
Supposing the US was to impose the same sort of restrictions as there are in the Arab world especially Saudi.You’d have an uproar.And yet you rarely see gay rights protestors stampeding through the streets of Riyadh(which I guess is due to the Islamic system).
My point was that especially in Louisiana where the anti-gay marriage bill has just passed,fundamental Christianity is being condemned as being backward,ignorant and discriminatory and many posters have suggested that even if the majority of people oppose it,the law should be passed.
And yet,there was no mention of trying to pass a gay marriage law into the Muslim world.So why the difference?
And I wouldn’t write to the junta of Myanmar,mainly because I haven’t got a clue where it is.Please enlighten me
Show me how to pass a gay marriage law into the Muslim world, and I’ll try. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq have much bigger problems, even if we just consider the problems that concern gays specifically, than a gay marriage ban. They need to get basic rights like freedom of speech before they can even consider trying to get allowed to marry each other.
I’ll happily condemn fundamental Islam as being backward, ignorant and discriminatory.
Well, it’s due to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a fairly repressive authoritarian state in which protest is not generally tolerated. What this has to do with westerners giving Islamic states a pass is beyond me; we know that Saudi and the states like it are oppressive, and many people say so, but what else can we do, exactly?
Because the Louisiana state legislature’s power in the Muslim world is precisely zero, and vice versa. Louisianan gays want equality, and therefore they protest in and about Louisiana. Isn’t this obvious?
Used to be Burma. Just to the top-left of Thailand.
Hmmm. Excellent point. Let’s think about that one for a second. Maybe there is something more to it.
I’ve got it. Obviously, the entire so-called “gay marriage” (excellent use of quotes, by the way) movement is purely self-centered and hypocritical, because it doesn’t extend pass the borders of the United States. And yet, these self-same liberals would have us believe that Islam is a valid religion and that not all moslems are terrorists! The only logical conclusion there is that the entire concept of same-sex marriage is an immoral fallacy!
Jesus Christ. Apparently “Great” Debates was being too optimistic.
Uh, the difference is that Louisiana is a part of the US and “the Muslim world” is not. The American people generally do not care much about what the laws are in foreign countries, nor do they have much reason to. They also have no ability to set the laws in foreign countries, nor should they. Does it really confuse you that Americans would be concerned about laws that effect them and that they in turn can effect instead of laws that have nothing to do with them personally at all?
The notion of “passing a gay marriage law into the Muslim world” isn’t even coherent. I presume that by “the Muslim world” you are referring to Islamic theocracies, and Islam does not allow for gay marriages. A gay marriage law would require a secular government.
And, at least according to both the US and the UK governments for instance, still is. The issue of what name to use has become politicised and the adoption of either usage is often regarded as making a political statement.
If homosexuality is genetic, as is generally believed, then between 5 and 10% of the population of Muslem countries must be living in very straightened circumstances. Do any of the homosexuals that are repressed in these countries and are driven underground find expression through websites?
No, they get locked up and tortured. Some do make it online, but are then vulnerable to sting operations whereby the police entrap them and (guess what) lock them up and torture them. This is only using Egypt as an example; it is hardly surprising, however, that other oppressive regimes find it convenient to suppress web dissent in much the same way as any other form of dissent.
Incidentally, I find your opening sentence interesting. Would I be reading too much between the lines if I were to infer that you are sceptical that homosexuality is innate? Would I be way out on a limb in speculating that you’re trying to say the relative lack of a gay lobby in oppressed nations is indicative of there being fewer gay people in those countries? If I am, I apologise. However it certainly seems that there’s a point you’re driving at which you’re not coming right out with.
roger thornhill believes that homosexuality is a choice. Whether he could choose to go gay and why anyone would choose something that makes their life more difficult are questions that he has, of course, dodged so far.
… and then we can see if we can adapt that technique for use here in the U.S. …
Excellent point. While there may be somewhat of a fuss about “gay marriage” in the US, the laws on that here are little different than in Islamic nations.
Well, except in Massachusetts.
While numerous people have pointed out the problem with your premise, here’s a website of a gay Muslim organizations for you to review.
This is perhaps a diversion from the scope of the OP, but can other heterosexual people here remember choosing to be straight? I certainly don’t.