What really puzzles me is how the cows got into it!
As far as I know, I have not heard about any gay Muslim or non-Muslim who is asking for the right to have sex with cows. Or Giraffes. Muslim gays are asking to be recognized as full human beings with the right to love and desire adults of the same sex, without stigma or punishment.
So what do cows have to do with it!
I racked my brain trying to see a connection. And failed.
Someone must have felt sorry for me in my dumbfounded state and offered the "missing link": "where do you draw the line?" they said. If you approve of homosexuality, why not approve of bestiality and incest and sex with amoeba. Checkmate! We win, you lose. Perverts, perverts, perverts!!
Ah, the slippery slope argument.
Which is a logical fallacy, isn't it? Remember it. We had it in Freshman Composition 101. It seems either people sleep through that class or skip it altogether because lots of them are slipping on the logical fallacy slope these days: I'm thinking here of those who say if you allow Muslims to build mosques in Europe, they will take over and Switzerland will become Switzabad before you can say Allahu Akbar. Where do you draw the line? And there's those who say if you allow a man four wives, why not allow him 7 or 20, or 200. Where do you draw the line on MULTIPLE PARTNERS! Let us not forget those who say if you allow a woman to drive a car, she will give birth to three-headed monsters which would spell the end of the Umma as we know it. Where do you draw the line? And who can forget those who say if you treat one single Palestinian with respect, the State of Israel will wither and die and Palestinian cows will be all over Marj Bani Amer. Where do you draw the line?
The slippery slope argument is slippery indeed. Now, imagine a cow going down this slippery slope. It's hilarious and perverted.
In South Africa the struggle against apartheid went hand in hand with struggle for gay rights. As a result, in the post-apartheid state, gay rights are protected by law. Mandela and his friends didn't do that because the West said it's best. They just did what's best for their people. They've been so busy fighting for justice for all that they missed the cows altogether.
And thank god for that!
49 comments:
It's a valid question and you are avoiding it by beating around the bush.
If you permit homosexuality on grounds of no-harm to others and free choice, why not allow bestiality and incest? What gives you the right to say sex with same sex is OK because it's free choice and no harm is done, while denying it to other lifestyles?
You keep dodging the question because you have no answer. Or are you so narrow minded and bigoted that you want to enjoy freedoms but you wish to deny them to others?
Ron,
I'm not avoiding the question; I'm rejecting it altogether because it equates homosexuality with bestiality and incest. I don't see the connection but you take it for granted. The insistence on homosexuality as perversion is the very essence of homophobia. Again, gays are not asking for the right to sleep with cows or with their mothers. Once they start demanding that, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. This is not a theoretical question; it's about real men and women, with real lives, hearts, and skulls that sometimes get bashed just because they love other men and women.
That's the issue. Don't you dodge it.
what arrogance. who are you to make that subjective judgment call? how can you say that homosexuality is normal but bestiality and incest is not?
just as you give yourself the right to describe homosexuality as normal sexual behavior while describing bestiality and incest and polygamy as perversion, I reserve the right to draw a different line, one that says heterosexuality is the normal behavior.
I don't care about the religious perspective, I just think homosexuality is in poor taste. Taste is subjective.
Oh, and I actually cracked up imagining the cow sliding down the slope !
ron,
A correction: you are misreading my post: I did not say polygamy was a perversion but I did point out that polygamy is an example of multiple sexual partners (an issue one of my readers brought up in his/her post and put on the same level with bestiality and incest). But indeed there are people out there who do consider polygamy a perversion and use it to bash Muslims and dehumanize them sexually. I was drawing attention to the fact that racist discourse against Muslims uses similar argument like those used against homosexuals. The racist discourse against Muslims and the homophobic discourse against homosexuals results in harm to both groups. That's the issue which you are still dodging.
hani,
What do you mean homosexuals are in "poor taste"? Do you also think blacks are in "poor taste"? Or maybe short people are in "poor taste"?
And what do you suggest that we do to people who are "in poor taste"? Fry them so they become tastier?
Come on guys!
you have posted half a dozen posts, all avoid the the same question asked half a dozen times.
let me rephrase again. by whose authority do you draw the line that puts homosexuality on the side of normal behavior while incest and bestiality on the wrong side of sexual behavior? if religious, please quote source. if personal, then you will have to accept my rejection of homosexuality as normal behavior.
ron,
along your same argument, why did you dcide that heterosexual sex is normal? and imagine that im a crackhead trying to ban it (as the church tried to in the dark ages). i could (as you do) argue that if you have to allow it, you would have to allow bestiality (?!?). if you answer that question, then ill be happy to answer yours. and no, its not for the preservation of the race, otherwise i can devise an in vitro procreative system for everybody.
whole civilizations (powerful, cultural, and viable, which had an impact on millenia to come) were built in which homosexuality was THE norm and not heterosexuality (mainly greek societies)
sex, unlike among most animals, for higher apes (including humans) is not for procreation, but for pleasure, and this is a biological argument. homosexual practices are on a large scale observed in ape societies, in which it is as normal as heterosexual sex. and hence it would be as normal for humans.
thanks for the history lesson, your version of it. but I have a history that I am proud of that does not consider homosexuality as normal behavior. and what makes you think ape societies don't get sick like human societies. we have flu, they have flu. we have caner, they have cancer. we have queers, they have queers. they kill their own, we kill our own. is this normal just because apes do it? nice role model.
but if I accept your argument that homosexuality is the norm, by whose authority do you draw the line that puts homosexuality on the side of normal behavior while incest and bestiality on the wrong side of sexual behavior? if religious, please quote source. if personal, then you will have to accept my rejection of homosexuality as normal behavior.
""What do you mean homosexuals are in "poor taste"? Do you also think blacks are in "poor taste"? Or maybe short people are in "poor taste"?""
Amal, please don't put words in my mouth. No I don't think either of those things. When I say poor taste, I mean that it is a choice, and for me, it is a tasteless one.
"And what do you suggest that we do to people who are "in poor taste"? Fry them so they become tastier?"
I don't suggest we do anything. Why did you get so violent about this ?
Amal,
Thank you for your defense of gay rights against intolerance and bigotry especially in the Arab and Muslim communities all around the world.
ron,
what do you mean my version of it? any decent historian/history book would admit that in many greek societies homosexuality was the norm.
whats your history? bigotic christians, starting the early this millenia used to bash the muslim world bcs it was, according to them, a deviant world (they had in mind, among many others, abu nawwas who was an outspoken homosexual). even in arab history, homosexuality was more widespread that in its western counterpart.
i repeat my main question again, why did u decide that hetersex is good or normal. i can argue as you do, that if you have to accept it, then you have to accept bestiality
well, you (and me) can argue that killing is "wrong", although practiced by animal (and eventually human) societies. but what are your arguments against homosexuality, besides the slippery slope? do u want another slipper slope, heres one: apes eat, yet kill their own. hence (according to you, otherwise apes would be ur role model) eating is bad.
what about this one: many senators are against using the quran for taking an oath, bcs according to them if you allow the quran then you have to allow the mein kampf. do you find that this slippery slope valid as well?
you keep dodging my question. why do you want me to go by your values and accept homosexuality based on the argument of tolerance (bad senator, bad ape, me good) but you want me to stop at that. why don't you endorse incest and bestiality too? please, I beg you not to keep dodging the question.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with bestiality and incest. Period. No question. If you think being gay is like bestiality then you obviously do not view gays as human and do not believe their human right to freely exist in our society.
In fact your argument against homosexuality depends on comparing it to morally repulsive things like incest, which is what happens to Arabs and Muslims when they are called terrorists post 9/11.
Haytham makes some very good points, I would also like to add that there has been homosexuality recored in the Persian Empire and the Sufi tradition that traveled through out the Middle East and the Arabic Empire.
I suggest to those that don't like gay rights to find another website instead of wasting our time justifying the idea of basic human and civil rights for all to someone that wants to deny them to people because of what they do in their bedroom.
let me reiterate ron or x's argument: if you have to accept one difference bw people, then you have to accept all differences. and since not all differences are good, then we have to ban all differences. how can you reconcile this with with any tolerance?
whats sweet about slippery slopes is that two can play at this game, heres evn a double slippery slope:
if we have to ban gays according to your arguments, then some americans have the right to ban the quran (bcs according to them, if you allowe the quran then you have to allow the main kampf)
do you agree with that? you ask: if you allowe gays then you have to allowe anything. then i ask you: if you have to ban gays, then you have to ban anything.
there you go, thats the slippery slope for you
So let me rephrase Haytham's argument. We should tolerate homosexuality but we should be intolerant to other sexual preferences. Why the selective tolerance, because homosexuals say so. Why? because if you don't tolerate homosexuality, we will not tolerate Islam or blacks.
That's the gist of Haytham's argument.
basically, you should tolerate Homosexuals because the West says so, but you should condemn polygamy because the west says so. You should condemn Holocaust denials because the West says so, but you can make fun of the Prophet because the West says so, but if you dare cover your hair, you are a retarded muslim and you will be banned from public schools and public jobs.
so what's the bottom line Haythem? you do as you please and we will do as we please. I could not give a f**k what anyone things about us.
how is that for putting an end to your slippery slope.
X,
Why do you hide behind defamatory remarks like comparing homosexuality with incest and bestiality if you have religious or political reasons behind opposing homosexuality?
This issue is wider then debates about censorship. Gay rights is an issue of human and civil rights. Will gays be equal or separate and unequal in our society?
If we want a society that protects all people no mater their religion, race, gender, then we also have to fight for gay rights.
Homosexuality is not a western creation nor is it exclusive to the west.
I would also add that the fight for real democracy that protects people of all sects, classes, gender, and race is not a western creation either.
excuse me? on what basis to you describe bestiality and incest as defamatory accusations while you exclude homosexuality. who gives you the right to make that arbitrary call? i did not.
so it seems to me you are just another bigoted hypocrite who wants to enter the tent of tolerance and close the door behind him so others don't benefit from it. then you come and preach tolerance and democracy and human rights? what a hypocrite. either tolerate all, include all, treat all as equal, including those who practice homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.
let me elaborate on youssef's point. unlike x, im not creating a stiff cosmic rules on tolerance and intolerance. share with us your reasons for opposing homosexuals and we can discuss them. dont be vague abt it by beating arond the bush (if homosexuals, then anything)
i never mentionned the wests convictions. so i dont know what ur accusing me of. in the US some ppl are as opposed to homosexuals as you are. if u want my brief opinion abt the other matters here it is:
-homosexuals are regular ppl as everybody else.
-condemn polygamy bcs its unfair to women (either bcs women cant be polygamous, or bcs no one can be intimate to more than one partner)
-condemn holocaust deniers, bcs nobody should be ridiculing human sufering.
-make fun of the prophet, jesus and all other religious and political beliefs, yet be respectful of all ppl(and the west here is extremely hypocritical)
-i cover my hair if i want to. nobody has the right to tell me what i can or cannot wear. and the west is extremely intolerant as u put it.
so i really dont see how managed to stereotype me, without even knowing my opinion.
my only argument with homosexuality is that once we bless it, under the banner of tolerance, equality, and human rights, we will have to bless incest, bestiality, necrophiliac (assuming the cadaver belonged to a once consenting adult). So we keep it simple. Heterosexual unions are the only legal unions. Everything else, people keep behind closed doors. But once we give green light to open queer behavior , next they will want to have legal marriages, then adoptions, then god knows what. it will never end.
Y,
Racial marriages were illegal once too, and people defended that unjust law along the same lines you've been following here.
Slavery was legal once too and people used religion to justify it.
Hitler opposed interracial unions because he believed that people of different species should not mate. Your insistence on equating homosexuality with beastiality reminds me of his argument: a woman sleeping with another woman is like a woman sleeping with a racoon.
And you are right: homosexuals can be really outrageous. One day they may want to join that august institution, marriage, and even worse raise kids. How outrageous! They want to love and care for a partner and kids! How immoral indeed! What would they ask for next? A parade?
you have a serious hypocrisy problem. before you come and argue about tolerance, deal with your rejection and intolerance toward other forms of sexual preferences. Once you prove to me you believe in universal equality and when you stop denouncing those who practice alternative sexualities (bestiality, incest, necrophilia) then you can start giving lectures to us about tolerance and equality and inclusion.
Fact is, you want to be a Martin Luther King for homosexuals but you want to be a Hitler for others who are not like you. Sham on you.
You are no better than those you accuse of intolerance.
Y,
I'm not arguing for "tolerance." I'm arguing for more. I want equal rights and dignified treatment for fellow human beings. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. I much prefer it to being "principled" your way.
The only one who has been "denouncing" others on this blog is you. I do, however, denounce your argument.
Because in the real world were we all live, your kind of argument is part of a discourse that incites violence against fellow human beings who have not hurt you or any other member of society. What are you going to do about that? What is your ethical responsibility in this case? More incitement or the right thing?
so do you accept bestiality, incest, necrophilia, orgies as acceptable alternative sexual behaviors also worthy of the tolerance you preach to us?
YES OR NO, PLEASE. (not that I think you will ever answer this question)
Can someone please explain this insistence on a comparison to bestiality, incest, and necrophilia to me? Is it too obvious that in considering homosexuality we are talking about consenting adults and freedom of choice but in the other cases we are not? Ron, your question seems rhetorical and intended to incite anger and violence, rather than require an answer. Perhaps that is why you are not getting a response from Amal or the others. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really don't know better...so above you have your answer.
"I'm not arguing for "tolerance." I'm arguing for more. I want equal rights and dignified treatment for fellow human beings."
Amal, I don't know a moment ago you were arguing for deep frying them. If the only way to win an argument is to put words in someone's mouth and then refute your own words, its like arguing with yourself.
Hani,
No, no, that was a question to you and you answered it. I'm glad you don't have plans to deep fry short people or homosexuals. But I was wondering what would you do if someone suggested that people you find "in poor taste" be fried? Would you watch from the sidelines? Or would you stop them?
In other words, do you want to live in a society that offers protection to people that differ from you or would you rather live in a society that seeks to destroy them?
Amal, definitely the former society because one day I may fall in a group that someone finds distasteful.
Someone gay may not like the fact that I find their choice distasteful, but that doesn't mean I would wish them harm, anymore than I would wish harm to someone who decides to wear blue velvet, but I understand how the comment can be misunderstood in the context of the other comments on this post.
"Can someone please explain this insistence on a comparison to bestiality, incest, and necrophilia to me?"
because it's so goddamn hypocritical of you to expect us not to compare you with those alternative sexualities and because it's so goddamn hypocritical of you to use the argument of tolerance to want to be accepted while you attack other sexual alternatives.
you hypocrite, you just can't see what's wrong with your argument.
This is like a an Asian person asking for equality with Whites but getting upset when asked to recognize the humanity of Blacks.
Who are you to demand to be treated as normal while excluding others.
what arrogance, what intolerance, what double-standards.
"but I understand how the comment can be misunderstood in the context of the other comments on this post."
Hani, the only people promoting exclusion and intolerance on this forum are the homosexuals. they want to be tolerated but they get upset when we ask them to recognize and tolerate alternative sexualities. how hypocritical.
Hani,
Thanks for clarifying. And you know, some people already consider you and me members of a "distasteful group" as Arabs and Muslims.
Amal, this has got to be the diaug of the deaf and blind. you keep making references to intolerance against Arabs and Muslims to make a point about intolerance against homosexuals. yet you have no problem being intolerant to other alternative sexualities.
that's sad. that's selfish. that's hypocritical.
but for the record, i could care less about someone's sexuality so long as they don't shove it down my throat. but to turn a sexual position into a civil rights movement is obscene. whats' next? Blow Jobs for Justice? Freedom Dogie Style? Sadists Are People Too?
x, y, and z are fighting for the cause of bestiality and incest?
That is oddly funny and so ingenuous.
Anyhoo, this is a pro gay rights site and in no way will your insults and trite comments change that.
Y,
How did gay Muslims, or gays in general, "shove" their homosexuality down your throat? Have you been harassed to become a homosexual? Have they told you that your heterosexuality is a perversion? Have they subjected you to electric shock therapy to cure you of your heterosexuality? Have they preached that you will burn in hell for loving another man? Have they attacked you when you were picnicking with your family and friends just because you looked gay? Have they denied health insurance to your wife because they don't believe that the sex you have with her is "right"?
How do gays shove their homosexuality down your throat?
amal, do you not even have the ability to self reflect?
this post, this discussion, is SHOVING it down our throat. Who gives a damn how you like to have sex and with whom.
imagine if someone makes a blog or a post about orgies, sadism, necrophilia, and other alternative sexualities. Anyone would consider such a post as shoving it down people's throat.
i am amazed by the tolerance of the so many Jordanian blogosphers who permit this discussion about sexual positions.
i doubt they will let someone post on incest or orgies or sadism. but they tolerate you defending your sexual preference. what if kids area reading this? this is offensive.
so please people, stop advertising your sexuality on these blogs. sex is for the bedroom, not for general discussions on blogs. go to a porn site and have these discussions. jeeezeee. like we have nothing to worry about excep how someone wants to have sex. your persistence is even more offensive. this is like farting on purpose during dinner. it's just plain rude.
so not only are you intolerant to alternative sexualities, unlike them (they keep it private) you push your sexuality on us and try to convince us that this is about human rights and tolerance. thats' offensive. THIS IS ABOUT SEX.
Amal, how could you dare offend the whole of Jordanian blogosphere represented by x, y, and z?
If x, y, z are so offended they have the right not to come on this site.
Considering that freedom of speech is applied to the internet there is no reason to stop promoting gay rights and to continue advocating against oppression of homosexuality.
In fact as more countries are repealing anti-sodomy laws and permitting gay marriage homosexuality will be the reality for more and more people.
To be honest, I dont think x,y, and z want to "debate" homosexuality.
I think their goal is to silence with fear and hate Amal and other Arabs and Muslim gay rights advocates .
Yousef, now you read minds. does that come with homosexuality?
K,
You have not answered any of my questions, which could be due the fact that I made a couple of errors, for which I apologize. So let me repost here with the correct words:
How did gay Muslims, or gays in general, "shove" their homosexuality down your throat? Have you been harassed to become a homosexual? Have they told you that your heterosexuality is a perversion? Have they subjected you to electric shock therapy to cure you of your heterosexuality? Have they preached that you will burn in hell for loving a woman? Have they attacked you when you were picnicking with your family and friends just because you looked straight? Have they denied health insurance to your wife because they don't believe that the sex you have with her is "right"?
How do gays shove their homosexuality down your throat?
you don't read so what's the point of this debat. you just repeat your lines like a broken record. go read the 20 or so above post to answer your question. no one, NO ONE ever took the time to debate sexual positions and to demand that we turn sexual foreplay into a human rights cause. that's arrogance personified.
but my biggest problem with homosexuals is their hypocrisy. they want to be tolerated but they are as intolerant towards other alternative sexualities as the people they accuse of such intolerance. go fix your hypocrisy and double-standards than you can come and preach tolerance.
somehow you think you are smart when i ask you a question, your return it with a question.
so long as you don't resolve the issue of your double-standards and intolerance to other sexualities you are just another intolerant person.
- when a dog(cow ...etc) develops a brain capable of holding a conversation.
- a brother and sister can get married with the consent of their parents
- as for the rest ya, you can go ahead and screw as many cows, brothers, sisters, mothers, and multiple partners as you want if you are doing it for fun. At the end of the day show me one person that is willing to fight for his right to sleep with his mom (or any of your other examples) and then we can start discussing it in more depth
What you can't do is inherent, have legal custody, be able to have legal standing position in cases of emergency and raise hybrid cowsapiens
you know all the things that don't involve penetration that so preoccupies your thoughts.
so are your questions answered or you would prefer another go at it ?
you won't even put your name to your answers. what a hypocrite. there are not answers, this is a sad attempt at comedy. so my answer is this. fine, go screw your partner but keep it away from our sights. we could care less about your sexual conquests and favorite positions. they day you turn sexual positions and foreplay into a human right cause in jordan is that day i pigs will fly. what outrage. people are reeling from reppression and can't put food on the table and you have the luxury to demand justice for your favorite sexual position.
what audacity.
what arrogance.
what insensitivity.
lol so after all this time of demanding an answer when you got it you reply with that !
how about facing the truth, that "yes i am a bigoted and i like it that way"
don't really worry about anyone sharing their favorite sex position or foreplay trick with you, for they will surely but justifiability sliced up and torn under the pretense of sharaf based on your logic
damn hypocrites
To counter all the hate spewed by those that are so disgusted by human rights for gays, there is an amazing video from Canadian tv that chronicles the bravery and courage of gay organizers in Iran.
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/03/030407_1.html
Youtube has the full documentary called Inside Iran's Secret Gay World .
Yousef,
Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.
Another film about gay Arabs and Muslims in the US is "I Exist." It's worth seeing.
Mashallah! I'm glad to see this post.
Gays are humans. And all humans deserve happiness, respect, and safety.
Post a Comment