A higher court upheld the jail sentence of six men who participated in the wedding of two men in Morocco. The men's sentences ranged from 10 to 2 months in prison. One man was sentenced for appearing on the wedding video dancing wearing women's clothing (a question: what about all the women who wear men's clothing? What shall we do with them? Not only do they go dancing wearing male outfits, but they go to work, to school, and to mosque?) The investigation of the wedding was opened up after the people in the town staged public protests asking the government to crack down on the organizers and participants.
Al Arabiya loves to recount for sensational effects the details of the wedding, over and over again, and peppers its article with a hateful doze of "deviant" and "deviancy." The article connects the wedding to the Moroccan queers' formation of an association to demand equal rights and protection by the law. Reporting the event becomes an occasion to stir up hate towards all homosexuals in Morocco.
If one is to judge the effect of this reporting on the reader by glancing at the comments section, a lynching mob to execute all homosexuals is ready to go.
Sadly, such a lynching mob would be forming in many parts of the world, including the good old USA. Homophobia is global.
4 comments:
do these two men need to make a fuss about their identity (politics) to live together? As long as it is a practice, homosexuality has never been a problem in the world in general. Now the transition to identity politics and to rights have come to test the tolerance of governments and societies vis-a-vis the gay question. Amal, you're right it's global, and here the Arab world meets, as it receives the influence of, the West. My question for gay activists and intellectuals is: why do they insist on being different and at the same time want to do the same as the heterosexuals of the world, or some of them-- to get married? I do not ask the question from a practical point of view but from an intellectual one, since we all know what marriage is for from a legal perspective.
NG
Hi NG,
Nice to see you in the neighborhood!
You write:
"do these two men need to make a fuss about their identity (politics) to live together? "
This is assuming they are making a "fuss" because they want to live together. The article doesn't tell you anything about the organizers and their motives. It connects this wedding with Moroccan gays demands for equality and protection but without giving any evidence of a connection. So I won't jump to conclusions about what the wedding really represents. I need more information about that.
If Arab gays decide that living together is easier without declaring a public gay identity then I'd support that. If all or some of them decide that a public assertion of their gay identity is necessary to their self-fulfillment, I need to support that. Regardless of how one feels about what political program they should follow, countering homophobia in all cases is a necessary ethical stand.
As to your statement that "homosexuality has never been a problem in the world in general"--it depends. Sometimes it wasn't and sometime it was. I don't think the homophobia is only a result of the shift to gay identity politics as you seem to imply. In some cases, the homophobia can solidify a gay identity.
Your other question: "My question for gay activists and intellectuals is: why do they insist on being different and at the same time want to do the same as the heterosexuals of the world, or some of them-- to get married?"
Not all gays want to get married. As you know, marriage comes with certain privileges for the couple, such as health insurance. I'm sure many gays would rather have the health insurance without the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between being different and demanding equal rights and justice as citizens of the nation and the world.
But again, I don't think this wedding is the best way to discuss gay rights in the Arab world. It is however a good example of media discourse that produces homophobia.
sorry for the lengthy answer.
The term 'homophobia' in of itself has ironically become a biggoted term. Should a person be in anyway critical of homosexual rights the mindless response is always HOMOPHOBE!! Especially in the States...
I don't believe homosexuals should be given the legal right to marry but I am in no way afraid of them. I'll sit next to homosexuals, be friends with them or whatever and treat them as equals but I don't think if they choose that path they deserve the rights of marriage or children. But don't call me a homophobe.
Anonymous #1 asked:
"My question for gay activists and intellectuals is: why do they insist on being different and at the same time want to do the same as the heterosexuals of the world, or some of them-- to get married?"
The premise of your question is seriously flawed, at least from a scientific standpoint.
They insist on being "different" on the same basis as my husband and I insist on being heterosexual: they are made that way. None of us chooses our sexual orientation.
Therefore, there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples.
Anonymous #2 wrote:
"I'll sit next to homosexuals, be friends with them or whatever and treat them as equals but I don't think if they choose that path they deserve the rights of marriage or children. But don't call me a homophobe."
They don't "choose" that path. My uncle, who lived with his partner for nearly fifty years until they were parted by death, once asked the rhetorical question, "Who in their right mind would choose to be a target of hatred and bigotry?"
You say you will treat them as equals? How on earth can someone be treated as an equal, let alone a friend, when they are not seen as such? I would term your post hypocritical if it were not for its breathtaking ignorance.
Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."
Anonymous #2, you are a homophobe.
Signed,
JB Lewis, Maine
Post a Comment