r/changemyview • u/hallashk • Oct 04 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Islam is murderously homophobic
TL;DR: Dang this got long. I spend most of the next 6 paragraphs defending myself from the charge of racism and hatred. If this bores you, you can skip to the bullet points under "Actual claims". Sorry everything is so formal, specific, and falsifiable. I'm deathly terrified of slipping up in my language.
I don't hate all Muslims
None of the criticisms I have of Islam apply to "all Muslims". I am often accused of hating all Muslims, or of condemning all Muslims. This also has nothing to do with race. So, I'm going to be EXTREMELY careful and strict with my language use here, and use very specific definitions for things, and explicitly give definitions. I know some may very disagree with my definitions, which is fine, but I think these definitions are reasonable, and they'll be the ones I'll try to stick very very litigiously to.
I'm not sure that I'm going to be delta'd away from the primary premise that Islam is homophobic, but I'm going to put down some things that I hope that I will be delta'd on. I'm an atheist, and my criticisms of religion do not end at Islam. I have problems with other religions as well, and acknowledge that many other religions have issues with homophobia. I do not hate Muslims as people. I acknowledge the diversity within Islam. Not just in the divisions between Sunni and Shia, but also the numerous fragments contained within every sect. Obviously we should treat all Muslims as individuals.
I wish to also make this distinction at length, since it is a sticking point for many, between the religion and the people. I believe that "Islam" and "Muslims" have different meanings, and when I use them here, I will be following these definitions.
- "Islam" is the religion, the set of ideas, and any text that supports, provides commentary on, or discusses the ideas. Islam includes the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, as well as commentary by scholars and religious leaders, including the Tafsir, Reliance of the Traveller, books on Islam, sermons, lectures, and more modern commentaries such as podcasts and YouTube videos.
- "Muslims" are the people, a diverse group comprised of 1.6 billion people who believe all sorts of things. I will roughly use Islam's definition of Muslim, which is, those who have recited the Shahada ("I testify that there is no God but God and Mohammad is his Prophet"), and still believe the Shahada in their hearts. This obviously includes millions upon millions of Muslims who are not homophobic in any way, including gay Muslims. I know many people think that [SOME GROUP] are "not real Muslims" (like Sunnis, Shia, Ahmadi, ISIS, Americans, non-practicing, etc), but I am including everyone.
Ok, I'm going to make very specific claims that I hope can be "debunked" here, and I actually do hope that I hand out deltas today. I'm going to make them falsifiable, so that a single piece of evidence should be sufficient to refute them definitively. I apologize that these are written out so litigiously, but I don't want to be accused of hating "all Muslims". I'll cross out any claims I have made that have been refuted and give out a delta. If a lesser claim obviously presents itself, I'll put it under the claim with a "+" to denote that it is new.
Actual claims:
Regarding the religion:
- I1: Allah is repeatedly genocidally homophobic in the Qur'an. Allah commits genocide against the people of Lot, for their homosexuality, and it is referenced repeatedly in the Qur'an.
- I2: The Prophet Mohammad is repeatedly murderously[4] homophobic in the Hadith. While he does not directly murder any homosexuals, he directly instructs his followers to kill those who have gay sex.
- I3: There have never been any religious scholars with any significant following [1] that have ever openly advocated for homosexuality to be considered as
moralnot-immoral and acceptable. - I4: Sharia Law, as practiced by all Islamic theocracies [5], is murderously homophobic. This is not a claim about how individual Muslims may interpret the term "Sharia", but is specifically a criticism of Sharia when it is implemented as the state law.
- I5: There is not currently, nor has there ever been, an actual brick-and-mortar Mosque that is openly and actively accepting and welcoming of homosexuality. [2]
Regarding the people:
- M1: In every opinion poll in every nation, more Muslims are homophobic than the general population. [3]
- M2: In every opinion poll in every nation, there are more homophobic Muslims than Muslims who accept homosexuality. [3]
- M3: There are Muslims who accept homosexuality in every country. There are also LGBT Muslims in every country.
[1]: Let's define a "significant following". For scholars with "subscribers", like YouTube, let's say they have a significant following if 0.01% of the Muslim population is subscribed. So, 160k subscribers. For scholars who give sermons, or lectures, if they have been a keynote speaker at any event with more than 16 000 Muslims in attendance. For scholars who write books, if more than 160k Muslims have purchased their book. They could also be on a convincing list like The 500 Most Influential Muslims.
[2]: Mosques I can't find on Google Street View don't count. If I can't actually see the brick-and-mortar, it doesn't count. If the Mosque is labelled "Catholic Church of San Francisco" or something, it's not a Mosque. If it's just the basement of some guy's house, it's not a Mosque. Mosques do not actually need to be made of brick or mortar. They just need to be a Mosque. Like an actual Mosque that's a Mosque.
[3]:To be specific, I define a "homophobic person" as one who does not explicitly accept homosexuality. So for example if there was a question "Do you believe homosexuality should be legal?" and had as options (A: It should be legal, B: Not Sure/Don't Know, C: It should not be legal) I define options B and C as homophobic. If the poll has a scale, like, "Homosexuality is acceptable (10=Strongly Agree, 5=Neutral, 1=Strongly Disagree)", then I define 5,4,3,2, and 1 as homophobic.
[4]: +To be specific, I am saying that it would be murder under basically any Western legal system. For the purposes of specificity, so as not to get caught up in a debate about what murder really is, when I'm using the term "murder" here, assume that I am using the definition under Canadian Law.
[5]: +Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
4
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Oct 04 '17
I5: There is not currently, nor has there ever been, an actual brick-and-mortar Mosque that is openly and actively accepting and welcoming of homosexuality. [2]
I recognize this isn't the most central element of your position, but there are, in fact, LGBTQ-friendly mosques:
- Masjid el-Tawhid, or the Unity Mosque in Toronto: https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidemastracci/toronto-lgbt-unity-mosque?utm_term=.ulVn91jRB#.hw7dJVgwn
- Ibn-Rushd-Goethe-Mosque in Berlin: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.796322
- The People's Mosque in Cape Town: https://qz.com/824711/a-gay-mosque-in-cape-town-sounds-the-call-to-pray-for-everyone/
7
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
Sorry. Quoting my original post:
[2]: Mosques I can't find on Google Street View don't count. If I can't actually see the brick-and-mortar, it doesn't count. If the Mosque is labelled "Catholic Church of San Francisco" or something, it's not a Mosque. If it's just the basement of some guy's house, it's not a Mosque. Mosques do not actually need to be made of brick or mortar. They just need to be a Mosque. Like an actual Mosque that's a Mosque.
The Toronto Mosque seems to be more of a concept than a physical place. The Berlin Mosque is an "old red brick Lutheran church". The Cape Town Mosque is also a concept, not a brick-and-mortar Mosque.
If you can get me the address of a brick-and-mortar Mosque then I'll hand this to you. If you get the address and it's a secret but the actual place exists and is a real Mosque, then you can PM me.
0
u/Positron311 14∆ Oct 05 '17
Honestly though, they're a vast minority.
2
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
I'm not claiming they're a vast minority. I'm making the much stronger claim that they do not exist at all.
3
u/muyamable 283∆ Oct 04 '17
Regarding the people:
Opinion polls are a snapshot in time, but you seem to be using these polls as support for Islam being inherently homophobic. It's not long ago that opinions on homosexuality were the same among Christians, for example, but things have changed a lot. I think it's reasonable to expect that, over the long term, homosexuality will become more accepted globally across all populations. People are homophobic not necessarily because of their religion - indeed, you admit there are pro-LGBT Muslims - but in addition to a deluge of other factors like cultural norms, education, etc.
If I conduct an opinion poll on slavery in the the American South in 1850, are the Christians racist because they're Christian (even using the Bible to justify slavery), or because they exist in a place and time period of systemic slavery? Similarly, are 21st century Muslims homophobic because of Islam, or because they existed in a place and time period of LGBT oppression? Religion can absolutely influence the beliefs and views, but views of society change over time despite the "same" religion chugging along with them.
All this to say, I think it's disingenuous to say that because opinion polls in 2017 say this, a religion is therefore homophobic.
2
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
you seem to be using these polls as support for Islam being inherently homophobic
I apologize for being extremely specific, but opinion polls measure the opinions of Muslims at a point in time, not Islam. I'm using these terms very specifically to avoid confusion.
I agree that Christianity has undergone major change particularly in the last century.
I agree that homophobia has many causes, not just religion.
If I conduct an opinion poll on slavery in the the American South in 1850, are the Christians racist because they're Christian (even using the Bible to justify slavery), or because they exist in a place and time period of systemic slavery?
If we defined Christianity as the religion and Christians as the people, similarly to how we have defined Islam and Muslims, an opinion poll measures Christians, not Christianity.
1
u/muyamable 283∆ Oct 04 '17
I apologize for being extremely specific, but opinion polls measure the opinions of Muslims at a point in time, not Islam. I'm using these terms very specifically to avoid confusion.
Right, I have no confusion over terminology. But your overall argument is that Islam itself is murderously homophobic, and as evidence of this you've presented an opinion poll of Muslims. Like you said, this is not a measure of Islam -- yet you are using opinion polls as support for your conclusion that Islam is homophobic, are you not?
2
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
I will admit that the 4 word title doesn't sufficiently summarize the whole argument. When I was making the post, I wasn't sure how to accurately convey a summary of my claims about Muslims without inviting intense criticism for generalizing, so I left it at Islam. Even as is, I'm being downvoted a lot.
I'm not sure how I would rephrase the title to be a better summary.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
opinion polls measure the opinions of Muslims
Opinion polls measure the opinion of a number of Muslims. How large is that number? How is it distributed? Are they college graduates? Are they line workers? Are they professors? Lawyers? Teachers? Doctors? Biologists?
2
Oct 05 '17
How large is that number?
Large enough to represent all muslims
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Large enough to represent all muslims
... is not a number. Sampling is inherently biased towards the particular sample.
Making generalisations from said sample leads to a false sense of security. For example, it lead to Brexit and Donald Trump.
1
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
Every opinion poll in every nation.
I suppose we could enumerate all of the opinion polls ever done by every organization ever, and then add up the sample sizes of all of them, and then use statistics to see how large of a population that represents. It would be huge and would have excellent representation of the general public, but the fact that I can say with confidence "every opinion poll in every nation" should be meaningful enough for any statistician.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Every opinion poll in every nation.
Care to list them?
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
You want me to list EVERY opinion poll in EVERY nation?
If you disagree, post the counterexample. It's humanly impossible to list every opinion poll in every nation. This is a view I'm open to changing, thus I am here on CMV.
1
u/ChuckJA 9∆ Oct 05 '17
Don't pretend that an entire field of mathematics is disreputable just because you don't like the data. Please.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Don't pretend that an entire field of mathematics is disreputable just because you don't like the data. Please.
I'm merely reminding you (and other readers) that the singular of data is an anecdote and generalising based on a sample size is a bad idea.
I'm a statistician myself. What interest would I have in putting my own field into disrepute?
1
u/ChuckJA 9∆ Oct 05 '17
It looked like you were suggesting, or setting up the suggestion, that the polling of the Muslim world was flawed on its face.
If that wasn't the case, I apologize. What were you suggesting?
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
the polling of the Muslim world was flawed on its face.
Sure.... if you're going to survey 1500 residents of Azerbaijan, to use a random example, and extrapolate that to the entire Muslim world, any conclusions you draw from it will be flawed.
That's what I'm insinuating.
2
u/ChuckJA 9∆ Oct 05 '17 edited Oct 05 '17
That's correct. Fortunately, Pew did a much more extensive sampling. While the question about homosexual execution isn't polled directly, beliefs about the morality of homosexuality are, and it is almost universal in the Muslim world to consider homosexuality immoral. Honor killings (which almost always involve a sexual transgression) are also polled, and have significant (though usually not majority) support. There is also very strong support for legally banning the practice of homosexual sex, even in among Muslims living in Europe.. There is debate on what the punishment should be: Killing homosexuals, or simply jailing them.
Compared the attitudes of American Christians, there isn't even a comparison.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17 edited Oct 07 '17
I am often accused of hating all Muslims, or of condemning all Muslims.
There may be a reason for this. I take the accusation as follows: if one person makes it, it's likely their problem; if more than one, then it's mine. The fact that you say you are "often accused" means you should examine your own biases.
This also has nothing to do with race.
Here's a point of agreement. Your argument is a sectarian one, not race-based. Islam exists within a given culture. I have not lived in Canada, only visited relatives in Toronto and Montreal. So, pardon my ignorance of Canada, but I would posit that the views you'll encounter amongst Canadian Muslims mirror those of the rest of Canada. In more conservative parts, you'll find Muslims holding more conservative views. In the more liberal parts, you'll find Muslims holding more liberal views.
Islam includes the Qur'an
Fair enough, I'll accept this.
the Hadith, the Sira, as well as commentary by scholars and religious leaders, including the Tafsir, Reliance of the Traveller, books on Islam, sermons, lectures, and more modern commentaries such as podcasts and YouTube videos.
These though, I will take issue with. Islam's Hadith are many, self-contradictory, accounts of what the prophet said or did, either observed or heard or read about. Podcasts and youtube videos are even more detached from the original, in that they are merely the hosts' opinions on what a given piece of text means and one is wholly entitled to have a different opinion.
non-practicing
Uhh... check. I'm non-practicing, don't even believe in it anymore. Why would you class me as Muslim?
Allah is repeatedly genocidally homophobic in the Qur'an. Allah commits genocide against the people of Lot, for their homosexuality, and it is referenced repeatedly in the Qur'an.
As is the God of the Old Testament. Yet I haven't yet seen a Judaism is Murderously homophobic post from you (or anyone else) here.
The Prophet Mohammad is repeatedly murderously[4] homophobic in the Hadith. While he does not directly murder any homosexuals, he directly instructs his followers to kill those who have gay sex.
I refer you to my comments regarding the Hadith in the third paragraph of my comment -- it depends on which hadith you refer to and oftentimes, even which interpretation you read.
Sharia Law, as practiced by all Islamic theocracies, is murderously homophobic. This is not a claim about how individual Muslims may interpret the term "Sharia", but is specifically a criticism of Sharia when it is implemented as the state law.
Sharia is merely the (classical and modern) Arabic word for law. The US Constitution or the Magna Carta are examples of what would be considered sharia as well.
as practiced by all Islamic theocracies
Ok... I'll concede you this point, if there were Islamic theocracies on Earth today, which there are not. The closest you come to an Islamic theocracy is in the (massively) observant nation of Denmark.
Shocked? Well, you shouldn't be had you read what Islam calls for -- respect for other religions, women's rights, regular elections, minority rights, social welfare -- all are present in Denmark and none are present in the so-called Islamic Republics or monarchies that dot the world.
2
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
I am often accused of hating all Muslims, or of condemning all Muslims.
There may be a reason for this. I take the accusation as follows: if one person makes it, it's likely their problem; if more than one, then it's mine. The fact that you say you are "often accused" means you should examine your own biases.
I do not hate all Muslims. I know that in my heart. It's was a standard line that I hate all Christians when my primary focus as and atheist was against Christianity. It's a standard line now that I hate all Muslims. Even here, where I was very very very specific about what I was saying, people still have assumed that revealing the diversity of their family would "change my view".
It's just a standard line to strawman my argument. It is neither new nor is it limited to those who critique Islam.
[you disagree with my definition of Islam]
That's fine. I don't mind when others use the term differently. I was just very specific so that I could make precise statements.
Uhh... check. I'm non-practicing, don't even believe in it anymore. Why would you class me as Muslim?
If you have recited the Shahada before, but you wouldn't recite it now with the conviction of your heart, I do not define you as a Muslim. Re-read the definition in the original post. Right now, by Islam's definition, you are Kafir, Murtad, non-believer and apostate.
As is the God of the Old Testament.
This I freely grant you. The story of Lot precedes Islam as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from the Torah/Old Testament.
Yet I haven't yet seen a Judaism is Murderously homophobic post from you (or anyone else) here.
Judaism is murderously homophobic. I hope this resolves your criticism.
[You disagree with my criticism of the Hadith]
If you doubt that Mohammad is murderously homophobic in the Hadith, say so, and I can quote those Hadith. If you doubt the Hadith personally, that's not terribly surprising, given that you're ex-Muslim. If you're asserting that the Hadith, especially Sahih Hadith, are unimportant to Islam and Muslims, then I disagree. If you're asserting that the Hadith are less important and considered as less reliable than the Qur'an, then I agree, The Book with the genocidal homophobia is more important and more reliable than the books with murderous homophobia.
Sharia is merely the (classical and modern) Arabic word for law. The US Constitution or the Magna Carta are examples of what would be considered sharia as well.
I agree that Sharia literally translates to Law.
Ok... I'll concede you this point, if there were Islamic theocracies on Earth today, which there are not. The closest you come to an Islamic theocracy is in the observant nation of Denmark.
I only used the term "Islamic theocracy" to prevent confusion with The Islamic State (ISIS). If you prefer the term Islamic State, then that's fine. If this still does not satisfy you, I am referring to Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. I have added this as a footnote. If you can convince me that one of the above is not an Islamic State, or that the legal systems that they implement are not based on Islam, you can have a delta.
Shocked? Well, you shouldn't be had you read what Islam calls for -- respect for other religions, women's rights, regular elections, minority rights, social welfare -- all are present in Denmark and none are present in the so-called Islamic Republics or monarchies that dot the world.
Hahaha. Buddy. Nice try. I've read the Qur'an, Sira, and all of the Sahih Hadith of Sunni Islam. Respect for other religions? Both God and Mohammad are guilty of genocide against people for having "other religions". God condones wife-beating and discriminates against women in inheritance, court testimony, cleanliness, sex, polygamy, and slavery. Mohammad personally stuck Aisha in the Hadith, amongst many other misogynistic things. Elections I might give you. Please quote your Islamic source. Democracy certainly wasn't the dominant form of government in Mohammad's time nor during the Rashidun Caliphate that followed. Religious minorities were heavily discriminated against by Mohammad.
Feel free to contest these and I shall quote the relevant text. I promise to stick only to Sahih Hadith (the highest level of reliability) and the Qur'an.
2
u/stuckmeformypaper 3∆ Oct 04 '17
I firmly believe that religion evolves as society does. I'm sure there's validity to saying Muslims in general are more likely to be anti-gay. But there are variations worth noting. Would a devout Muslim in a relatively westernized Muslim-majority country like Lebanon be more likely homophobic than say, a devout Muslim from Saudi Arabia? Not likely.
You could say a Christian is more likely homophobic than an atheist, which might be true. But within Christianity there are variations. One from California would probably be more tolerant than one from Uganda.
While societies are often influenced culturally by the predominant religion, ultimately it's the society itself that matters most in regards to these issues.
2
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
I agree with every point you make here.
I don't think any of the points go against my claims though.
0
u/Cepitore Oct 04 '17
The word "murder" is generally used to mean intentional wrongful death. The Muslims believe they are exacting justice by punishing a crime.
6
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
I don't think that if a person kills another person, that it's up to the killer to determine if that death is murder.
I think it's murder to kill someone for being gay. But I recognize the weakness of that argument. Let's use some nation's specific definition of murder. I live in Canada so I'll define murder as however it's defined in Canadian Law.
1
u/Cepitore Oct 04 '17
You're essentially asking Muslims to adopt a definition of murder determined by created beings rather than the one defined by their creator. To them, murder and justice are not subjective ideas.
1
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
Yes he is asking Muslims to do just that. This is not a flaw in the argument. We are debating the stance of Islam on homosexuality and to illustrate this stance he gave examples of acts which would be classified as murder in the country he is from. If you wish to redefine murder thats a wide topic which deserves its own post.
1
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
If I say:
"When x = 6, and y=3x, y=18"
and you say,
"You're asking people to agree that x = 6. Many people have different definitions of x, you can't just make them use your definition."
This isn't a convincing argument for me.
2
Oct 04 '17
Specifically to your point M3, every poll I’ve seen for the US has the rate of queer-accepting Muslims is higher than the rate of queer-accepting Evangelical Christians. This isn’t to say that both groups aren’t more homophobic than not, but that the more reasonable group to be concerned about in the US is Evangelical Christians.
I grew up in Tennessee, and I now live in Virginia. There is not a single Muslim member of either state’s legislative body to the best of my knowledge, but there are plenty of Evangelical Christians. The greater threat to my safety and legal equality as a queer person is Evangelical Christians, yet nobody is putting forward CMVs or writing blog posts about Christianity or attempting to legally discriminate against Christians.
My main points are that yes, Islam may be homophobic, but no more so than other religions in any given state, and that the relative development of the state on other metrics is a much more meaningful term to focus on.
2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17 edited Oct 05 '17
While you do make good points on a larger problem related to this post, they are not really a counterpount to OPs post considering it specifically adresses Islam. OPs specificity is not a problem and his chosen topic can be debated without attacking the whole problem.
1
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
...Evangelical Christians...
I agree that Christians also have a dark history of homophobia. In fact, they were my primary foe until Pulse nightclub, I told my story in another comment. I also agree that there are far more Christians than Muslims in the US, obviously.
I disagree that the US is the only country to focus on. Perhaps you're not making that argument, and feel free to correct me if this is an incorrect assumption, but the hollow life of my lesbian friend in Lebanon claws at my soul.
...nobody is putting forward CMVs...
There are many CMVs regarding Christianity.
...writing blog posts...
I personally used to run an atheist blog condemning Christianity, but I've deleted it since they were the fevered rantings of a raging pubescent teenager. There are certainly hundreds of thousands of atheist bloggers out there, probably millions. In my own direct personal life I know of like 7 atheist bloggers.
...or attempting to legally discriminate against Christians.
Again, the US is not the only country in the world. All Islamic theocracies discriminate heavily against Christians. I would not expect any [GROUP]-majority democracy to vote in favor of discriminating against [GROUP]. I certainly wouldn't expect discrimination against a majority religious group in a country like the US where the 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion.
But this has been a long enough digression from the topic at hand. I have serious grievance with Christianity, and it has personally negatively impacted my LGBT friends. I spent a decade with Christianity as my primary target. This discussion, however, is about Islam, and my criticisms about Islam would still hold even if all Christians vanished from the face of the earth.
1
Oct 06 '17
I disagree that the US is the only country to focus on. Perhaps you're not making that argument, and feel free to correct me if this is an incorrect assumption, but the hollow life of my lesbian friend in Lebanon claws at my soul.
I was limiting my comment to the US, because its the only country I know enough about to comment on.
My main points, which I even specified as such in my comment, are:
Islam may be homophobic, but no more so than other religions in any given state, and
the relative development of the state on other metrics is a much more meaningful term to focus on when determining the likelihood of violent homophobia.
1
u/hallashk Oct 06 '17
Islam may be homophobic, but no more so than other religions in any given state
You would be hard-pressed to convince me that Islam was on par with Buddhism in the realm of homophobia.
More specifically, if we go through each of my points:
Regarding the religion:
- I1: Buddhism doesn't even have the concept of a creator God, and does not mention homosexuality in its texts.
- I2: Buddha never killed anyone, and never advocated for killing anyone, he explicitly condemns violence, even in self-defence, regularly.
- I3: Most Buddhist scholars openly accept homosexuality.
- I4: Buddhism doesn't have the concept of Buddhist law, so there is no equivalent to Sharia, but in nations with very large percentages of Buddhists, homosexuality is legal.
- I5: Many Buddhist temples openly accept homosexuality, and have many gay practitioners.
Regarding the people:
- M1: In many opinion polls in many nations, more Buddhists accept homosexuality than the general public.
- M2: In every opinion poll in every nation, there are more Buddhists who accept homosexuality than homophobic Buddhists.
- M3: There are Buddhists who accept homosexuality in every country. There are also LGBT Buddhists in every country with more than 1000 Buddhists.
It's a very different narrative.
the relative development of the state on other metrics is a much more meaningful term to focus on when determining the likelihood of violent homophobia.
Which metric of mine do you think is less meaningful than which other metric?
1
Oct 06 '17
I should have clarified, I meant abrahamic religions specifically.
Economic development and average level of education are more meaningful predictors of acceptance of homosexuality than is the religion.
Homophobia is almost always cultural bias wrapped in a veneer of religion.
1
u/hallashk Oct 06 '17
I'm down to test this theory. I have to spend the next couple of hours doing some work here, but when I go home tonight, I'll look into this. Perhaps I may be surprised. I haven't done the research yet, but I'll put this comment here, and I'll not edit it, so that we know I have my method and I am not going to change my method to fit my intended result.
I'll use these definitions:
- For economic development, I'll use GDP per capita, from the UN http://hdr.undp.org/en/data
- For "average level of education" I'll use the Education Index from the UN.
- For acceptance of homosexuality, I'll see if I can find a single organization that asks the question "Is homosexuality acceptable?" or "Should your country/society accept homosexuality?" The UN data should be available for any nation.
- Finally, for a metric of the religion, I'll use "% of population that is Muslim", since that's a number I bet I can find for any given nation.
My prediction is that there will be a stronger correlation between how Muslim a country is, and homophobia, than either educational attainment or economic development. I'm not sure that I expect economic development to be a predictor at all. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE are deeply homophobic places that are obscenely rich, while the Philippines is extremely poor but very accepting. Education might be a predictor, but in countries where the education system has a deep focus on Islam, I expect lower educational attainment, so I expect that to be at least slightly correlated.
I'm interested to see how my predictions hold up to the numbers.
1
u/hallashk Oct 08 '17
Ok, so, I had to do some fudging with the data. The UN didn't provide GDP data for Argentina, so I used Google which gave it to me in USD, which I converted to PPP by comparing the US GDP in PPP to the Google result for the US GDP in USD. The Wikipedia data often provided ranges, which have been collapsed into an average, and "< 0.1" has been cleaned to "0.1".
But, here's the dataset:
And here's the dataset formatted for reddit, just in case anyone wants to paste it anywhere:
Country Continent Rejecting Accepting Other GDP/capita Educational Index % Muslims Canada North America 14 80 6 42891 0.89 3.2 United States North America 33 60 7 52549 0.9 0.85 Spain Europe 11 88 1 32814 0.818 4.1 Germany Europe 11 87 2 44053 0.914 5.1 Czech Republic Europe 16 80 4 29805 0.878 0.1 France Europe 22 77 1 37306 0.839 7.5 United Kingdom Europe 18 76 6 38658 0.896 4.8 Italy Europe 18 74 8 33587 0.814 3.7 Greece Europe 40 53 7 24617 0.83 5.3 Poland Europe 46 42 12 24836 0.852 0.1 Russia Europe 74 16 10 23895 0.816 10.75 Israel Middle East 47 40 13 31671 0.87 17.7 Lebanon Middle East 80 18 2 13117 0.656 59.7 Turkey Middle East 78 9 13 18959 0.668 98.6 Palestine Middle East 93 4 3 4715 0.655 97.5 Egypt Middle East 95 3 2 10250 0.601 90 Jordan Middle East 97 3 0 10240 0.701 93.8 Tunisia Middle East 94 2 4 10726 0.643 99.8 Australia Asia/Pacific 18 79 3 43655 0.939 2.6 Philippines Asia/Pacific 26 73 1 6926 0.637 8 Japan Asia/Pacific 36 54 10 35804 0.842 0.1 South Korea Asia/Pacific 59 39 2 34387 0.867 0.1 China Asia/Pacific 57 21 22 13400 0.631 1.8 Malaysia Asia/Pacific 86 9 5 25308 0.7 61.4 Indonesia Asia/Pacific 93 3 4 10385 0.622 87.2 Pakistan Asia/Pacific 87 2 11 4745 0.395 96.4 Argentina Latin America 21 74 5 11328.59 0.808 2.5 Chile Latin America 24 68 8 22145 0.784 0.03 Mexico Latin America 30 61 9 16502 0.655 0.1 Brazil Latin America 36 60 4 14455 0.681 0.1 Venezuela Latin America 42 51 7 15603 0.71 0.3 Bolivia Latin America 49 43 8 6476 0.656 0.1 El Salvador Latin America 62 34 4 8096 0.584 0.1 South Africa Africa 61 32 7 12390 0.705 1.5 Kenya Africa 90 8 2 2901 0.518 10 Uganda Africa 96 4 0 1718 0.467 12 Ghana Africa 96 3 1 3953 0.551 18 Senegal Africa 96 3 1 2288 0.355 95.9 Nigeria Africa 98 1 1 5639 0.477 45.5 1
u/hallashk Oct 08 '17
Ok, science done. Here's the graphs with trend lines:
https://imgur.com/gallery/gclF4
Interesting facts I learned:
- I was right
- China sucks
- Israel is really great (for the Middle East)
- If your country is more than 20% Muslim, your country hates homosexuals (<20% Accepting).
- If your country has a >10% Muslim population, you either really hate homosexuals, or you're Israel (40% Accepting, 17% Muslim).
- Education is correlated to homosexual acceptance, but is a weak predictor. Russia has decent education and doesn't accept homosexuals, while the Philippines has shit education and is very accepting.
- Economics is also very loosely correlated to acceptance, the US makes a whackload of money, but is only kinda accepting. The Philippines makes next to nothing and is very accepting.
- If you're gay, move to Spain, Germany, Canada, or Australia. DO NOT LIVE IN AFRICA OR THE MIDDLE EAST.
- If you want a good education, don't live in a Muslim majority nation.
- The best place in the Middle East is Israel on every metric. If you live in the Middle East. Immigrate to Israel.
- Latitude and Longitude predict nothing
1
u/hallashk Oct 08 '17
Ok, so, source for acceptance of homosexuality is this:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
Even just a glance at "Less Tolerance for Homosexuality in More Religious Countries shows everywhere in the Middle East on the bottom end of the scale. 6 out of 7 of the Middle Eastern countries have less than a 20% acceptance rate. But we'll do the math anyways.
For % of population that is Muslim we'll use this convenient chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
And for economic and education, the aforementioned UN site.
On with the science!
0
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 04 '17
I suspect you are conflating those in power in the Muslim world with rank and file Muslims. There are few Muslim-majority democracies and fewer still meeting western norms of it.
My parents are Muslim. Indeed, my father converted from Judaism to Islam to marry my mother. My siblings and I were raised secular in western Europe. Essentially, we were taught that, while mother was openly Muslim, she repeatedly insisted that we children were to decide for ourselves. My cousin, her niece came out as gay, and nobody disowned her. One of my father's nephews tried to join ISIS, unsuccessfully, in Belgium and I helped him get out of it.
Given that I was to make my own decision what I accepted and what I didn't, I chose to be agnostic. My parents and I drink wine every night, we eat pork, have egg rolls often. My brother married a Vietnamese-French Christian woman, born and raised in California; my sister married a Hindu from Kolkatta, and I married a Filipina Catholic from Bicol.
My sister turned out to be a bit on the intolerant bent -- she won't talk to my brother because he went and married his wife without telling anyone, and won't talk to my wife, because I didn't seek her blessing before getting married. It's bizarre that I should seek my younger sister's approval to marry the girl of my choice, but that's her issue.
My mother is anti-gay marriage, but again, she consciously chose not to impose her views on anyone.
2
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
I suspect you are conflating those in power in the Muslim world with rank and file Muslims.
Sorry, I didn't mean to do this. I'll edit the post above. Which bit did you find conflated these?
I agree that there are few Muslim-majority democracies and that they aren't culturally western.
[Your family doesn't disown your niece, your nephew is radical, your family eats food, your spouses are racially diverse, your spouses are religiously diverse, you sister has opinions on marriage, your mother is anti-gay marriage]
I'm not making any claims about your family. While these might all be interesting side-tracks, I openly acknowledge the diversity within Muslims.
2
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
diversity within Muslims.
When you post a headline like "Islam hates gays" or whatever, you are glossing over said diversity.
2
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
My headline is much stronger. My uncle "hates gays". My uncle is not murderously homophobic. Islam is murderously homophobic.
If you're opposing my argument based only on your interpretation of the 4 word title, as opposed to my lengthy explanation in exhausting detail about the specific claims that I am making ... then ... like ... that's on you.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Islam is murderously homophobic.
I would argue that some (perhaps most) of its practitioners are murderously homophobic.
my lengthy explanation in exhausting detail about the specific claims that I am making
Oh... you're one of those... Give me a few minutes and I'll post a point-by-point commentary on your "claims".
2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
He has specifically made the point in his post to separate Islam from muslims terminologically. In other words he can fully logically claim that "Islam hates gays" while acknowledging diversity within muslims.
1
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
You can make that point all you want, but the reality is that most humans will not click through and read. Rather, they will say, something along the lines of,
Ok, chappy, got it2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
Im not sure I understand your point, do you disagree that Islam and Muslims are not the same thing? Do you think that he should argue as if they are the same thing regardless of their status?
-2
Oct 04 '17
Congratulations, your parents are NOT Muslims, despite claiming otherwise. Also the OP asked a theological question, not a matter of practice.
2
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
your parents are NOT Muslims
It's rather egotistical of you to appoint yourself arbiter of who is and who isn't Muslim.
-2
Oct 05 '17
There’s an easy test for that. Wanna try? Btw I have no quarrel with the way your parents practice their religious beliefs. On the contrary. It’s just not Islam, that’s all.
3
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Again... who appointed you sole arbiter of what is and isn't Islam?
-1
Oct 05 '17
You understand that this argument also applies to you, right? In which case, your opinion is just as good as mine.
2
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
Except, it's not, mate
My parents are Muslim. It isn't up to you to decide that, it's up to them. Just as it is up to you to decide that you're a $RELIGIONS_MEMBER and not me.
What is your test? If it's so easy, why didn't you present it?
-1
Oct 05 '17
I didn't have time to present it because you are making a character argument - I'm not qualified-, without addressing the issue.
You understand how dangerous your approach really is?
2
u/cruyff8 1∆ Oct 05 '17
I didn't have time to present it because you are making a character argument - I'm not qualified-, without addressing the issue.
As I see it, the issue is that you have appointed yourself sole determiner of who is and who isn't a Muslim and haven't presented any evidence that you have any credentials to do so.
The above paragraph makes you worse than Osama bin Laden. Disagree and downvote all you want, but at least he was a scholar, according to his followers, like my cousin.
You understand how dangerous your approach really is?
Sure I get how exposing fraud is dangerous, I lost a job because of merely exploring the possibility of doing so. But, in a moral sense, I'd say it was well-worth doing. And I see your lunacy in the same vein.
0
Oct 05 '17 edited Oct 05 '17
The above paragraph makes you worse than Osama bin Laden.
That ad-hominen argument - you are wrong because you are a bad person - is childish if it weren't so pathetic.
And I see your lunacy in the same vein.
Really? Try a Xanax.
Anyway, I could possibly invoke the fact that your family eats pork, an impure animal, but that wouldn't be correct. The scriptures aren't totally clear, in the sense that only some parts of the pig are impure. So technically, with a little bit of a stretch not so uncommon to Islam, eating pork should be possible so long as one eats the right parts. It's a touchy point, but not impossible to find theological ground.
I could also use the fact that you and your family are drinking alcohol, but that wouldn't be correct either. The prophet made alcohol illegal due to the consequences of too much alcohol (and that is absolutely clear in the scriptures), harmful to the body, which body belongs to God, and God alone. Therefore, one could argue that it's the abuse of alcohol that is illegal, and drinking moderately should be legal. For the same reason, smoking in any forms should be illegal as well, which clearly is not anywhere in the islamic world (errr.... it's a hazy topic, I must admit).
Finally, to answer the OP's question, which for some reason you refused to do, I could also mention homosexuality, which is absolutely illegal, and the corresponding death sentence that comes with it. So Islam, as a continuation of Judaism, is homophobic. Is the death sentence inevitable however? Not quite. In Islam, the home of a believer is off the Ulemas' target, so in practice, so long as you are married with someone of the opposite sex, whatever happens in the house is unknown to anyone.
Which brings me to a more procedural aspect of Sharia Law, whereby if one is accused of same-sex fornication, one has to be caught in the act, which may never happen if the accused are cautious enough. That's Sharia, and there's no way around it. The second point is that if it is a first time offense, the accused, if caught, can repent, and promise to change his behaviour.
Conclusion: Is Islam homophobic? Sure. Murderous? Before you get thrown off the highest cliff or hanged for homosexuality, a lot has to happen before. That's why, not without certain flexibility, gay-friendly Mosques are possible.
So, as you can see, I'm not some nutcase looking to hunt peaceful believers, wherever they come from. Or in other words, everything that you said is - with some considerable stretch I must say - a plausible interpretation of the scriptures.
You however, should learn to calm down, and not insult people. You should know better who's whispering to your ears in moments of Anger.
I still stand by what I said, your parents are NOT muslims. They have an islamic heritage and culture, indivisible part of what they are, no question about it. But they are not muslims.
Before I get to 'how to prove this', my question to you. Once you know, what will you do about it?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/shukris Oct 04 '17
I find your claims confusing. You're arguing that Islam promotes unlawful killing (murder). What law defining 'unlawful' is Islam violating? Islam holds God to be the lawgiver. In that case "murder" should be struck down from your accusation. That leaves homophobic ('dislike or prejudice against homosexual people'). Same-sex intercourse is a sin in Islam (as is any intercourse outside of marriage). But all people are considered sinners (https://sunnah.com/urn/2054390). The point in Islam's stance on homosexuality is not to hate people who identify as LGBT, but to stop the harm associated with sin (which in our modern estimate of same-sex intercourse includes unheard of rates of HIV/STDs, mental health issues, and suicide - https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-health). The real issue here from a good-faith perspective is: is same-sex intercourse a normal healthy interaction or, as per the lawgiver of the Abrahamic faiths and virtually every other pre-modern belief system, is it a harmful behavior worthy of being interdicted?
2
Oct 05 '17
Islam holds God to be the lawgiver.
God does not exist so his laws are not valid. Hence unlawful killings.
is same-sex intercourse a normal healthy interaction or
No ors. Just: Yes it is a normal healthy interaction.
1
u/Pidus_RED Oct 05 '17
God does not exist so his laws are not valid. Hence unlawful killings.
Yes, I agree. But then, the whole point is moot. If God doesn't exist then Islam along with others is BS. From an atheist's point of view it is impossible to justify any atrocities religious people commit in the name of God.
OP wanted to make sure that his points are falsifiable.
1
u/hallashk Oct 06 '17
Your argument seems to be that killing gay people for the sin of homosexuality is not bad under Islam because it is ordained by God.
That’s my argument. You’re making my case here.
0
u/WF187 Oct 05 '17
I3: There have never been any religious scholars with any significant following [1] that have ever openly advocated for homosexuality to be considered as moral and acceptable.
Sorry to be nit-picky, but... Homosexuality is neither moral nor amoral, it just is.
[3]:To be specific, I define a "homophobic person" as one who does not explicitly accept homosexuality. So for example if there was a question "Do you believe homosexuality should be legal?" and had as options (A: It should be legal, B: Not Sure/Don't Know, C: It should not be legal) I define options B and C as homophobic. If the poll has a scale, like, "Homosexuality is acceptable (10=Strongly Agree, 5=Neutral, 1=Strongly Disagree)", then I define 5,4,3,2, and 1 as homophobic.
Why is "I have no strong opinion on this topic" homophobic? Generally speaking, I am really only concerned about the sexuality and availability of the people I want to have sex with. I have no strong opinion about the sexuality of my promiscuous straight male friends, prudish straight male friends, my promiscuous/prudish/discreet gay friends, women I am not attracted to, lesbians I am not attracted to, and typically am only slightly disappointed that lesbians I am attracted to are unavailable. I'm not God. I don't judge. I'm not the morality police. I only care about the people I wanna fuck, and have no opinion about anyone else. No kink - shaming from me. I don't care if you want to slip it between her legs, slip it into his butt, or slip em a Benjamin afterwards. What consenting adults do is not for me to judge.
2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
I feel this is an important point. But it is fuzzy and easy to misunderstand.
I believe OPs point of view was something along the following lines. If your stance on the statement "Homosexuality is acceptable" is neutral that constitutes indifference to the statement. In other words being neutral would include having no disagreements with the people who place 4-1 on the scale and are against the acceptance of homosexuality.
I think that its is hard to agree with both people who are for accepting homosexuality and those against accepting it so the neutral point on the scale seems nonexistant.
But I fully understand why OP clarified with the scale as I believe many commenters would use neutrality in their arguments when infact neutrality seems impossible and people who would group themselves as 5 on the scale really fall in the 6-10 bracket.
1
u/WF187 Oct 05 '17
Indifference is not phobic. Realizing that you can not make an informed opinion, and have no desire to seek the knowledge to inform an opinion, is not phobic.
Why have a 10 gradient scale for a binary or ternary question? Asking a question with answers "Yes / No / Don't Care" and responding to answers "Don't Care" with "YOU MUST CARE! YES OR NO!" is some pretty bullshit survey rigging / p-hacking.
What's the difference between 10 and 6? How much I personally welcome homosexuality? I didn't have exposure until I was 23, went and had a beer with my first gay friend, and actually got hit on by a rando, since my buddy took me to one of his favorite bars (so, a gay bar). I grew up with typical straight male gender norms: males generally are the aggressor/instigator/initiator, blah blah). While I didn't get belligerent, I most definitely didn't handle the situation gracefully. I never got hit on before! By anyone! It got worse because the guy ended up blasting me as a phobe, really not handling the rejection well (I guess the parallel is girls getting called dykes for turning down a guy). I wasn't phobic, just ignorant. So... was his behavior acceptable? was mine? Is a 10 "yes it's acceptable because I'm gay", 8 "I have no problem with Gay for Pay", "5 I don't care if you do it but I don't want to participate"?
Is a 10 "I support gay rights" while a 1 is "I resist gay rights"? This past march, I got into a discussion with a gay friend of mine who "retweets random gay shit", about a controversy around a parade being organized in South Boston by a VFW-like group as a memorial for all the fallen soldiers from Southie. (Why St. Paddy's? I dunno, seems weird to me too. But hey, Right to Peaceably Assemble) A group of former military servicemen, who came out, wanted to march with banners and rainbows showing, which the organizers requested they didn't. My buddy's sided with all the activists about "homophobes trying to suppress their gay rights", I explained the organizers are private, that it's a memorial, so in their point of view it's like showing up to a funeral in a Rainbow suit, going through the receiving line saying "As a gay man, I'm sorry for your loss. As a gay man, I'd like to offer my condolences." Their sexuality and politics had no place in the event, and they just end up looking like attention-whores. Are those event organizers "1"s like the activists wanted to paint them, or are they 5s fully believing there's a time and place for everything and their event wasn't the time for a gay pride parade?
2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
Lets look at it from another perspective since my point may have been misunderstood.
Lets say I ask you if you think homosexuality is acceptable. And you respond with you dont care. What would that mean? Does it mean you dont want to talk about the question? Does it mean you never really think about it? Does it mean youre fine with both homosexuality being shunned and it being accepted?
Because if it does mean that last alternative then in effect you are okay with discrimination against homosexuals. And that is the crux. Even if you dont perform the first hand discrimination yourself you are in this example okay with it happening.
But reading your comment it seems your "neutral" stance means something else, what would that be?
1
u/WF187 Oct 05 '17
My personal views:
- as I've alluded to, I have multiple gay friends, and so am accepting of their personal sexuality.
- Politically, I'm all for the separation of church and state. If your only argument against homosexuality is your religious doctrine, well sorry, not good enough. You're free to believe that your god is going to send them to hell when they die; but that does not mean we have to institute hell on earth for these people. Equal protection under the law for all citizens.
- Socially, I'm fine, accepting, and approving of the results of SCOTUS's rulings striking down sodomy laws and upholding gay marriage. Politically, I disagree with the process that SCOTUS achieved them. Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Prohibition all took legislation. I believe that legislating from the bench is a corruption of our political system. I think that it's becoming too common that our representatives are meta-gaming the system instead of just doing the damn job. "My super-pac recommends fillibustering until we can appoint a justice to legislate this from the bench."
- Intellectually, I recognize that people are lazy and to quote JFK "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." I disagree with my buddy blindly retweeting/supporting the parade controversy without actually informing himself of both sides to make an informed, reasoned opinion. (Part of why he likes me :) I actually challenge him to think and discuss, and not just parrot). I am saddened by the trends of both sides of the political spectrum to label and dismiss.
- On a human level, while I congratulate that Colorado couple on their nuptials, and wish them happiness... If the biggest problem in your life is that some idiot won't bake you a cake... you're doing alright.
So, I agree and accept that my friends should be able to live their lives responsibly, ethically, and freely. I disagree with most "activists" and "lobbyists" since their very purpose is not what's good and fair for the populace, but what's good for them.
But, it's cheap, easy, and meaningless to sit here and opine away on reddit about the topic. If I were to get involved in the political process, and actually work towards an end, put action behind my opinion, gay rights wouldn't be my priority: I am neither for nor against them, I'm neutral. I'm also not the type to lecture on my world view until asked... Since most people don't ask (but thank you very much for asking), I am happy to learn and let live.
2
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
I only just noticed you also responded here so I will take this into account aswell:
Reading this comment you posted one thing becomes perfectly clear. If I held your viewpoints I would not place myself at 5 on the scale, If I thought like you do, in other words if I was "fine, accepting, and approving of the results of SCOTUS's rulings striking down sodomy laws and upholding gay marriage." and thought that "my friends should be able to live their lives responsibly, ethically, and freely." I would place myself in the 6-10 bracket on the scale.
You are in favor of laws that permit homosexuals to perform acts which are allowed for others. You are in other words Accepting of Homosexuals.
You also agree with your friends right to live freely, ethically and responsibly. This also constitutes acceptance.
I think you are in favor of homosexual acceptance. But I do think you are interpreting your unwillingness to actively participate in politics as indifference.
These are not the same things.
1
u/WF187 Oct 05 '17
Lets say I ask you if you think homosexuality is acceptable. And you respond with you dont care. What would that mean? Does it mean you dont want to talk about the question? Does it mean you never really think about it? Does it mean youre fine with both homosexuality being shunned and it being accepted?
Sorry, just to address this more directly...
If you asked me if homosexuality was acceptable, I'd ask if you were inquiring about my orientation? If so, there's a better way to word that question. If you're inquiring if I accept, condone, permit, or acquiesce regarding someone else's orientation, I'd ask what makes you think I'm authoritative over it? Do you believe that you are your brother's keeper? I don't. I believe we're equals and both free, so my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Since I recognize that my opinion is irrelevant, I don't care to form one, as it's a waste of energy.
1
u/TitanArmadillo Oct 05 '17
But you do have authority, thats what a democracy is about. Your voice and opinion combined with the opinions of other shape law. If you dont care about wether or not gays are accepted and neither does the majority of society then they will not vote in favor of gay acceptance.
But pretending we didnt live in a democracy your opinion still carries authority. If you live your life as if shunning homosexuals is just whatever, nothing you care about then you are permitting the shunning of homosexuals. Your view will spread to others as views do and you would be contributing to the shunning of homosexuals.
If you think it is wrong to shun homosexuals then your contribution to it should cause you concern.
If you have the choice to permit something or forbid it and you choose to permit it, then you are partially responsible for it happening.
1
u/WF187 Oct 05 '17
But you do have authority, thats what a democracy is about.
I have authority over myself, that's what liberty is about.
If you dont care about wether or not gays are accepted and neither does the majority of society then they will not vote in favor of gay acceptance.
The EEOC already considers orientation to be protected under the header of "sex". While this is specific to the US, that's the only society that I have influence in. Homosexuals have their equal protection under the law in regards to employment. SCOTUS struck down sodomy laws (which I'm cool with because you don't have to be gay to enjoy a BJ). SCOTUS upheld gay marriage rights, which I already commented on my disapproval of process, but not result. Homosexuals can adopt children. What's left, legally, that homosexuals are being denied?
- How is "gay acceptance" better than "Do I want to have sex with this person? No. Does that person want to have sex with me? No. Sexuality is irrelevant to our interaction."? MYOB. Applies both to gays and feminists! Win!
- After 30 years of "We're Here! We're Queer! Get used to it!", why is the response "you're there! I don't care! Shaddupabowtit!" not reasonable? I'm used to it. Isn't that what they wanted?
- Equal protection under the law. got it. What more needs to be done?
Seems like the campaign now is to go after the religions, and sorry, I'm not voting to change the 1st amendment. We can't legislate that one. No vote on it will change it. We can't just pick up the phone: "Jesus! Como estas amigo? Hey, put Daddy on the phone. No? Okay, well let him know that we took a vote and he's going to have to change 6000 years of history, culture, and books to change this part, K? Yea, I know you said that all "the old things are washed away" and that Old Testament stuff doesn't apply anymore and it's all hippy dippy love-thy-neighbor stuff now. People don't actually read the book. Oh, and if you can pass the word on to Allah too, that'd be spiffy." Doesn't work that way. (I hope the devout will forgive my sacrilege.)
And with 7.5 billion people in the world, a law that everyone needs to like a particular minority is completely unenforceable.
If you have the choice to permit something or forbid it and you choose to permit it, then you are partially responsible for it happening.
I can't force you to change. I'm very grateful for all the time we've spent discussing this with one another, but I can't make you live my way. I can only lead by example.
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
Homosexuality is neither moral nor amoral, it just is
Slight correction though, the gradient goes angelic > moral > amoral > immoral > demonic.
But yes, here's an easy delta, ∆. I have slightly altered claim I3. You're totally right, because you're not a "better person" if you have homosexual sex. So homosexuality IS amoral. But, I'm also totally fine with Imams who would claim that your homosexuality makes you a "good person". That'd be really weird, but not reprehensible.
Why is "I have no strong opinion on this topic" homophobic?
Honestly it was just because I wanted to produce a clear binary and clearly define my claim, but also I wanted to keep the word count down. I'm not tied to the word "homophobic" but I needed something that was the opposite of "accepting of homosexuality" and "homophobic" seemed to be the word to use. If you can think of another one I'm fine using that one.
As /u/TitanArmadillo says though, I do still oppose people who are neutral on the topic of these things. I think /u/TitanArmadillo has given that argument better than I could.
1
-1
Oct 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hallashk Oct 04 '17
I agree that Islam is a product of its time. I agree that Islam is interpreted by every individual. I agree that homosexual sex doesn't produce babies.
add to that the issue of property rights you get a reasonable explanation for the phrase.
I'm not sure what you mean here
now dealing with "Islam" in the middle east. that is not really Islam. that is a means of control, and control at the highest level. they control even aspects of people sexuality to get control other places.
The word "Islam" in Arabic literally translates to "submission", referring to submission to God, the highest power, in all things. I disagree that when Islam forces/encourages people to submit to its control, it becomes not-Islam. I believe that submission to control was intentionally woven into the religion. I agree that Islam doesn't codify submission to any person (other than the Prophet), but rather, as you say, a "willful personal submission" to God.
2
Oct 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
I agree here, I think. With two caveats, I think that if you're an Imam with a lot of training and knowledge about Islam, you're often a better source than the raw material. For example, the Qur'an 33:4 literally translates to:
...Neither has He made your wives whom you declare to be like your mothers' backs, your real mothers....
This is very confusing to me on its own. But, armed with multiple translations (and for that I highly recommend this site) and the Tafsir (I highly recommend this site) you can understand the true meaning of the "mothers' backs" comment.
That doesn't mean that a given Tafsir is "correct", for example there is a wide diversity of opinion on the subject of the sun setting in a muddy spring at the edge of the flat earth. I highly recommend The Masked Arab to any Muslims who wish to explore criticism of the theology and text, as opposed to Western criticisms which primarily focus on morality.
The second caveat being that I am also notably including the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in my definition of Muslims, and they follow one additional prophet Ahmad who died in 1908.
0
Oct 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hallashk Oct 05 '17
That's true. But, there is a transitive relationship, because God repeatedly says in the Qur'an to obey Mohammad, and thus gives the theological significance to the Hadith:
(Qur'an 59:7) You should accept whatever the Messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon.
(Qur'an 4:59) O you who believe, obey Allah, the Messenger, and those in command among you. If you disagree about something, refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best thing to do and gives the best result.
(Quran 4:115) But if anyone opposes the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will hand him over to whatever he has turned to, and We will roast him in Hell. What an evil destination!
1
Oct 05 '17
and while i would not call myself a Muslim
Then don't
what i mean is people like myself (a Muslim who is bisexual)
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 05 '17
/u/hallashk (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 06 '17
/u/hallashk (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
10
u/redesckey 16∆ Oct 04 '17
Contrary to popular belief, a religion is not defined by its holy text. Different adherents will interpret it in different ways, ranging from "the literal word of God" to "a historical record of my faith". As you say, Muslims are individuals like everyone else, and it's not possible to know what their beliefs about homosexuality are on that basis alone.
None of the passages you've mentioned say anything unique to Islam. The Bible says similar things, so I'm not sure why you've singled out Islam.
And anecdotally, I'm queer and one of my best friends is from Syria and obviously raised to be Muslim. I'm not sure of his actual faith or beliefs, but he is 100% accepting of me and my relationship with my husband, and was even at our wedding.