But wait, Ahmadinejad said there aren't any in Iran. So Mohsen Yahyavi must be speaking in strictly theoretical terms, right? Wrong. Sharia Alert. "Gays should be hanged, says Iranian minister," by Dominic Kennedy for the The Times:
Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt.
Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.
President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.
Britain regularly challenges Iran about its gay hangings, stonings and executions of adulterers and perceived moral criminals, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) papers show.
The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse. Britain said that this demonstrated the unequal treatment of men and women in law and breached Iran’s pledge to restrict the death penalty to the most serious crimes.
Part of the problem there is an obviously different sense of what constitutes a "serious crime."
A series of reported executions of gays, including two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.
[...]
Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament’s energy committee, was unflinching. He “explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted”, the record states. “He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce.”
So it's fine as long as you don't get caught, but if you do, you die a horrible death. There's some forward-thinking morality.
---President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.---
Dodged? Suggested? He said there are no gays in his country. (Maybe he didn't realize they had not yet all been executed?)
Am I the only one constantly annoyed by less than precise (to be charitable) reporting?
What kind of intellectual schism allows one to soften the edges of reality so gratuitously?
Nomoors
According to the Asia Times, morals in the land of the pure seem to be festering after twenty-seven years of the Mullahs:
But Jenkins has not a word to say about the sources of Iran's extremely low birth rate, much lower, in fact, than that of most of Western Europe. Iran's extremely low birth rate resembles the Ukraine or Belarus more than it does Denmark. One explanation is demoralization and degradation, including prostitution on an alarming scale (see Jihadis and whores, Nov 21, 2006).
The leadership may be flailing. Which is dangerous.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak01.html
If Robert Spencer knew the Farsi language he would know that the statement that "Gays should be hung" is a mistranslation of what Mohsen Yahyavi said. A correct translation is, "Gays should be well-hung." Mohsen Yahyavi is finally coming out of the closet, and he should get credit for that.
Why are Muslims so hung up on gays?
Methinks they doth protest too much.
The imam of Manchester in the UK also said that gays should be killed. Not a word of condemnation from any muslim or the politically Left dominated Manchester city council.
Ken Livingstone's chum, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, also advocates killing them.
But you should have heard the huffing and puffing when Jim Davidson, on a TV show, made a remark about "shirtlifters".
"Why are Muslims so hung up on gays?"
This may help, 'beard...
They're using it as an excuse, among them, to hide the fact that of their terminal demographics...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak01.html
...which suggest they're literally "dying for a fight"...while they still have the manpower to even do it...and the clock's ticking.
I wonder if Peter Tatchell will be popping over there to protest, like he did in Moscow?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2089413,00.html
...it is a nifty way to get rid of your obnoxious neighbor...call the religious police and report him as being gay.....Islamic courts tend to be short on procedure and long on ignorance.....the neighbor will no longer be a problem.....it appears many of the "gay Hangings" were based on rumors....
"Why are Muslims so hung up on gays?"
What AREN'T Muslims hung up on?
...well, you know what they say: homophobia is usually an indication of latent homosexuality. I'm not a homophobe (unlike some of my counterparts on the right, alas!), but it seems at least some of these Muslims who speak so harshly of gays may well be gay themselves--without necessarily realising it.
Very slightly O/T
There really is a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy.
Look at this:
http://thehinduvoice.com/blog/2007/11/09/durga-puja-celebrations-is-east-london-attacked/#comments
It doesn't actually mention Jews or Israel
but you know what its like "They control everything" or maybe its British foreign policy.
Regards
AI
The issue of homosexuality is like that of the Holocaust. One minute it doesn't exist then the next minute president Monkeyman virtually praises the Nazis for it. These guys never keep their viewpoint straight. Now gays exist and a minute later these "invisible" people need to be stoned.
Whatever!
So where are the the human rights people protesting this?
I guess Rosie Odonnell will not be arranging a cruise to Tehran?
Do they only hang men or would the transgender woman I just saw on ABC be in trouble?
Assalamau Laikum all,
Gays are not allowed in Islam. A "gay muslim...gasp....is an extremely rare commodity" and a contradiction in terms.
The persons are considered diseased and possibly “non-muslim” because gays are considered unclean and muslims regard themselves to be very clean people especially as no pork is consumed....ever.
When Islam first got to know about the rumours of what a gay is such was the strength of bad feeling that it is said that even the wolves started to howl louder and longer protesting to Allah (swt) about the dirt.
The “gay” muslim though must leave his fate in the hands of Allah....if he is sick then it was meant to be. Praise be to Allah, for not a leaf moves in the strong wind without his permission...
For those who are diseased in this manner....at least cleanse your souls by praying...Allah T'ala knows best.
Allah T’allah though does have a sense of humour on this subject … mirth is reminded to me via a hadith stating that …. "Two seagulls were flying about and one turned upside down for a lark".
Naseem,
Thats funny. I think of Islam as a disease.
But I thought Muslims believed in predetermination. If so, how can they condemn gays or anyone else. If Allah had already preordained that these folks would be that way when they were born, it's not their fault. Surely, Muslims wouldn't punish someone for being the way that Allah had intended all along. Would they? Surely not.
****************************
So where are the gay activists? Where is the screaming and carrying on they loooove to do if a Christian dares say that marriage is a religious institution? Hmm? I hear only crickets from the gays.
I talked to a gay prof at a university once he told me that "because the whole islam thing is far away we focus more on right here now."
I asked: "yeah but if there is ever a time that sharia law is enacted here..."
He interrupted: "Oh dear then we will fight it."
"Sir, it will be too late then. You'll be dead." I responded coldly and walked away.
Disgusting and typical. Islamic sharia DEMANDS killing of gays left right and center and I nary a peep from their side. I hear only the lonely sound of crickets.
Rosie, you think Christian fundamentalists are bad as Islamic ones? Rosie honey, what will you do when the islamists put a noose around your head and sell your little blond daughter as a child bride to some sheikh? Rose and company --you truly are IDIOTS.
IDIOTS (from the Greek idios, meaning the same implying one cannot learn or grow even from obvious experience). A foolish stupid person.
***********************************
Christian fundamentalists well give you a pamplet that says "believe in Jesus and be saved by the shedding of his blood on Calvary as a sacrifice for your sins"
Muslims fundamentalists will invite you to Islam and if you refuse will kidnap you and sacrifice YOU for your sin, slicing your head off and singing allah ackbar as they do it.
HEY GAYS OF AMERICA IF YOU LOVE ISLAM HAS A PLAN FOR YOU. WAKE THE HELL UP. WHY DO YOU PICKET CHURCHES IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NOT MOSQUES? Hmm?
correction:
HEY GAYS OF AMERICA IF YOU LOVE ISLAM *DONT WORRY ISLAM* HAS A PLAN FOR YOU. WAKE THE HELL UP. WHY DO YOU PICKET CHURCHES IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NOT MOSQUES? Hmm?
----
I wonder what would happen if all the non muslim religious folks left america and muslims came into fill the vacuum in the US left by their absence would all the remaing liberals, and gays feel at home with their muslim neighbours. HA! Hollywood would be a smoking ember in under the time it says for you to say "caliphite"
The new york times staff would be hung if they didnt change to an all muslim paper. CNN (the most UNtrustworthy newssource) would face cancellation if they didnt fall in line. And Pelosi and company would be covered in burquas preparing burned breakfasts for the sheikh. Dont burn the toast ladies! allah ackbar and all that.
western liberal morons. UNBELIEVABLE!
Let me tell you something.
Naseem, is practicing taqyyia as he/she has been told.
As a young soldier (early 20s) I did a tour of Turkey. Before my first trip to town the guys on base teased me about how the boys down town where going to like my light brown hair and blue eyes. I found that, in all cities Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir, etc. their was usually at least one incident that a group of males would wolf-whistle and make sexual gestures. The rule was, don't even think about confronting the fags if you want to get out of Turkey. Just walk on. This behavior was something I had never experienced in any country before and never since. Publicly and openly displaying a preference to homosexuality with no shame what so ever. I am completely convinced the Islam has a much larger problem with homosexuality then do most civilizations. This is the reality behind the cover.
Abrog8, could it be that muslim men just like their women to have mustaches? and testicles?
Here is some interesting support to my comment above.
My Istanbul friend Caner, a ‘modern’ gay Turk, claimed that despite this lack of (straight) admission "it’s rare to find a Turkish man who gets married and is a virgin—and not because he’s been with a woman."
Read it all
http://www.globalgayz.com/g-turkey.html
RoobartSbunsar stated: I'm not a homophobe (unlike some of my counterparts on the right, alas!)
Not all of us on the right are homophobes, lets keep in mind that we are all trying to wake up people, weather we are on the left, middle or right politically....lets try to keep away from the generalizations and concentrate on the issue on hand, on that note, I just want to share something that one of my gay male friends told me a few years ago....
He was in a relation ship with a Middle Eastern "student" at the time and couldn’t understand why his lover wouldn't-couldn't stay with him after graduation. His lover explained that his family would never accept him being gay, he was not gay, he just preferred sex with men, and that he would go back home, get married, and have children as dictated by his family etc... He stated that this was understood in his culture, and that while he preferred men he would do what was expected of him...
I feel sorry on a certain level for whomever he ending up marrying, talk about a loveless marriage where the woman is only a breading bitch for islamic whelps.
Perhaps Turkey is a mecca for gay muslims.
Omygosh! I would be arrested in Turkey, no doubt.
As for Iran, as Dylan would say, "The excecutionor's face is always well hidden."
Am I an islamophobe?
There is no end to the offenses a single sentence can contain.
RoobartSbunsar stated: I'm not a homophobe (unlike some of my counterparts on the right, alas!)
I would say the left are just as guilty since they never condem the treatment of gays in the Islamic world.
A Moroccan guy came on to me when I was on holiday there. I think the problem for men in Muslim countries is that the women are off limits until marriage, so, natural urges need to be satisfied in other ways. After all, "going solo" loses its appeal eventually.
I think the same problem afflicts some male prisoners, as dramatised in the Shawshank Redemption.
At one time you could have said, "There are no Jews in Germany."
The Shawshank Redemption is a classic movie...everyone should see it.
A Russian woman on a TV talk show once tried to make the case that homosexuality did not exist in the USSR because it was against the law...uh huh...'I 'see', said the blind mouse...'.
Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both...
Attention..... Attention.... rosie and all of you comparing islamic fundamentalist and Christian "fundamentalists".
Are those who hope for the conversion of homosexuals still the same as those who call for the killing of them???????
The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse."
My God. The woman is raped by her brother (incest), and SHE'S the one who is hanged???
And all the evil Perpetrator has to do is say "Gee Whiz, I'm sorry?" (And probably doesn't even mean it).
The injustices against females in the Mohammedan world are so vile, so sick, there's not a bad enough word to describe them.
Nomoors, in the particular incident concerning Ahmadinijad's ducking the question about homosexuals in Iran, this report is accurate. He did dodge the question. I watched the speech. I don't recall that he actually said that there are no homosexuals in Iran.
I read this on a blog this morning: "You have to be a critical thinker. Just because he says things doesn't mean it's true."
Instantly, I thought of Mohammed!
Nomoors, here is Ahmadinijad's answer:
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it." (Laughter.)
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/202820.php
Hate to burst your bubble Naseem, but the cat's been out of the bag regarding homosexuality in islam for quite some time now.....
The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror
By Jamie Glazov
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={D40CFECB-5B2A-400C-BC31-2E9522FDBB04}
Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehemently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety. Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them. Sex before marriage is not just a sin -- but a criminal offence. It is punishable by a severe beating at best, and an execution at worst......
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
When Pres. Ahmadinejad got home from making his 'there are no gays in Iran' comment at Columbia, there were several officials in Iran that pushed the media that Ahmadinejad was 'miss interpreted' on the no gays comment.
So, will we be seeing the same again from Iran.....
"Not all of us on the right are homophobes, lets keep in mind that we are all trying to wake up people, weather we are on the left, middle or right politically....lets try to keep away from the generalizations and concentrate on the issue on hand"
I agree that not all are homophobes (only that "some" are). It just strikes me as strange that so many conservatives deplore (rightly) the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries when, in many cases, they themselves aren't particularly fond of homosexuals. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff that my conservative friends have told me (after they down a few beers and become somewhat less reticent about speaking in the presence of a liberal) about "fags" and the fate they deserve.
It just strikes me as strange that liberals will give a guy like the Iranian president that hangs homosexuals but will vilify conservatives who think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Where are all your liberal friends that wont come out against the treatment of gays and women in the Islamic world RoobartSbunsar?
"Gays are not allowed in Islam"
.....neither is common sense, love, charity, peace, nor any number of other things....
...Islam is a disease and you Must Ban Muslim Immigration....
"It just strikes me as strange that liberals will give a guy like the Iranian president that hangs homosexuals but will vilify conservatives who think marriage should be between a man and a woman."
You seem to imply that I somehow support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Please cite the passage(s) that gave you such an impression.
RoobartSbunsar,
Site where I implied that I did.
I did cite it--in my previous post.
I guess you couldnt, oh well
again:
"It just strikes me as strange that liberals will give a guy like the Iranian president that hangs homosexuals but will vilify conservatives who think marriage should be between a man and a woman."
You're implying that I somehow absolve Ahmadinejad of his follies while only condemning conservatives. Perhaps I misunderstood, but that seems to be the meaning of what you said.
For the record, I DESPISE Ahmadinejad and his ilk. Anyone who states otherwise doesn't know me at all.
...speaking of Ahmadinejad's ilk: anyone else watch King Juan Carlos of Spain tell that sleazeball Chavez to shut up? How great was THAT?
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2007/11/09/most-arabic-yahoo-groups-are-about-sex/
The biggest sources of searches on the Internet for goat sex, butt sex, ass sex, sexy children, homo sex and so on, are Muslim lands.
"The biggest sources of searches on the Internet for goat sex, butt sex, ass sex, sexy children, homo sex and so on, are Muslim lands."
...what's wrong with goat sex?
- Judge Roy Moore
http://www.wallacejordan.com/decisions/Opinions2002/1002045.pdf
The "criminal lifestyle" is homosexuality, as you can verify for yourself if you are not too lazy to examine the cited document.
The average Muslim is worse than this buffon, but this person was in the US in a position of authority where his idiotic beliefs could affect peoples' lives with the force of law. An argument can be made for the seriousness of proximity.
I agree that too many liberals spend too much time hating themselves and not enough time hating those, especially those non-Westerns, who hate their superior Western secular ideals, but it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that Roy Moore is any better than some backward stinking pos filthy mullah.
In some ways he is worse, since he had the benefit of growing up in our superior culture.
"I agree that too many liberals spend too much time hating themselves and not enough time hating those, especially those non-Westerns, who hate their superior Western secular ideals, but it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that Roy Moore is any better than some backward stinking pos filthy mullah."
Roy Moore is on par with the worst of the mullah's--I've felt this to be true for quite some time. This guy really is a piece of work.
...as for "self-hating liberals": I'm a liberal, and I don't hate myself. Far from it--I consider myself to be the greatest person in the history of the world, bar none.
...er, that's "Mullahs," without the apostrophe. Sorry. Long day = brain not functioning.
I am a liberal, and I don't hate myself either.
That hyphenated adjective I reserve for those liberals who betray their Enlightenment values by siding with cultural inferiors - just to make daddy mad or something.
Sure, the West has committed crimes - atrocities even - but it was uniquely Western civilization that gave full flower to liberal ideology.
No_Mooselimbs, you quoted Glazov:
Some scholars argue that precisely the same situation tends to prevail in most pre-industrial cultures, for example among the ancient Greeks. For the ancient Greeks, too, there was little or no concept of the "homosexual," -- a stigma fell not on two males having sex, but on being the submissive party in such sex, rather than the penetrator. To the ancient Greeks, being the submissive male in sex with another male was acceptable only if one was a boy in a relationship with an honorable male mentor. Otherwise, one was contemptible in allowing oneself to be dominated and in lowering oneself to what many ancient Greeks considered the relatively contemptible level of a woman.
So the very concept of homosexuality, the awareness that there is such a thing, to some extent seems to be linked with the slow liberation of women that begins, in part, with Christianity. Once a recognition of the spiritual equality of women with men began to grow (though it grew slowly), it became less and less possible to treat women's role in the sex act as merely submissive or dominated or like a piece of property. Contempt thus lifts to some extent from the submissive sexual role. But that applies not just to women, but to men as well. As a result, the dominant party in the homosexual act is no longer distinguished much from the passive party. But a new distinction thus arises and becomes perceptible: that between homosexual and heterosexual.
"mithliyun" is the Arabic word for "homosexuals" ("mithl" means "similar") In the Egyptian colloquial the world "shaz" ("strange" or "weird" is used).
RoobartSbunsar,
To some extent it is inevitable today that every place on earth will have a fairly conscious concept of homosexuality. That's a result of the internet, among other things. But I think No_Mooselimbs point on this probably holds to some extent nevertheless, for the reasons I mentioned in my 2:30 pm comment above.
No, I do see your point. Even the Arabic words are very new--I doubt they existed in the language even five years ago.
"Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt."
Sounds like someone is trying to hide something to me. The lady (ahem) doth protest too much methinks.
sorry profitsbeard just read the comments and realised I'm plaigarising.
So let me get this straight :-
Child molestation - good?
Homosexuality - bad?
What a shame that Mohammed didn't like a bit of hershey highway action.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE THIS 2005 DW POSTING:
"It is clear that we in the Anglosphere will not do anything until the sitaution is dire. So in a way it is good that we appease. Britain and Canada are leading the appeasement stakes at the moment.
A few reasons that appeasement may work in our favour.
1. Each appeasement raises the ire of people, till a moment arrives that a united nation says, "enough".
2. We need to arrive at that moment soon, and that means appeasement must be done as rapidly as possible, even when appeasement is not required. We need to get to the "enough" stage as quickly as possible before the demographic threat becomes unmanageable.
3. When we get to the "enough" stage, the nation is united in anger, and willing to bear any burden to remove the blackmailer and his society.
4. Continuous appeasement convinces even the LLL, that we have done everything to avoid a clash, and were left with no alternative but to wage ruthless war.
It has been the history of Britain and the USA, that both appease and appease, each appeasement encouraging the opponent to demand more, and so it continues, until the boom is swung with no mercy.
When the moment arrives to stop appeasing, we don't just stop appeasing, we completely destroy the opponent, and change his very outlook on life."
Posted by: DP111 at September 16, 2005 8:35 PM
RoobartSbunsar, you said:
I think the point also explains, though only partly, why Ahmadinejad claimed there are no homosexuals in Iran. Iranians like Ahmadinejad are perhaps still in a sort of pre-industrial mindset as far as sexuality is concerned, and may have little concept of "homosexuality."
But I don't mean to take this too far. Islam's texts do refer to homosexuality, and consider it an abomination to be punished, and punished in the harshest ways.
And that orchestrated loud noise of SILENCE from the gay communities of the world means what?
alaskan1000,
Means they will choose politics over doing the right thing.
RoobartSbunsar:
"...as for 'self-hating liberals': I'm a liberal"
ditto...
"and I don't hate myself."
ditto...
Far from it--I consider myself to be the greatest person in the history of the world, bar none."
ditto..... oops :)
non-croyant, ref "self-hating liberals":
"That hyphenated adjective I reserve for those liberals who betray their Enlightenment values by siding with cultural inferiors - just to make daddy mad or something."
If you defend the enemy too long... you are the enemy. This is a struggle of the jungle, not the debate club.
"Sure, the West has committed crimes - atrocities even - but it was uniquely Western civilization that gave full flower to liberal ideology."
Let me just give you a big, secular, "Amen, brother".
DP111 via ElizaDoolittle:
"When the moment arrives to stop appeasing, we don't just stop appeasing, we completely destroy the opponent, and change his very outlook on life."
Let's hope this is still true. If any opponent, ever, needed an attitude adjustment, Islam does. And afterward... no hand-wringing please.
"And that orchestrated loud noise of SILENCE from the gay communities of the world means what?"
I think that a lot silence is largely imagined.
IIRC correctly it was a gay blog like Outrage! that broke the story of the two Iranian teenagers who were hanged for being gay.
There was actually some moron in the comments of LGF who claimed that gay rights activists had left Fred Phelps unmolested and uncontested.
Gay rights activists have been protesting him for over a decade.
They have also been expressing concern about such persecution, on the world scene, for as long as I can remember too, but you'll hear more about domestic issues in relation to homosexuality - from both sides.
"...what's wrong with goat sex?
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar"
...they are rough with that oral thing....
"Once a recognition of the spiritual equality of women with men began to grow (though it grew slowly), it became less and less possible to treat women's role in the sex act as merely submissive or dominated or like a piece of property."
This is the crux of the matter. When civilised people start treating each other as equals, sex is no longer a form of domination though penetration but an act that must always be consensual and between adults. If sex is seen as a form of punishment, pleasure for only one person and domination, then rape, including child rape, follow.
It took the west long enough to get to the understanding that consent and adult age are legally required - seems that the islamic world still has a long way to go.
ann coulter would fit right at home in iran.
"ann coulter would fit right at home in iran." --posted by leonthepigfarmer.
What? No, she wouldn't. Why do you say that? That's an absurd statement. What's your "reasoning" for making such an absurd statement, she who was just part of IFAW?
The farther one looks back into the past, and especially before Christianity, the more often was it the case that the rolls of domination and subordination had not been separated from actual physical gender. It was difficult to even conceive such a separation. Being a man meant being dominant and being a woman meant being submissive. Naturally there were plenty of exceptions, but the general rule was pretty pervasive.
The ancient Egyptians at first could not imagine a river that flowed South. To them, flowing north was simply an inherent characteristic of a river, because all they knew at first was the Nile. Similarly, pre-industrial man has difficulty imagining a male who is submissive. Thus if two men engaged in sex, the dominant one was seen as male, and the submissive one was seen as in some sense female. The dominant one was therefore not seen as a homosexual. That's part of why homosexuality went relatively unperceived in older times. What we today perceive as two homosexual men was apparently in older times perceived as a man and someone equivalent to a woman, even if not physically female.
But various liberating social forces, including especially Christianity, planted the seeds of a separation between roles of domination/subordination on the one hand, and actual physical gender on the other. The New Testament's central figure said that the disciple who would be greatest would not dominate the others or lord over them, but would serve them and wash their feet, and so on. And some early Christian teachers are famous for saying that in Christ there is neither man nor woman, neither slave nor free, neither Roman nor barbarian. All are one in Christ. So that spiritual egalitarianism profoundly gentled the male ideal, and over centuries has detached from physical gender the roles of dominance and submission.
And that meant that when two men were homosexual, one no longer felt that the submissive one could only be conceived of as a sort of woman. One now perceived two men. And thus the modern concept of homosexuality became conscious.
At least that's how I understand the whole thing at the moment.
Lili, you draw out interesting results, about rape and about child marriage.
"I think that a lot silence is largely imagined."
I'd like to see a big, noisy demonstration by gays against Iran before I believe this statement.
"ann coulter would fit right at home in iran."
I agree 100%.
ah, the Kool-Aid floweth anew...lol
...well, you know what they say: homophobia is usually an indication of latent homosexuality.
posted by roobart s
I am begining to believe that people like you become left-leaners because it gives you permission to make bigoted statements like this.
If this statement was made in reverse the person would be jumped all over.
But we let this stuff go because of PC.
I prefer my late younger brothers attitude.
"I am an equal opportunity bigot, I hate everybody" RIP Jim
"ann coulter would fit right at home in iran."
I agree 100%.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 14, 2007 4:44 AM
Funny how you don't provide any reasons for that outlandish and idiotic statement.
That's because you don't have any. I guess Leon didn't, either.
""ann coulter would fit right at home in iran."
I agree 100%.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 14, 2007 4:44 AM
Funny how you don't provide any reasons for that outlandish and idiotic statement.
That's because you don't have any. I guess Leon didn't, either."
You want a reason?
She's ANN COULTER.
That's all the reason you need.
"...well, you know what they say: homophobia is usually an indication of latent homosexuality.
posted by roobart s
I am begining to believe that people like you become left-leaners because it gives you permission to make bigoted statements like this.
If this statement was made in reverse the person would be jumped all over.
But we let this stuff go because of PC."
Care to prove me wrong?
Care to prove me wrong?
Wrong about what?
That you are a closet bigot?
Or that you spout PC drivel without ever questioning it?
Catch22 If you are gay what do you really know about the motivation behind the thinking of someone who doesn't approve?
If you are not gay and only a "sympathiser" what do you really know about the life of a gay?
You want a reason?
She's ANN COULTER.
That's all the reason you need.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 14, 2007 8:32 AM
Nope, sorry, that's not a reason. I see you don't possess the intellectual wherewithal to back up your outlandish, ridiculous statements.
LOL.
"Wrong about what?
That you are a closet bigot?
Or that you spout PC drivel without ever questioning it?
Catch22 If you are gay what do you really know about the motivation behind the thinking of someone who doesn't approve?
If you are not gay and only a "sympathiser" what do you really know about the life of a gay?"
...closet bigot? Why, because I detest homophobes and everything they stand for? If that's enough to make me a bigot, then yes--guilty as charged. I despise homophobes, I do so unapologetically, and will continue to do so until the day I die.
"PC drivel"--catchphrase for everything a conservative disagrees with. Not particularly original, if you ask me.
"I think that a lot silence is largely imagined."
I'd like to see a big, noisy demonstration by gays against Iran before I believe this statement.
JFP
********************************
I agree with JFP above. Its easy to say "I think that a lot of silence is largely imagined" just like I can say I think the moon is really made of green cheese (and the landing was staged) but that doesnt make it so.
I listen to michael savage who is close to San Francisco and there has been NO gay outcry against Islam at all.
http://www.talkradionetwork.com/savagearchive
And I LIVE in Toronto which has the largest gay parade in north america and a large gay enclave(and where the gay prof I spoke to (see my comments above) lives) and there has NEVER been any outcry in their community even though they have 2 gay papers, a radio station and some members of the gay community broadcasting on the mainstream radio stations here like the ever liberal CFRB (whose commentators get angry when you call it liberal since you are telling the truth!) and there has NEVER been an outcry of ANY kind from Gay community (im talking about loud organized rallys of any kind ) put on by them to protest the killing of thousands of gay men and lesbians each year in places like Iran. NOT ONE RALLY. Ive lived in Toronto for over 25 years.
So please dont give me this "I think their silence ts largely imagined"
Because I KNOW it is not imagined at all. individual gays here and there might say something sometimes just like the rare muslim will be honest about quran/hadith but both groups have not organized any large loud protests to condmen such autrocities.
lets call a spade a spade.
its not politically progressive to come out against Islam and the gay movement is not exactly known for its conservatives just like liberals arent exactly known for common sense, or Bill Clinton for chastity...
---
You know what the real irony is? That conservatives like me and others on here and Robert Spencer are standing up and saying this is wrong. I wonder if gays would do the same if the far left got their wish granted and being Christian was outlawed and believers were killed (catholic,protestant,orthodox,evangelical,copts,)
Would gays rush to our defense? Yeah right.
"I listen to michael savage who is close to San Francisco and there has been NO gay outcry against Islam at all."
Wait...Would that be the same Michael Savage who got fired from a TV show for anti-gay comments?
Right.
That's all I need to know about him.
Uh Michael Savage did not get fired for making anti-gay statements. He got fired because he swore on the air.
If your going to dismiss a guy who millions listen to at least get your facts right.
Yes millions thats why he was rated one of the most influential conservatives by the times.
Also I notice you simply ignored the statements about Toronto. Convenient.
My friend THATs all I need to know about you.
"Uh Michael Savage did not get fired for making anti-gay statements. He got fired because he swore on the air."
Oh, really?
“MICHAEL SAVAGE: So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am.
MICHAEL SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis.
OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Get me another one, put another sodomite on. No more calls out of-- let's go to the next scene. I don't care about these bums. They mean nothing to me. They're all sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the Savage Nation."
...didn't make anti-gay statements? Either I am illiterate or you are wrong.
Why are you purposely misquoting me?
your statment has me saying:
" '...didn't make anti-gay statements?' Either I am illiterate or you are wrong."
I did not say he did not MAKE anti-gay statements I said that is NOT the reason they fired him.
They fired him because he made a deathwish on the air for a caller which according to FCC rules is a threat. THATS why they fired him. Yes he did make anit-gay statements but MSNBC wanted to play it straight. You have to read their original statement not the regurgitated stuff of journalists.
Anyway I notice you didnt answer my point about my town of Toronto ...AGAIN. Why is that?
Also lets leave Savage aside --you wouldnt want to create a red herring for me right?
I have not lived in San Fran but I DO read the papers online and I am making google searches here there has been no organized protests of the gay community against islamic insanity.
THAT is the main point is it not?
In Toronto where I live they avoid such protests like the plague. Furthermore even without my access to San Fran papers and the net I know the gay community is very large here and if there had been such organized outcrys we would have heard it hear for sure. Plus the gay papers here never even mention islamic terrorists or islams hatred of gays. They call the terrorists 'resistance fighters'.
the point is , savage aside, there is NO evidence of any kind of large organized cry by the gay community.
Have you ever heard of Ockhams Razor?
The onus is on you now to provide some evidence (ie links) that show an organized rally of this kind. Otherwise the simplest and most obvious explanation is the most trustworthy.
WHERE ARE THE NEWS REPORTS OR YOUTUBE LINKS of gays rallying against islamic hatred of gays and of islamic fascism?
Lets be honest...if they EVER had such a rally we wouldnt not need SF or Toronto sources ..
it would be on CNN!
No, friend, I do not think you are illiterate but in this beliefe you are wrong.
You are dodging the issue of Savage. He made these extraordinary revolting comments, yet you've listed yourself as a supporter of his. Plus, you seem to be justifying his comments somehow--"it's ok to make anti-gay comments, but to curse on air--well, that makes him worthy of being fired." The fact that he did make those comments doesn't seem upsetting to you at all--and I can't, for the life of me, understand how ANYONE with even a shred of decency could react to them in that way.
I am gay.
Savagebois tirade aside alles is right about lack *organized outcrys* from the gay communities in SF and elsewhere. I mean that *is* what we are talking about correct? Not why some bigot got fired.
Allies does not live *there* but I can vouch for what he says because I do live *here*! (San Francisco) in addition I am a very gay american thank you very much. I am a lesbian woman and a feminist who has been a former member of NOW. I am addicted to the local news media print and otherwise. I have contacts with various protest warrior organizers as I like to call them, in the local community and scene as well. As much as I would like to say otherwise there has not been an *organized cry* by the homosexual community on Islam or anything like that in my beloved burg. I have to agree because it happens to be true. That does not mean I want it to continue to be true. No group of people is perfect but Allies has a point. I for one want to help organize such protests but my own efforts fall on deaf ears. Why? wel..
The reason gay orgs do not speak out is the very real fear it seems 'racist'. I used to believe speaking out against muslim radicals was racist myself. I started to read people like Spencer and Sina. I found out that I am against the philosophy of radical Islam not any race. The short answer is fear of being branded as racist. In a community such as mine we have to be careful. People judge us very quickly. But you know what? Enough is enough. Islamic laws say to kill gays and we have utterly failed in responding. And that is true **whoever** says it, friend or savage foe.
Sorry but we have failed to respond in any real large organized way. I am a liberal myself but I am not going to gloss over the truth or lie just to follow the pack. By *we* failed I mean the gay,bisexual,transgender,ftm groups. I remember being part of organized rallies against many things but Islamic radical hatred of us, never! I am 55 years old this upcoming spring. When I say I have been part of *many* rallies for my put on by my community , i mean it!
The glare of the facts remain and I for one am sick of pretending to be okay with Islam because others in the community think it is racist to do otherwise. And alas it is true. Besides reading the papers here and the gay press papers and with the most popular online gay newspaper ( 365gay.com) I can say my fellow gays, bisexuals, transgenders and ftms right now would rather speak out against priests who are against gay marriage then the fact thousands gays are killed in mideast.
I get fearful look in their eyes when I say we should organize a huge rally in DC against islamic radicalism. And Allies above is also right. Listen when I was with NOW the media was phoning us *daily* asking about rallies, any kind of rallies. Ratings. So, yes, it is true that as a group we have not done much about it. Some minor websites here and there, blog here, a few little things. But a real organized rally? no we have not.
RoobartSbunsa
You are fixated on savage? Why dont you give me
links of these famed homosexual rallys against Islam?
Savage apologized. other famous people have made mistakes. Are you perfect yourself?
If you ever listend to his show you know he has gay callers (conservative) ones who agree with him. Also he said that in terms of sexuality he is a libertarian. In other words he does not care what you do in your bedroom but he does not want it forced on him.
A have more than a shred of deceny friend. I have a whole cloak.
Why are you off on a tangent? Give me your evidence of the homosexuals screaming against muslim evil in a loud rally? They had a huge sit in support of gay marriage. well?
And please if you continue to talk on and on about savage and not give me some evidence of these imaginary rallies then I have won our polite dispute by default.
If I had NOT mentioned savage but pointed out that no online gay sources attack muslim evil in some large way (like jihadwatch does) what would you be talking about now.
FORGET SAVAGE. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THE SOCALLED HUGE RALLY ETC AGAINST MUSLIM EVIL PLEASE.
"Savage apologized. other famous people have made mistakes. Are you perfect yourself?"
Am I perfect? Far from it; but I've never called anyone a "sodomite" or suggested they should get AIDS and die. What I can't understand is how someone can be an admirer of this man even after he said something so utterly revolting.
Allies did you read my post? I have been part of those orgs. you are right on the green okay? i dont agree with you on savage but you are right on about organized shows of protest against islamic radicals. the other guy here seems to be stuck on some kind of verbal tic. savage savage savage savage savage lol. so im not even going to try to get him to read my post. ohhh boi yes allies is a bad guy for listening to savage blah blah blah but we are talking about gays and islam here.
gays and islam.
"Allies did you read my post? I have been part of those orgs. you are right on the green okay? i dont agree with you on savage but you are right on about organized shows of protest against islamic radicals. the other guy here seems to be stuck on some kind of verbal tic. savage savage savage savage savage lol. so im not even going to try to get him to read my post. ohhh boi yes allies is a bad guy for listening to savage blah blah blah but we are talking about gays and islam here.
gays and islam."
Maybe I AM stuck on "some kind of verbal savage tic." The reason is that I am having difficulty understanding how someone could remain a fan of his after he said what he said. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Rest assured that the "tic" will end as soon as I hear an adequate explanation.
sorry Genie I didn't see it. I was doing a find thing on the thread to go to his response directly.
wow thank you for your HONESTY Genie!!!
and uh for the backhanded compliment!
Seriously I think you are a real liberal unlike our friend here. You are a 'classical liberal'. You dont agree with my choice of broadcasters but when you see I am right (the topic is about failure of gays portesting in some big way) you saw my point and you were honest!
Robert no offense but unless you get back on topic there is no point in my responding further about Mike Savage. Why have you not responded AT ALL about the TOPIC.
Genie I think you just ended our debate between me and him (uh watch his next posting be about savage again). YOU WERE THERE AND YOU SAW WHAT I SAID IS TRUE !! THANK YOU!!!
ps what is ftms?
Robert I already gave an adequate explanation. The thing is by saying you will stop getting off the topic "until" I gave an adequate explanation (ie one you agree with which gaurantees you will never get back ON topic in this thread) you have effectively put yourself out of the debate: which is not about Mike Savage but about the fact that there has been no large organized rally.
Genie I see that this guy responded to your last statement and ignored your post (the one ON topic!!!). Now that shows me Robert that you really dont want to talk about the topic at hand.
And furthermore I am not required in a FREE country (canada) to make sure I explain my tastes enough to satisfy you. No offense but you are using it as an excuse to avoid what the whole thread has been about.
Again I repeat since you have elected yourself in the position of granting what would be an "adequate" explanation of why I like Savage (ie you have made your self the judge) OBVIOUSLY WHATEVER EXPLANATION YOU SEE WILL MERELY NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.
If you were honest like Genie there you would answer the questions my friend.
Again if you respond on Savage and not stick to the topic then you are merely evading the question at hand (which Genie already answered actually).
"And furthermore I am not required in a FREE country (canada) to make sure I explain my tastes enough to satisfy you. No offense but you are using it as an excuse to avoid what the whole thread has been about."
No, you're not required to do anything. But don't expect me to understand how someone can like a man who said what he said. Don't expect me to understand YOU.
robert no I will *not rest assured*. that person gave you enough *explanations* whatever you think of them and i even agreed with you about savage being a bigot. however allies is right you are avoiding the issue. It is about gays not organizing a large protest or even many medium sized ones i suppose. you are acting like a troll robert. a troll is someone who comes on a thread in a forum and takes the issue away from the topic because he either enjoys it or cannot *get his head around* it. There is a forum against Savage and his kind but this is *not* the place for it.
Allies if i may suggest you ignore robert. i believe he does not really have a one track mind but is embarrased that you won the debate.
here is the score
[1] allies is *right on the green* about gays and failure to protest
[2]robert is *right on the green* about savage being a bigot.
{3]but robert is *wrong* oh so very wrong about no 1 above and since that is what the thread was about allies wins. anything above this is just trolling robert.
allies you win besides i have been on the frontlines and can say unequivocally you are right. ftms=femaletomales and mtfs maletofem.these are not gays but ftms are men in female bodies and not to be confused with regular transgenders either. but now im on a different topic! enough.
you are correct we have not done any real fight in our communities to speak out against this evil. i think our troll will only go if you let him have the last word. i hope you do that allies. I have dealt with autistic style people lol it is the only way otherwise he will just keep on keeping on without *moving on* because he knows he is wrong on the topic. period.
No, you're not required to do anything. But don't expect me to understand how someone can like a man who said what he said. Don't expect me to understand YOU
robbie honey it is you no one understands sweetie. you lost and you cannot get over it. gays have not responded to the threat against them and its islam. that is all there is too it.
as for listening to savage i agree with allies you are merely planting a *red herring* as he said earlier to get away from the topic. we call it trolling over at my forums. i will let you have the last word robbie since its so important to you. allies?
Genie I agree. Thank you for being fair. I did not call the guy a 'troll' but I think he might be. Troll as in thread troll not the creature.
Go ahead Robert call me "homophobe" or whatever YOU can have the last word. I will have the truth.
GAYS HAVE BEEN LARGELY SILENT AGAINST ISLAM.
THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS GAYS SHOULD BE HANGED SAYS IRAN GOVT.
Nuff said.
Im logging off. Genie you rock.
"robbie honey it is you no one understands sweetie. you lost and you cannot get over it. gays have not responded to the threat against them and its islam. that is all there is too it.
as for listening to savage i agree with allies you are merely planting a *red herring* as he said earlier to get away from the topic. we call it trolling over at my forums. i will let you have the last word robbie since its so important to you. allies?"
Hey, if insults are what boosts your self-esteem, go for it. I enjoy a good insult as much as any--but please, PLEASE come up with something more creative than "troll" or "idiot." Such words have worn a tad thin.
...also, my name isn't "Robbie," "Robert," or "Rob." It's Roobart, or Roob for short.
Allies I am not calling you a homophobe even if he ends up doing that or saying other untrue things about you. i know you well enough from my own hub forums and the discussions you had there and no better. i do think you are have misguided view of some broadcasters but i know as you told me last month you believe in gay rights though not gay marriage while i believe in both. those discussions have no place here. not at all. but robertsbunser here well gee he is just fundamentally dishonest, and like all thread trolls he is too arrogant to admit that he lost. the topic goes to you allies. Now im going to leave too lest this troll lures me in too! but im an old battleax it would take more than one silly troll. robbie honey Spencer on here is a great guy but trolling is not allowed because you see we have muslims come on here alot and do what you just did for the last several posts.
You see allies and i understand that we do *not* agree on certain things but what we do agree on and *what this site is about* is that islam has an evil core that is alive today and as Spencer says has ***prescriptive*** commands for muslmis to cause this havoc. trolls come on here many times and try to steer us away from the issues.
This site is about fighting against ignorance of the islamic radicals not ironing out political differences *my move on to your savage*
we can do *that* on sites that are about dealing with that.Many trolls that come on here are merely muslims wanting to stir us up for *war is deceit* as their pedophile prophet warns.
allies for a heterosexual you did alrgit. lol this lesbian does not think you are a homophobe
oh and robersbumer honey we dont care if you dont understand us, and I doubt Allies cares whether you understand him lol because frankly you dont seem to understand much at all judging from your singleminded evasion trolling here.
ok Genie take your own advice no more talking to the trolls. lol
meanwhile in Iran a gay person is killed by muslims and the gay community my community is failing to fight. this must change but to deny it would make us ALL * RoobartSbunsar * .
"Dude you totally acted like a child and made a fool of yourself."
How'd I do that, exactly? By asking a question that went unanswered? Notice that the person ducked the question instead of answering it. "I don't have to answer to you" is the ultimate cop-out.
As for my name: I explained it elsewhere. Since you obviously didn't care to read my prior posts, I might as well explain again: I picked it because Dean Esmay's use of it was ridiculous to the point of being utterly hysterical. If Robert Spencer thought I was mocking him, he would've banned me from the site long ago. Yet he didn't. That should tell you something, shouldn't it? Do me a favor: stop assuming things.
Even though this thread is quite a ways down on the main page by now, we haven't abandoned it.
Please, keep it civil.
Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor
Worse yet: I'm seeing 3 user names showing up with the same IP address.
Do not abuse our resources with "sock-puppet" identities.