“Given the secular legal context of North America and Europe, there is no way to forbid or stop homosexuality.”

There’s no way to forbid a lot of what is haraam. Which is fine in a secular legal context, but doesn’t mean Muslims need give our blessings to it or agree with it.

“However, by legalizing gay marriage, homosexuals can be encouranged to be more moral by forming committed monogamous relationships.”

This is a non-sequiter. If you don’t consider it a given that a gay relationship is as valid as a straight one (and I don’t), then this whole argument falls apart.

Given much of what passes for sexual morality among straights, I find this argument in favour of gay marriage more than a little condescending.

Especially straight Islamist sexual morality…

I’d suppose the point of Laury’s statement is to make the ideal of monogamous marriage available to all, not to hold heterosexual behavior as a standard to emulate. If I admire someone’s outfit, for example, I can emulate that to the point that I find it appropriate, not necessarily imitating the bad fashion choices that they may make in other situations. I do think that people are able to distinguish between a good practice (monogamy) and the mistakes and bad choices that may be made while pursuing it (infidelity, manipulative behavior, etc.)

I am confused by something in this cartoon. Is “Mo” supposed to be the prophet Mohammed? If this is the case, then why does this cartoon not spark the same controversy as other cartoons depicting prophet Mohammed. I am not trying to cause trouble here, but merely trying to understand. I should explain for those who do not know me that I am neither Muslim nor Christian. I am Hindu and Buddhist in my personal beliefs, but rather eclectic, and liberal.

If you say that “Mo” is merely some person who happens to be named Mohammed, then you might in turn say that “Jesus” is some Mexican who happens to be named Jesus.

And yet, the cartoon depicts “Mo” reading the Qur’an, while “Jesus” is reading Esquire Magazine.

The Qur’an itself seems to portray Jesus as a Muslim. I think there is even the statement that Jesus, as a babe in the crib, exclaimed “I am the slave of Allah”, though this may be something in Hadith, and not the Qur’an.

The argument that gay marriage promotes monogamy (or rather discourages dangerous promiscuity) is based upon a morality that strives for the lesser of many evils. There must be a better term or word for what I am sensing, .... I am thinking of words like consensus, relative,... but the proper term eludes me.

I suppose it is like an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, where everyone is smoking too many cigarettes, and drinking too much coffee (both of which harm the health), but… at least… everyone is sober, and no one is drinking alcohol.

Or, suppose there were a group of people stealing thousands of dollars, but I convinced them that they should only steal pennies. The theft of pennies is certainly far less harmful than the theft of thousands or millions, but it is still a form of dishonesty.

Or, suppose one made the argument that cartoon and animation depictions of children is preferable to child pornography. Well, perhaps it is, in the sense that one cannot prohibit the fantasy life of people who seek out such pornography, and yet, cartoons and animation do not make any actual child a victim. It is only pixels on a page or screen.

These are all interesting topics for debate.

My favorite conundrum, which I feel I may have possibly discovered and been the first to write about it, is the fact that the Qur’an seems to forbid intoxicants on the one hand, and on the other hand Islam encourages emulation of the prophet in all things, however minor, with respect to grooming, clothing, diet, speech. And yet, surgical anesthesia and novocaine represent a form of intoxication, and were things unknown to the prophet Mohammed. Yet, I imagine that no Ayatollah or Imam would have a tooth extracted, or undergo major surgery without the benefits of anesthesia. Since one is encouraged to imitate the life of the Prophet in every possible respect, I am surprised that orthodox Muslims will seek the benefit of surgery and chemotherapy unknown in 7th century Medina/Yatrib.

Anyway, I hope I offend no one by remarking candidly in this forum.

A little research has led me to this cartoon, which removes all doubt as to who "Mo" is. http://www.jesusandmo.net/2005/11/24/body/

Yes, he is a body double. Excellent!

Hedonist: To my mind, the Lot story in the Qur’an tells us that it is wrong to treat anyone as a sexual object. I understand Sodom to be a sexual meat market. If all people, irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation, were to have a social structure that encouraged treating one another with respect and care then that would be a good thing, to my mind, not a bad thing.

When I support legalizing gay marriage, I intend it in this context. I support legalizing committed, caring relationships between human beings of any sort.

Please explain how that is straight patronizing. I do not see it.

I find the conclusion patronizing:

“Given the secular legal context of North America and Europe, there is no way to forbid or stop homosexuality. However, by legalizing gay marriage, homosexuals can be encouranged to be more moral by forming committed monogamous relationships. Just as this is preferable in the case of heterosexuals, it should also be the better alternative in the homosexual case.”

(1) “forbid or stop homosexuality”
Huh? What is “homosexuality” here exactly? Sounds to me as though it’s being reduced to engaging in particular sexual acts, as though that’s all there is to being queer. And why “forbid” it—-because it’s seen as intrinsically inferior or deviant?

(2) “homosexuals can be encouraged to be more moral by forming committed monogamous relationships…”
Like, they don’t already? Looking beyond the stereotypes of gay men cruising and all that, there are also queer people who have been in committed partnerships for decades and just want legal recognition of the fact so that they can exercise rights that married people take for granted, such as the right to visit their partner in hospital, make her/his medical decisions when they can’t do so, etc.

And since we’re talking Muslims here, Muslim communities certainly aren’t always about committed monogamous relationships either—-polygamy, anyone? Misyar? Mut’a?

Yo, I didn’t write that! Zeeshan did! But to be fair to Zeeshan, he seems to me to be trying to talk it through in such a way that more traditional folks who would never concede the points you make above could imagine legalizing partnerships between all consenting adults.

Here is the deal though, you bring up a good point. When we support committed relationships among all consenting adults, we include plural marriages in that.

On the level of secular civil rights it suits Muslims interested in plural marriage to support marriage for all consenting adults.

The issue here is “consent.” I know of very few plural marriages that were undertaken with consent. It typically happens without the wife knowing, or by manipulation, or by force. I have observed it happening most in situations where the men simply want to “cheat” legally. They have no good intention toward the first wife or the second.

I don’t support plural marriage. Period. And the idea that some Muslims are supporting “marriage for all consenting adults” in order to legalize polygamy scares the hell out of me (as well as being unbelievably cynical…)

How can Muslim women “consent” to polygamy when it is usually upheld as the husband’s god-given right? Give me a break. As well as of course all the manipulation, lying and all that which often goes with it.

I spoke at length once with a young woman from Egypt.

I asked her what she thought of second wives. She declared that she would never stand for it, that she worked hard to find the right husband and she wanted him all for herself.

She then remarked that she once attended the wedding of a co-wife, where the first wife acted as a kind of bridesmaid. The first wife could not have children, and encouraged her husband to take a second wife.

On PBS television, I saw a white British man being interviewed, who had lived in a African country for some years, where polygyny is accepted. He took a first wife (African). Then the first wife encouraged him to take a second wife. The co-wives were like sisters to one another. Finally, the British husband had to relocate his family to England. The authorities there did not want to allow him to bring TWO legal wives into the country. They said he must choose one to be his legal wife, and declare the second as a mistress. He said in the interview, “How can I choose between them. They are both my wives and the mothers of my children, and I love them equally.”

I found his reponse touching. I do think it is possible for there to be a happy plural marriage, especially in a society where the people are conditioned from childhood to accept it as a good thing. Perhaps such a happy plural family is in the minority, but it is not impossible.

Napoleon is said to have had many affairs. When Josephine complained, Napoleon explained to her that it was expected of him, in his office, to have such affairs, however inconvenient he might find the social obligation.

It has been said that in America SERIAL polygamy is practiced. You may have as many spouses as you please, as long as you have only one at a time, and divorce the others.

Early Christianity seems to have criticized the “pagan” Romans and Greeks as being morally corrupt. I wonder whether plural marriage was practiced among those pagans? One does not notice the mention of plural marriage in the dialogues of Plato, to my recollection.

I know that the Roman senator, Cato, once had another senator thrown out of office for the offense of kissing his wife in public, in front of his children. Such a reaction on Cato’s part seems to bespeak a rather puritanical morality, rather than pagan corruption.

I wonder what the “godless” native American tribes practiced with regard to monogamy vs. plural marriage.

One of my nieces is married to a (Muslim) man who can't have children. His family keeps asking why there haven't been any grandkids produced yet; he finally told them that my niece is infertile, but that he won't marry another woman out of love for her (!). She goes along with the lie in order to save his male pride. He did offer to divorce her, so that she could marry another man who could give her kids, but she refused. She was never allowed to finish high school, she's from a poor family, and she didn't want to risk going farther and faring worse. As a non-virgin, her worth in the marriage market would be significantly diminished, and whatever man she might end up with could well be abusive. The same people who would argue that a man married to an infertile woman should be able to take another wife would never accept the idea that a woman in my niece's situation should be able to take a second husband, even temporarily—-heck, they wouldn't even allow her to have a kid through a sperm donor.

Thanks for sticking up for me Laury =) The original article I quoted from was written for Naseeb.com, which is very traditional compared to PI.org. When in Rome…

Jesus hated Gay! according to Christian! Moses hated Gay! according to Israelize(Samaritan too)! David hated Gay! According to Jews! Lot hated Gay! According to Muslim/Christian/Jews! Muhammad hated Gay! God hate Gay! ohh.. and Bush "pretends" to hate Gay! hehehehe… Gay can't really marry each other, Marry is a spiritual thing involving 'a Man' and 'a Woman' , just like bestial ppl can't marry thier victim or animals. Those gay couple just have to call it something else, like lovefest or buttbanging! Either way its still haram! Don't blame your Gayness to God, God created you hetro! And yeah….. if they stop and repent, God is most Forgiving!

Jesus hated Gay! according to Christian!

Moses hated Gay! according to Israelize(Samaritan too)!

David hated Gay! According to Jews!

Lot hated Gay! According to Muslim/Christian/Jews!

Muhammad hated Gay!

God hate Gay!

ohh.. and Bush “pretends” to hate Gay! hehehehe…

Gay can’t really marry each other, Marry is a spiritual thing involving ‘a Man’ and ‘a Woman’

just like bestial ppl can’t marry thier victim or animals.
Those gay couple just have to call it something else, like lovefest or buttbanging!
Either way its still haram!

Don’t blame your Gayness to God, God created you hetro!
And yeah….. if they stop and repent,
God is most Forgiving!

“And yeah….. if they stop and repent,
God is most Forgiving!”

Gee, thanks for the reminder that God is merciful. The rest of your post didn’t exactly reflect that mercy.

As for David, he and Jonathan certainly had a very (ahem) close relationship.

Jesus not only didn’t have anything to say for or against same-sex relationships, apparently, but he (ahem) doesn’t seem to have ever married himself.