Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Mohammed Loves Gay Marriage. Huh?

Well, not exactly. But there’s some strange stuff going on here. It has been nearly impossible for conservatives to understand how leftist gay activists can be so tolerant of a religion which condemns them to rather grisly deaths. Now, several Muslim organizations in the West have begun to buzz about “gay marriage” not being any of their business. Homosexuality requires a death penalty, but maybe gay marriage is OK in the decadent West. Or something like that.

Muslim tolerance of gay marriage is about as mystifying as gay support of Islamist causes. Or is it? Marriage makes strange bedfellows (or was that politics?). The religion of peace spends considerable time promoting itself as the world’s largest charitable organization passing out loving gifts to fellow Muslims and the world in general. That way you won’t notice it has a bad habit of lopping off heads and blowing up skyscrapers.

The Islamists have learned a lot about propaganda and how to attain one goal by pretending to support an entirely different one. Do the Jihadis actually support gay marriage? Hardly—but if they can help to get the Western definition of marriage changed in relation to the sex of the partners, then there’s no logical reason to forbid traditional Islamic marital practices such as polygamy (and perhaps even child-marriage). Once you’ve eliminated sex as an issue, why not eliminate numbers or age as restrictions?

The loathsome Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually cluck-clucked at gay marriage in the West, but that’s those crazy degenerate Christians, Jews and pagans. Now CAIR is becoming an advocate of Western-style “tolerance.” They may not approve of gay marriage, but shucks, if that’s what the law allows in non-Muslim lands, so be it. In the Arabic versions of CAIR’s message, there remains the minor detail of beheading, hanging, or burying homosexuals alive. But those are eliminated for consumption in the West.

To date, there has been unanimity among the American federal government and all fifty state governments that polygamy must remain illegal. But that’s what the prevailing view was about gay marriage just a few years back. The Islamists see gay marriage as the camel’s nose (or some body part) under the tent. Some states have gotten courts to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional discrimination. In other states, the legislatures or the people have voted in favor of gay marriage. Our Islamist-friendly President went from opposing gay marriage to ordering his Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Whether the issue of same-sex marriage remains one of religious freedom or becomes a simple matter of leaving marriage to the clerics and same sex unions to civil law, the Islamists are seeing the extreme advantage of having non-traditional Western domestic unions embraced by constitutions, the law, and the majority of citizens. And thus the sudden public face of “tolerance” in the Western Islamic leadership.

CAIR spokesman Moein Khawaja said the following after New York legalized same-sex marriage last year: “Easy to support gay marriage today because it’s mainstream. Let’s see the same people [who advocated for same-sex unions] go to bat for polygamy. It’s the same argument.” Funny. That’s the same thing former Senator and former Presidential Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum warned about just a few years back. Nobody of any importance will criticize a sincere Islamist, but when Santorum said it, he was almost universally ridiculed.

Once the barriers are down, what’s left to stop the centuries old practice of polygamy and child-marriage? Who would have the right to criticize or ban communal marriage? So I’ll go Santorum and Khawaja one step further. No law should forbid marriage between loving companions, which explains why there are a lot of nervous-looking sheep out there. Is bestiality the new “love that dares not speak its name?” And how long will it be before it becomes mainstreamed? But that's another story altogether.

For now, the questions are many. Will America relax its traditional standards to allow polygamy on grounds related to religious tolerance of sharia law? Will gays and lesbians then demand equal rights to polygamy? Will radical feminists demand the right to polyandry? Will Hugh Hefner come out of a coma long enough to demand the right to marry all his Playmates? Enquiring minds want to know.

21 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Child marriage. Sixty year old men marrying 12 year old brides? Is that what you are suggesting?

And Muslims call us sick and perverted!

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: They just call us "infidels," which includes "sick and perverted." LOL

T-Rav said...

I remember very well a few years ago when I tried to make this argument to a liberal friend and got "Oh, you and that stupid slippery-slope argument!" (Or something to that effect.)

And then last week I read about a German couple who were upset about being denied the right to marry by a court--because they're brother and sister. And while this is still illegal in Germany, it apparently isn't in France, Turkey, and several other countries. Why am I not surprised?

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments because they're usually fended off by common sense and tradition. But when there is a big, radical movement (like the various forms of non-traditional marriage) based on phony claims of discrimination, the slippery slope becomes even slipprier. At one time we could count on the Supreme Court to look to American tradition, law and constitutional restraints and apply common sense to its decisions. Today, I'm not so sure, particularly when the court has taken up the appalling habit of citing foreign law in its decisions.

Tennessee Jed said...

yes-- how dare you get all nervous about species restrictions on marriage. There is just that extra special bond between a man and his water buffalo, after all. Who are we to judge? And please explain why a water buffalo should not be permitted to be named in a will . . . . as a beneficiary?

T-Rav said...

"Who are we to judge?"...or, as I call them, five of the most destructive words in the history of Western civilization.

StanH said...

Love will find a way…yuck! It’s mainstream in the chattering class, amongst most Americans, same sex marriage is abhorrent. All the same rights, except for the religious ceremony of marriage. As far as the Islamo-Goons are concerned we mustn’t forget their love of goats as well, this must be included in the conversation, Allah’s will be done.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Well, Catherine the Great was supposed to love her stable of horses, and Caligula made his horse a Senator, so I guess there's even a tradition of that sort of thing in the non-Muslim parts of the world.

Leona Helmsley cut her relatives out of her will, and left a $12 million estate to her dog. You may not be able to marry your pets yet, but you can sure make them rich.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I don't want to tell you how many times I've had arguments with liberals about right and wrong, only to have them ignore the argument and go straight to "you're being judgmental." To which I have often replied, "of course I am--I'm qualified." LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: As long as religious marriage is kept entirely separate from civil unions, many of us would tolerate the civil unions reluctantly. Just don't demand that my pastor perform a same-sex marriage or threaten my church with sanctions for refusing to do so.

That works fine by taking the legal status out of the hands of churches and lets same-sex partners have equal legal rights without forcing traditional Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to perform the unions as marriages.

The reason the Islamists have gone all wobbly on the issue is that once the issue becomes entirely civil, the logic becomes compelling because it removes religious tradition from the formula entirely. If two people of the same sex can "marry," why not one man and four women? Mosques already perform multiple marriages in the Islamic tradition, but only the first one is registered as a "legal" marriage. Once the matter becomes entirely civil, there's no logical reason why the other three marriages should be treated as less legal than a same-sex marriage. As T-Rav says above, "who are we to judge?" Yuck, indeed.

rlaWTX said...

Excellent (as usual), T-Rav!
"'Who are we to judge?'...or, as I call them, five of the most destructive words in the history of Western civilization."

rlaWTX said...

The PC(USA) Board of Pensions (insurance & pensions group), after being urged to do so by the PC(USA) General Assembly, has approved the offering of benefits to same-sex partners (SSP). In order to avoid cohab partners requesting them, the Board requires SSP to have a duly constituted civil contract (or marriage in those states) in order to grant the benefits.
At present there is no "relief of conscience" possibility (2 tracks of money from dues paid). For many of those conservative churches who were highly annoyed by - but not leaving because of - the weakening of ordination standards, this might be the last straw for this camel.
[this has also re-stirred up the issue of "relief of conscience" for abortion benefits already offered by the Board.]

StanH said...

Absolutely Lawhawk, that’s the point. This is one reason I remain a small (l) libertarian, I don’t give a damn what a person does, as long as what they’re doing doesn’t effect me, and contrary to arguments from people I respect, libertarian or libertarian leaning, Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, to name a couple, I disagree on their argument on whether or not same sex marriage harms anyone. They separate marriage as an institution of society, and say “ah…who cares.” This cannot be done, to me it’s like removing a foundational stone of Western society, “the sanctity of marriage.” We are screwing around with ancient civil customs, because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, the 3% gay population according to polls? …or “to be stylish,” as Clint Eastwood liked to say. I say this not in any kind of sanctimony, I don’t profess to be the keeper of the faith, but I say there are barriers that should not be breached, and marriage between a man and woman is one.

Civil Unions seems to be the least offensive, I could go for that, but boy that feels like, “inch by inch everything’s a cinch.” The next thing you know, as you quipped, beastiality will be on at 7:00 PM on Sunday’s new show, “Betty, Beastiality, and the Boy” “It’s great fun kids, and you’ll be rolling in aisle mom and dad. This week Betty has an ostrich fetish.” (laugh track) Or some such, you get my point.

T-Rav said...

rla, thanks as always for your support. When I take over the world, your avatar kitten's end shall be quick and painless. ;-)

Our college town here has a PCUSA and a PCA church. (FYI, the PCA church is where William Faulkner was married.) A friend of mine once made the mistake of going to the former one Sunday and never went back, thanks to their--um--sexually inclusive choir and their entirely open policy regarding Communion. She now goes to the PCA church and enjoys it very much.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: We have a similar dichotomy between the Lutheran denominations. ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has pretty much dumped all traditional doctrine in order to be "relevant." So they're bleeding membership. LCMS retains the traditional Lutheran doctrine and the Augsburg Confession, and are retaining and even gaining membership. ELCA has officially refused to recognize or perform gay weddings (though the votes have been close), but individual congregations simply ignore the Synod and do whatever they think is right or "feels good." LCMS (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) retains its stand against homosexuality, but does not bar homosexuals from membership, and will allow celibate gay men to become pastors. Gay marriage is out of the question with LCMS. Neither group has formally requested conscience waivers on abortion coverage, but LCMS is on record as planning to request them and its top cleric/board member has said the Synod will simply refuse to pay for the insurance or the penalties, and will go to jail for it if necessary.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I picked up the old-time philosophy of one of the grand dames of San Francisco who was told that something had to be done about all the vice in turn-of-the-century San Francisco. She reputedly said "I don't care what they do, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." Well, sad to say, they're doing it in the streets these days.

As I said of civil unions, they are probably the most practical solution, and if a state (not the federal government) chooses to allow gay marriage, I can live with it even though I don't much care for it. That relieves the churches of any necessity to perform gay weddings and unless and until some religion-hater files a discrimination suit, protects religious freedom.

But once the state takes over the duties of determining what a valid domestic union is, the argument that it is discriminatory to restrict unions to one person joined to one other person comes into play, and all the religious restraints become moot. Precedent and the course of Western civilization will be hard-pressed to maintain that polygamy, polyandry and communal marriage are forbidden by the Constitution. Those with no genuine religious scruples will "do their own thing" while Islamists who are deeply-committed to their religion will use the civil law to claim discrimination against their practice of polygamy. Ultimately, I think truly religious Christians and Jews will just have to hold to their faith and their commitment to traditional one-man, one-woman marriage and accept that their religious beliefs will have to be kept private while acknowledging that legally there is no difference between all the various forms of civil unions.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I know what your friend means. I had been away from the church for a long time until my kids started coming along. So I went to a local Lutheran church. I didn't know that their first service of the day was a "folk service" which I later called a hootenanny. One of the ushers sensed my distress and told me the traditional services were the next two of the day. I chose those from then on. It was an ALC (American Lutheran Church) congregation, and back then (the early 70s) still followed traditional ritual. As they began to join other synods to form the ELCA I watched as each consolidation threw more tradition out the window and abandoned traditional doctrine. It still took me until 1998 to make the move to LCMS. I was convinced I did the right thing when LCMS refused to join in an "interfaith gathering" at Yankee Stadium to commemorate the deaths of 3,000 Americans in New York City in 2001. Deaths caused by Islamists who were given a prominent place at the gathering.

T-Rav said...

Stan, cultural Marxism/sexual liberation is the Achilles heel of libertarianism. I think it was Irving Kristol who said that Hayek's was invaluable against Marx, but useless against Nietzsche, or something to that effect. I could say quite a bit about this, but homework calls.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Irving Kristol also identified the libertarian ethic with the "hedonistic" and asserts that libertarians "worship the Sears Roebuck catalogue and all the ‘alternative life styles’ that capitalist affluence permits the individual to choose from." I think he went way overboard on that (and I have some libertarian traits myself), but you have to admit it was funny.

tryanmax said...

As George Takei once said, "Oh, my!"

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Takei took "to go where no man has gone before" a little too seriously.

Post a Comment