Point well taken.

My point was that if one uses rigorous rules of logic in assessing various claims–such as being born gay–then there are logical consequences. It is logical (if one cares to follow that thread) that being gay is a genetic defect. As you quoted from your teacher, it can lead to a life less than satisfactory. Societies declare ‘war’ on all sorts of ‘problems’, including things like genetic defects. So, simply arguing that being gay is genetic is not, IMO, a wise path to follow. More is needed to make an argument that does not open the door to unwanted results.

Unintended consequences are a problem of all laws, of course. Laws against child pornography were not intended to make a 15-y/o’s ‘sexting’ into something that put one on a sexual offenders list for life, or in jail for a few years. But that’s the necessarily logical conclusion of the laws as written.

I’m arguing that both compassion and common sense have to be taken into consideration when making laws about social situations. Attempts to be all-encompassing in laws can lead to paradoxes like the ones that a) permit a religion to be defined as just about anything a person wants and b) saying that privacy in the bedroom is paramount, leaves no logical defense against polygamy or bestiality. All you’re left with is the ‘eww factor’, a subjective judgment (not unlike those of the religious police) which are not grounded in logic, only personal (or societal) preference.

In other words: a mess.

The gay community claims exactly what I said…that they are born that way. I am sure that there are those that choose the lifestyle but most say they are born that way. I will try to find studies to cite here. I’ve read them…jsut don’t have them at my fingertips. Perhaps Chiara can better enlighten us.

While I understand your slippery slope argument and I think it has validity and generally I think in that way too, I am sure that those who were against interracial marriage 30 years or so ago said the same thing. I do agree. A line has to be drawn somewhere. However, if gays were allowed the same rights that married people were allowed the issue of gay marriage might not be such a contentious issue. As it stands in some cases, one partner is not able to pass property along to another even if it is a longstanding relationship if a will is not left in place. The parents or family can leave the partner with nothing. I’ve heard of cases where the family denied the healthy partner a last goodbye because they weren’t “family” and they didn’t like the fact that their loved one was gay. Sad! In this case, it is incumbent on the partners to leave a will, but that doesn’t always happen. I had a gay teacher once. I asked him if he was OK with being gay. He said to me “if I had the choice, I would not be gay. Why would I choose something for which I am discriminated against, I have no rights in relationships like a married couple, my family and society has rejected me, religions have demonized me. It would be FAR easier to be straight.” That stood out for me. It seemed to say that although he would WISH to be one way, he had to make peace with who he actually was.

I am not sure what you mean by declaring a “war” on gayness. Is it that you mean it like we have a “war” against breast cancer to try to eradicate it?

If one says ‘It’s inborn, therefore nothing can be done about it,’ you open the door to a counter argument. People are born with diseases and defects and a huge portion of the the medical industry as well as charitable organizations are devoted precisely to ‘fixing’ the inborn defect. If most people view being gay as somehow ‘not normal’, then what’s to stop a government from declaring a ‘war on the defect/disease’? That is a road best left untraveled, I believe.

If one claims that there is an absolute human right to ‘privacy in the bedroom’–used to justify both gay sex and same-sex marriages–then where do you draw the line? That argument does nothing to preclude three or more in the bedroom. In fact, it doesn’t preclude sex with children, animals, whatever. This is another slippery slope that is not easily avoided, if one bothers to think about it.

I realize that the slippery slope argument gets short shrift in some quarters, but I think it has some validity. If one is to be logically consistent, then you have to acknowledge that there is no permissible limit.

I think here, though, one can simply say, as did Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.’ A legal universe in which all moral values are relativistic is not a sound one. I like logic and think it one of the more useful tools in the human toolbox. But sometimes, lines have to be drawn by other than the weight of logic. And if that leads to contradictions, then I’ll go with Walt Whitman: ‘Very well then, I contradict myself.’

That would be amazing if it became legal. It seems to go against the whole ethos of what the western legal system adheres to. I really worry for Canada. Don’t Canadians have the right to vote on something like this? Gay marriage in the USA can be a very contentious issue. there have been cases where it was approved and then it was overturned…I find that a bit weird. What would the people who got married legally under the law then do once it is overturned? Their marriages are annulled or invalid?

I actually have less issues with gay marriage than I do with polygamy. Although I know it goes against most religions’ tenets, the reason is that I believe that most gay people don’t “choose” to be gay. I believe that they are born that way and as a result even if they don’t act on it they are still biologically gay. It seems unfair to me that people who were born a certain way should be denied rights due to something that they have no control over(not the acting on it part, but the brain biology part)Polygamy on the other hand, is not something you are born with. You can chose to be polygamous or not. Therefore in a culture like KSA where it is sanctioned by law (whether or not men act on it) it is OK legally , although I still think it is bad for women. In the Western and other non polygamous societies where it is illegal it is not OK and one should refrain from it. They can have one wife and experience children and are not denied marriage and can have full rights as a married couple under the law, just not more than one.

” Each has found a way within their own system to have more that one “wife”.”

While true in terms of the action…multiple women…the non FLDS and NON muslim guy is unable to justify it through religion. For these guys whether they do it or not is a choice, but their choice is not religiously wrong. It is OK morally within the boundaries of their religion and they would suffer no negative repercussions from God for it. Whereas the NON muslim Non FLDS guy is breaking the law of God-assuming his religion is a non polygamous one. In that way, if he has a conscience he will suffer for it. But I guess one could always take the position that if he had a conscience he wouldn’t do it in the first place. So to look at it from that perspective, perhaps he is the most wrong of the three since he knows it is against the law of God.

As for self terrorizing…I don’t watch the news anymore for exactly that reason. But I stopped that long before I got interested in Islam. I just thought, “is life really that miserable? Where are all the good stories? If people are that horrible, why is the world still here?” Actually, it coincided with my having my daughter. If you have children you know, once you have a kid the world becomes an infinitely more scary place just for the sheer fact that you now have to protect that little soul. I didn’t need any help being terrorized. My imagination about the one million and one things that could happen to her were enough fear for me! LOL!

That book I am reading “the Muslim Next Door” has done a very admirable job of explaining Islam in such an interesting and sort of mundane way that it really demystifies some things that on first blush seem kind of odd, but when you hear the reason behind it, you think “hey, that makes sense.”

I agree that the Canadians blundered big time in choosing the charge that they did, ie against polygamy. There is now a risk it will become legal. This is the type of “Charter challenge” that GLBTQ activists used to get gay weddings legal in some provinces of Canada (marriage is under provincial jurisdiction, much as it is under state jurisdiction in the US).

William Blackmore became head of a branch of the FLDS that split from the main group in the US when Warren Jeffs took over and started unmarrying couples and forcing the partners into new marriages, often to himself. They moved north to Bountiful, BC, and were living happily, giving too many interviews to the CBC during the Jeffs media blitz in the US, which ultimately resulted in closer investigations, and charges.

I do think that since only 2-12% of Saudi men have more than one wife, and 90% of them have only a second wife, and 90% of the remainder have a 3rd wife, the analogy to the Westerner with the long term mistress, or series of mistresses holds. Each has found a way within their own system to have more that one “wife”.

I think that there needs to be a multi-faceted approach to increasing understanding between cultures: neighbour to neighbour, PTA member to PTA member, educational courses at all levels of the curriculum, and major changes in media reporting including further exposure to the arts, which is why I have done the posts on cinema.

Muslims, at least in Canada, and on campus in the USA, do reach out in a variety of ways. Again, just by being good neighbours, sales people, teachers, doctors, etc, but also through “open doors” days at mosques, participating in interfaith fora, and through the outreach programs of the Muslim Students Associations/Unions on campus.

I do think people self terrorize as a friend did until she heeded my advice to stop watching so much CNN, and started reading Edward Said’s more political books instead.

You have taken an excellent approach, and have the patience of Ayoub…or a scholar! LOL

Chiara…

“The FLDS mostly pass under the radar of the average Canadian but are challenging the Supreme Court of Canada using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about their religious right to polygyny. Canada foolishly jumped into this mess instead of following the advice and example of the USA and prosecuting for welfare fraud, tax evasion, and statutory rape (religious marriage to minors). Most polygynists in North America evade rather than challenge the law, by having one legal wife and other religiously married only wives.”

I was NOT happy to hear that Canada was willing to even entertain this. My concern is if they succeed, our FLDS problem might become yours due to the freedom to “worship” freely there. Since blogging I have come to realize that Canada might be a more tolerant and open minded society than America. Maybe it is the way you describe it or a reflection of your personal style, but I would have always thought that America was more open minded since we have SO MANY different nationalities…but I think Canada wins the prize here.

“. In that they seem little different than the non-Muslim or non-FLDS man supporting his wife and his mistress(es).”

Gotta disagree slightly here. Unless he is Super stud he won’t have the kind of women an FLDS man or even a Muslim man with ONLY 4 women would have…probably not all at the same time anyway. Unfortunately, the Non Muslim or Non FLDS guy can’t sanctify it through marriage or religion and is considered a louse who will lose everything in a divorce. How much better to justify it through religion and make it neat and tidy and all holy like. In my opinion they are all doing the same thing wrong, only two of them have figured out how to make it “acceptable” not only to them and their wives but to God too! What a deal!

I am a huge advocate of Welfare. I feel very firmly it is our duty as a society to help those who are at a disadvantage to try to help them get ahead. When I was a kid, for a time (perhaps six months or a year) due to some hardships our family had to go on welfare. My parents worked like dogs to better our situation and ultimately we got off of it. It did its job which was to give us a hand up. What I am NOT Ok with is people coming to a country and making welfare a career. If one is going to stay on for two years and then get off and start being a productive citizen you will not have a stronger advocate than me as I lived through it for a time. Of course when we were on it it was still considered embarrassing and no self respecting person would stay on it long term. The goal was to get off of it as quickly as possible. Perhaps Canada and America for that matter could put into place some vo-tech training for immigrants whose skills say as a basket maker or potter or some other thing might not have a market in the new country. Conversely, my heart goes out to those professionals who come to these other countries and due to limitations in language or professional training required are underemployed. I know that they often work in jobs for which they are over qualified…so I do realize it runs the spectrum. My concern is that no one make welfare a career. Help them up, help them out but don’t support them forever and GOD FORBID don’t make it generational…a problem we have here in the USA with many undereducated and poor. It is a sad legacy.

“Those actively fighting the Western laws and culture are a very vocal minority, who often have found this to be their only way of making a living in the West. The rest are going about their lives as students, employees, homemakers, citizens, etc.”

Personally I wish they would shut the hell up because they are scarring a lot of people and NOT helping their religion. They are putting a lot of non Muslims in a position of intolerance/suspicion and Muslims in a position of being viewed unfairly.

Like you, I have long thought that it would be a “low-tech” way of doing things, but there is hardly a substitute for getting to know the “other” next door. When you shake a person’s hand, realize your kids go to the same school and that you both are concerned about the neighborhood all of a sudden they are a real entity to you. Because very few people will take the step I have and try to learn in various ways I think Muslims should put on a more active campaign to educate people. In this case I think the onus is on Muslims fairly or unfairly because the media is not going to kill the golden goose and that is: Fear sells. If Muslims could find a way to reach out it might open the gates to better understanding. And people who have better knowledge will have to be proactive to share it with others. The problem is that those very vocal and violent ones can undue everything with a well placed bomb or even the threat of a bomb. People (non Muslims) are not willing to take the time to separate the wheat from the chaffe and will just reject it outright to protect themselves. (not all) On the other hand, I think Muslims thank that non Muslims have a hate for them far more than non Muslims actually do. I think the people I know would be pretty indicative of most folks and a lot of people, surprisingly, don’t give Islam the short shrift that Muslims assume they do. For example, next year my daughter will be required to do a project touching on the major faiths of the world and Islam is first at bat. I rarely hear people talk in the negative about Muslims…it doesn’t seem to be foremost in their minds. In fact, I don’t hear them talk about Muslims at all…then again they don’t much talk about Jews or Hindus or anyone else’s religion. That might change if there is another 9/11 but right now they aren’t out there grinding axes against Muslims at least no one I know.

Part of the learning process is to take in info and try to decide ultimately where you stand. Toward that end, in this process I try very hard to avoid any ultra pro Islam stuff AND any ultra anti Islam stuff. Both have an agenda and I don’t think I will find the truth in either milieu. I try to aim for more middle of the road info that can be honest and self critical while not avoiding the good things…in other words balance. Part of that process requires that I don’t reject anyone’s voice (not until I find my own settling spot) and listen to all sides while at the same time trying to gather pieces of important info and sift out the “opinion” part. I try to be open-minded and if an idea I hold is not right, I will often change directions to be fair to the religion. I know it seems wishy washy sometimes, and without question I do tend to back track sometimes, but I have nothing to gain by being married to a wrong notion and it is still a work in progress. On the other hand, I do have my own opinions that I try to modulate and be fair to the religion AND myself. This whole thing has helped because what I saw back in late August that propelled me here caused me to not be able to sleep well for about two weeks. Rather than run and hide or condemn Islam outright I chose to tackle it head on. And I am so glad that I did. AND who knows where that may lead one day.

Thanks for the compliment about the “intellectually rigorous approach”. That is what I am striving for.

It’s unfortunate, because those two videos are especially interesting.

Thanks for attesting the validity of the MEMRI video. It shows Saudi women can show their disagreement too.

One doesn’t need to go to old films to deliberately look for the stereotypes one can click on the television or go to the local cinema. Most are made in a rather mindless way, but some are deliberately funded and supported, even written by the American Armed forces.

The old films were viewed to show the building and internalization of what an Arab is.

Please feel free all to make comments on the posts in question, or keep commenting here.

I am sorry. the joke completely bypassed me. I was startled to “think” that you called me stupid because you have shown such politeness and knowledge when commenting. It seemsed so out of character for you. My mistake and you have my apologies.