Muslim Leaders Come Out Against #EqualMarriage, And Yes They Are Wrong!

One of the most annoying criticisms one receives as a gay liberal is that, in some bizarre way, I must thus be some Muslim fanboy who wouldn't dare criticism Islam because obviously everyone politically to the left of Nigel Farage must be in kahoots with fundamentalist Muslims! "Oh you criticise us Christians but you'd never dare criticise a Muslim!" is the commonest formulation of this argument (usually used by UKIPpers who, on this issue, are ironically allied with Muslims!).

The main reason I spend less time moaning about Islam than I do Christianity is that we live in a Christian country (our Head of State is the head of the Church of England, if we weren't so damn British about it all we'd be living in a Christian theocracy!). Most of the powerful and organised vocal opponents of LGBT rights are Christians. The people physically attacking the police in Paris and attacking LGBT rights activisits in Tblisi weren't Muslims, they were Christians led to the protests by their priests!

But that doesn't mean I think Islam isn't just as silly as Christianity is. And I know some Muslims are just as dangerous to LGBT people as Christians are. Here in Britain some Muslims have called for us to be tortured, to be put to death and have even threatened to kill Muslim politicians who support our rights. It is in the light of this that one must look upon the recent letter to the Telegraph from ranking Muslims. Where was their letter condemning the death threats or the incitements to violence? What makes them angrier: my prospective marriage or my prospective murder? 

The letter suggests they are concerned about children, their education and their care. Laudable aims except whilst they feel we want their children educated on marriage equality (a side effect rather than an aim I'd suggest), they themselves imply they would rather our children were taken away from us (and that would appear to be an aim rather than a side effect of their opposition to marriage equality).

Which is worse? I think you know where I stand.

First They Came For The Burqa...

This week has seen renewed efforts to ban the burqa both in our country and in France (a country I can see from the end of my road!).

Whilst the British story is more of a legislative joke, the tone of Philip Hollobone MP is pretty offensive. As a MP he doesn't really have the right to pick and choose which constituents he will meet and talk to just because of what they are wearing. We must stand up and point out the ridiculous nature of the suggestion he wants to ban people from wearing an item of clothing and won't even talk to someone wearing it! Is he saying it is okay for religious symbols and clothing to be banned? Will he now stand up for Government bodies who ban crucifixes? I don't think so.

In France, the National Assembly has vote to ban the burqa. Whilst this is not the final stage of the process, it is incredibly disappointing that a country founded on the concept of liberty would try to stop people choosing what they can and can't wear.

Now I understand the issues behind the burqa are intensely complicated. But dealing with them by banning the burqa is, as Liberal Vision says, about as sensible as banning black eyes to stop domestic violence.

Government should not be telling it's citizens how to live their lives. That is the basic foundation of liberty.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Gay Muslims

Here's a different perspective on homosexuality (one we are hearing more and more from). Give it a read. What's it like to be both a practicing Muslim and a homosexual? It sounds like it's deeply conflicted:

Khalid says that as a British Muslim, he feels gay men have yet to find answers to some very difficult questions: "If it is wrong to be gay, should we force ourselves into heterosexual marriages?

"And in doing so, should we lie to the women we get married to? Or should we go for marriages of convenience with lesbians? Or, should we just remain celibate?" he asked.

Of course, from my secular perspective, his initial premise that homosexuality is wrong is, in itself, wrong. So I don't even understand the questions he then poses. But those are issues that come from his faith perspective so valid to him.

Of course more interesting to me is their perspective on equality:

In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that those who dare to come out and seek long term same-sex relationships are sometimes not content with the idea of civil partnerships.

They desire religious recognition of their union, with some reportedly taking the daring step of entering into nikkahs (Muslim marriage contracts).

Different organisations are trying to tackle the taboo
Mr Qureshi said he was aware of couples who had opted for such nikkahs but stressed that these were performed by imams in absolute secrecy.

Muslim gay activist Ibrahim Ismail has been working on sexual health issues for many years.

He said: "Some of their families and friends may even attend these nikkahs, but they would never publicly admit it for fear of being ostracised by mainstream Muslims.

"They are very much invisible."

Yet another sign of religious freedom being curtailed by civil partnerships and forcing practicing Muslims to get non-legally binding religious ceremonies. (Although I concede their privacy issues may well be affected if the nikkahs became legal)

All very interesting.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Banning Dissent?

When Geert Wilders was banned from the UK, because he might incite hatred against a certain group and this create a public disturbance, I felt a wave of discomfort come over me. What was being said was "we are so fucking scared that a bunch of violent extremists might be so upset at what he preaches that they might cause trouble". And to avoid that the UK Government decided to remove the freedom of movement of an elected representative of an EU state within the EU. Unless he was calling for death to all Muslims then I can't see why he was banned. The reggee singers who preach murder against homosexuals have not been banned, so why him???

But now the Government has gone a step further banning the Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, famous firstly for www.godhatesfags.com, from entering the UK to protest a play. So probably homegrown religious crazies are ok to protest against Jerry Springer The Musical and get it stopped but it's not ok for these folks to come over from America and try the same thing?? How does that make sense? As a gay man I beg for the Government to rethink this decision (not that they read this nor that my feelings will ever reach their ears). We should have the right to confront the Phelps, not just the lesser members of the WBC, here in this country and show them that their hatred is NOT the way forward. Whilst they celebrate the death of homosexuals, and others, they do not actively encourage violence or murder. And unlike some other minority groups it is unlikely their precence will push our countries now rather integrated LGBT community into acts of general violence. So what is the reason for banning them???

At least my favourite person has his brain switched on:

Peter Tatchell, from gay rights group OutRage!, said: "The Phelps are odious, homophobic bigots. They give Christianity a bad name.

"Objectionable though they are, I don't agree with them being banned but since the Home Secretary banned the Dutch MP Geert Wilders at least she is being consistent by also banning these Christian preachers of hate.

"It makes it all the more odd that the Home Secretary has not banned Jamaican reggae singers who incite the murder of gay people.

"Why are they allowed in to the country but not the Phelps?

"Inciting murder is even worse than inciting hatred. Why the double standards?"

I think the site Phags for Phelps has the right idea... allow them the freedom to spout their nonsense because every word shows homophobia up for what it is... STUPID.

STUPID!

Back in April my mate Russell from TVW sent me an email regarding the £100m Mosque in London. It took me two seconds on www.snopes.com to uncover the lie and I sent a rude email back to him suggesting he check his facts before forwarding emails. I will mention I hate getting forwarded emails...

Then over 3 months later and suddenly there is a petition on the 10 Downing Street site against the plan (and as far as I can tell it's one individual organisations plan with no Government backing nor planning permission).

The petition is framed with the statement:

"We the Christian population of this great country England would like the proposed plan to build a Mega Mosque in East London Scrapped. This will only cause terrible violence and suffering and more money should go into the NHS."

I am not even going to start on their use of the word "England". Dear Constant Readers will know how much that word annoys me.

I think the 268,840 people who signed the petition should be ashamed of themselves. Why? Because they are the kind of dumb arses who haven't even researched a subject that they supposedly feel so strongly about.

Here's Ken Livingstone's response.

Here's a part of the message I sent Russell which I stole from somewhere and can't remember where so sorry to the source!

Quote from LCGB forum in response to similar thread. Make of it what you will

“I've seen similar stories over the past year.

It's only right to point out that Ken Livingstone is NOT planning to use tax/ratepayers' money for such a mosque. And he has nothing to do with it either way.

Although no formal planning application has yet been made (and it may never be made), any decision would be taken by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, a body formed on the basis of laws passed in 1980 under the previous Tory administration and used back then to set up the London Docklands DC.

IF it were ever approved in its talked-about form by the LTGDC, a big if, the organisers are planning to build it using private donations.

The mosque is planned to hold 10,000 worshippers, not 70,000 as has been mentioned, although up to 70,000 might fit in the grounds.

Slightly smaller numbers of up to 50,000 people can fit in the grounds of the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in north west London, the largest Hindu temple in the West, so something of this size is not unknown. I lived in the area both when it was built and for a couple of years afterwards and it never bothered the people of NW London in any way.

Moreover, this is an old story, which has become embellished over time by some people who, for their own reasons, don't have much time for Ken Livingstone.

Here is a link to the story, which first appeared in 2005: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article597161.ece

Sometimes I wonder if democracy is a good idea...