Will Some Officially Muslim Nations Soon Legalize Same Sex Marriage?

If there is a slowly developing clash of civilizations, then at some point some political authorities in some officially Muslim nations could become concerned that gays and lesbians could constitute a kind of "fifth column" within their societies.

In that case, it is conceivable that Muslim governments could force their citizens to watch pornography while their citizens' physiological reactions are monitored (pupil dilation, heart rate, etc.) Some reactions would presumably be illegal, regardless of the involuntary nature of those reactions.

"it is conceivable that Muslim governments could force their citizens to watch pornography while their citizens' physiological reactions are monitored (pupil dilation, heart rate, etc.) Some reactions would presumably be illegal, regardless of the involuntary nature of those reactions."

This thread is about future government policy of officially Muslim governments. Specifically, it is about how they might treat their own citizens.

for a fleeting moment, I thought I saw a connection between a post about how ignorant and bigoted people are about Muslims, and a post spreading the idea that Muslims might make it official government policy to force their citizens to watch pornography while monitoring their pupil dilation or some such thing.

Perhaps there is no connection at all ...

Is it bigoted to suppose that some high government authorities in officially Muslim nations might consider it offensive to propose the legalization of same-sex marriages in their nations?

as officially a Muslim nation, then the people who have the power to create official government policy in that country are in fact actually Muslims?

I hope that is a clear question. Are you capable of answering it?

"extraordinary rendition" that involves abducting foreign nationals for detention and torture/interrogation in officially Islamic nations, then shall we deny that there can ever be enough evidence to prove that extraordinary rendition actually occurs?

There's not even a link to the source of the story.
Lee

in future some governments might do something? Where in the Original Post do you see a statement that the plans have already been made? What are the limits of your ability to conceive?

Edited to add: it's a poll thread on DU. Why do you refer to it as a "story"? Do you see a claim in the Original Post that it was previously published in any periodical or book or that it was previously published on any website?

you should be gracious about it.

We were trying to give you a graceful out, so it didn't appear that you believe and are personally trying to spread the notion that "it is conceivable that Muslim governments could force their citizens to watch pornography while their citizens' physiological reactions are monitored."

Didn't want to see you humiliated in public for spreading that kind of Fox-newsworthy stupidity. You could at least thank us.

a satisfactory guarantee that the unthinkable future scenario will not in fact occur. I would feel more reassured if for consideration of one cent you were to provide a signed and witnessed consent to judgment in the amount of $200,000 payable to me upon the arrival of a future that is now unthinkable.

I think their methods are somewhat barbaric in dealing with them

At the risk of offending, Spain is usually not that far ahead (like Ireland, a lot of Catholic influence).

And Iraq is the only neutral middle eastern state. Interesting.

Now one cannot put it past the right wing to try to gain some support from gay Americans - for attacking Iran - by publicizing their persecution of homosexuals.

The intent of the OP, I presume, is to point out how horribly backwards muslims are, what with homosexuality being illegal and all.

The ironic thing is that when we invaded Iraq, sodomy was illegal in 14 US states. In Idaho, you could get life in prison for it, at that time. But that was 4 whole years ago, so, you know, WE aren't backwards at all, not like those other people. Another 11 states repealed their "it's illegal" laws just within in the last decade. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

As for the intent of the OP, I still honestly have no clue, but I will absolutely agree with you that the United States is the LAST country on Earth to be accusing others of being "backward".

"the United States is the LAST country on earth to be accusing others of being backward"---I think any of the countries where homosexuality is punishable by death would be the LAST country on Earth to be accusing others of being "backward." The U.S. IS a disgrace among western judeo-christian nations when it comes to its laws regarding homosexuals. There it IS backwards.

Obviously, I'd rather live in the United States than in Saudi Arabia. My point was that for all our so-called "freedoms", the United States is alarmingly behind the times compared to, say, Canada, New Zealand, and most of Europe.

A friend of mine sometimes criticizes me for being too literal :spank:

How many Iraqis have we killed since the 90's? How many of them do you think were homosexual, just going by basic statistics?

Sure, we didn't kill them because they were gay; we killed them because they were ... there.

I think if we're having a contest to see who's the most barbaric and backwards, we're definitely in the running.

Saddam was a secularist; I suppose that accounts for homosexuality being legal in Iraq.

One of the dumbest Bush myths ever that this guy was somehow tied to radical Islamists. He was a lot more likely to beat their feet with a hot iron rod.

when Iraq was invaded the USA wasn't backwards? Wasn't the decision to invade -- given the true motivation for that decision -- already strong evidence that the USA was in some respects backwards at that time?

Where does the OP allege that there is an officially Muslim nation that is now backwards?

The poll question focuses entirely on the near future ("soon", to be interpreted by those who vote in the poll).

The part of the OP between the poll question and poll answer options is about the future without any limitation such as "near", "distant", or otherwise.

In both cases, the focus is on the future.

The OP does not use the vague evaluative word "backwards", but instead focuses on specific questions of government policy. It's difficult to see how various kinds of American backwardness provide knowledge about whether or not specific conceivable government policies will be implemented in the future by governments of officially Muslim nations.

I do not consider "illegal ancestry" to be a morally justifiable concept. You might agree that the methods used by the Nazi government from 1933 to 1945 in dealing with people who allegedly had illegal ancestry were barbaric methods.

Where do you stand on "The Homosexual Question"? What government policies for dealing with "them" are somewhat barbaric, what government policies for dealing with "them" are extremely barbaric, and what government policies for dealing with "them" are perfectly moral?

is simply that person's sexual orientation and that equal rights should apply to all. Government's only role in that issue should be to guarantee everyone is treated equally, including the right to marry.

It appears to me that many islamic countries have not evolved very far in that regard, viz. their treatment of women. We have made strides in our treatment of women only in the last 100 years or so, e.g. suffrage is a recent right that women have gained.

but the culture is very different and everything isn't quite as it seems. Conservatives societies everywhere are the same - what they say in public is very different to what they do in private. The Middle Eastern concept of homosexuality is also different to the Western one.

What does Muslims testing people for reactions via forced pornography viewing have to do with same-sex marriage?

If same-sex marriage becomes increasingly accepted in law throughout the so-called "western world" and if it does not become increasingly accepted in law throughout the so-called "muslim world", then this disparity, combined with other sources of tension, could elicit a reaction by political authorities in the so-called "muslim world."

Of course, it is merely a hypothetical.

I suppose that the poll question and the rest of the OP could have been separate threads, but if there is to be an allegation of bigotry, then it is convenient for all interested observers to be able to read everything that elicits the accusation within a single thread.

My (very limited experience) is that muslim countries are quite varied and have very different attitudes to homosexuality. Of course a country under sharia law would never allow same sex marriage, but many muslim majority countries are secular so it is possible although unlikely.

I visited a muslim country where there were same-sex marriages - but which were then banned in 2004 (it became an issue there AFTER it had become an issue in the '04 US Presidential election campaign).

to both - i.e. gay people getting married to make a statement and conservatives wanting to ban it.

In this particular country (and I guess many around the world) the political and business elites listen to the BBC and watch CNN on satellite TV so they are quite aware of issues in the US, UK, Europe etc.

with white phosphorous and steal their oil.

If it was actually about cultural differences, then why was the choice Iraq rather than, for example, Bangladesh?

See the map that was posted. It's illegal and the penalties are severe. Iran and Saudi Arabia will actually execute you legally.

Any others I missed?

Central government policy may not be all that relevant with the number of heavily armred militias and tribal forces that have their own ideas on what is offensive behavior.

All "clash of civilizations" means is "dehumanize them so we don't feel bad about killing them for their oil." Sheesh.

Claims of that form are often either false or very difficult to support.

Here's a link to a preview of an article that contains the words "clash" and "civilizations" in its title:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5188/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.html

This is a "Booga-booga, bad scary Muslims" thread. There are many just like it, but this one is yours.

Once the oil is gone, nobody will give a shit whether gays can marry in Yemen. Nobody does now, except for propagandists and dupes.

I think that even the Ayatollah who issued the original fatwa against Salman Rushdie would have wanted to ensure that some random author would not be killed instead of Rushdie.

Some of the Original Post is focused on the notion of systematic testing that might help confirm the fact of a violation of some law. It doesn't include any speculation about exotic new methods of punishment.

To focus attention on punishment would tend to distract attention from the Bush Administration's policy of extraordinary rendition and focus attention instead on government policy in destination jurisdictions.

The notion in the OP comes from profound ignorance, possibly in combination with intoxication.

I don't expect a coherent response, so no worries.

There is a clash of cultures between the theocratic and the secular. It exists virtually everywhere, but is more intense in the Muslim world than in Europe or North America, because there are a number of explicitly theocratic Muslim governments, while there is no *explicitly* theocratic government in Europe or North America. There are certainly some countries in Europe (e.g. Poland), and some places within the USA, where pro-Christian-theocracy elements have too much power, and where for example gay marriage would be unlikely to become legal; but it's not as extreme as in 'Islamic Republics'.

So I voted that yes, there is a clash of cultures, and it is more intense in Muslim countries.

I don't understand your second question. Why would 'Muslim governments ...force their citizens to watch pornography while their citizens' physiological reactions are monitored (pupil dilation, heart rate, etc.' As I understand it (and I admit that I am not a theological scholar), Islam emphasizes obedience to laws about *behaviour*, and is not all that concerned with inner emotional reactions, except insofar as they affect actions. (The concern with inner reactions seems to be more a feature of those Christian denominations that emphasize salvation through faith rather than works.) So such governments might monitor and spy on people's actions, but would not have a particular reason to monitor their physiological reactions.

If you don't have a link for this, the thread should be deleted. There is a real tinge of bigotry against Muslims in it -- especially given the fact that the world's foremost predominantly Christian nation has demonized same sex marriage on an unprecedented level.

that if a country is self-described as officially a Muslim nation, then the people who have the power to create official government policy in that country are in fact earnest Muslims and not merely people who pay lip service to Islam?

the current bandwagon choice is not representative of DU as a whole.

... I recall reading that some small Muslim country was pretty reasonable to gay folks, although it was still formally against the law. Lots of gay clubs n what-not.

It could happen.


EDIT: I'm thinking it was Lebanon, but I really can't recall.