NationStates Jolt Archive

This is Egypt, which is supposed to be much more moderate compared to ones like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is there any majority muslim country with good human rights record?



Egypt jails five 'homosexuals' for three years

CAIRO (AFP) - A Cairo court on Wednesday jailed five men, four of them HIV positive, for three years on charges of "debauchery" linked to homosexuality, the latest example of what rights groups call a "witch hunt."
The men were arrested three weeks ago in a central Cairo restaurant following an argument after which a client accused them of practising homosexuality, in what rights groups say is becoming a familiar pattern of persecution.

A police doctor carried out anal inspections on the men "which confirmed their homosexuality," the court official said. Human Rights Watch said such examinations constitute torture and are medically spurious.

While homosexuality is not included in a list of sexual offences explicitly outlawed by Egypt's Islamic-inspired legislation, it can be punished under several different laws on morality.

Besides facing widespread public prejudice, Egyptian homosexuals have in the past been jailed on charges ranging from "scorning religion" to "sexual practices contrary to Islam."

Hafez Abu Saada, of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights, said the men were prosecuted under 1961 anti-prostitution laws which "must be changed ... as it's against the international convention of human rights which Egypt signed in 1986.

"This law is also against the Egyptian constitution which guarantees the right to privacy and individual freedom," he said.

The men, who can appeal the verdict, were also ordered to pay a small fine.

A collective of over 117 health and human rights organisations on Monday sent a letter to the health ministry and the Egyptian Doctors' Syndicate saying doctors interrogating HIV-positive men were violating their own ethics.

"Doctors must put patients first, not join a witch-hunt driven by prejudice," Human Rights Watch's Joe Amon said on Monday.

According to HRW, at least 17 Egyptian men have been jailed since October 2007 "in a spreading hunt for people suspected of being HIV-positive."

Many of the men allege they were beaten and abused, while police would arrest others whose contact details were found on detainees' mobile phones.

The rights group collective slammed the use of medical questionnaires as evidence in prosecution and the use of forcible HIV tests and abusive anal examinations.

An Egyptian prosecutor has previously told defendants' lawyers in such cases that the men should not be allowed to "roam the streets freely" because the government considers them a "danger to public health," HRW said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080409/world/egypt_rights_trial_gay

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: I'll keep editing, lets see if we are gonna find one.

Suggested Countries:

Off the top of my head, Albania, Turkey, Indonesia...

Answers:

Indonesia: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/indone17606.htm

Turkey: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/turkey17727.htm

Albania is not majority muslim:

"The majority of Albanians today are either atheists or agnostics. According to an official US Government Report [1]: "No reliable data were available on active participation in formal religious services, but estimates ranged from 25 to 40 percent.", leaving 60 to 75 percent of the population non-religious (or, at least, not practicing a religion in public).[2][3][4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania

Not that I can think of, but Europe did a lot more than that in the name of GOD.

Is that Just Another Muslim Country by The Bangles?

Not that I can think of, but Europe did a lot more than that in the name of GOD.

So?

Yeah, the problem is not that it is a Muslim country. The problem is that it's one of those countries giving all the bigoted, intolerant people a platform.

This is Egypt, which is supposed to be much more moderate compared to ones like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is there any majority muslim country with good human rights record?



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080409/world/egypt_rights_trial_gay

Indonesia, maybe? For a while they had an awful dictator whose name I can't remember, but I think it's fairly moderate now.

Yeah, the problem is not that it is a Muslim country. The problem is that it's one of those countries giving all the bigoted, intolerant people a platform.

Given the fact that there is no majority muslim country with decent human rights, Islam or Islamic culture or whatever you wanna call it is correlated with the problem.

So?

Nothing. It's just that every leftist on here is going to say that. I wanted to get it in first.

Given the fact that there is no majority muslim country with decent human rights, Islam or Islamic culture or whatever you wanna call it is correlated with the problem.

There is no partially theocratic culture of ANY kind in which tolerance is wide spread.
I have friend in parts if the US who don't dare going out on the street on their own due to fear of being beaten to a pulp for being gender variant.

The Countries which cling to human rights merely have their intolerant cultures better under control.

Indonesia, maybe? For a while they had an awful dictator whose name I can't remember, but I think it's fairly moderate now.

Doesnt look good:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/indone17606.htm

There is no partially theocratic culture of ANY kind in which tolerance is wide spread.
I have friend in parts if the US who don't dare going out on the street on their own due to fear of being beaten to a pulp for being gender variant.

The Countries which cling to human rights merely have their intolerant cultures better under control.

I know US has lots of problems but at least this kind of things are not legal there.

Qatar, the UAE, they are all pretty far ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the middle east.

Debauchery! Shame shame!

Can't all the fundamentalists in the world just go away? :p

Question: Am I the only one who finds words like debauchery, indulgence, and excess as positive meanings.

Off the top of my head, Albania, Turkey, Indonesia...

Qatar, the UAE, they are all pretty far ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the middle east.

By good human rights record, I mean something comparable to Canada or Nordic countries or something. You know Middle East is not the best reference.

Debauchery! Shame shame!

Can't all the fundamentalists in the world just go away? :p

Question: Am I the only one who finds words like debauchery, indulgence, and excess as positive meanings.

Depends on what you mean.... ;)

I know US has lots of problems but at least this kind of things are not legal there.

Actually, anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Despite a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, they still haven't been repealed by the state legislatures.

I know US has lots of problems but at least this kind of things are not legal there.

Indeed.
But that's not because the US is mostly Christian as opposed to Muslim, that is because the US has adopted poliies for tolerance.

Aside that, in Egypt those things aren't legally per so as the article says. The Executive and judicial power merely exploit unclear laws to give said platform for Intolerance.

I am pretty sure there's been Homosexuals in the US (or anywhere) who were arrested, fined or even jailed because of their sexuality, with some shady reason.
It just doesn't happen as often there, because the platform isn't there.

Off the top of my head, Albania, Turkey, Indonesia...

Indonesia: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/indone17606.htm

Turkey: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/turkey17727.htm

Albania is not majority muslim:

"The majority of Albanians today are either atheists or agnostics. According to an official US Government Report [1]: "No reliable data were available on active participation in formal religious services, but estimates ranged from 25 to 40 percent.", leaving 60 to 75 percent of the population non-religious (or, at least, not practicing a religion in public).[2][3][4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania

Indeed.
But that's not because the US is mostly Christian as opposed to Muslim, that is because the US has adopted poliies for tolerance.



Just to clarify, this thread is not Christians vs Muslims or that kinda thing. Personally, I dont believe in organized religion.

This thread is more like West vs Islam kinda thing. There maybe many differences between Islamic countries, yet they also share a lot. And there are many problems with Western countries, yet we seem to have it so much better here.

Another long and winding indirect OP about how Islam is a barbaric and intolerant religion, unlike all the other religions in the world that are open, gentle and full of rainbows and butterflies. Yawn.

Egypt is pretty much a dictatorship with Hosni Mubarak in charge. Hardly a democracy. You have state critics censored or imprisoned, and no doubt this law is just a bone thrown to the nutcases who would be sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and their likes to keep them from stirring even more shit up.

Indonesia: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/indone17606.htm

Turkey: No

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/turkey17727.htm

Albania is not majority muslim:

"The majority of Albanians today are either atheists or agnostics. According to an official US Government Report [1]: "No reliable data were available on active participation in formal religious services, but estimates ranged from 25 to 40 percent.", leaving 60 to 75 percent of the population non-religious (or, at least, not practicing a religion in public).[2][3][4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania

From the site you yourself linked...

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/usdom17770.htm - US.

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/eu17678.htm - EU.

Your point?

Just to clarify, this thread is not Christians vs Muslims or that kinda thing. Personally, I dont believe in organized religion.

This thread is more like West vs Islam kinda thing. There maybe many differences between Islamic countries, yet they also share a lot. And there are many problems with Western countries, yet we seem to have it so much better here.

You can call it a west vs middle east thing if you want so. But throwing in a generalized Muslim or Islamic isn't going to do any good.

So your theory is that by searching for human rights abuse in the Middle East, but not in other countries you can then say that the Middle East is intolerant. No doubt you didn't research the other position, or you would have found the above links from Heikoku

You seem to be nothing more than a cultural bigot.

From the site you yourself linked...

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/usdom17770.htm - US.

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/eu17678.htm - EU.

Your point?

No, what is your point? Noone claimed US or EU was perfect so your implication was rather irrelevant.

The point is, do EU and US files have something such as these:


An estimated 700,000 to 1 million children, mainly girls, work as domestic workers in Indonesia, representing up to one-fifth of the country’s domestic workers. Typically recruited between the ages of 12 and 15, often on false promises of decent wages and working conditions, girls may work 14 to 18 hours a day, seven days a week, and earn far less than the prevailing minimum wage. In the worst cases, child domestics are paid no salary at all and are physically and sexually abused.



Recent trends in human rights protection in Turkey have been retrograde. 2007 saw an intensification of speech-related prosecutions and convictions, controversial rulings by the judiciary in defiance of international human rights law, harassment of pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) officials and deputies, and a rise in reports of police brutality. The state authorities’ intolerance of difference or dissenting opinion has created an environment in which there have been instances of violence against minority groups. In January 2007 Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink was murdered.
...
The criminalization of speech remains a key obstacle to the protection of human rights in Turkey, contributing to an atmosphere of intolerance that assumed violent proportions in 2007.
.....
Other public figures associated with human rights advocacy also received death threats. Burdensome registration procedures and legal restrictions on associations continued. The LGBT organization Lambdaistanbul, for example, was prosecuted for having aims that were against “law and morality” and faced possible closure.
.....
After its electoral victory in July, the new AKP government failed to take immediate steps to restart the stalled reform process by lifting restrictions on freedom of expression such as article 301, and elements of the legal establishment opposed to reform continued to prosecute and convict individuals for speech-related offences, as well as for staging unauthorized demonstrations. Over 2007 hundreds of individuals, among them journalists, writers, publishers, academics, human rights defenders, and, above all, officials of Kurdish political parties and associations, were prosecuted. Some were convicted.
...
etc

Burkina Faso
Gambia
Mali
Senegal
Djibouti


well that was easy :confused:

Noone claimed US or EU was perfect so your implication was rather irrelevant.

And yet, you feel justified in making a "West v Islam" comparison. So it's not relevant to point out the negative aspects of the west?

Which means it's not really a "West v Islam" comparison. You just want to go "LOOK! MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!" and feel all smart and sophisticated.

Nothing. It's just that every leftist on here is going to say that. I wanted to get it in first.

It'd be really nice to see you contribute something for once, rather than your usual bland trolling.

I live in Australia. Tasmania had laws against homosexuality up until 10 years ago.
And yet I don't see a thread about that.

I live in Australia. Tasmania had laws against homosexuality up until 10 years ago.
And yet I don't see a thread about that.

That's because Australia isn't an Islamic country, therefore of no value to anyone on NSG who likes to masturbate with "eb1l moslemz" threads.

That's much more moderate than what Saudi Arabia would do.

The problem isn't Islam per se, any more than in Europe the problem was Christianity. In both cases, the problem is hardcore fundamentalism and bigotry.

You can be a Christian or a Muslim without thinking that gay people should be imprisoned.

That's because Australia isn't an Islamic country, therefore of no value to anyone on NSG who likes to masturbate with "eb1l moslemz" threads.

Come on, play nice, ok?

That's because Australia isn't an Islamic country, therefore of no value to anyone on NSG who likes to masturbate with "eb1l moslemz" threads.


Or possibly because Tasmania abolished those laws 10 years ago. Just a hunch. >_>

The more I read and hear about Islam, the more I view it as Christianity about 100 years ago.

There's a reason why countries such as US, Australia, Canada etc. are part of the "developed world." It's because relatively they're DEVELOPED in terms of technology, living standards, human rights, etc. If you look at it, the Western countries are the better off countries not because they're Christian- just that they were the first to adapt with things like the industrial revolution.

This MAY- I repeat, MAY be because Christianity started earlier. But personally I believe that the causes of this can be traced back to the Roman Empire- in particular its adoption of Christianity and its conquest of Britain. Britain became an empire. spread the word, set up countries (one of the few benefits of imperialism- it's created most of the developed world), etc.

It's almost a coincidence that Rome adopted Christianity. Maybe Islam was just too late. But my opinion is that if Rome had adopted it instead of Christianity, we'd be in the same position in inverse- Christianity would make up most of the Eastern developing countries, and Islam would be sitting pretty in the US laughing its arse off at all the stupid little Christians.

My, so much attention to these Islamic nations.

You know, when I was smaller, I do remember being gay in Nicaragua was illegal and definitely a punishable offense.

Being today gay in Jamaica is Hell.

Or possibly because Tasmania abolished those laws 10 years ago. Just a hunch. >_>

Did you have any idea that Tasmania was ordered to abolish those laws by the United Nations after a ruling by the ICJ that they were against the Universal Declaration?

The more I read and hear about Islam, the more I view it as Christianity about 100 years ago.

There's a reason why countries such as US, Australia, Canada etc. are part of the "developed world." It's because relatively they're DEVELOPED in terms of technology, living standards, human rights, etc. If you look at it, the Western countries are the better off countries not because they're Christian- just that they were the first to adapt with things like the industrial revolution.

This MAY- I repeat, MAY be because Christianity started earlier. But personally I believe that the causes of this can be traced back to the Roman Empire- in particular its adoption of Christianity and its conquest of Britain. Britain became an empire. spread the word, set up countries (one of the few benefits of imperialism- it's created most of the developed world), etc.

It's almost a coincidence that Rome adopted Christianity. Maybe Islam was just too late. But my opinion is that if Rome had adopted it instead of Christianity, we'd be in the same position in inverse- Christianity would make up most of the Eastern developing countries, and Islam would be sitting pretty in the US laughing its arse off at all the stupid little Christians.

No, its 100% because Christianity has a 600ish year heard start on Islam.

The more I read and hear about Islam, the more I view it as Christianity about 100 years ago.

There's a reason why countries such as US, Australia, Canada etc. are part of the "developed world." It's because relatively they're DEVELOPED in terms of technology, living standards, human rights, etc. If you look at it, the Western countries are the better off countries not because they're Christian- just that they were the first to adapt with things like the industrial revolution.


Well, according to the criteria the OP used, none of those countries would be considered Christian.

Nothing. It's just that every leftist on here is going to say that. I wanted to get it in first.

Quite honestly, take your pathetic persecution complex and stuff it. I can only speak for myself, but most of us are probably tired of your whining.

Quite honestly, take your pathetic persecution complex and stuff it. I can only speak for myself, but most of us are probably tired of your whining.

This.

It'd be really nice to see you contribute something for once, rather than your usual bland trolling.

We don't always get what we'd like now do we?

Being today gay in Jamaica is Hell.

Didn't they have riots over that not too long ago?

We don't always get what we'd like now do we?

In other words you enjoy your bland trolling?

You'd think homosexuals in the Muslim world would be more careful...

This.

Thank you.

Didn't they have riots over that not too long ago?

I dunno. I know of mob lynchings, Anti-gay music on a large scale, prosecution through the authorities etc....

It would be more accurate to say "Just another Abrahamic religion..." Historically, Christianity likewise has an obsession with controlling people's sexualities; if it is less of a problem (not "no problem" however) in Christian countries nowadays, that is because the political power of religion has been drastically curtailed.

Given the fact that there is no majority muslim country with decent human rights, Islam or Islamic culture or whatever you wanna call it is correlated with the problem.

By good human rights record, I mean something comparable to Canada or Nordic countries or something. You know Middle East is not the best reference.

I guess it wouldn't be a NMG thread unless it was all about proving how barbaric Muslims are in comparison with the Aryan ideal.

Given the fact that there is no majority muslim country with decent human rights, Islam or Islamic culture or whatever you wanna call it is correlated with the problem.

No, it is not. At most, it is data to suggest a correlation. To actually have a correlation, you would have to show that these things are somehow related, instead of just merely appearing in the same place at the same time.

There is no partially theocratic culture of ANY kind in which tolerance is wide spread.

That is true.

By good human rights record, I mean something comparable to Canada or Nordic countries or something. You know Middle East is not the best reference.

It would be better to compare the Middle East to countries with a similar level of development. For example, most of Latin America is Christian, yet has similar levels of development as the Middle East. Most of Latin America also has laws outlawing homosexuality. Divorce was illegal in Chile until the year 2000 or thereabouts. Therefore, one could make a hypothesis correlating homosexual rights with levels of industrial development and education, rather than some nebulous concept of Western values.

Just to clarify, this thread is not Christians vs Muslims or that kinda thing. Personally, I dont believe in organized religion.

This thread is more like West vs Islam kinda thing. There maybe many differences between Islamic countries, yet they also share a lot. And there are many problems with Western countries, yet we seem to have it so much better here.

That's because you're comparing the worst of the 'muslim' states with the best of the 'western' states.

Not that I can think of, but Europe did a lot more than that in the name of GOD.

A long, long time ago. Europe appears to have matured.

A lot more people were killed in the name of Communism or National Socialism, than in the name of God in Europe, and a lot quicker, too.

That's because you're comparing the worst of the 'muslim' states with the best of the 'western' states.


That's like saying, "it's ok because they're backwards..."

It's not ok to jail homosexuals.

Period.

It's really condescending to say that it's ok because they're "not as advanced" as western states.

I'm gonna start making a note of people who call the OP a bigot for criticizing Islamic majorities but who gleefully pile on when somebody goes after Christians.

I'm gonna start making a note of people who call the OP a bigot for criticizing Islamic majorities but who gleefully pile on when somebody goes after Christians.

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

Roger that.

That's like saying, "it's ok because they're backwards..."

It's not ok to jail homosexuals.

Period.

It's really condescending to say that it's ok because they're "not as advanced" as western states.

Except I wasn't saying that. Or even implying it.

I was merely pointing out that the OP's attempt to correlate human rights abuses against homosexuals with Muslim cultures is not very intelligent. And that it would be more intelligent to correlate them with indices of economic, social and political development.

If you want to interpret that to mean I'm okay with such abuses because they're "not as advanced", then that's your thing.

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

And neither do the vast majority of Muslims. However, by evoking such a powerful image and using it to criticise Islam, you probably do score some debate points with those who fall for such things.

Lets try Morrocco - I think their human rights record is reasonable ...

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

Yeah, because Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing didn't exist.:rolleyes:

Sure, they don't fly airliners into buildings. They have other means.

Besides which, you can't paint a picture for all muslims (or christians) based on what their extremist do.

And neither do the vast majority of Muslims. However, by evoking such a powerful image and using it to criticise Islam, you probably do score some debate points with those who fall for such things.

It appears that killing people at random with explosives and hijacking or blowing up airliners is the thing to do for Islamic extremists.

While some Christians have blown things up in recent memory, I can't find one hijacking, or one blown up airliner.

The number of Islamists blowing things up is also much, much higher than the number of Christians doing that, even if you take it as a percentage of their own populations.

That, and even more Islamists either approve of (by various polls) or support this kind of action (by funding it).

We've said in the past that Christian funding of abortion clinic bombing was wrong - we arrest and convict those people, close their churches and take their money away. The IRA and their religious opponents know that violence isn't helpful to their cause, so they've largely knocked it off with any more bombings.

So I believe that Islamists who are violent or who even remotely support such violence need to learn the same lessons and suffer the same fate - arrest, conviction, prison, confiscation of money and property, and public shame.

What is good for us (our policing of extreme Christians) is good for them.

Maybe they need to step up and do the right thing.

And neither do the vast majority of Muslims. However, by evoking such a powerful image and using it to criticise Islam, you probably do score some debate points with those who fall for such things.

The problem is that while you're right that the vast majority don't, people seldom take that perspective when assaulting Christianity on these boards. We hear about the Crusades, for example, as if they were a) Current events and b)universally supported by all Christians every where everytime.

What I'm looking for is consistency an I suspect HW is too, and it ain't there, and more often than not when somebody speaks up about it they're shouted down as an anti-Islamic bigot.

Yeah, because Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing didn't exist.:rolleyes:

Sure, they don't fly airliners into buildings. They have other means.

Besides which, you can't paint a picture for all muslims (or christians) based on what their extremist do.

You've just equated the OK City bombing, a non-religious act perpetrated by a person who, while identifying himself as a Christian is universally reviled and was put to death, which killed 168 people with the death of 3,000 people by a group of religious fanatics who DID do so for religious reasons and are hailed as heroes by a disturbingly high number of people worldwide.

You are proving my point.

The problem is that while you're right that the vast majority don't, people seldom take that perspective when assaulting Christianity on these boards. We hear about the Crusades, for example, as if they were a) Current events and b)universally supported by all Christians every where everytime.

What I'm looking for is consistency an I suspect HW is too, and it ain't there, and more often than not when somebody speaks up about it they're shouted down as an anti-Islamic bigot.

People only bring up the crusades when somebody talks about how "muslims are uncivilized barbarians who all ram planes into buildings"

The crusades are brought up as a counter-point to the usual nonsense from the anti-muslim crowd on NSG who try to say that islam is universally bad and christianity is universally good.

People only bring up the crusades when somebody talks about how "muslims are uncivilized barbarians who all ram planes into buildings"

The crusades are brought up as a counter-point to the usual nonsense from the anti-muslim crowd on NSG who try to say that islam is universally bad and christianity is universally good.

Frankly I haven't seen anybody try the argument that Islam = universally bad and Christianity = universally good (except by the occasional troll). The argument is usually cast that was as a strawman though.

And even if it WERE a common point, how does a series of wars (fought over land, not religion) that took place a thousand years ago compare to current events? I mean honestly, if one has to go that far back to make their point, then that alone throws serious questions about its veracity.

You've just equated the OK City bombing, a non-religious act perpetrated by a person who, while identifying himself as a Christian is universally reviled and was put to death, which killed 168 people with the death of 3,000 people by a group of religious fanatics who DID do so for religious reasons and are hailed as heroes by a disturbingly high number of people worldwide.

You are proving my point.

And what was your point again?

I haven't dissed chrisitians or christianity at all, I merely pointed out that they to have their extremist elements. Who cares about the number of people dead, or how many people support the 9/11 hijackers? Is christian extremism somehow more acceptable because theres more muslim extremism?

My point is that extremism of any kind is acceptable, and yet a few people on this forum like to pretend that the actions of extremist muslims somehow represent all of Islam.

And what was your point again?

I haven't dissed chrisitians or christianity at all, I merely pointed out that they to have their extremist elements. Who cares about the number of people dead, or how many people support the 9/11 hijackers? Is christian extremism somehow more acceptable because theres more muslim extremism?


Actually I care quite a bit. Without violence, extremism is just a bunch of useless noise. (For example, Fred Phelps)

Look, I'm no more accepting of Christian extremism than Islamic extremism. When I think of Christian extremism I think of Fred Phelps, Mormon Fundies and those groups that think it 's morally acceptable to muder abortionists or blow up clinics.

But to hear people talk on here sometimes you'd think everybody who ever went to church and liked it is a power hungry, bloodthristy opression loving hatemonger.


My point is that extremism of any kind is acceptable, and yet a few people on this forum like to pretend that the actions of extremist muslims somehow represent all of Islam.

(I assume you meant to say 'unacceptable.')

You're right, some people do pretend that, and they're wrong. At the same time however, many of the very same people who (rightfully) attack those who hold that view will turn around and hypocritically slam Christians over a war that took place centuries ago.

a few people on this forum like to pretend that the actions of extremist muslims somehow represent all of Islam.
The actions of extremist Muslims represent a disturbingly large percentage of Islam. They may be a "minority", but even a few percent (out of a billion people!) is too large to ignore. Christians who are just as extreme do exist, of course, but are a tiny fraction of a percent. That does make a difference.

It appears that killing people at random with explosives and hijacking or blowing up airliners is the thing to do for Islamic extremists.

No. It only appears that way to you. But this is all besdies the point as we are discussing homosexual rights in nations where there are Muslim majorities.

...snip the rest of the post as it is nothing more than a hijack....

The problem is that while you're right that the vast majority don't, people seldom take that perspective when assaulting Christianity on these boards. We hear about the Crusades, for example, as if they were a) Current events and b)universally supported by all Christians every where everytime.

What I'm looking for is consistency an I suspect HW is too, and it ain't there, and more often than not when somebody speaks up about it they're shouted down as an anti-Islamic bigot.

Well, when I show that sort of double standard, you can tell me. I don't think that I suggested any such double standard in my post that you quoted.

Actually, anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Despite a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, they still haven't been repealed by the state legislatures.

so its Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas for the win?:D

Well, when I show that sort of double standard, you can tell me. I don't think that I suggested any such double standard in my post that you quoted.

I will. But I wasn't refering to you personally in that statement, which is why I said 'some people.' If I had meant you, rest assured, I'd have said your name. :p

Gift of God has suggested that it's unfair for us to criticize Islamic countries that jail homosexuals (as in Egypt) and I would like to ask if that also applies to Iran, where they hang them from construction cranes in public?

After all, Gift of God says it's not fair to compare their behavior to that of western countries.

I think it's perfectly fair. Either jailing and killing homosexuals is WRONG, or it's OK.

Which one, GoG?

And if it's WRONG, why should we not criticize?

You can be a Christian or a Muslim without thinking that gay people should be imprisoned.How?

How?

With STYLE.

Gift of God has suggested that it's unfair for us to criticize Islamic countries that jail homosexuals (as in Egypt) and I would like to ask if that also applies to Iran, where they hang them from construction cranes in public?

After all, Gift of God says it's not fair to compare their behavior to that of western countries.

I think it's perfectly fair. Either jailing and killing homosexuals is WRONG, or it's OK.

Which one, GoG?

And if it's WRONG, why should we not criticize?

Oh, this is sweet. If you're not Deep Kimchi, you make the same mistakes he does, that's for sure.

Of course it's wrong, and of course we should criticise. I never said you shouldn't.

I just pointed out that South America, an impoverished Western region, has human rights abuses against homosexuals. Just like the Middle East, an impoverished Muslim region, has human rights abuses against homosexuals.

Since both are impoverished and both have human rights abuses against homosexuals, one could make the claim that the religion or culture doesn't matter as much. Which is what I claimed.

Are you clear now?

How?

Plenty of homophobes with zero religious belief.

Oh, this is sweet. If you're not Deep Kimchi, you make the same mistakes he does, that's for sure.

Of course it's wrong, and of course we should criticise. I never said you shouldn't.

I just pointed out that South America, an impoverished Western region, has human rights abuses against homosexuals. Just like the Middle East, an impoverished Muslim region, has human rights abuses against homosexuals.

Since both are impoverished and both have human rights abuses against homosexuals, one could make the claim that the religion or culture doesn't matter as much. Which is what I claimed.

Are you clear now?

Do they hang homosexuals in public in South America?

Do they hang homosexuals in public in South America?

No, they just look the other way while criminals do it. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61736.htm)
The Association of New Men and Women of Panama, a gay and lesbian rights group, reported that there were at least two attempted killings of gay inmates by other inmates during the year. It was unclear whether these incidents were under investigation.

Or arrest transvestites without charges. (http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=749)
On Saturday, May 26th, 2007, Claudia Spellmant, a trans activist with Colectivo Travesti of San Pedro Sula was walking by Morazan Boulevard to Francisco Morazan Stadium in San Pedro Sulas City in Honduras, to a music concert, when she was intercepted by the #57 municipal police patrol. The policemen requested her to get in the car without giving any reason. When she refused, they violently detained and brought her to the Municipal Police Department (Posta Municipal). After half-an-hour, seven other women were arrested and brought to the station, three of them travestis. Next, they were physically, verbally, and psychologically abused by the police officers. The Municipal Police General Commander, Colonel Sandoval then gave instructions to hit Nahomy Otero, one of the travestis arrested, saying she disobeyed the instructions he gave to trans people to avoid particular public places, which are only for “normal” and decent people.

Or the cops simply shoot them right there on the street. (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=14885)
Ericka, a transgender sex worker and member of Comunidad Gay Sampedrana (San Pedro Sula's Gay Community), was shot dead on 15 July 2003 in San Pedro Sula. The 19-year-old was attacked by two policemen who were "apparently looking for the services of a prostitute", and got into an argument with Ericka.

These are only the tip of the iceberg. I can find more if you like.

This is Egypt, which is supposed to be much more moderate compared to ones like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Three years jail is moderate compared to Iran and Saudi Arabia isn't it?

one could make the claim that the religion or culture doesn't matter as much.
One would be wrong.
In such traditional cultures as China and India, for example, typically the family pressure to carry on the line is intense; marriages are arranged, and it hardly matters whether the husband and wife come to love one another; if you are homosexual, so what, that does not excuse your duty to procreate-- if you have guys on the side, you are expected to keep that quiet and discrete, to avoid any public loss of face for the wife. However, the notion of treating homosexuality as a criminal matter is completely alien to such cultures; it appears to be uniquely a product of the Abrahamic religions. (There are also traditional cultures where homosexuals are prized or even venerated, but I wanted to use examples of cultures which could not really be called "gay-friendly".)

Frankly I haven't seen anybody try the argument that Islam = universally bad and Christianity = universally good (except by the occasional troll). The argument is usually cast that was as a strawman though.


You haevnt read a post by Kontor or New Mitanni?

One would be wrong.
In such traditional cultures as China and India, for example, typically the family pressure to carry on the line is intense; marriages are arranged, and it hardly matters whether the husband and wife come to love one another; if you are homosexual, so what, that does not excuse your duty to procreate-- if you have guys on the side, you are expected to keep that quiet and discrete, to avoid any public loss of face for the wife. However, the notion of treating homosexuality as a criminal matter is completely alien to such cultures; it appears to be uniquely a product of the Abrahamic religions. (There are also traditional cultures where homosexuals are prized or even venerated, but I wanted to use examples of cultures which could not really be called "gay-friendly".)

I didn't say religion or culture didn't matter. I said they didn't matter as much as socioeconomic development.

I didn't say religion or culture didn't matter. I said they didn't matter as much as socioeconomic development.

I can't really agree with that, either. The socioeconomic development has mattered in Abrahamic-religion countries only because it has caused the religion to decline in power.

You haevnt read a post by Kontor or New Mitanni?

Was that in this thread? (So I can look)

Was that in this thread? (So I can look)

Nah, but theyre both prone to do it.

Anyway, on topic. Im sure no one is suprised...at all...that this is happening in the Middle East. I dont think its bigoted or anti-Islam to say we are not suprised when their government execute people for suspect reasons.

However, its fair to mention that Turkey doesnt do this shit, neither does the UAE, so its clear that being a Muslim doesnt instantly make one a raving anti-gay sociopath.

I can't really agree with that, either. The socioeconomic development has mattered in Abrahamic-religion countries only because it has caused the religion to decline in power.

To be honest, it doesn't matter if we disagree on this point, as both of our arguments poke holes in the OP.

If I am correct, it doesn't matter what religion they are.

If you are correct, it doesn't matter which Abrahamic religion they are.

In either case, both the Muslim nations and the Western nations would have deplorable human rights record against nonheteros except insofar as socioeconomic development has limited the extent of theocracy.

That's because Australia isn't an Islamic country, therefore of no value to anyone on NSG who likes to masturbate with "eb1l moslemz" threads.Thanks, really was feeling a bit alone around here.

You'd think homosexuals in the Muslim world would be more careful...Well, no need... Homosexuals living in Turkiye has a much better chance at a normal life than they do in some very much "civilized" western countries ;) In fact, I have lots of homosexual friends who live untouched by any oppression save by those who are major PITA and who are just that, PITA, nothing more - nobody's jailing anybody because they are gay or anything.

And about those "human rights" violations in Turkey, yes, there are violations here - so what do the civilized governments (in comparison to the barbarians from Islamic cultures who happen to be the inventors of "0") do when some parliament member goes and says "those bombing the innocent people in the middle of a street, dismembering little children are just voicing their righteous beliefs?"

Anyways, of course I'm not saying those are not violations either way; I'm not saying Islamic countries are in anyway better than the others or any organized religion is superior to any other. I also accept the fact that Sharia is not a government regime for the modern world.

But saying things that more or less mean "Islam turns ordinarily good people into monsters and barbarians" is downright disrespectful and saying these in a "refined" manner so as to brand Islam evil by giving out alleged facts and keeping carefully away from outright disparagement and so tactfully turning the argument to the direction desired without evaluating each argument with the same set of parameters is a good lesson in demagogy.

C'mon now people, this is really turning into a witch hunt.

Cheerio!

Disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim; in fact I'm an atheist and everyone who has any right to know anything about me knows this. I'm not being jailed or oppressed for it. I'm living a normal, albeit a bit too hectic (too many gigs) life amongst millions of Muslims who are generally nice people.

This is Egypt, which is supposed to be much more moderate compared to ones like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is there any majority muslim country with good human rights record?



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080409/world/egypt_rights_trial_gay

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: I'll keep editing, lets see if we are gonna find one.

Suggested Countries:



Answers:

I dare say Turkey's a good example of a predominantly Muslim country with extensive and good civil rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Turkey

I was wondering if Morocco is... It has imporved, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Morocco

Disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim; in fact I'm an atheist and everyone who has any right to know anything about me knows this. I'm not being jailed or oppressed for it. I'm living a normal, albeit a bit too hectic (too many gigs) life amongst millions of Muslims who are generally nice people.

This is a lie. Everyone knows all Muslims are barbarious sociopaths who kill anyone who doesnt worship Allah.



;)

It's appalling that they were jailed for such stupid reasons. What happened to not just human rights but freedom itself?:confused:

This is a lie. Everyone knows all Muslims are barbarious sociopaths who kill anyone who doesnt worship Allah.



;)Heh, so we have killed all those musicians who have given concerts here? Those millions of tourists who love that garbage can of a city, Istanbul, although I can't get it for the life of me? Those girls I have been with? Those exchange students? (the last two have some good number of intersections) My guitarist (he was alive some 2 or 3 hours ago)? Our ISO9001 consultant? Our solution partners? :)

Must have hidden the bodies in an awesome place where all those lost socks go...

Cheerio!

Nah, but theyre both prone to do it.


I'll keep an eye out.


Anyway, on topic. Im sure no one is suprised...at all...that this is happening in the Middle East. I dont think its bigoted or anti-Islam to say we are not suprised when their government execute people for suspect reasons.

However, its fair to mention that Turkey doesnt do this shit, neither does the UAE, so its clear that being a Muslim doesnt instantly make one a raving anti-gay sociopath.

Is it just me or does the outrage over this seem a bit muted to you? I mean generally speaking.

I'll keep an eye out.



Is it just me or does the outrage over this seem a bit muted to you? I mean generally speaking.

It does seem muted, again I think people its not suprising to people anymore.

Heh, so we have killed all those musicians who have given concerts here? Those millions of tourists who love that garbage can of a city, Istanbul, although I can't get it for the life of me? Those girls I have been with? Those exchange students? (the last two have some good number of intersections) My guitarist (he was alive some 2 or 3 hours ago)? Our ISO9001 consultant? Our solution partners? :)


If they were good Muslims they would have!


Im kidding btw.

If they were good Muslims they would have!


Im kidding btw.I know mate, no worries :)

Cheerio!

Is it just me or does the outrage over this seem a bit muted to you? I mean generally speaking.
Oh, they're just faggots, who cares? ;)

Gift of God has suggested that it's unfair for us to criticize Islamic countries that jail homosexuals (as in Egypt) and I would like to ask if that also applies to Iran, where they hang them from construction cranes in public?


3.3 Homosexualität

Auch wenn Homosexualität im Iran ein Tabu-Thema ist und meistens im Geheimen ausgelebt wird, ist es im Alltag nicht schwierig, Homosexuellen zu begegnen. So gibt es beispielsweise spezielle Parks, die Treffpunkte von Homosexuellen sind.

Geen dienstplicht voor Iraanse homoseksueel; ‘wie het niet van de daken schreeuwt kan hier best leven als homoseksueel’

By Thomas Erdbrink, published in the NRC Handelsblad on March 16th 2006

Having intercourse between two homosexuals is penalized in Iran with the death penalty. But if one claims to be a homosexual is not acting against the law, according to Nobel price winner Shirin Ebadi.

A group of young men are gathering at the Etema gallery in the Iranian capital Tehran to see some coloured photographs. They are gazing at pictures of a gay parade in France. On one picture there’s a homosexual with a feathered mask and an almost naked nipple looking horny in the camera. “My work is almost borderline, but this is within the Iranian rules”, says artist Amin Asli.

The Dutch Minister of Integration, Mrs Verdonk, is under scrutiny by the Dutch parliament, due to her decision to expel ten Iranian homosexuals. In about two weeks time the Dutch parliament will consider whether they approve of this expulsion.

According to the refugees, the Dutch COC and Human Rights Watch, there is real danger for the homosexuals to be executed when they get back to Iran because of their sexual preference.

The upcoming decision shall act as a judicial precedent for other fugitive homosexuals that are applying for asylum in the Netherlands.

How safe is Iran for homosexuals? According to Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi it is safe enough for homosexuals to return to Iran. “If I look at the Iranian law it is possible. At least, when an Iranian court has not decided that there is a proof of sexual intercourse. When this is not decided, they can come back in safety. Even if they have acknowledged in public in the Netherlands that they are homosexual”, says Ebadi in an interview. “They actually did not break a law in Iran”.

The Iranian law prescribes the death penalty for homosexual intercourse, even if this is done voluntarily. Human rights lawyer Ebadi says that the essence of a conviction is the proof of intercourse. “You will need at least four witnesses to prove this. That makes it very difficult to prove”, says Ebadi. Having a different sexual preference is not illegal in Iran.

Ebadi does not know of any cases where homosexuals were given the death penalty for having sexual intercourse on a voluntarily basis. “I have never represented a homosexual before court. Some human rights organizations claim that there have been executions. In these cases the main account is rape. But I have no recollection of the execution of homosexuals merely because of voluntarily sexual intercourse since the Islamic Revolution. There have been executions, but on account of anal rape”.

The Tehran art galley is miles apart from the concerns in the Netherlands. “I have never had any problems with the Iranian authorities”, says 27- year old Akbar. “Sometimes the police raid a secret party, but they are also doing that at secret parties of heterosexuals. Actually, we have got less problems because at our parties there are no girls involved”, says Akbar. Mixed parties are officially forbidden by Iranian law, but that doesn’t stop people doing it everywhere. “Our parties are difficult to forbid, because these parties do not involve girls”, adds a smiling Akbar.

“Because of my sexuality the authorities released me from military service.” Akbar gives a nod to a boy who’s sitting next to him. “Same here” answers the boy. According to the Iranian law homosexuals are excluded from military service. They can go to a physician to get an acknowledgement of their homosexuality, without being arrested by the authorities.

A homosexual in Iran who wants to be released from doing military service must proof his sexuality. Dr. Fereydoon Merrabi has had thousands of cases the last 30 years in which he released young men from military service because of their homosexuality. This independent, British educated doctor thinks that there are at least one million homosexuals in Iran. “The average percentage of homosexuals in the entire population is 1.5 percent. That is a fact in every country, so this must also be the case in Iran”, according to the physician at the Mehregan-hospital in Tehran.

Homosexual behaviour in Iran is divided into three different groups. The first group is called the adventurers; these people are experimenting with sex. They can alter their behaviour. The second group is bisexual. “People with a choice”, as dr. Merrabi refers to them. The last group are the genuine homosexuals; men who are only attracted to men and women who are only attracted to women. “The usual opinion of the Iranian authorities is that these people have a medical divergence which they cannot be blamed for. If I conclude this divergence, I sent these people to a control centre of the government. Here they commit some psychological tests, like the interpretation of drawings. In most of the cases they will follow my conclusions. After this they are released from military service and are not punished for their preference”, says he. There’s also no obligation to undergo further psychological treatment. “They are free to go wherever they want to go”, says Dr. Merrabi. Transsexuals are given the opportunity to change their sex.

Merrabi, who is treating homosexuals around the country, knows some couples in the bigger cities who are living together. “There are meetings, they have vast groups”, says he. “Not very open, but it is possible. People are just doing it”. Contrary to the big cities, living the life of a homosexual is very difficult in the poorer suburbs, rural villages and small towns. “These homosexuals are coping with daily traditional life, such as being seen as something evil”, according to Dr. Merrabi. A lot of times they can’t find jobs and are turned away by their families. There are no proper institutions to provide them with the help they need. “They often have a miserable life. That is sad. Some of them become really unhappy”, says Dr. Merrabi who is lecturing a lot on homosexuality. He even gives lectures to hardline conservative institutions like the Revolutionary Guard. “They are innocent; I tell them that they are not responsible for their feelings.”

Merrabi doubts that something will happen to the Iranian homosexuals when send back from the Netherlands. “If you don’t yell it on the streets, you can have a decent life in Iran as homosexual”, says Merrabi. He doesn’t know any cases of homosexuals being executed merely for being homosexual.

The position of homosexuals can be improved, as Dr. Merrabi says. “There is a long way to go, for instance the rights of homosexuals should be protected by law. Right now they are living in the shadow. But it is probably better if you compare it with homosexual life in neighbouring countries.”

Four witness confessions from four honest people. According to article 110 of the Iranian penal code, the punishment for having sexual intercourse between two men is the death penalty. Sodomy is established when the suspect has pleaded guilty four times. The suspect must be able to give informed consent and be in good mental condition (articles 114 and 116). Sodomy is also established when thee are four witness confessions from four honest people (article 117). With less then four confessions, sodomy cannot be established and the witnesses will be punished.

A lot of other countries have penalized sodomy with the death penalty. For instance, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Mauritania and Yemen, according to the book “Sex, love and homophobia” by Vanessa Baird, published in 2004 by Amnesty International. There is, however, no information on executions of voluntarily homosexuality.

Regardless, Iran should be critizised. But based on the facts.

...“I have never represented a homosexual before court. Some human rights organizations claim that there have been executions. In these cases the main account is rape. But I have no recollection of the execution of homosexuals merely because of voluntarily sexual intercourse since the Islamic Revolution. There have been executions, but on account of anal rape”...
Regardless, Iran should be critizised. But based on the facts.
Facts, in Iran, are very much obscured. I have heard (I cannot say for sure whether this is correct) that in rural Iran, if two boys are caught doing it, one of the families will save its "honor" by forcing their son to say he was unwilling, so that the other can be executed for "raping" him.

Facts, in Iran, are very much obscured. I have heard (I cannot say for sure whether this is correct) that in rural Iran, if two boys are caught doing it, one of the families will save its "honor" by forcing their son to say he was unwilling, so that the other can be executed for "raping" him.

While I don't discount the possibility of that happening, it has yet to be corroborated by any human rights group or other source. If and when such claims are substansiated, we can agree how dreadful that is.

Also:

Christian groups in Uganda held a protest rally on Tuesday against what they called an orchestrated promotion of gays and lesbians in the country.

But police denied the demonstrators from the Inter-faith Coalition against Homosexuality permission to march through the capital Kampala for "security reasons".

Gathered on a rugby field outside the east African nation's capital Kampala, the roughly 100 anti-gay activists displayed dozens of placards calling for the arrest of gays and lesbians.

"We are fighting against the fresh campaign for homosexuality and lesbianism in this country," said organiser and pastor Martin Sempa. "Homosexuality and lesbianism break three laws; the laws in the Bible and the Koran, the laws of nature and the laws of the land, the Ugandan Constitution."

Ugandan law punishes sodomy with life imprisonment.
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL21834715.html

...that is, Uganda, which is made up by:
Roman Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 42% (Anglican 35.9%, Pentecostal 4.6%, Seventh Day Adventist 1.5%), Muslim 12.1%, other 3.1%, none 0.9% (2002 census)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html

Face it, gays are threated poorly in many, many societies, regardless of religion.

Face it, gays are threated poorly in many, many societies, regardless of religion.
HUH??? As your own source makes clear, the Abrahamic religions are the source of the problem in that country also.

HUH??? As your own source makes clear, the Abrahamic religions are the source of the problem in that country also.

Nah, you'll even find secular societies where gays aren't treated well, and you'll find hatred and violence not motivated by religious sentiment.

In a Hindu country like India homosexual acts are still formally outlawed:
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sikhs condemn homosexuality too, and the Dalai Lama does not approve either btw.

Ebadi does not know of any cases where homosexuals were given the death penalty for having sexual intercourse on a voluntarily basis. “I have never represented a homosexual before court. Some human rights organizations claim that there have been executions. In these cases the main account is rape. But I have no recollection of the execution of homosexuals merely because of voluntarily sexual intercourse since the Islamic Revolution. There have been executions, but on account of anal rape”.


My first thought upon reading that was "Since when do dictatorships need trials when they want to kill someone?"

But maybe Im just spoiled by the old Soviet KGB "We make you disappear in night" strategies...

My first thought upon reading that was "Since when do dictatorships need trials when they want to kill someone?"

But maybe Im just spoiled by the old Soviet KGB "We make you disappear in night" strategies...


Sorry, when it comes between the Iranians and human rights groups, I tend to lean towards the group that isnt batshit and hell bent on extermination of the "infidel west"...
Wut? :confused:

So that means that you would listen to Shirin Ebadi, is that what you're saying?

Or Amnesty international? In Breaking the Silence: Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation (from 1995) they didn't document a single case where executions in Iran were carried out solely on charges of homosexuality.

Wut? :confused:

So that means that you would listen to Shirin Ebadi, is that what you're saying?

Or Amnesty international? In Breaking the Silence: Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation (from 1995) they didn't document a single case where executions in Iran were carried out solely on charges of homosexuality.

I thought Shirin was an Iranian lawyer or something, since he talked about defending people in court in Iran...


Meh.

I thought Shirin was an Iranian lawyer or something, since he talked about defending people in court in Iran...


Meh.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/1atest.jpg

Sorry, it's an old picture, and I just had to use it! :p

Shirin Ebadi IS an Iranian lawyer. She's also a nobel peace price winner. She won it for her "her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children.

As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran, and far beyond its borders. She has stood up as a sound professional, a courageous person, and has never heeded the threats to her own safety."
Nobel Comittee (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2003/press.html)

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

Nah, you'll even find secular societies where gays aren't treated well
Such as?
and you'll find hatred and violence not motivated by religious sentiment.
Not in my experience.
In a Hindu country like India homosexual acts are still formally outlawed:
The Brits put that in. It has nothing to do with the traditional culture, and is not enforced.
Sikhs condemn homosexuality too
They take over much of their morality legislation from the Muslim side of their inheritance; while not fully "Abrahamic", they are Abrahamic in this respect.
and the Dalai Lama does not approve either btw.
He doesn't approve of alcohol-drinking either; but there is a wide difference between "disapproval" and declaring conduct criminal (which is unique to the Abrahamics) or endorsing violence against it.
So that means that you would listen to Shirin Ebadi, is that what you're saying?
Not on this subject, since she says she has never practiced in that area and doesn't really know about it.

Such as?
Albania?
The law prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, disability, language, or social status; however, discrimination against women, Balkan-Egyptians, Roma, and homosexuals persisted.
The constitution and law prohibit such actions; however, the police and prison guards sometimes beat and abused suspects and detainees. The Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC) and the Albanian Human Rights Group (AHRG) reported that police sometimes used excessive force or inhumane treatment. According to the AHRG, most mistreatment took place at the time of arrest or initial detention. Roma, Balkan-Egyptians, and homosexuals were particularly vulnerable to police abuse.
The Albanian Human Rights Group reports that during the year police harassed members of the Albanian Gay and Lesbian Association and other known homosexuals, sometimes searching their homes without a warrant..
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100544.htm

Not in my experience.
Then you have blissfully little experience, and also missed stories about ultranationalists and neo-nazis attacking homosexuals in Germany, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia, for example.

The Brits put that in. It has nothing to do with the traditional culture, and is not enforced.
Quite.

...it's still there though. No rush removing it, 58 years after the British left, eh?
On January 4, [2006] Lucknow police arrested four men on charges of operating a “gay racket” on the Internet, as well as of engaging in “unnatural” sex. Police claim they seized the men while having a picnic in a public place, and accused them of belonging to an “international gay club” centered around the Internet website guys4men.com, on which gay men can place personals and engage in Internet chat. Reports received by Human Rights Watch indicate that undercover police, posing as gay on the website, entrapped one man, then forced him to call others and arrange a meeting where they were arrested.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/11/india12398.htm

They take over much of their morality legislation from the Muslim side of their inheritance; while not fully "Abrahamic", they are Abrahamic in this respect.
You certainly go for the wide definitions.


He doesn't approve of alcohol-drinking either; but there is a wide difference between "disapproval" and declaring conduct criminal (which is unique to the Abrahamics) or endorsing violence against it.
*Shrugs*

Just an example of a source of the problem of bigotry against homosexuals.

Not on this subject, since she says she has never practiced in that area and doesn't really know about it.
She doesn't say she hasn't practiced in the area. Quite the contrary, she has. She just have never seen anyone brought before the courts on the charge. I hope you see the difference.

Albania?
The Muslims introduced the homophobia to Albania. It is unfortunate that once such a thing is introduced, it does not disappear together with its original cause (hatreds against other groups of people are very long-lived, well after the original excuses have been forgotten.
Then you have blissfully little experience
Pardon me? I've had people try to murder me twice. It was not "blissful" on either occasion.
and also missed stories about ultranationalists and neo-nazis attacking homosexuals in Germany, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia, for example.
Those are Christian-motivated.

Quite.
...it's still there though. No rush removing it, 58 years after the British left, eh?

Compare Albania. My point was: where did it COME FROM?

She doesn't say she hasn't practiced in the area. Quite the contrary, she has.
She said, specifically, that she had never represented homosexuals. As such, I doubt she has much particular knowledge in the area. Why are you even citing her?

I think the people of Oman and Qatar have their heads out of their asses.

The Muslims introduced the homophobia to Albania. It is unfortunate that once such a thing is introduced, it does not disappear together with its original cause (hatreds against other groups of people are very long-lived, well after the original excuses have been forgotten.
Irrelevant. It's there today.

Pardon me? I've had people try to murder me twice. It was not "blissful" on either occasion.
Hence it is impossible for other people to attack homosexuals with a motivation that's not based upon religion... Interesting logic.

Those are Christian-motivated.
No, not really.

Compare Albania. My point was: where did it COME FROM?
So you only responded to me by accident then?

She said, specifically, that she had never represented homosexuals. As such, I doubt she has much particular knowledge in the area. Why are you even citing her?
If you truly don't get why I cite a legal scholar from Iran with extensive experience in the field of human rights on this issue, I'm afraid I can't help you further.

Irrelevant. It's there today.
Your claim was that religion had nothing to do with it; I disagree. When you said it exists in "secular" societies as well, I asked what you meant, because I thought perhaps you were going to say something like "in European societies which are presently very secularized there is still homophobic violence", and I would say something like "it is the lingering influence of the religion" and so on. The actual example you gave, where the previously dominant religion was Islam rather than Christianity, and so the virulence of the homophobia was more intense than in other European countries, illustrates what I mean.
If all you are saying is that it is possible for homophobia to survive after the religious underpinnings have been removed, I do no disagree.
Hence it is impossible for other people to attack homosexuals with a motivation that's not based upon religion... Interesting logic.
WTF? Interesting complete absence of logic, on your part. You dare to tell me that I have blissfully little experience with homophobic violence, and I tell you that I do indeed, so you put some words in my mouth that I have never spoken. I do not say that such a case as you describe is "impossible", but I tell that I do indeed know about cases of homophobic violence, and not only violence against myself-- and no, I do not hear much about non-religious homophobes.
[Tmut]Those are Christian-motivated.
No, not really.
Bullshit. The Russian and Serb anti-gay marchers were quite explicit about their intent to defend the Orthodox church from our "defilement". German homophobia, like the anti-Semitism, derives from the historical hatreds propagated by Catholic and Lutheran churches alike.
So you only responded to me by accident then?
WTF?
If you truly don't get why I cite a legal scholar from Iran with extensive experience in the field of human rights on this issue, I'm afraid I can't help you further.
A lawyer who had actually represented a client faced with this issue, or witnessed a single case involving the issue, would be more relevant. She may be a great lawyer and all around wonderful person, but she herself disclaims any specific knowledge about THIS.

Given the fact that there is no majority muslim country with decent human rights, Islam or Islamic culture or whatever you wanna call it is correlated with the problem.

And of course, correlation is causation! Your work here is done!

Why is it that all threads in NSG tend to veer towards religion and belief at one point or another? It´s a bother sometimes. Weren´t we discussing civil rights in Muslim countries?

Why is it that all threads in NSG tend to veer towards religion and belief at one point or another? It´s a bother sometimes. Weren´t we discussing civil rights in Muslim countries?

The problem is, excluding noteable exceptions like Turkey ad UAE, Muslim countries tend to base their civil rights around their religion in some way. So its hard for it not to come up.

The problem is, excluding noteable exceptions like Turkey ad UAE, Muslim countries tend to base their civil rights around their religion in some way. So its hard for it not to come up.

Yeah, I know. And since these are Muslim countries we´re talking about, it´s bound to come up at one point or another. I just wish the discussions wouldn´t get so stringent. WISHFUL THINKING!!:p

I guess it wouldn't be a NMG thread unless it was all about proving how barbaric Muslims are in comparison with the Aryan ideal.

Yes, we have discussed before. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

Geen dienstplicht voor Iraanse homoseksueel; ‘wie het niet van de daken schreeuwt kan hier best leven als homoseksueel’

By Thomas Erdbrink, published in the NRC Handelsblad on March 16th 2006


Regardless, Iran should be critizised. But based on the facts.

What?


Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

(New York, November 22, 2005) – Iran’s execution of two men last week for homosexual conduct highlights a pattern of persecution of gay men that stands in stark violation of the rights to life and privacy, Human Rights Watch said today.

On Sunday, November 13, the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran’s shari`a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.

“The execution of two men for consensual sexual activity is an outrage,” said Jessica Stern, researcher with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “The Iranian government’s persecution of gay men flouts international human rights standards.”

In addition to the two executions last week, there have been other cases of persecution and execution of gay men in Iran in recent years.


• In September 2003, police arrested a group of men at a private gathering in one of their homes in Shiraz and held them in detention for several days. According to Amir, one of the men arrested, police tortured the men to obtain confessions. The judiciary charged five of the defendants with “participation in a corrupt gathering” and fined them.

• In June 2004, undercover police agents in Shiraz arranged meetings with men through Internet chatrooms and then arrested them. Police held Amir, a 21-year-old, in detention for a week, during which time they repeatedly tortured him. The judicial authorities in Shiraz sentenced him to 175 lashes, 100 of which were administered immediately. Following his arrest, security officials subjected Amir to regular surveillance and periodic arrests. From July 2005 until he fled the country later in the year, police threatened Amir with imminent execution.

• On March 15, 2005, the daily newspaper Etemaad reported that the Tehran Criminal Court sentenced two men to death following the discovery of a video showing them engaged in homosexual acts. According to the paper, one of the men confessed that he had shot the video as a precaution in case his partner withdrew the financial support he had been providing in return for sex. In response to the man’s confession, his partner was summoned to the authorities and both men were sentenced to death. As the death penalty was pronounced against both men, it appears to have been based on their sexual activity.


“These abuses have created an atmosphere of terror for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people throughout Iran,” said Stern. “But arrest, torture and execution are not limited to gays and lesbians. Any group of people deemed ‘immoral’ becomes subject to state-sanctioned persecution and even murder.”

In Iran, executions and lashings are regular means of punishment for a broad range of crimes, not merely same-sex acts. Judges often accept coerced confessions, and security officials routinely deny defendants access to counsel. Late last year, the Iranian judiciary, which has been at the center of many reported human rights violations, formed the Special Protection Division, a new institution that empowers volunteers to police moral crimes in neighborhoods, mosques, offices and any place where people gather. The Special Protection Division is an intrusive mechanism of surveillance that promotes prosecution of citizens for behavior in their private domain.

Human Rights Watch called upon the Iranian government to decriminalize homosexuality and reminded Iran of its obligations under Toonen v. Australia (1994), the Human Rights Committee’s authoritative interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is party. Toonen v. Australia extends recognition of the right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout human rights law.

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch urged Iran to reform its judiciary in accordance with principles for fair trials enshrined in both the Iranian constitution and international human rights law. Finally, Human Rights Watch called upon Iran to cease implementation of capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty, irreversibility, and potential for discriminatory application.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

your just an idiot. if your melted brain knew any better, only 0.0000001% of Muslims actually believe 'jihad'. Trust me, I live in the UAE.

Oh, back to the subject...

The UAE is getting better, but they ban alchohol. They even took some ice-cream brands off the shelf for having a 'significant amount of alchohol' (0.004%)

Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar are about the same as the UAE, I believe.

Lebanon is in the Middle East, but they are about half Christian. I don't know what happening there, though.

Indonesia is Muslim majority, but about 20 percent Christian. They are much better than other muslim-majority nations. Example: They don't ban alchohol. But, they ban other things that most Muslim country would, as well many other regular nations.

your just an idiot.
Learn to post without flaming.
if your melted brain knew any better, only 0.0000001% of Muslims actually believe 'jihad'.
Polls show otherwise. The percentage of support for terrorist acts does of course depend on the particular act and the nation surveyed, but a few percent will support death to Danish cartoons, and double digits or even a majority will support anything done by Palestinians to Israelis. That the jihadists are a minority is unquestionably a fact, but they are too large a minority to be considered negligible.
Trust me, I live in the UAE.
You do not give us much reason to trust: opening with a flame, then continuing with exaggeration. You may well be correct that the level of jihadist support in the UAE is small (though nowhere near as small as your hyperbolic "0.000001%") but the UAE does not seem to be typical of the wider Arab world, let alone the whole Muslim world.

Qatar, the UAE, they are all pretty far ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the middle east.

Homosexuality is a capital crime in UAE.

Yes, we have discussed before. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

You don't offend me, you just make me feel vaguely like throwing up, and hearing the kind of talk you do always makes me look around for the sound of breaking crystals in the night. Just because it's apparently cool to hate Muslims doesn't mean it's any different from hating Jews or any other group. And so on that basis, my nausea.

Just to clarify, this thread is not Christians vs Muslims or that kinda thing. Personally, I dont believe in organized religion.

This thread is more like West vs Islam kinda thing. There maybe many differences between Islamic countries, yet they also share a lot. And there are many problems with Western countries, yet we seem to have it so much better here.

I think we were all able to identify it as yet another "Muslims are teh 3bill" thread right off the bat, thanks.

I know US has lots of problems but at least this kind of things are not legal there.

They would be if the Christian Fundies had their way.

It's better to appease Islamists, and to criticize Christians. After all, Christians don't fly airliners into buildings full of innocent people when they get angry about something.

I was wrong, you ARE DK! <licks DK>

No, its 100% because Christianity has a 600ish year heard start on Islam.

Nope. If you look back around the time of the crusades (12-14th Century, give or take), the arab world was significantly more technologically and culturally advanced whereas most of Europe was considered backwards and full of religious zealots (hence the Crusades). I admit I'm a bit hazy on what caused the reversal, but I think it was a mix of outside invaders, economic issues and simply stagnation.

Nope. If you look back around the time of the crusades (12-14th Century, give or take), the arab world was significantly more technologically and culturally advanced whereas most of Europe was considered backwards and full of religious zealots (hence the Crusades).

The topic was the ages of Christianity as compared to Islam, not Europe compared to "the arab world."

Islam is indeed a younger religion.

Nope. If you look back around the time of the crusades (12-14th Century, give or take), the arab world was significantly more technologically and culturally advanced whereas most of Europe was considered backwards and full of religious zealots (hence the Crusades). I admit I'm a bit hazy on what caused the reversal, but I think it was a mix of outside invaders, economic issues and simply stagnation.

And that has what to do with Islam being a younger religion and therefore less "evolved"?


The reason Islam was advanced and Christianity wasnt was because civilization and cities had been around longer in the east than the West. This is also the same reason the Eastern Roman Empire was richer than the Western Roman Empire after the split. The east was developed, had many cities, and had had them for a long time. The west was backwater.

And that has what to do with Islam being a younger religion and therefore less "evolved"?


The reason Islam was advanced and Christianity wasnt was because civilization and cities had been around longer in the east than the West. This is also the same reason the Eastern Roman Empire was richer than the Western Roman Empire after the split. The east was developed, had many cities, and had had them for a long time. The west was backwater.

My point was, that are various points in it's development, Islamic cultures have been more culturally liberal than Christian ones (in this case the Muslim arab world and the Christian European one), as such to say that it's just an evolution due to the age of the religion is probably overly simplistic.

If you look at it, it's more to do with how the religion interacts with socio-economic factors involved in the society and thus how the people see the religion rather than an 'evolution' of the religion itself.

Your claim was that religion had nothing to do with it;
No, it wasn't.

"gays are threated poorly in many, many societies, regardless of religion."
...does not in any way suggest or imply that religion isn't a motivation for many.

When you said it exists in "secular" societies as well, I asked what you meant, because I thought perhaps you were going to say something like "in European societies which are presently very secularized there is still homophobic violence", and I would say something like "it is the lingering influence of the religion" and so on. The actual example you gave, where the previously dominant religion was Islam rather than Christianity, and so the virulence of the homophobia was more intense than in other European countries, illustrates what I mean.
So are you saying that present day atheists who abuse homosexuals act based on religious sentiment?

If all you are saying is that it is possible for homophobia to survive after the religious underpinnings have been removed, I do no disagree.
That is a major part of what I'm saying, yes. But I also believe that homophobia can arise even without the "religious underpinnings". I would not underestimate ordinary peoples fear of unkown or different things.

WTF? Interesting complete absence of logic, on your part. You dare to tell me that I have blissfully little experience with homophobic violence, and I tell you that I do indeed, so you put some words in my mouth that I have never spoken. I do not say that such a case as you describe is "impossible", but I tell that I do indeed know about cases of homophobic violence, and not only violence against myself-- and no, I do not hear much about non-religious homophobes.
I'm sorry for your bad experiences and it was not my intention to offend. However, I stand by my point that if you have not heard about non-religious violence against homosexuals, you're haven't been listening.

Bullshit. The Russian and Serb anti-gay marchers were quite explicit about their intent to defend the Orthodox church from our "defilement". German homophobia, like the anti-Semitism, derives from the historical hatreds propagated by Catholic and Lutheran churches alike.
That's not what I see. I see Russian nationalist groups joining forces with Orthodox Catholic groups - but the nationalists are not driven by a religious motivation. I also see that in Germany, Serbia, Hungary etc.

(Is the Members of the Hungarian National Front based on any sort of religion? I don't know.)

WTF?
Your point about where it originated is irrelevant to my post, as I'm showing that it still exists.

A lawyer who had actually represented a client faced with this issue, or witnessed a single case involving the issue, would be more relevant. She may be a great lawyer and all around wonderful person, but she herself disclaims any specific knowledge about THIS.
...backing up the claim that there are no known cases in Iran where people have been executed based only upon having comitted homosexual acts.

Her view of the situation as a legal scholar and a prominent human rights defender carry a lot of weight, especially when it's backed up by reports from other sources.

Like the UK home office. A UK Home Office Border and Immigration Agency guideline from February 2007 (no link) states:
3.9.9 Lesbian sex continues to be illegal and is punishable by 100 lashes, with the death penalty on the fourth offence. As in the case of gay males, reports of persons being penalised for lesbian sex could not be found.
...though I should add that in the case RM and BB (CG) (http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/DeterminationDetails.aspx?Id=1766) [2005] UKIAT 00117 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal found that

"it is most unlikely, given the statistics and the problems of proof, that the death penalty for sodomy is anything other than an extremely rare occurrence."

I can add also the following statement (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/19/nether14428.htm) from Dutch Alien Affairs and Integration minister Rita Verdonk:
It appears that there are no cases of an execution on the basis of the sole fact that someone is homosexual. ... For homosexual men and women it is not totally impossible to function in society, although they should be wary of coming out of the closet too openly.

...and the US State Dept. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm)
According to the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights, the justice system did not actively investigate charges of homosexuality. There were known meeting places for homosexuals, and there had been no recent reports of homosexuals executed. However, the group acknowledged it was possible that a case against a homosexual could be pursued.

What?

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

This:

In November 2005 domestic conservative press reported that two men in their twenties were hanged in public for lavat (defined as sexual acts between men). The article also said they had a criminal past, including kidnapping and rape. It was not possible to judge whether these men were executed for homosexuality or other crimes.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm

No, it wasn't.

"gays are threated poorly in many, many societies, regardless of religion."
...does not in any way suggest or imply that religion isn't a motivation for many.
It does however claim that in some cases religion has nothing to do with it, which is false. Albania has more virulent homophobia than its neighbors because Islam was the dominant religion, within the lifetime of the older generations. The culture of the Illyrians before exposure to Abrahamic religions is not well-known, but similar in most respects to the Macedonian and Greek cultures.
Homophobia can outlive the dominance of the Abrahamic religions which are its source, in common with other bits of negative cultural baggage: in corrupt
areas, police will use any archaic laws on the books for purposes of extortion and abuse; in poor areas, those at the bottom of the scale will latch on to any bigotry as an excuse to look down on other people. A German neo-Nazi punk may not be much of a church-goer, but it would be insane to claim that anti-Semitism in Germany, or anti-Muslim hatred, or homophobia, does not originate in the historical teachings of the Christian churches.
So are you saying that present day atheists who abuse homosexuals act based on religious sentiment?
Based on cultural baggage which they inherit from the religions they have been exposed to.
I am also saying that "present-day atheists who abuse homosexuals" are vanishingly rare. Out of the hundreds of verbal gay-bashers I have encountered on Internet, a total of two identify themselves as atheists, one an ex-Christian who still retained those aspects of the religion that gave him permission to denigrate other people. Out of the hundreds of physical gay-bashers whose cases I know something about, zero identify themselves as atheists.
I also believe that homophobia can arise even without the "religious underpinnings".
I believe you are very mistaken there. Homophobia is a viral meme carried by the Abrahamic religions.
I'm sorry for your bad experiences and it was not my intention to offend.
I don't really believe that but will try to pretend I do.
However, I stand by my point that if you have not heard about non-religious violence against homosexuals, you're haven't been listening.
Bullshit. You know perfectly well that I "listen" very hard to news about violence against homosexuals. This is why I have difficulty in believing that your intentions are honest.

That's not what I see. I see Russian nationalist groups joining forces with Orthodox Catholic groups
"Orthodox" and "Catholic" are quite distinct, and often sharply opposed, churches. The "Russian nationalist" and "arch-Orthodox" groups don't need to "join forces": they are the exact same people.

(Is the Members of the Hungarian National Front based on any sort of religion? I don't know.)
Arch-Catholic.

Your point about where it originated is irrelevant to my post, as I'm showing that it still exists.
As I said, if all you were claiming was that homophobia can *outlive* the political dominance of Abrahamic religions, I do not disagree. But you seem to want to argue that Abrahamic religions are not the source, and in particular to argue, as usual, that Islam cannot possibly be a source of problems.
In the particular case of India, the origin of the laws was entirely an imposition from the outside, and you acknowledge this.

...backing up the claim that there are no known cases in Iran where people have been executed based only upon having comitted homosexual acts.
A person who doesn't work any of these cases and hasn't witnessed any doesn't know much about them-- so therefore there must not be any? This is extremely poor logic.
It was not possible to judge whether these men were executed for homosexuality or other crimes.
As I say, I hear that it is common for the Iranian authorities to trump up other accusations; "it is not possible to judge" whether this is so without talking to the lawyers who actually defended the cases (if the defendants were even allowed legal counsel) or someone else with first-hand knowledge (if anyone like that would even talk). You give the benefit of the doubt to the Iranian government; I do not.

The Brits put that in. It has nothing to do with the traditional culture, and is not enforced.

True. The Kajuraho temples have explicit homosexual and even bestiality themes.

Most of current Indian laws are British legacy from victorian era.

I should add that (in case anybody misconstrues this post), gays are pretty much in the closet (except in places like Mumbai) due to social taboos...so they are not actively discriminated (stoning...harassing etc) because they don't make themselves visible. But this cultural taboo, family pressures etc in itself is discrimination (at least from current western point of view on acceptance of sexual preferences)

This:


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm

I think HRW is more reliable than US State Dep. Anyway:





Iran 'must stop youth executions'
By Steven Eke
BBC News

A US-based human rights organisation has called on Iran to end the execution of juvenile offenders.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Iran was in breach of international agreements it had signed up to.

The call follows last week's public hanging of two youths convicted of still unclear sexual offences.

Iran insists the youths were convicted of raping a younger boy. However gay rights organisations say the youths were executed for being homosexual.

'Inhumane punishment'

The case has had considerable global resonance.

Leading European and US gay organisations and publications have already launched letter-writing protest campaigns, and plan to hold demonstrations outside Iranian embassies over the coming weeks.

In a statement issued on Thursday, HRW said Iran was one of only five countries to continue executing juveniles and called for an end to what it called an inhumane punishment.

The Iranian judiciary has reacted angrily to the international outrage surrounding the public hanging of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, whom rights activists claim were aged 16 and 18.

Officials said they had been sentenced to whipping and hanging for rape, drinking alcohol and disturbing public order, and deserved the punishment they got.

Rare, close-up pictures of the execution were rapidly published on the internet. In them, officials can be seen placing nooses around the necks of the two obviously distressed, young men.

Public executions are not unusual in Iran but the execution of juveniles often attracts international opprobrium.

The case has been adopted as a cause celebre by gay rights groups.

They say the majority of media reports suggest the official charges were fabricated to reduce any public sympathy for the youths and that the real reason was the youths' sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is illegal in almost all Muslim countries, and punishable by death in many of them.

But gay and human rights groups say Iran's record is particularly shocking, having executed possibly thousands of gay men since the Islamic revolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4725959.stm




Iran executes gay teenagers
Two gay teenagers were publicly executed in Iran on 19 July 2005 for the 'crime' of homosexuality

Iran
Asia

ILGA publishes press releases and statements as submitted by its members. Conflicting information has been circulated around this information.On this case, apart from the press release of Outrage below, please also read the statement from other ILGA member IGLHRC.

The youths were hanged in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of
Mashhad, in north east Iran. They were sentenced to death by Court No.19.

Iran enforces Islamic Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex.

Shocking photos of the execution are at the links below
1 2 3

One youth was aged 18 and the other was a minor under the age of 18. They were only identified by their initials, M.A. and A.M.

They admitted to having gay sex (probably under torture) but claimed in their defence that most young boys had sex with each other and that they were not aware that homosexuality was punishable by death.

Prior to their execution, the teenagers were held in prison for 14 months and severely beaten with 228 lashes.

Their length of detention suggests that they committed the so-called offences more than a year earlier, when they were possibly around the age of 16.

Ruhollah Rezazadeh, the lawyer of the youngest boy (under 18), had appealed that he was too young to be executed and that the court should take into account his tender age (believed to be 16 or 17). But the Supreme Court in Tehran ordered him to be hanged.

Under the Iranian penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged.

Three other young gay Iranians are being hunted by the police, but they have gone into hiding and cannot be found. If caught, they will also face execution.

News of the two executions was reported by ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency) on 19 July.

A later news story by Iran In Focus, allegedly based on this original ISNA report, claimed the youths were executed for sexually assaulting a 13 year old boy. But the ISNA report does not mention any sexual assault.

A report of the executions on the website of the respected democratic opposition movement, The National Council of Resistance Of Iran, also makes no reference to a sexual assault.

The allegation of sexual assault may either be a trumped up charge to undermine public sympathy for the youths (a frequent tactic by the Islamist regime in Iran).

Or it may be that the 13 year old was a willing participant but that Iranian law (like UK law) deems that no person of that age is capable of sexual consent and that therefore any sexual contact is automatically deemed in law to be a sex assault.

If the 13 year old was sexually assaulted, why was he not identified and also put on trial (under Iranian law both the victims and perpetrators of sexual crimes are punished)?

Full story in Farsi from ISNA, with three photographs

"This is just the latest barbarity by the Islamo-fascists in Iran"
said Peter Tatchell of the London-based gay human rights group
OutRage!

"The entire country is a gigantic prison, with Islamic rule sustained by detention without trial, torture and state-sanctioned murder.

"According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979.

"Altogether, an estimated 100,000 Iranians have been put to death over the last 26 years of clerical rule. The victims include women who have sex outside of marriage and political opponents of the Islamist government.

"Last August, a 16 year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, was hanged for 'acts incompatible with chasity.'

"Britain's Labour government is pursuing friendly relations with this murderous regime, including aid and trade. We urge the international community to treat Iran as a pariah state, break off diplomatic relations, impose trade sanctions and give practical support to the democratic and left opposition inside Iran," said Mr Tatchell.

http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=675&FileCategory=1

I think HRW is more reliable than US State Dep. Anyway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4725959.stm


http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=675&FileCategory=1

But the circumstances that triggered the executions are now being questioned by several human rights groups, which claim the teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, may not have been killed for being gay.

Research conducted by the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has found, so far, that the teenagers were convicted of and executed for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old male, a crime that occurred when the two teens may have been minors.
It appears that reports claiming the boys were executed for being gay originated with the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition group that is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Accounts of the executions on gay news Web sites referenced reports by the group and its English language news site, www.iranfocus.com.

IGHRC, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have not yet uncovered evidence that the charges were trumped up, officials with those groups said. Asgari and Marhoni also reportedly received 228 lashings while in detention for drinking and theft.

The human rights groups note that Iran’s execution and torture of the teenagers remains appalling, no matter the circumstances.

‘Not a gay case’
“It was not a gay case,” said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, taking issue with the Human Rights Campaign’s statement that was quick to condemn the execution as anti-gay.

“We would welcome HRC’s involvement in demanding that our government speak out on human rights violations. It was just the wrong case,” she said.
http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm

In July 2005 two teenage boys, one 16 and one 18 years of age, were publicly executed; they were charged with raping a 13-year-old boy. A number of groups outside the country alleged the two were executed for homosexuality; however, because of the lack of transparency in the court system, there was no concrete information.
US State dep (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm)
There's not enough evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts - but that doesn't make the case any less horrible.

Still no case on record of homosexuals being executed for purely homosexual acts though.

You don't offend me, you just make me feel vaguely like throwing up, and hearing the kind of talk you do always makes me look around for the sound of breaking crystals in the night. Just because it's apparently cool to hate Muslims doesn't mean it's any different from hating Jews or any other group. And so on that basis, my nausea.

Okie dokie.

http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm


US State dep (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm)
There's not enough evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts - but that doesn't make the case any less horrible.

Still no case on record of homosexuals being executed for purely homosexual acts though.

Male homosexuality

Sodomy is a crime for which both partners can be punished by death, if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide. A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a punishment of 74 lashes. (Articles 108 to 113) Sodomy is proved either if a person confesses four times to having committed sodomy or by the testimony of four righteous men. Testimony of women alone or together with a man does not prove sodomy. (Articles 114 to 119). "Tafhiz" (the rubbing of the thighs or buttocks) and the like committed by two men is punished by 100 lashes. On the fourth occasion, the punishment is death. (Articles 121 and 122). If two men "stand naked under one cover without any necessity", both are punished with up to 99 lashes; if a man "kisses another with lust" the punishment is 60 lashes. (Articles 123 and 124). If sodomy, or the lesser crimes referred to above, are proved by confession, and the person concerned repents, the Shari'a judge may request that he be pardoned. If a person who has committed the lesser crimes referred to above repents before the giving of testimony by the witnesses, the punishment is quashed. (Articles 125 and 126).
......
In a November 2007 meeting with his British counterpart, Iranian MP Mohsen Yahyavi admitted that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality. According to Yahyavi, gays deserve to be tortured, executed, or both.[14]

As of December 6, 2007, Iran was continuing its policy of executing homosexuals, having carried out the execution of Makwan Mouloudzadeh for engaging in anal intercourse at the age of 13, in spite of the fact that all witnesses had retracted their accusations.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Male_homosexuality

It does however claim that in some cases religion has nothing to do with it, which is false.
We disagree.

Bullshit. You know perfectly well that I "listen" very hard to news about violence against homosexuals.
I know no such thing.

This is why I have difficulty in believing that your intentions are honest.
Egads! http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif

"Orthodox" and "Catholic" are quite distinct, and often sharply opposed, churches. The "Russian nationalist" and "arch-Orthodox" groups don't need to "join forces": they are the exact same people.
Again, we disagree.

Arch-Catholic.
Thanks. I couldn't find any information on them in english. Do you have a link to some information on them?

As I said, if all you were claiming was that homophobia can *outlive* the political dominance of Abrahamic religions, I do not disagree.

But you seem to want to argue that Abrahamic religions are not the source, and in particular to argue, as usual, that Islam cannot possibly be a source of problems.
Aaaaw, willful misreading doesn't become you. It makes you seem dishonest.

I do not say not have I said that Islam or any other Abrahamic religion can be the source of problems - they are.

That you refuse to believe that anything other than abrahamic religions can fuel hate is your issue.

In the particular case of India, the origin of the laws was entirely an imposition from the outside, and you acknowledge this.
Yes. I also acknowledge that they kept those laws alive for 50 years after, and that the law is still on the books today - if the Indians felt that the old colonial laws conflicted with their current values they would have done something. They have not. Poor signal to send that.

A person who doesn't work any of these cases and hasn't witnessed any doesn't know much about them-- so therefore there must not be any? This is extremely poor logic.
A legal scholar who works with human rights and have contacts throughout the iranian judiciary have never heard of them - supports the claim that there aren't any. Should I keep repeating myself?

And you're misreading her. She worked as a defence lawyer, so she would have worked with these cases. But then again, go ahead, find another reputable Iranian legal scholar to dispute her.

As I say, I hear that it is common for the Iranian authorities to trump up other accusations; "it is not possible to judge" whether this is so without talking to the lawyers who actually defended the cases (if the defendants were even allowed legal counsel) or someone else with first-hand knowledge (if anyone like that would even talk).
Yes, well, rumours aren't enough for me. So I will condemn Iran for the executions they do go through with, and for the abuses and mistreatment of homosexuals, and for having homosexual acts as a capital punishment on the books.

If a case is found where someone is executed for homosexual acts, I will take what action I can and I will condemn it. I have yet to see a credible case though.

You give the benefit of the doubt to the Iranian government; I do not.
I demand evidence. You seem to feel that unverifiable rumours suffice. I'm sorry if I hold my standards higher than what I can expect you to live up to.

As of December 6, 2007, Iran was continuing its policy of executing homosexuals, having carried out the execution of Makwan Mouloudzadeh for engaging in anal intercourse at the age of 13, in spite of the fact that all witnesses had retracted their accusations.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Male_homosexuality

Yet another terrible case. Note however:

Despite international outcry and a nullification of the death sentence by Iranian Chief Justice Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrud

Iran's chief justice, Ayatollah Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, declared Makwan's death sentence to be against the principles of Islam, citing a religious decree issued by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Ayatollah Shahrudi then ordered the execution halted until there could be a retrial.
Link (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/12/iran-state-murd.html)
- the sentence was carried out unlawfully and contrary to Iranian law.
- Mouloudzadeh was originally convicted for rape.
- It has not been shown that Mouloudzadeh was a homosexual, nor is there any evidence that he had ever had homosexual contact with anyone (let alone the victims). Mouloudzadeh himself denied it.

So this case also falls short of being a case where someone is executed for homosexual acts.

He was, instead, murdered by the judges who unlawfully ordered his execution. :(

Off the top of my head, Albania, Turkey, Indonesia...

Thank you.

We disagree.
And you base your disagreement on what, exactly? In every case you have cited, Abrahamic religion was the source. If you want to claim that there are counterexamples, then show me.

I know no such thing.
You have never been on "the sharp end of the stick"; I have. If you really "don't know" that being personally involved generates a keen interest, then your ignorance of the human race is quite profound.

Again, we disagree.
You DISAGREE that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are separate???
For your information, the formal schism dates back to 1054, and open warfare between them to 1204.

That you refuse to believe that anything other than abrahamic religions can fuel hate is your issue.
This particular hatred originates from the Abrahamic religions, yes. You do not exhibit anything to argue against that basic point.

And you're misreading her. She worked as a defence lawyer, so she would have worked with these cases.
The fact that she has been "a" defense lawyer does not mean that she has worked with THESE cases: she has not, and has not even witnessed such a case, as she herself says.

But then again, go ahead, find another reputable Iranian legal scholar to dispute her.
What do you mean, "dispute" her? She says she doesn't know about it. I believe her.

I demand evidence. You seem to feel that unverifiable rumours suffice.
Germania helpfully provides you with a case where it is *on record* that charges were trumped up, and you try to spin that somehow this is supportive of your position.
And no, I did not feel that "rumors suffice": I said, repeatedly, that I did not know whether what I had heard was correct (although from what Germania has said, it appears that it was). What I was saying was that I would not take the Iranian government's word for it, either, that no executions had taken place unless the accused had actually been a rapist etc.

And you base your disagreement on what, exactly? In every case you have cited, Abrahamic religion was the source. If you want to claim that there are counterexamples, then show me.
I have. I stand by my claim that the attackers in Russia, Germany, Albania and Serbia are not directly motivated by Abrahamic religions.


You DISAGREE that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are separate??
*Sigh*

There you go, not reading again...

"Orthodox" and "Catholic" are quite distinct, and often sharply opposed, churches. The "Russian nationalist" and "arch-Orthodox" groups don't need to "join forces": they are the exact same people.
Again, we disagree.

This particular hatred originates from the Abrahamic religions, yes. You do not exhibit anything to argue against that basic point.
Nationalism, fascism, plain old homophobia... All presently uninfluenced by religion.

The fact that she has been "a" defense lawyer does not mean that she has worked with THESE cases: she has not, and has not even witnessed such a case, as she herself says.
And as such, she supports my claim.

Germania helpfully provides you with a case where it is *on record* that charges were trumped up, and you try to spin that somehow this is supportive of your position.
So it's "spin" when the facts verifiably don't match the claims, and when I point out that there's no evidence to support the claims? Hmm... Your desire for it to be true despite the evidence shines through.

Look again: Nowhere is it indicated that Mouloudzadeh was executed for being a homosexual.

And no, I did not feel that "rumors suffice": I said, repeatedly, that I did not know whether what I had heard was correct (although from what Germania has said, it appears that it was).
What I was saying was that I would not take the Iranian government's word for it, either, that no executions had taken place unless the accused had actually been a rapist etc.
In the Mouloudzadeh case, the government was saying no execution should have taken place at all.

And still, you choose to ignore all the other sources I've listed - not only Shirin Ebadi, but the US State Department (and indirectly the International Federation of Human Rights), Amnesty International, Schweizerischen Flüchtlingshilfe, the UK Home Office (supported by the Country Of Origin Information Service and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal), etc.

The Iranian government is a horrible one, and I don't take their word for anything. Their general treatment of homosexuals is atrocious. But when the credible sources I find point in the same direction however...

Well, if a minister is not the Iranian government, then I dont know what is:


Gays should be hanged, says Iranian minister

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt.

Mohsen Yahyavi is the highest-ranked politician to admit that Iran believes in the death penalty for homosexuality after a spate of reports that gay youths were being hanged.

President Ahmadinejad, questioned by students in New York two months ago about the executions, dodged the issue by suggesting that there were no gays in his country.

Britain regularly challenges Iran about its gay hangings, stonings and executions of adulterers and perceived moral criminals, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) papers show.

The latest row involves a woman hanged this June in the town of Gorgan after becoming pregnant by her brother. He was absolved after expressing his remorse. Britain said that this demonstrated the unequal treatment of men and women in law and breached Iran’s pledge to restrict the death penalty to the most serious crimes.

A series of reported executions of gays, including two underage boys whose public hanging was posted on the internet, has alarmed human rights campaigners.

The Pet Shop Boys dedicated Fundamental, their Grammy-nominated album, to Mahmoud Asqari and Ayad Marhouni, who were hanged in Justice Square in Mashhad in 2005. Graphic photographs of the execution of the youths, who were under 18 when arrested, were released by the Iranian Students News Agency.

Gay rights groups in Britain, such as Outrage!, accuse Iran of cloaking executions for homosexuality with bogus charges for more serious crimes.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the FCO released papers to The Times about the death penalty being used in Iran for homosexuality, adultery and sex outside marriage.

Minutes taken by an official describe a meeting between British and Iranian MPs at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a peace body, in May. When the Britons raised the hangings of Asqari and Marhouni, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Mr Yahyavi, a member of his parliament’s energy committee, was unflinching. He “explained that according to Islam gays and lesbianism were not permitted”, the record states. “He said that if homosexual activity is in private there is no problem, but those in overt activity should be executed [he initially said tortured but changed it to executed]. He argued that homosexuality is against human nature and that humans are here to reproduce. Homosexuals do not reproduce.”

Nicole Pichet, a researcher who also took notes of the gathering, told The Times that the discussion began with British MPs discussing the underage gay hangings. Mr Yahyavi responded by saying homosexuality was to blame for a lot of diseases such as Aids.

Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP and head of Britain’s delegation, said yesterday: “It is of great concern that these attitudes persist and we made it clear what we felt.”

Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Nigeria apply the death penalty for homosexuality, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece

I have. I stand by my claim that the attackers in Russia, Germany, Albania and Serbia are not directly motivated by Abrahamic religions.
Here you are using "directly" as some kind of weasel-word. They derive their attitudes from the Abrahamic religions; in the case of the Russian and Serbian nationalists, they will tell you most directly and explicitly that defense of the religion is their motive.

I see you are not standing by your claim that there are hordes of atheist gay-bashers out there, not one you can point to but by golly there are so many that only a gross inattention to homophobic violence on my part could explain my not hearing of them? Your conclusions seem to be pre-set in advance, without any regard to facts.
*Sigh*

There you go, not reading again...
I read you exactly. You expressed disagreement BOTH with the existence of a Catholic/Orthodox distinction AND with the explicit self-identification of Russian/Serbian nationalists with the Orthodox church. If you recognize now that it was stupidity for you to refer to "Orthodox Catholics" in the first place, and then to express disagreement with my pointing out the reality of that distinction, that is some bit of progress, although it would of course be better if you just admitted you really don't know what you are talking about.

In the case of the Serbs, you ought to know that Serbs and Croats are in fact identical people in every respect except for the Orthodox/Catholic distinction, so that a Serbian nationalism opposed to the Croats (and the Bosniaks, who are also linguistically and ethnically identical except for their Muslim religion) cannot exist at all. OF COURSE the Serb nationalists are the same people as the ultra-Orthodox; without the Orthodox church there is no "Serb" identity for them to be nationalist about.

And as such, she supports my claim.
She did not claim omniscience for herself, or support your claim on her behalf that she is omniscient and that no case could possibly happen in Iran without her witnessing it.

Look again: Nowhere is it indicated that Mouloudzadeh was executed for being a homosexual.

He was a homosexual who was executed supposedly for crimes which were in fact totally trumped-up accusations, exactly as I told you it is said to happen in Iran often. The only thing unique about this case is a high-ranking judge going on record acknowledging that the whole case was bogus. I believe that ALL the executions of this kind are the same kind of case: I find it not the least credible that Iran has the unusually high incidence of anal rapists that they claim to have; outside of prison settings and child molestation cases, in other countries it is vanishingly rare.

And still, you choose to ignore all the other sources I've listed - not only Shirin Ebadi, but the US State Department (and indirectly the International Federation of Human Rights), Amnesty International, Schweizerischen Flüchtlingshilfe, the UK Home Office (supported by the Country Of Origin Information Service and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal), etc.

Mostly what they are saying is that the facts are difficult to establish in Iran. I give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, not to the Iranian government.

Good.

Here you are using "directly" as some kind of weasel-word. They derive their attitudes from the Abrahamic religions; in the case of the Russian and Serbian nationalists, they will tell you most directly and explicitly that defense of the religion is their motive.
I disagree, as I've seen otherwise. The "defense of the nation" (and variations thereof, including purity and bloodlines and whatnot) is what I've heard.

Though I find it strange how it seems that in your mind homofobic bigotry is somehow only motivated by religion, and cannot possibly stem from anything else - unlike bigotry, hatred and violence towards people of different skin colours, ethnicities, disabilities...

From Nazis through fascists (like the British National Party)...
on 10 July 2004, MTI Hungarian News Agency reported on a Budapest demonstration by a group of 100 youths, including many skinheads, from the Blood and Honour Cultural Association (BHCA). The goal of the demonstration was to protest against the previous week's gay pride parade, with participants singing a Nazi song, and describing homosexuals as "anti-national beings". Finding the association's objectives "unconstitutional," the Municipal Prosecutor's Office began civil litigation against the BHCA with a trial date set for October 2004
...to the actions of the police in Albania and present day North Korea, where tolerance for homosexuals are extremely low, you can find examples that supports my claim. Also among individual killers in the US and elsewhere.

I see you are not standing by your claim that there are hordes of atheist gay-bashers out there, not one you can point to but by golly there are so many that only a gross inattention to homophobic violence on my part could explain my not hearing of them? Your conclusions seem to be pre-set in advance, without any regard to facts.
Ooh, that's rich. You, who have yet to provide any evidence for your claims, complain that I can't point to examples - especially when I've done so. See above. I don't see you presenting any facts to contradict them. Nor a link to show the christian faith of the hungarian group...

Though I would also like explained why the communist party in the Soviet Union criminalized homosexual behaviour.

I read you exactly. You expressed disagreement BOTH with the existence of a Catholic/Orthodox distinction AND with the explicit self-identification of Russian/Serbian nationalists with the Orthodox church.
No, my disagreement was with the last part. As should be clear.

If you recognize now that it was stupidity for you to refer to "Orthodox Catholics" in the first place, and then to express disagreement with my pointing out the reality of that distinction, that is some bit of progress, although it would of course be better if you just admitted you really don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about... Are you denying there is such a thing as a Orthodox Catholic church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox-Catholic_Church_of_America_%28OCCA%29) now? Regardless, that's a diversion.

In the case of the Serbs, you ought to know that Serbs and Croats are in fact identical people in every respect except for the Orthodox/Catholic distinction, so that a Serbian nationalism opposed to the Croats (and the Bosniaks, who are also linguistically and ethnically identical except for their Muslim religion) cannot exist at all. OF COURSE the Serb nationalists are the same people as the ultra-Orthodox; without the Orthodox church there is no "Serb" identity for them to be nationalist about.
Again, I disagree. The Serbian nation has a long history, and there is absolutely a Serb identity without the Church.

She did not claim omniscience for herself, or support your claim on her behalf that she is omniscient and that no case could possibly happen in Iran without her witnessing it.
You don't understand what the word "support" means, do you...

He was a homosexual
No, he wasn't. If you have evidence to suggest he was, I'd like to see it.

I believe that ALL the executions of this kind are the same kind of case: I find it not the least credible that Iran has the unusually high incidence of anal rapists that they claim to have; outside of prison settings and child molestation cases, in other countries it is vanishingly rare.
*Waits for comparative statistics*

Mostly what they are saying is that the facts are difficult to establish in Iran. I give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, not to the Iranian government.
...ignoring all of the other sources I've mentioned, relying rather on gossip. Quite.

I disagree, as I've seen otherwise. The "defense of the nation" (and variations thereof, including purity and bloodlines and whatnot) is what I've heard.
But there is no line of logic that leads from "defense of the nation" to hating homosexuality, except that the religion which teaches hatred of homosexuality is part of the national identity.
Though I find it strange how it seems that in your mind homofobic bigotry is somehow only motivated by religion, and cannot possibly stem from anything else
I am not saying it could not "possibly", just that, IN FACT, if you trace back what it stems from, it is Abrahamic religion.
you can find examples that supports my claim. Also among individual killers in the US and elsewhere.
Such as??? I do not know of any case of an avowed atheist engaged in queer-bashing: avowed Christian queer-bashers, on the other hand, are legion.
No, my disagreement was with the last part. As should be clear.
You chose a section of text to express "disagreement" with. You need not have included a sentence you agreed with-- originally, of course, you were claiming that Russians were "Orthodox Catholics", as if completely unaware of any difference.
Again, I disagree. The Serbian nation has a long history, and there is absolutely a Serb identity without the Church.
No, you are simply mistaken. Without the religious distinction, there is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. They differ on church membership, and nothing else.
No, he wasn't. If you have evidence to suggest he was, I'd like to see it.
What was the case about in the first place, according to your peculiar reading of these facts?
Some boys are arrested for homosexuality, and the families fight to exonerate the "honor" of their own boy by making the other ones be the "rapists". The judges settle on accusing the youngest and most hapless boys of being the "rapist". Even some other Iranian judges think this stinks, in this particular case, not that that changes the outcome.

Stories like this or worse have been seen time and time again.
We would like to open our Nation for asylum of any one who is brutalized simply for there dating preferance. If the majority community finds you to be an actuall danger to society, then we will deal with you in an appropiate manner.

thank you.

Stories like this or worse have been seen time and time again.
We would like to open our Nation for asylum of any one who is brutalized simply for there dating preferance. If the majority community finds you to be an actuall danger to society, then we will deal with you in an appropiate manner.

thank you.

This isn't the Roleplay Forum.

But there is no line of logic that leads from "defense of the nation" to hating homosexuality, except that the religion which teaches hatred of homosexuality is part of the national identity.
Actually, there is. The nation is weakened from within by the presence of icky homosexuals, people who can't be trusted and don't propagate. And as we all know, homosexuals are weaker and would be a burden and hinderance on the nation, especially since they'll all have sex with each other and transmit diseases all the time. Remember, they caused AIDS to come into existence.

Some people actually do believe things like that...

I am not saying it could not "possibly", just that, IN FACT, if you trace back what it stems from, it is Abrahamic religion.
So it's not impossible, it just wouldn't happen? Hmm...

Such as??? I do not know of any case of an avowed atheist engaged in queer-bashing: avowed Christian queer-bashers, on the other hand, are legion.
You're the one that demands a case with an "avowed atheist". I can only offer cases that shows no religious motivation - like Robert Acremant (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/08/22/MN50950.DTL&hw=roxanne+ellis&sn=004&sc=740) or David Copeland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland), or the killers of Mathew Shephard (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/06/witness/index.html)... etc. etc. In adition to the neonazi and other groups I've mentioned, like for example Simon Lindberg of the swedish National Socialist Front or the Or the American National Socialist Party.


You chose a section of text to express "disagreement" with. You need not have included a sentence you agreed with-- originally, of course, you were claiming that Russians were "Orthodox Catholics", as if completely unaware of any difference.
Oh well, I wasn't. But it is fun how you just chose the first sentence of my statement to respond to, and ignored the second, aye? But that seems to be your MO, as you have yet to respond to my questions... Like how you would explain the Soviet Union factor.

No, you are simply mistaken. Without the religious distinction, there is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs), Croats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats), and Bosniaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks). They differ on church membership, and nothing else.
Heh. No.
(Added links)

What was the case about in the first place, according to your peculiar reading of these facts?
I'm not the one reading in things that can't be found anywhere, so my reading is more "factual" than "peculiar".

Some boys are arrested for homosexuality, and the families fight to exonerate the "honor" of their own boy by making the other ones be the "rapists". The judges settle on accusing the youngest and most hapless boys of being the "rapist". Even some other Iranian judges think this stinks, in this particular case, not that that changes the outcome.
Nice piece of fiction.

Rather: A man is accused of raping others many years ago. Despite the allegations being withdrawn, he's convicted of rape. Chief justice nullifies sentence, but it's carried out unlawfully.

No consentual homosexual relationships are alleged nor admitted.

Well, if a minister is not the Iranian government, then I dont know what is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2859606.ece
The president said there are no homosexuals in Iran. I don't believe him either.

"Should" =/= "is". Not that his statements come as a surprise, mind you, since homosexual acts on the books are punished by death. The question still remain: Are any homosexuals being killed purely for their sexual acts?

It's sad that the International Lesbian and Gay Association doesn't provide any documentation for their claims. Because as of now, they still remain unproven.

In terms of homophobia being religiously linked, it's certain that religion has at least been used to justify homophobia over the millenia, although religion is not always used as the excuse. What I'm curious about is how it came to be written into the Abrahamic religions (I am fairly ignorant about it's presence in many other religions, unfortunately I haven't taken much time to study other religions in any great depth).

Regardless as to whether you believe the Old Testament/Torah, it was written by man. Why did man first feel the urge to view homosexuality with such hostility. This makes me believe that their must be some more universal root to homophobia, possibly a genetic instinct to preserve the line that's built into us making us subconsciously reject anything that threatens said preservation.

Organised religion was created by us so a decision was made to include intolerance of homosexuality, rather than being originally drawn from religious belief.

It would follow that homophobic feeling could arise naturally without drawing from religious belief or history

To me, the homosexuality factor seems funny when talking about Muslim countries. In many of those homosexual couples up until the XIX century had no problem with religious authorities. Meaning, homosexuality was accepted by the Muslim in the XIX century and, perhaps, even before that. What happened in the XX century that the position towards homosexuality changed? Now that's the interesting thing.

Some sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
http://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2006/05/homosexuality_in_the.html
http://www.glas.org/ahbab/Articles/arabia1.html

To me, the homosexuality factor seems funny when talking about Muslim countries. In many of those homosexual couples up until the XIX century had no problem with religious authorities. Meaning, homosexuality was accepted by the Muslim in the XIX century and, perhaps, even before that. What happened in the XX century that the position towards homosexuality changed? Now that's the interesting thing.

It is interesting. Any theories?

It is interesting. Any theories?

I have one, but it isn't backed by anything but my own cojectures. Maybe Islamic Fundamentalism hadn't won any grounds in Arab countires in the XIX century. Apparently this wasn't so as soon as we entered the XX century.

I'm trying to find the article I read that discusses this. As soon as I find it, I'll link you.

Also conjecture, but possibly linked to a general rise in a link between religion and state power that has happened in the last century, and link that was not nearly as prominent prior to this.

Will also go on article hunt

I have one, but it isn't backed by anything but my own cojectures. Maybe Islamic Fundamentalism hadn't won any grounds in Arab countires in the XIX century. Apparently this wasn't so as soon as we entered the XX century.

I'm trying to find the article I read that discusses this. As soon as I find it, I'll link you.

Well, in the late 17th and through to the early 20th (well, present, actually), the Islamic world saw the rise of modernists who often espoused secular, if not pro-West, views and endorsed a separation of religion and politic. Beginning in the 20th century (actually, in the late 19th century...but certain failures of government and policy gave it a lot of momentum in the early 20th) fundamentalism, as a response to modernism, gained a great deal of steam and influence. I can go find sources, but I've got class, atm.

Well, in the late 17th and through to the early 20th (well, present, actually), the Islamic world saw the rise of modernists who often espoused secular, if not pro-West, views and endorsed a separation of religion and politic. Beginning in the 20th century (actually, in the late 19th century...but certain failures of government and policy gave it a lot of momentum in the early 20th) fundamentalism, as a response to modernism, gained a great deal of steam and influence. I can go find sources, but I've got class, atm.


I found the article but it's in Spanish.:(
I'll keep on looking.

To me, the homosexuality factor seems funny when talking about Muslim countries. In many of those homosexual couples up until the XIX century had no problem with religious authorities. Meaning, homosexuality was accepted by the Muslim in the XIX century and, perhaps, even before that. What happened in the XX century that the position towards homosexuality changed? Now that's the interesting thing.

Very true, and an interesting point. In Siwa Oasis (Egypt) homosexual marriages were an ingrained part of the local culture into the early 20th century, when King Fouad legislated against it.

When King Farouk visited the oasis and famously commented on the practise that less than 50 years earlier had been a common and accepted part of the local culture (and at least in the 1950's were still happening in secret), the Siwis were absolutely livid....

*shrugs*

My suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) is that the spread of the media shows previously isolated cultures a mainstream Islamic culture that is generally homophobic, and in an effort to appear they are "true" and "good" Muslims the local population feels they have to embrace this external mainstream culture. Many Saudi Arabian "outreach" groups run both media and charitable foundations that aim to spread a particularly puritan form of Islam, and they have been active right across the Muslim world.

I found the article but it's in Spanish.:(
I'll keep on looking.

Damn Spaniards!!!!
;)

Very true, and an interesting point. In Siwa Oasis (Egypt) homosexual marriages were an ingrained part of the local culture into the early 20th century, when King Fouad legislated against it.

When King Farouk visited the oasis and famously commented on the practise that less than 50 years earlier had been a common and accepted part of the local culture (and at least in the 1950's were still happening in secret), the Siwis were absolutely livid....

*shrugs*

My suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) is that the spread of the media shows previously isolated cultures a mainstream Islamic culture that is generally homophobic, and in an effort to appear they are "true" and "good" Muslims the local population feels they have to embrace this external mainstream culture. Many Saudi Arabian "outreach" groups run both media and charitable foundations that aim to spread a particularly puritan form of Islam, and they have been active right across the Muslim world.

I found a similar article that backs some of my claims as well as the theories of others. If you want to check it, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

What concerns to my claim is this:
LGBT movements within Islam

Some liberal Muslims, such as the members of the Al-Fatiha Foundation, accept and consider homosexuality as natural, either regarding these verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or pointing out that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust, and is silent on homosexual love. However, this position remains highly controversial even amongst liberal movements within Islam, and is considered beyond the pale by mainstream Islam. The Imaan is a social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their families in the UK.

There are also a number of Islamic ex-gay groups. The StraightWay Foundation is a UK based ex-gay organization which works with homosexual Muslims to eliminate their same-sex attractions and convert them to heterosexuality. Al-Tawbah is an internet based ex-gay group, and The Straight Struggle is an ex-gay blog for Muslims.

In addition to the aforementioned groups, Muslim writers like Irshad Manji express the view that homosexuality is permissible within Islam; however, this remains a minority viewpoint. Within Shi'a Islam, thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini have argued for the legality of sex-change operations if a man is homosexual, and feels effeminate. Khomeini's original fatwa has since been reconfirmed by the current Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics.[18]The law remains in force in Iran, where the state will pay a portion of the cost for a sex-change operation. However, many Muslims in Iran did not and still do not view Khomeini's words or actions positively. Many, in fact, despised him and his rule.

For further information, check the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

this link (http://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2006/05/homosexuality_in_the.html) that you mentioned pretty much sums up the modern mainstream Islamic view quite well. To use the authors words, with these views being "forced down the throats" of the previously accepting, more provincial people, it's not hard to see why they would become more homophobic, in an effort to feel cosmopolitan, sophisticated "true" Muslims.

this link (http://www.subzeroblue.com/archives/2006/05/homosexuality_in_the.html) that you mentioned pretty much sums up the modern mainstream Islamic view quite well. To use the authors words, with these views being "forced down the throats" of the previously accepting, more provincial people, it's not hard to see why they would become more homophobic, in an effort to feel cosmopolitan, sophisticated "true" Muslims.

Yes, that article kind of sums it all up. The problem, sincerely, must be Islamic Fundamentalism. Those Muslim braches that want to take the word of Muhammed to the hilt without taking into consideration that homosexuals, same as other people, are human too.

Yes, that article kind of sums it all up. The problem, sincerely, must be Islamic Fundamentalism. Those Muslim braches that want to take the word of Muhammed to the hilt without taking into consideration that homosexuals, same as other people, are human too.

I agree, though I think maybe the term “fundamentalism” can be misleading, since the Islamic mainstream is becoming increasingly intolerant in the course of the last century or so. Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran are all examples of a more puritan mainstream religion coming into vogue that would have been regarded as fairly extreme approach in the past.

This is not exclusive to Islam though. Similar things have happened in other Abrahamic religions. Hard line Christian groups in the United States have made similar “outreach” programs, particularly into Africa and East Asia with similar homophobic results that have also led to restrictions on abortion and resistance to treatment programmes for various STDs (not just HIV/AIDS). They have also targeted Europe, but with less success.

I agree, though I think maybe the term “fundamentalism” can be misleading, since the Islamic mainstream is becoming increasingly intolerant in the course of the last century or so. Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran are all examples of a more puritan mainstream religion coming into vogue that would have been regarded as fairly extreme approach in the past.

This is not exclusive to Islam though. Similar things have happened in other Abrahamic religions. Hard line Christian groups in the United States have made similar “outreach” programs, particularly into Africa and East Asia with similar homophobic results that have also led to restrictions on abortion and resistance to treatment programmes for various STDs (not just HIV/AIDS). They have also targeted Europe, but with less success.

Yes, fundamentalism does not only apply to Islam, there are Christian and Jewish fundamentalists too. When I used the term was to try and separate regular Islam from orthodox Islam. Although orthodoxy may be just as misleading as fundamentalism.

I just hope the phobia doesn´t escalate to the point where homosexuals are executed for their sexual orientation. In the Wiki article I quoted, I think that Afghanistan´s legislating to make it prosecutable and adjudicate jail time to those found guilty. Other more stringent nations are trying to make it punishable by death.

What I'm curious about is how it came to be written into the Abrahamic religions (I am fairly ignorant about it's presence in many other religions, unfortunately I haven't taken much time to study other religions in any great depth).
In other cultures (I used India and China as examples), the duty to procreate is very strong, and homosexuals are required to marry and make babies just like everybody else: it is not important whether you "love" your wife; the heteros get married off to someone picked by their parents, whom they may learn to love or may have a hostile relationship with all their life, but that is not considered important. So, if somebody has men on the side, just like a hetero who keeps a mistress, this is not considered surprising-- but, it is to be kept very discrete, to avoid public loss of face for the wife; the sin is not in doing it, but in letting the secret out. Thus, gays are very much closeted there; but "queer-bashing" of the sort found in Abrahamic-religion cultures does not occur.

The peculiar feature about the Abrahamic religions is not the compulsory procreation (arguably, a necessity back in primitive times when human populations grew very slowly, barely making it past replacement level and sometimes actually going down during crisis times of famine or plague). The Levitical proscription against homosexuality can be viewed in the context of other compulsory-procreation laws, such as the one that when a man dies leaving a childless widow, some male from the near kin must impregnate her as quickly as possible (doesn't matter whether he is already married; and as in the case of Onan, it is a serious sin to refuse to impregnate her out of sheer distaste for the job). But Abrahamic religions have this "universalist" attitude: you are expected to compel others; it is not enough that you personally don't do what you don't believe you should do, but that you make sure nobody else does either, killing everyone who disagrees, if need be.

I just hope the phobia doesn´t escalate to the point where homosexuals are executed for their sexual orientation. In the Wiki article I quoted, I think that Afghanistan´s legislating to make it prosecutable and adjudicate jail time to those found guilty. Other more stringent nations are trying to make it punishable by death.

I fear it may be a bit late for that :( Saudi Arabia and Iran already technically have the death peanlty for homosexuality, which seems a bit screwed up to me. Although I'm not opposed to the DP in principle, I don't think that people's choice of partner is something that the state should be involved in. In Iran it obviously was implimented following the Islamic Revolution, whereas KSA is a little different, since some of it's laws are not actually codified.

I fear it may be a bit late for that :( Saudi Arabia and Iran already technically have the death peanlty for homosexuality, which seems a bit screwed up to me. Although I'm not opposed to the DP in principle, I don't think that people's choice of partner is something that the state should be involved in. In Iran it obviously was implimented following the Islamic Revolution, whereas KSA is a little different, since some of it's laws are not actually codified.

I agree, the state shouldn't get involved in who some people chose as partners. (and I will clarify quickly that my opinion regarding this doesn't translate to incest, for those who've read what I think about it.) But yes, I guess it's already too late if Saudi Arabia and Iran have instituted the death penalty for homosexuality. Perhaps there's a glimmer of hope if some Islamic countries are working ways into not penalizing homosexuality or not being too stringent when it comes to it.

This is Egypt, which is supposed to be much more moderate compared to ones like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Is there any majority muslim country with good human rights record?


Tunisia and Senegal come to my mind.
Albania - though poor and mafia-ridden there aren't great human rights infringements afaik.
Also Bosnia-Herzegovina now is going better, though I don't knonw if it can count as majority-muslim.
Former CCCP: don't know how the human rights record are, anyway I suspect that the majority-muslim former-soviet republics fare somehow better than most of the other majority-muslim countries.

Not sure how I missed this post.
Actually, there is. The nation is weakened from within by the presence of icky homosexuals, people who can't be trusted and don't propagate. And as we all know, homosexuals are weaker and would be a burden and hinderance on the nation, especially since they'll all have sex with each other and transmit diseases all the time. Remember, they caused AIDS to come into existence.

Some people actually do believe things like that...
And where do they GET beliefs like that? From the Church. That's not what I say about where they get those beliefs: it's what they say.
Russian homosexuals are part of the Russian nation, so why wouldn't a Russian nationalist defend every member of the Russian nation? Who told them homosexuals are "icky", or "can't be trusted", that "they all have sex with each other" and "caused AIDS"?
So it's not impossible, it just wouldn't happen? Hmm...
I am not talking about what "would" or "wouldn't" happen on some hypothetical other planet. What DOES happen, on THIS planet?

You're the one that demands a case with an "avowed atheist".
You're the one making the claim: up until now your only "argument" that there are tons of atheist queer-bashers has been to tell me I must be really stupid not to know that already (but no no, you're not being offensive). So now you cite cases, not one of which involves any "atheist" queer-bashers. They got their values from their Christian upbringing; whether they have remained good church-goers is not relevant to the issues of where their attitudes stem from. Then you drag in the Nazis, whose list of hatreds is strictly derived from the list of peoples denounced by the churches for centuries.

But it is fun how you just chose the first sentence of my statement to respond to, and ignored the second, aye?
I responded, in fact, to both. I do not have the telepathic ability you demand of me, to decipher that you did not intend the first sentence to be there.

Heh. No.
(Added links)

If you had ever been to Yugoslavia, or had any knowledge whatsoever besides what you can glean from casually skimming Wiki articles, you would know this very basic fact: Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are linguistically and genetically identical, and are distinguished by their religion. Roman and early Byzantine authors called them ALL "Serbi", since before the religious divisions in medieval times, they weren't distinguished at all. There is a mild dialectal difference between the "Serbian" and "Croatian" forms of the Serbo-Croatian (but far fewer pronunciation shifts or vocabulary changes than, say, between Michigan and Alabama), but: until the "cleansings" of the 90's, members of the Orthodox church lived in "Croatia", spoke the same "Croatian" dialect as anybody else in "Croatia", could not be distinguished visually or in any other way from any other "Croatians", but they were called "Serbs"; there were fewer Catholics who lived in "Serbia" and spoke "Serbian" dialect and were indistinguishable from their "Serbian" neighbors, but they were called "Croats"; Bosnia is half-Muslim, half-Christian, and everybody speaks local dialects all along the sliding scale from more "Serbian"-like in the south to more "Croatian"-like in the north, but funny in a different way ("Dalmatian") as you get west to the coast, and they all look alike, however, the Christians are called "Serbs" or "Croats" depending on whether they belong to the Orthodox or Catholic church.
I'm not the one reading in things that can't be found anywhere, so my reading is more "factual" than "peculiar".

If we are going to talk about Eastern European religion and politics, you really ought to know this. You ought to know, without being told, that Hungary is Catholic. You ought to know that the Uniates ("Orthodox Catholics" who switched loyalties from Constantinople to Rome starting in the 15th century, retaining their "Byzantine rite" practices of married clergy, old Slavic liturgy, etc.) are regarded by the Orthodox as traitors. You ought to know that Stalin was educated in an Orthodox monastery, and like many ex-Christians, shed all that mushy "love-thy-neighbor" stuff yet retained all the self-righteous moralizing that let him look down on other people. You ought to know that right-wing politicians are full of "God talk", and the high-church people preach right-wing politics, so that "nationalist" and "arch-religious" movements are not even separate organizations. Talking to you about this is like trying to explain to McCain that Sunni =/= Shi'a.

Rather: A man is accused of raping others many years ago. Despite the allegations being withdrawn, he's convicted of rape.
A boy begins having relations with other boys at the age of 13. This continues for years. When they are caught, the local court has to decide which one to single out for execution as the "rapist", and picks on him.

Where is your version of this story? What do you think started this case in the first place? You think somebody invented this unlikely accusation about a 13-year-old who runs around raping older guys, just out of nothing, and for some reason everybody thought this sounded plausible? You show no understanding of how things work on the ground.

Chief justice nullifies sentence, but it's carried out unlawfully.
The local court is "the law" in Iran every bit as much as the court in Teheran. You are taking for granted a Western presumption that lower courts have to change their rulings if appeals courts tell them so: a proper "rule of law" society ought to work that way, but Iran is not that kind of place. The local court heard the opinion of the court in Teheran and effectively said, "Meh, those are city folk, what do they know?" Rural Iran is much more medieval than urban Iran (and seems actually to be moving backwards in time), and urban Iran, though sometimes as here expressing disapproval, doesn't actually force it to change.

In Shi'ite Islam, there is no "Pope"; someone who doesn't like what a local ayatollah has decreed might ask an ayatollah with a wider following, more seniority, and greater respect for a second opinion, but although that opinion will be carefully listened to, the local ayatollah is under no obligation to be bound by it. The Iranian courts, odd though this sounds to us, appear to operate the same way.

No consentual homosexual relationships are alleged nor admitted.
Of course none are "admitted". ADMITTING IT IS AUTOMATIC DEATH: look at the statute. That is why "there are no homosexuals in Iran" (for some odd reason, you are willing to believe that there actually are some homosexuals in Iran, without any of the "documentation" you otherwise demand). And there is no such thing as immunity in exchange for testimony: the laws call for four "righteous" witnesses. When homosexuals are caught, unless it is by a mob (and I do not know of such a case), then to make up the set of four witnesses it is usually necessary to coerce one of the partners to testify: and he has to testify that he was "raped" since unless he claims to be "righteous" his testimony is inadmissible.

When you demand to see a case where there was no allegation except consensual homosexuality, you are requiring that homosexuals get caught in the act by four or more people, and that neither of the families try to get the courts to label their son the "righteous" one who was "raped" by the other. I am not saying that "couldn't" happen; again I am just talking about what does, and doesn't, happen, in the actual Iran that exists.

^ have you seen the movie Kite Runner?

There is a anal-rape scene of a boy for a second or two. Just for that, for a one second or so fictional scene in a movie, the studio had to do this

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419887/trivia
Due to Afghan mores concerning male rape, Paramount Vantage agreed to relocate the young actors out of the country to the United Arab Emirates and arrange visas, housing and schooling for the young actors and jobs for their guardians. Paramount Vantage accepts responsibility for the living expenses of Zekeria Ebrahimi, Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada, Ali Danish Bakhty Ari and Sayed Jafar Masihullah Gharibzada until they reach adulthood, a cost some estimated at up to $500,000.


In such a milieu, imagine the pressure if you are caught for consensual homosexual sex....not just social taboo..but also severe corporal punishment if it is proved that you did have consensual sex...so of course the bigger party (money, status) will have their son/kin to be a victim and the other guy as an offender.

Tunisia and Senegal come to my mind.
Albania - though poor and mafia-ridden there aren't great human rights infringements afaik.
Also Bosnia-Herzegovina now is going better, though I don't knonw if it can count as majority-muslim.
Former CCCP: don't know how the human rights record are, anyway I suspect that the majority-muslim former-soviet republics fare somehow better than most of the other majority-muslim countries.

To be completely honest, I had no idea Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina were in a majority, Muslim. I always thought that the main religion in both nations was Eastern Orthodox. I guess the saying it´s true, one learns something new every day.:)

And where do they GET beliefs like that? From the Church. That's not what I say about where they get those beliefs: it's what they say.
Good. So you can back that claim up with evidence, and show me why the communists during the Soviet Union era also were convinced by the church.

Russian homosexuals are part of the Russian nation, so why wouldn't a Russian nationalist defend every member of the Russian nation?
See my previous posts.

Who told them homosexuals are "icky", or "can't be trusted", that "they all have sex with each other" and "caused AIDS"?
Dunno. Were they told by anyone? Did they see it on the internet? Hear it from friends?

Doesn't matter to my argument, as long as they're not motivated by religion.

I am not talking about what "would" or "wouldn't" happen on some hypothetical other planet. What DOES happen, on THIS planet?
Both things.

You're the one making the claim: up until now your only "argument" that there are tons of atheist queer-bashers has been to tell me I must be really stupid not to know that already (but no no, you're not being offensive). So now you cite cases, not one of which involves any "atheist" queer-bashers. They got their values from their Christian upbringing; whether they have remained good church-goers is not relevant to the issues of where their attitudes stem from.
And now you're making stuff up again. Nowhere does it say those had a Christian upbringing.

Then you drag in the Nazis, whose list of hatreds is strictly derived from the list of peoples denounced by the churches for centuries.
Just because they hate the same people doesn't mean that the nazi hate is motivated by religion.

I responded, in fact, to both.
Actually, you did not.


"Orthodox" and "Catholic" are quite distinct, and often sharply opposed, churches. The "Russian nationalist" and "arch-Orthodox" groups don't need to "join forces": they are the exact same people.
Again, we disagree.
You DISAGREE that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are separate??
See? You only responded to the first sentence, and chose not to comment on second one - which would have been more logical on your part, mind.


If you had ever been to Yugoslavia
...

Again, we'll disagree on the general points. I think your claim has too little nuance.

Talking to you about this is like trying to explain to McCain that Sunni =/= Shi'a.
Funny - I was just thinking talking to you was just like hearing someone claim that the difference between Iran and Iraq was just the Shi'a - Sunni religious split.

A boy begins having relations with other boys at the age of 13. This continues for years. When they are caught, the local court has to decide which one to single out for execution as the "rapist", and picks on him.
Pure speculation/fiction.

Where is your version of this story?
Follow the links.

What do you think started this case in the first place? You think somebody invented this unlikely accusation about a 13-year-old who runs around raping older guys, just out of nothing, and for some reason everybody thought this sounded plausible?
I don't feel like speculating without any facts - unlike others - but it's not impossible that they attacked him for other reasons. Maybe he had sullied their honour in some way, dated a daughter he shouldn't, not paid for a camel - we don't know.

You show no understanding of how things work on the ground.
Actually, I have a lot of understanding. That you feel like demonizing certain religions and countries not based on facts doesn't change that.

The local court is "the law" in Iran every bit as much as the court in Teheran. You are taking for granted a Western presumption that lower courts have to change their rulings if appeals courts tell them so: a proper "rule of law" society ought to work that way, but Iran is not that kind of place. The local court heard the opinion of the court in Teheran and effectively said, "Meh, those are city folk, what do they know?" Rural Iran is much more medieval than urban Iran (and seems actually to be moving backwards in time), and urban Iran, though sometimes as here expressing disapproval, doesn't actually force it to change.

In Shi'ite Islam, there is no "Pope"; someone who doesn't like what a local ayatollah has decreed might ask an ayatollah with a wider following, more seniority, and greater respect for a second opinion, but although that opinion will be carefully listened to, the local ayatollah is under no obligation to be bound by it. The Iranian courts, odd though this sounds to us, appear to operate the same way.
You know, your vast array of sources and links really convinced me, and the various quotes from the numerous articles you provided changed my mind and made me see the light.

Of course none are "admitted". ADMITTING IT IS AUTOMATIC DEATH: look at the statute.
And that justifies you just making shit up? Hardly.

Next time, you can focus on the word "alleged" that you conveniently did not start shouting about.


That is why "there are no homosexuals in Iran"
Actually, that seems to be because the Judiciary doesn't recognize the concept of sexual orientation, meaning that from a legal standpoint there are no homosexuals or bisexuals in the country - only heterosexuals "committing" homosexual acts. So in a way, the president sneakily didn't exactly lie...

But nevermind that now.


(for some odd reason, you are willing to believe that there actually are some homosexuals in Iran, without any of the "documentation" you otherwise demand).
*Cough*

Disregarding that I've actually provided sources even for that fact, eh? Even in my first post?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13598615&postcount=96
I can add another quote, just for you:
According to the Berlin COI Information Seminar Report 2001, although homosexuality is never spoken about and thus a hidden issue, in practice it is not difficult to encounter homosexuals in Iran. There are special parks in Tehran, known as homosexual meeting places. There are also a large number of transvestites walking around in north Tehran.

...

A different sexual orientation may, however, create problems. Still, homosexuality is practised every day, and as long as this happens behind closed doors within your own four walls, and as long as people do not intend to proselytise ‘transvestism’ or homosexuality, they will most likely remain unharmed.

I am not saying that "couldn't" happen; again I am just talking about what does, and doesn't, happen, in the actual Iran that exists.
And when you don't provide any evidence except your speculation that it may happen - well, that's just not very convincing.

To be completely honest, I had no idea Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina were in a majority, Muslim. I always thought that the main religion in both nations was Eastern Orthodox. I guess the saying it´s true, one learns something new every day.:)

Well, this should also be mentioned about Albania:
The majority of citizens were secular in orientation after decades of rigidly enforced atheism under the communist regime, which ended in 1990. No reliable data were available on active participation in formal religious services, but estimates ranged from 25 to 40 percent.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71364.htm

Well, this should also be mentioned about Albania:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71364.htm

Interesting. Thanks.

Not that I can think of, but Europe did a lot more than that in the name of GOD.The key word is DID more then half of century ago and also remember that the Middle Age Crusades were often more of a reactionary assualt.

The key word is DID more then half of century ago and also remember that the Middle Age Crusades were often more of a reactionary assualt.

:confused:

The key word is DID more then half of century ago and also remember that the Middle Age Crusades were often more of a reactionary assualt.

The Crusades were far more than just a mere reactionary assault. The Crusades are the very cause of the rift between Muslim and Christian. The Crusades are one of the causes of every single Middle-Eastern terrorist calling us Westerners ¨infidel¨ and worthy of dying by violence. The Crusades were far more than what you can fathom. The war on Iraq was a reactionary assault.

also remember that the Middle Age Crusades were often more of a reactionary assualt.

Thats just plain false and fucking stupid. The level of historical ignorance in this statement is disgusting. Pick up a fucking book by a writer with some credentials and correct this horrid lack of knowledge immeditally..

Thats just plain false and fucking stupid. The level of historical ignorance in this statement is disgusting. Pick up a fucking book by a writer with some credentials and correct this horrid lack of knowledge immeditally..

Amen brother KoL! Amen!

Good. So you can back that claim up with evidence, and show me why the communists during the Soviet Union era also were convinced by the church.
You aren't paying any attention at all, are you? I have said that homophobia can *outlive* the Abrahamic religions; however, in all known cases it *originates* with the Abrahamic religions. That the Communists *continued* persecutions which *started* under the Orthodox church is a precise example of what I am talking about.

Dunno. Were they told by anyone? Did they see it on the internet? Hear it from friends?
What do they say themselves about where they learned this?
Last year's attempt to hold a Moscow Pride demonstration following a similar ban was broken up by police, who allowed fascist skinheads and Russian Orthodox religious extremists to violently attack the gay contingent, injuring a number of participants - including openly gay European political figures who had come to Moscow in support. Volker Beck, a member of Germany's Bundestag, its parliament, was among those hurt. (See this reporter's article, "Police, Fascists Crush Moscow Pride," June 1-7, 2006.)

In January, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, calling the Pride events "satanic," vowed to repeat last year's ban in 2007.

"We did not let the parade take place then, and we are not going to allow it in the future," Luzhkov told a meeting in the Kremlin Palace. He went on to say, "Last year, Moscow came under unprecedented pressure to sanction the gay parade, which can be described in no other way than as satanic."

At the time, Luzhkov blamed the West for trying to promote gay relationships under the cover of freedom of expression.

"Religious thinkers throughout the world have said that the West has reached a crisis of faith," the mayor said. "Some European nations bless single-sex marriages and introduce sexual guides in schools - such things are a deadly moral poison for children."

Doesn't matter to my argument, as long as they're not motivated by religion.
The argument is whether it *originated* with religion, whether or not other aspects of the religious faith persist.
And now you're making stuff up again. Nowhere does it say those had a Christian upbringing.
Pretend what you want. Your claim was that there were tons and tons of "atheists" attacking gays, and that I "must not be listening" if I have not heard of all those "atheists" attacking gays. I told you I have not heard of any "atheists" attacking gays, and you still provide none.
Just because they hate the same people doesn't mean that the nazi hate is motivated by religion.
Not the issue: this list of people to hate *originated* with the religion. The Nazis didn't suddenly decide to start hating Jews: Jew-hatred originated in Germany from centuries of preaching BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (Catholic and Protestant alike). The homophobia is of the same *origin*. It is very unfortunate that, of all the aspects of the Christian religion, the "love your neighbor" has the least persistence, while the hatreds have the most, but it is just a fact that lots of "post-Christian" people still hold onto only the ugly parts of the ideology.
See? You only responded to the first sentence, and chose not to comment on second one - which would have been more logical on your part, mind.
I have been commenting *throughout*, and did so again, one line down, that the hatreds expressed by the nationalists are derived from the Abrahamic religions.

Again, we'll disagree on the general points. I think your claim has too little nuance.
That Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are linguistically and genetically IDENTICAL, defined as sub-groups by their RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION and nothing else (not geography, not dialect, not appearance) is just a very basic fact. I don't give a damn how many times you "disagree".

Funny - I was just thinking talking to you was just like hearing someone claim that the difference between Iran and Iraq was just the Shi'a - Sunni religious split.
That would be easily shown to be mistaken. The majority language of Iranians is Farsi, an Indo-European language; while the majority language of Iraqis is Arabic, a Semitic language; Farsi actually shares more with English, and Arabic much more with Hebrew, than those two languages do with each other (the amount they share with each other, apart from very recent and easily noted borrowings, is close to the "background noise"; the last common ancestor of the Indo-European and Semitic languages has to be over 20,000 years ago and some would say more, so that the common inheritances are scarcely more common than the coincidental hits one would find by sheer chance between any two languages). The groups are also genetically distinguishable (you could look up Cavalli-Sforza's massive studies, if you cared to), enough so that someone from the region familiar with both would have a good chance of guessing which was which solely from naked-eye observation.
If you think that Serbs and Croats have any such ethnic distinction, you are flat-out, grossly, wildly mistaken.

Follow the links.
The links give bare-bone facts, which are easy enough to flesh out into a coherent account of what actually happened, or so I would have thought. I have told you what *I* see as the story: I ask what *you* see.

I don't feel like speculating without any facts - unlike others - but it's not impossible that they attacked him for other reasons. Maybe he had sullied their honour in some way, dated a daughter he shouldn't, not paid for a camel - we don't know.
The particular *manner* of the "attack" which you are positing-- inventing a wholly fictitious story about how he was such a strapping 13-year-old as to overpower older boys, repeatedly-- is what I was asking you to explain. You would think if they had some motive to "attack" him that instead they would invent a story that has some remote plausibility? I repeat, it is wholly implausible that Iran has such a high rate of anal rapes that this comes up over and over again: in other nations, I repeat, outside of prison contexts and child abuse cases it is vanishingly rare (that is a technical term in statistics, meaning too low a rate to measure; not reliably distinguishable from zero: you demanded comparative statistics, and what I was telling you that you just hardly ever hear of any such cases anywhere else; find me a bunch of them, first, and then we could talk about "comparing the rates", but when we don't have any such reports at all, from anywhere else, there is nothing to "compare").
However, if you look at the statutes that were provided for you, and realize how a prosecution of homosexuals has to proceed, it is immediately obvious why an accusation of "rape" is an invariable feature of these cases.
You know, your vast array of sources and links really convinced me, and the various quotes from the numerous articles you provided changed my mind and made me see the light.
We are talking about what *actually* happened in one case that has already been sourced. You bring in all these presumptions, that the opinion of the chief justice overrules the local court and therefore it was "murder" under Iranian law for the local court to just go ahead with the execution anyway: but, that is not how it actually happened, now is it? In the United States, if local authorities killed a man after the Supreme Court told them not to, that would be a "murder" case-- but do you have any SOURCE or LINK to substantiate that the local judges in Iran, in this case, were actually accused of murder? Of course not: evidently, regardless of how you might think courts "ought to" work, what we see in this case is how Iranian courts DO work. The appeals courts gave its opinion, but the local court did not consider itself under any obligation to defer to that opinion, and you have shown nothing to substantiate any claim that the local judges were in any kind of trouble as a consequence-- so, in fact that is how things go, in that country. I explained why it is not actually terribly surprising that this is how things work in Iran.
[Tmut] Of course none are "admitted". ADMITTING IT IS AUTOMATIC DEATH: look at the statute.
And that justifies you just making shit up? Hardly.
I didn't make that up. LOOK AT THE STATUTE.
Next time, you can focus on the word "alleged" that you conveniently did not start shouting about.
Sigh. Try to get a clue how this works. The cases won't "allege" consensual homosexuality unless they can prove that: and that can't happen unless they can get "righteous" witnesses to testify to that-- and by definition, a witness who testifies to consenting to homosexuality is not "righteous", indeed is subject to the death penalty.

Actually, that seems to be because the Judiciary doesn't recognize the concept of sexual orientation, meaning that from a legal standpoint there are no homosexuals or bisexuals in the country - only heterosexuals "committing" homosexual acts.
Because: nobody in Iran "admits" to being a homosexual. Therefore, "nobody is".

Disregarding that I've actually provided sources even for that fact, eh? Even in my first post?
You are providing what, if it came from me, you would call unsubstantiated rumors. Show me somebody in Iran admitting to being a homosexual!

[Tmutarakhan]
I am not saying that "couldn't" happen; again I am just talking about what does, and doesn't, happen, in the actual Iran that exists.

And when you don't provide any evidence except your speculation that it may happen - well, that's just not very convincing.
We are talking about a case in which it DID happen, although you are unwilling to get real about it.

You aren't paying any attention at all, are you? I have said that homophobia can *outlive* the Abrahamic religions; however, in all known cases it *originates* with the Abrahamic religions. That the Communists *continued* persecutions which *started* under the Orthodox church is a precise example of what I am talking about.
And you don't back up your assertion that the communists and atheist supporters would pick and choose what influences and religious dogma to make into national legislation. So you don't show the link you claim there.


Pretend what you want. Your claim was that there were tons and tons of "atheists" attacking gays, and that I "must not be listening" if I have not heard of all those "atheists" attacking gays. I told you I have not heard of any "atheists" attacking gays, and you still provide none.
That was your version of my claim:
Then you have blissfully little experience, and also missed stories about ultranationalists and neo-nazis attacking homosexuals in Germany, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia, for example.
...so again, you should stop making things up.

I do stand by my claim that non-religious nationalists have been attacking gays, and refer to my other posts - and even the article you posted, that seems to seperate fascist skinheads and Russian Orthodox religious extremists .

And you have yet to show that the examples had a "Christian upbringing" as you claimed.

Not the issue: this list of people to hate *originated* with the religion. The Nazis didn't suddenly decide to start hating Jews: Jew-hatred originated in Germany from centuries of preaching BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (Catholic and Protestant alike). The homophobia is of the same *origin*. It is very unfortunate that, of all the aspects of the Christian religion, the "love your neighbor" has the least persistence, while the hatreds have the most, but it is just a fact that lots of "post-Christian" people still hold onto only the ugly parts of the ideology.
And I think the ideology not necessarily originated in religion, but rather the economic and societal situation at the time. For example, the rich jewish merchants and bankers being prime targets for bitter and disgruntled germans seeking someone to blame - without any regard to religious sentiments. And I think that can and will happen today.

I have been commenting *throughout*, and did so again, one line down, that the hatreds expressed by the nationalists are derived from the Abrahamic religions.
Irrelevant to your faux outrage at me disagreeing with the fact that Russian nationalist and "arch-Orthodox groups" were the same people that you kept harping on.

That Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks are linguistically and genetically IDENTICAL, defined as sub-groups by their RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION and nothing else (not geography, not dialect, not appearance) is just a very basic fact.
Excapt differences in language, and culture, and history...

I don't give a damn how many times you "disagree".
Alright, let me put it this way then: You're wrong.

But hey, feel free to make a thread on it if you want further debate on it.

The links give bare-bone facts, which are easy enough to flesh out into a coherent account of what actually happened, or so I would have thought. I have told you what *I* see as the story: I ask what *you* see.
I see the facts. YOu seem to be willing to ignore them.

The particular *manner* of the "attack" which you are positing-- inventing a wholly fictitious story about how he was such a strapping 13-year-old as to overpower older boys, repeatedly-- is what I was asking you to explain. You would think if they had some motive to "attack" him that instead they would invent a story that has some remote plausibility?
How is this story not plausible?
When did the other boys turn older?
Do you want me to speculate as to what their real motives are now? That's more your department...

I repeat, it is wholly implausible that Iran has such a high rate of anal rapes that this comes up over and over again
Yet you're unable to back that up.

And I'll let you do your own work. Find the comparable statistics, or show the rate of rapes in Iran, or both.

However, if you look at the statutes that were provided for you, and realize how a prosecution of homosexuals has to proceed, it is immediately obvious why an accusation of "rape" is an invariable feature of these cases.
But unlike with Syria, there aren't reports to back up the theory that it's hidden behind rape claims.

We are talking about what *actually* happened in one case that has already been sourced. You bring in all these presumptions, that the opinion of the chief justice overrules the local court That's more "facts" than "presuptions"...

and therefore it was "murder" under Iranian law for the local court to just go ahead with the execution anyway:
"Unlawful".


but, that is not how it actually happened, now is it? In the United States, if local authorities killed a man after the Supreme Court told them not to, that would be a "murder" case-- but do you have any SOURCE or LINK to substantiate that the local judges in Iran, in this case, were actually accused of murder?
No. I've never claimed they were either.

The appeals courts gave its opinion,
The head of the judiciary, you mean.


I didn't make that up. LOOK AT THE STATUTE.
Oh the statute is real. The story you made up was completely fictitious however. No homosexual relationships are alleged. Only rape.

Sigh. Try to get a clue how this works. The cases won't "allege" consensual homosexuality unless they can prove that: and that can't happen unless they can get "righteous" witnesses to testify to that-- and by definition, a witness who testifies to consenting to homosexuality is not "righteous", indeed is subject to the death penalty.
Do try to keep up. I'm not talking about the verdict - that was for rape. I am talking about all credible reports about this case, none of which claims that Moloudzadeh was a gay man.

Because: nobody in Iran "admits" to being a homosexual. Therefore, "nobody is".
Since being a homosexual in Iran isn't punishable, and it's a reason to get out of military service - well, your claim is false yet again.

You are providing what, if it came from me, you would call unsubstantiated rumors. Show me somebody in Iran admitting to being a homosexual!
Unsubstantiated rumours? What? An article from NRC Handelsblad, one report from the UK Home Office and one from Schweizerischen Flüchtlingshilfe. Yeah... Unsubstatiated indeed :rolleyes:

We are talking about a case in which it DID happen, although you are unwilling to get real about it.
We're talking abut a case where you want it to have happened, but cannot show that it did - only speculate.

So yeah. Stop making shit up, look at the facts, and get real, eh?

And you don't back up your assertion that the communists and atheist supporters would pick and choose what influences and religious dogma to make into national legislation. So you don't show the link you claim there.
??? My assertion that-- what???
Your sentence does not make much sense, and does not match any "assertions" that I have made. Ex-Christians, whether they shift to "Communism" or some other "atheism" or whatever other ideology, don't consciously pick and choose which parts of the cultural baggage they inherited from Christianity still linger in their heads as influences. Bitter ex-Christians (such as Stalin) tend to retain those self-righteous-moralizing aspects of Christianity which give them license to despise other people. You speak of Stalin as "criminalizing" homosexuality as if it had not already been criminalized under the Tsars: that was a continuation, not the origin.
That was your version of my claim:
Then you have blissfully little experience, and also missed stories about ultranationalists and neo-nazis attacking homosexuals in Germany, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia, for example.
...so again, you should stop making things up.
You were making two claims: first that my experience in only getting attacked by Christians and never hearing about "atheists" attacking gays has been blissful (which is quite false), and secondly that I have never heard about ultranationalists in Eastern Europe (which is also quite false). The link you were making was that the ultranationalists in Eastern Europe are supposedly "atheists" also, although quite to the contrary they identify themselves strongly with the Christian churches.

I do stand by my claim that non-religious nationalists have been attacking gays, and refer to my other posts
Sigh. One more time, on what basis do you claim that the nationalists are "non-religious"?

- and even the article you posted, that seems to seperate fascist skinheads and Russian Orthodox religious extremists .
They were thoroughly intermixed, and no sharp line could be drawn between them. At one point you seemed to be claiming (although I am not always sure exactly what you are trying to say) that there two separate organizations calling these people out into the streets, a "nationalist" movement (not religious!) and a "religious" movement (not nationalist!). If that is what you think, then name these two organizations. What I hear of is Pamyat, a nationalist AND religious movement (indeed, it does not really distinguish between the "Russian nation" and the "Russian Orthodox church") containing skinheads and also people with short hair but not shaven heads of indistinguishable rhetoric and brutality.

And you have yet to show that the examples had a "Christian upbringing" as you claimed.
The burden of proof was on you to show that they were "atheists". Do you need demographic statistics on the overwhelming percentage of Christians in Wyoming, or do you have some awareness of that?

And I think the ideology not necessarily originated in religion, but rather the economic and societal situation at the time. For example, the rich jewish merchants and bankers
At what time are you claiming that Jew-hatred originated in Germany? It was, in fact, long before there were any "rich jewish merchants and bankers". You sound quite anti-Semitic yourself, if you take it as an unquestioned premise that the Jewish conspirators have been controlling the world all the way back to before the first pogroms.

If you would like a good read about the origins of anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere in Christendom, Carroll's Sword of Constantinople was a thorough and depressing source. Anti-Semitism most decidedly did arise from the teachings of Christianity throughout the long centuries. I would have thought this so notoriously well-known a fact as not to need pointing out to anyone, but you can find people who will deny the most basic of truths if you hang around the boards long enough.

Irrelevant to your faux outrage at me disagreeing with the fact that Russian nationalist and "arch-Orthodox groups" were the same people that you kept harping on.
I assure you my hostility towards you is quite genuine.

Excapt differences in language, and culture, and history...

I will tell you again (though you will surely refuse to listen again) that the line is NOT based in language, NOT based in culture, NOT based in history. There are minor regional dialectal differences in language: but two people who speak the exact same dialect will be distinguished, one as a "Serb" and one as a "Croat", depending on their religious affiliation. There are minor regional differences in culture: stereotypically, the north is more urban, entrepreneurial, and cosmopolitan, while the south is more rural, traditional, and insular; of course the urban/rural differences exist everywhere, but the stereotypes have some reality, stemming from the different regional histories (the north having been tied to the West for longer). BUT: Serb nationalists want to include an Orthodox-church-goer from western Croatia who speaks "Croatian" dialect with a "Dalmatian" accent even though he is a businessman from the big city who wears Italian suits and listens to German bubble-gum pop (he is Orthodox, so by definition he is "Serb"), and exclude a Catholic-church-goer from a mountain hollow in Serbia who speaks "Serbian" dialect with a "Montenegrin" accent even though he is a plum-brandy-drinking chicken-farmer whose wife wears a babushka scarf (he is Catholic, so by definition he is "Croat"). The line, I repeat, is NOT based on language, or culture, or regional history, or genetics (in this case there are zero genetic differences). The definition is based on one factor, and one factor only: religious affiliation.

Alright, let me put it this way then: You're wrong.

No, YOU'RE wrong, neener neener neener.

When did the other boys turn older?

??? The ones who were born earlier didn't have to "turn" older. They always were older. This is another one of these very basic facts about

Do you want me to speculate as to what their real motives are now?
Yes, I would like to come to grips with what the motivations of the people actually were: give some explanation of why this behavior is not just random and bizarre. Maybe to you it all seems normal: if somebody offends you in some way, "naturally" you react by making up a story about how the guy was a super-strong anal rapist as a little kid many years ago? And "naturally" the people who live around you say, "gee, that happens all the time, must be true"?

Find the comparable statistics, or show the rate of rapes in Iran, or both.
We were told of 13 cases in Iran in which such allegations were made, which are surely not the total list; we know of zero analogous cases from the rest of the world: come up with some, and then there would be a basis for "comparing" the rates, but with nothing to compare, we can only say it is "vanishingly rare" elsewhere, which gives a high probability that the allegations in Iran are fictional, especially since we see within their statutory framework the motivations which would give rise to such fictional allegations.
[Tmut]You bring in all these presumptions, that the opinion of the chief justice overrules the local court
That's more "facts" than "presuptions"...

In this case, it is the direct opposite of the "facts". The FACTS are that the opinion of the chief justice did NOT control the lower court. You are assuming that the Iranian legal system operates in this respect the same way that a Western legal system would, but the facts of the case are: it doesn't.
[Tmut]
I didn't make that up. LOOK AT THE STATUTE.
Oh the statute is real. The story you made up was completely fictitious however. No homosexual relationships are alleged. Only rape.
ONE MORE TIME. "Consensual" homosexual relationships CANNOT be alleged, under the statute, since no witness could testify to consenting to homosexual relationships, without thereby volunteering for death and in any case (even if a witness was so crazed as to volunteer to be executed) thereby establishing that he was not "righteous" so that his testimony would not be admissible anyway.

Therefore, any prosecution for homosexuality MUST include a rape allegation: that is why they all do.

You sound quite anti-Semitic yourself, if you take it as an unquestioned premise that the Jewish conspirators have been controlling the world all the way back to before the first pogroms.
OK, we're done here.

I'm sorry you have yet to learn reading comprehension. Just two comments:


I assure you my hostility towards you is quite genuine.
Good. I always enjoy the stupidity of misplaced anger.

"Consensual" homosexual relationships CANNOT be alleged, under the statute, since no witness could testify to consenting to homosexual relationships, without thereby volunteering for death and in any case (even if a witness was so crazed as to volunteer to be executed) thereby establishing that he was not "righteous" so that his testimony would not be admissible anyway.
Witnesses other than the parties involved can testify. The family you claim saw it all and turned them in for example.
It can be alleged. What you want to say is that it's unlikely to be proven - something completely different.

And no credible source - not Human Rights watch, not Amnesty International, nor any sources you have provided alleges that Mouloudzadeh was executed because he was a homosexual, nor do they indicate that Mouloudzadeh was a homosexual or had ever been a homosexual. Nor do they claim that the allegations of rape was a cover for executng him for his homosexuality. All they say is that the men - who were around the same age as him, not very much older - admitted that he had never raped them.

So the rest is but the fantasy you have created in your own mind, not based on any facts whatsoever.

So in short, you have not provided any credible evidence whatsoever that homosexuals are executed in Iran because they are homosexuals or have done any homosexual actions - save your speculations and fantasies not based on the facts, that is. No surprise, since you - as usual - have contributed hardly anything to back up your claims.

/thread.

My 2 cents...

The Arab world is pretty f-ed up right now and full of retards. Actually the same goes for many Muslim countries but then you really can't say much about East Asian human rights....

Turkey and Kosovo oh yeah. Let's not fuck this one up :D

I'm sorry you have yet to learn reading comprehension.
If you cannot convey your meaning, the fault may be at the transmission end rather than the reception end. I told you I could not tell WHAT time you were referring to when German anti-Semitism started out of resentment against Jewish bankers and merchants.
IF you were claiming that Jew hatred started in Germany during the economic crisis of the 1920's, that is yet another astounding hole in your knowledge. You ought to know that Martin Luther called for exterminating the Jews in the Peasants' Revolt crisis of the 1520's, as did the Flagellants during the Black Death of the 1340's, and Peter the Hermit during the First Crusade in the 1090's, to name just the most prominent examples. It would be hard to say exactly when Jew hatred started in Germany (within Christianity as a whole, it goes all the way back to the late 1st century).
IF you did know all that, but were claiming it was never about religion; rather, it was because the Jewish puppet-masters were controlling the German economy all that time, THEN I would have to say you were quite a bit of anti-Semitism.
Witnesses other than the parties involved can testify. The family you claim saw it all and turned them in for example.
??? Again you are referring to "claims" I supposedly made that do not resemble anything I said; in this case, quite opposite to what I said, which is that it is *hardly ever the case* ("Vanishingly rare": that is, we have no reports at all of such a thing) that 4 or more people directly witness a homosexual act, as would be required under the Iranian "legal" system (if we can dignify it by that term) to prosecute without turning one of those involved into a witness, necessitating that he claim to be an unwilling participant. When someone catches on that homosexuality is going on, it rarely happens so dramatically as walking in on two guys going at it, but even if it did happen that way (and we don't get any indication from the bare-bones summary of this case that it did), that would only be one witness.
It can be alleged. What you want to say is that it's unlikely to be proven - something completely different.
The way that things are "alleged" is to provide a list of witnesses who will testify to them. If the prosecutors doesn't have witnesses to call, he doesn't "allege".
And [I][B]no credible source - not Human Rights watch, not Amnesty International, nor any sources you have provided alleges that Mouloudzadeh was executed because he was a homosexual
??? The case was 100% about accusing him of instigating the acts of homosexuality. Absolutely nothing in the facts gives the slightest indication that it was ever about anything else, desparate though you are to pretend that it must have been about something else. The legal fiction that he was the sole instigator was preposterous, as the chief justice indicated (you are, I am sure, aware that the early teens are a period of rapid growth and muscular development? A lone 13-year-old, unless an unusually early developer, of which there is no indication here, does not overpower a 16-year-old, especially not several times). And I am sure that the local court was equally aware of how preposterous it was to pretend that the youngest was the "rapist", but they were sure of his guilt regardless.