How Homosexuality Became Normal In America

[Haydar Husayn]

Yes, yes, I know, not another thread on this topic. Insha'Allah this will be my last for a long time, I promise. However, I do feel that this is an important one, and highlights issues that spread much wider than the single issue of homosexuality. Even if for some reason you don't care about this topic at all (and you should, for your children's sake), it is important to understand how the public gets manipulated to changes it's views, and that it has nothing to do with a 'moral evolution' or rational debate.

In this thread, I want to look at a book written in the late 1980's by two highly intelligent Harvard-educated homosexual activists, called After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the 90's. This book was a national number 1 best seller in America, and lays out a blueprint for gaining widespread acceptance of homosexuality in America. What is striking about this book is just how well-thought out their ideas were, and how closely subsequent developments have stuck to their script (obviously they couldn't foresee things like the internet and social media, which turbo-charged their ideas, but their overall principles could still be applied).
 
As usual with my threads, I prefer to let the material speak for itself, but due to the sheer quantity of quotable material, I'll have to break this up into several posts. After I finish quoting the most interesting parts, insha'Allah, I'll then move on to looking at specific examples of the implementation of their plan. I'll start with a few disjoint, but interesting and relevant quotes, from the beginning of the book, which is mostly devoted to diagnosing the problems gays faced in America, before moving on to the more interesting part about what they suggest gays do about it. In this post, I'll limit myself to quoting their general plan, which I will then detail later on. I've added some titles to the quotes, just for ease of reading.
 
Homosexuality was rampant in Hollywood
Rock Hudson, in 1982, in response to the question of how many top Hollywood actors were gay:
“Whew! Too many for me to name. If you mean gay, or ‘bisexual’, … then maybe most… Trust me, … America does not want to know.” p 12

 

This is important, because Hollywood was one of the primary vehicles for promoting 'gay rights', both through the films produced, but also the celebrity power it possessed.
 
The Kinsey surveys (conducted decades before the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's)
“The [Kinsey] Institute found that quite a large proportion of the public – roughly one in three men and one in five women – have had at least some overt homosexual experience between their teen years and middle age; and, for many of these, such experience has been rather more than incidental. Some 21% of white college-educated men and women report having had sex with two or more persons of their own gender, and/or having had gay sex six or more times. Percentages of noncollege white men and women are 28% and 5% respectively. Fewer blacks report such extensive gay experience; e.g., only 16% of black college men and 3% of black college women.
…
On the other hand, as Kinsey explained, sexual orientation isn’t an either/or situation: people array themselves along a spectrum ranging from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. If we must draw the line somewhere and pick a specific percentage for propaganda purposes, we may as well stick with the solidly conservative figure suggested by Kinsey decades ago: taking men and women together, at least 10% of the populace has demonstrated its homosexual proclivities so extensively that that proportion may reasonably be called ‘gay’. But we stress that this figure is, if anything, an underestimate. When the Los Angeles Time conducted a national poll by telephone in December 1985, fully 10% of those who answered the question described themselves as “gay”; one can only imagine how many more actually saw themselves as gay but declined to admit this to a complete stranger, under suspicious circumstances, on the telephone.” p 14-15

These surveys were used for propaganda purposes
“Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2% of the general population. Yet, […] when straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years.” p 15

 

How many of you have heard the '10% gay' statistic? Now you know why.

 

The futility of rational argument in gaining acceptance and the need for emotion-based propaganda

 

"None of this is to say that argument has no place in propaganda; it can sometimes serve as an effective adjuvant to an essentially emotional appeal. Understand, however, that, even where argument seems effective, one rarely, if ever, actually persuades intellectually: rather, the appeal succeeds for emotional reasons.

[…]

The appearance of an argument can often aid an emotional appeal for other reasons. (Arguments against homohatred, or any other prejudice, cannot be true arguments, in the Aristotelian sense; nobody can ever prove that a person ‘shouldn’t’ hate gays, because that’s a matter, literally, of opinion.) Where the target of an emotional appeal is aware of the attempt at manipulation, he will tend to resist it; where he is distracted from the true nature of the appeal by a ‘cover argument’, the emotional effect, paradoxically, will be all the greater. Thus, an argument can function as a distractor.

Our remarks apply primarily to the (intellectually) lower 90% of the general population, whose beliefs more or less never alter their emotions. This is largely true of the upper 10% as well, but, fortunately, not entirely. […] However, arguments against the 10% sometimes trickle down to the 90%. If one can spread arguments based on facts and logic among the intelligentsia, these will tend to form the nucleus of a general consensus, spread in turn through magazines, newspapers, and television broadcasts, as to what is politically correct to believe." p 137-138

 

Getting the 'normal' homosexuals in first, before the others can gain acceptance

 

"When you are different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your own peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first.

[…]

By the same token, allowing advocates of legalized ‘love’ between men and boys to participate in gay pride marches is, from the standpoint of public relations, an unalloyed disaster. For the purposes of our argument, it is irrelevant whether pederasty is good or bad; what is relevant is that arguments against it, not easily refutable, can be made, and are associated with widespread abhorrence, not to mention universal – and severe – legal sanctions. Even if we were to grant to the advocates of pederasty an ethical dispensation – and the authors grant nothing of the sort – it would remain the direst folly to invite them to rain on our parade. Gays are already assumed to be child molesters; participation in gay pride marches would by would-be pederasts seems, to the straight community, to prove it. As a purely practical matter, we cannot ameliorate straight America’s abhorrence of homosexuality, per se, by wrapping ourselves in the far more – and possibly justifiably – abhorred flag of ‘man-boy love!’" p 146

 

Notice the great reluctance the authors have in simply outright condemning advocates of 'man-boy love'.

 

The Battle Plan

"

DESENSITATIZATION

If gays present themselves – or allow themselves to be presented – as overwhelmingly different of threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized.

[…]

We can extract the following principle for our campaign: to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive way possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet. p149

 

JAMMING

The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involved the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the working of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

[…]

The trick is to get the bigot into a position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, and one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisements can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and [vulgar insult] – people who say not only ‘fag**t’ but ‘n*****r’, ‘k**e’, and other shameful epithets – who are ‘not Christian.’ It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can show gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred – suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sort of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary.

[…]

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. [..] Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he’ll be of the true nature of the process – which is all to the good. p151-153

 

CONVERSION

Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding ‘pride and prejudice’ (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse’s a**, and a beater and murderer. Both Desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest – though necessarily very long-range – goal, which is Conversion.

It isn’t enough that antigay biogts should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us – we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims as just this.

Please don’t confuse Conversion with political Subversion. The word ‘subversion’ has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid – and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.

[…]

In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gays – explicitly labelled as such! – who not only don’t look like his picture of  a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys – the kind of people he already likes and admires. The image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how ‘fag**ts’ looks, dress, and sound.

[…]

The objection will be raised – and raised, and raised – that we would ‘Uncle Tommify’ the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our adds are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course – we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using it to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.

[…]

Understanding Direct Emotional Modeling, you’ll readily foresee its application to Conversion: whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement. In a way, most advertisement is founded upon an answer of Yes, definitely! To Mother’s sarcastic question: I suppose if all the other kids jumped off a bridge and killed themselves, you would, too?" p 153-156

 

So as we see, a plan was laid out based on widespread propaganda through the media, in order to effectively brainwash (I'm not sure what else you can call the use of emotional manipulation and psychological techniques to change people's minds) the population. This isn't surprising, when you look at the training of the two authors. Marshall Kirk was a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen had a doctorate in Politics and was an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Madsen also served as a consultant to gay media campaigns across the country, and he appeared frequently on national media as an advocate for gay rights.

Now, common objections you often get in regards to this book is that 'nobody has ever heard of it', or that right-wing conspiracy nuts act like every homosexual in the country has read this book and used it as a blueprint. In regards to the first objection, as mentioned, it was a national number 1 best seller, so someone was reading it. The book contains the following quotes about it:

 

"Currently the object of lively debate in the gay community nationwide." - The Washington Post

 

"Probably one of the most cynical solutions ever put forth but one that reveals remarkable political acumen." - Bay Windows

 

"Offer some excellent suggestions as to how we may proceed in making America more tolerant of gay men and lesbians." - The Advocate

 

"The gay non-fiction book of the year, and certainly the most sensible gay political book ever written." - Booklist

So clearly this idea that nobody has ever heard of it is nonsense. Of course, not everyone will have read it, but the ideas will have been internalised by the movement, as with all important books. Furthermore, in the book, they say that:

"Third, even when it sticks to the facts, propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-side. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Propaganda tells its own side of the story as movingly (and credibly) as possible, since it can count on its enemies to tell the other side of the story with a vengeance. In the battle for hearts and minds, effective propaganda knows how to put its best foot forward.

 

When, in a 1985 Christopher Street article, we presented a blueprint for a national propaganda effort, doubters derided the proposal as irrelevant or impotent, the methods as demeaning and fraudulent, and our intent reactionary. In February 1988, however, a “war conference” of 175 leading gay activists, representing organizations from across the land, convened in Warrenton, Virginia, to establish a four-point agenda for the gay movement. The conference gave a first priority to “a nation-wide media campaign to promote a positive image of gays and lesbians”" p 163

 

So we see that these ideas were discussed among leading gay activists, and they agreed on a plan of nationwide propaganda through the media.

 

More interesting details to follow later, insha'Allah.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Haydar Husayn

[StrugglingForTheLight]

The Quran didn't go into much debate about homosexuality, so I don't see the point of us getting into it.  At the end, it's uncleanness, is a matter of "those who believe in the unseen....".

 

Otherwise, the general consensus on atheist forum I go to seems to be even incest is not wrong as long as it doesn't produce children of defect (ie. they can have safe sex).

 

 

 

 

 

[Haydar Husayn]

The Quran didn't go into much debate about homosexuality, so I don't see the point of us getting into it.  At the end, it's uncleanness, is a matter of "those who believe in the unseen....".

 

Otherwise, the general consensus on atheist forum I go to seems to be even incest is not wrong as long as it doesn't produce children of defect (ie. they can have safe sex).

 

The reason we need to care about this stuff is because this is not the end, and more immoral things will be allowed next. More importantly though, by understanding how this came about, it allows us to protect ourselves from falling prey to the propaganda. There are many Muslims out there that don't realise all this happened through a massive propaganda effort, and assume morality simply 'evolved' to this point, or that people changed their minds through rational argument.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

The reason we need to care about this stuff is because this is not the end, and more immoral things will be allowed next. More importantly though, by understanding how this came about, it allows us to protect ourselves from falling prey to the propaganda. There are many Muslims out there that don't realise all this happened through a massive propaganda effort, and assume morality simply 'evolved' to this point, or that people changed their minds through rational argument.

You do have a point, but the way to combat the propaganda, is not to get into a debate about it, but to bring people into belief in the unseen, and the guidance of his chosen ones, and Messenger.

[apofomysback]

Although I am not homophobic in the least, I like the effort put by the OP into this thread. Good job.

[AhlulBayt_313]

You do have a point, but the way to combat the propaganda, is not to get into a debate about it, but to bring people into belief in the unseen, and the guidance of his chosen ones, and Messenger.

 

Salam,

 

One can direct (i.e. help) one another while bringing about awareness at the same time. It is important to discuss the severity of certain issues, because we need to help prepare ourselves and/or our children for the future, Insha'Allah. I think Haydar is doing just that, and we should be commending him on his efforts, Mash2Allah.

 

Bear in mind; we live in a different time, so we are experiencing different trials and tribulations than other's from the past. It is very important for people to engage and talk about certain topics; we need to be able to work through these thing's as a society, rather than just individually, because it effects everyone as a whole.

 

Wasalam  AB313

[baradar_jackson]

Although I am not homophobic in the least, I like the effort put by the OP into this thread. Good job.

 

Sister, the word homophobic is a fake word. It shouldn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

Re: the topic

 

I am beginning to become more hopeful. And here is the reason: if the movement continues on the trajectory it is going at, eventually it will lose the sympathy of ordinary people. Meaning, the same simple-minded people who were brainwashed to open the path for this movement, can become convinced otherwise. 

 

In other words, as Muslims, what we should want is for this movement to become more hard core, more demanding, more militant. Remember all those nonsensical statements after the marriage law in the US: "we still have so much left to fight for." Whatever is left to fight for could be the thing to turn the common people in the US and Western Europe, against this disease.

 

(I say US and Western Europe because the rest of the world already has a clear stance on such actions)

[Bakir]

The movement or ideology presented on After the Ball, which is a must read for anyone interedted in homosexuality, is by itself a solic political plan that won't fail if it goes further.

The problem the gay community may face and faces in many places where homosexuality is widely accepted is precisely the fact that the community itself is noy putting the same level of effort into following the propagandistic plan as it was done in the past.

Like the quoted text says, once a difference is normalized, the next come. The abuse of drugs, sex and deviant practices within the gay community has been very counterproductive to the gay cause. Many homosexuals even label this portion of their own community as a gay ghetto.

To condemn this ghetto in anyway would be rapidly labeled as homophobia, thus reformation or any type of social guide is hard to reach it. Obviously, one could expect that the people against it grows in number. But most people already noticed the difference between normal regular homosexuals (who rarely have exposure in the public sphere) and homosexuals living the so called homosexual lifestyle.

Anyway, nice post Haydar. It is always good to be knowledgeable, whether one is in favour of it or against.

@baradar, homophobia exists, but has different meanings for each individual. Physical and psychological abuse as well as bigot discrimination towards a person for just being homosexual is homophobia.

[Haji 2003]

My view is that the problem began with heterosexuals.

 

Well before the last century Western society had begun to be permissive in terms of adultery and heterosexuals therefore lost any moral basis to criticise homosexuality.

 

My view is that the Christian West faced problems with adultery because of its promotion of monogamy as some form of ideal.

[mina]

The reason we need to care about this stuff is because this is not the end, and more immoral things will be allowed next. More importantly though, by understanding how this came about, it allows us to protect ourselves from falling prey to the propaganda. There are many Muslims out there that don't realise all this happened through a massive propaganda effort, and assume morality simply 'evolved' to this point, or that people changed their minds through rational argument.

A member of a party in Germany said that the laws have to be changed in order to fight resistance against gay marriage in wide ranges of the population...it is so crazy to implement such a law although majority doesn'twant it and then call it democracy aka will of the ppl.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

You can't show it's wrong without belief in the unseen. Without malakut uncleanness, from an Atheistic perspective, why should they resist these desires and not act upon them? The harm from Islamic view is in the malakut, it forms an unclean nature in the human. 

 

We've already compromised with many scholars say it's only the act that is to be condemned and not the desire. But I think the best thing to do as Muslims is to ignore it or when talked about it, just say "we believe in the unseen, and we believe it's unclean to the degree it's been condemned in Islam "

 

Don't get into this "Oh people blindly are accept gays because of propaganda..." - so what? Propaganda worked. It said we should view them as humans. Etc.. There is no emphasis on the unseen forces of the dark and light, uncleanness and purity, so how can people say "yeah it's wrong...". 

 

The desires without recalling the unseen worlds, will seem natural, specially if kids get them. Not being able to act upon desires simply because of how old society has defined marriage seems cruel to the say the least.

 

Therefore we should tread with a little more humility. "I understand what your coming from, it looks like you are trying to embrace humans for what they are, it seems the desire is natural and should be able to be acted upon...but from our perspective, we believe in the unseen and magical good forces as well as magical dark forces that work on our souls, and can afflict us or bless us, by God's permission only, and so we believe this of the unclean affairs. We don't wish to argue with you over it, but it's of the revelations and clarifications we have from our Messenger."

[Haydar Husayn]

I'm going to quote at length from the following section, because I think it illustrates one of the key factors that helped change peoples' minds about homosexuality.

 

Get everyone to come out

 

This is another scheme we heartily recommend but have faint hope of implementing until more fundamental changes have first occurred: wherever possible, come out. […] But whatever the approach, coming out makes an enormous contribution to the fight against homohatred, since it generally provides an ideal opportunity to activate the psychological mechanisms we have called desensitization, jamming, and conversion. Here’s how it works:

 

First, coming out helps desensitize straights. As more and more gays emerge into everyday life, gays as a group will begin to seem more familiar and unexceptional to straights, hence less alarming and objectionable. (Remember that most gays are otherwise unexceptional – or else straights would recognize them.) […]

 

Second, coming out allows more jamming of the reward system for homohatred. Jamming, you’ll recall, means interrupting the smooth workings of bigotry by inducing inconsistent feelings in the bigot. One jams, for example, by displacing with shame and guilt the satisfying sense of social approval and self-righteousness that a homohater would otherwise feel when he attacks homosexuals. As gays come out, they and their friends will be free to play a more vigorous role in jamming, openly showing their disapproval of homohatred. […] Thus, when gays come out, they help transform the social climate from one that supports prejudice to one that shuts homohaters up. And when bigots fall silent, they cannot as easily pass their social disease on to the next generation.

 

Third, coming out is a critical catalyst for the all-important ‘conversion’ process, as well. Conversion is more than merely desensitizing straights or jamming their homohatred: it entails making them actually like and accept homosexuals as a group, enabling straights to identify with them. This becomes possible when a heterosexual learns that someone he already likes and admires, such as a friend or a family member, is homosexual. The discovery leads to an internal showdown between the straight’s personal affection on the one hand and his bigotry on the other. When the gunsmoke finally clears – and it can take years to do so – the stronger sentiment emerges more or less victorious. If it is the stronger, affection for a friend wins out and subdues bigotry, and a favourable conversion takes place. […]

 

Finally, in addition to making desensitization, jamming, and conversion possible, coming out is the key to sociopolitical empowerment, the ability of the gay community to control its own destiny. The more gay individuals who stand up to be counted, the more voting and spending power the gay community will be recognized to have. As an inevitable result, politics and business will woo us, the press will publicize our concerns and report our news, and our community will enjoy enhanced prestige.

 

[…]

 

All this means that the long term strategy of Everyone Comes Out must be supplemented and prepped by a media campaign, which will help in several ways. For starters, it will go some distance in compensating for the public’s lack of direct personal contact with openly homosexual Americans. After ‘meeting’ enough likeable gays on television, Jane Doe may begin to feel she knows gays as a group, even if none has ever introduced himself to her personally. Although it operates less quickly and effectively to thwart bigotry than does a personal confrontation with a gay loved one, familiarization with gays through the media nonetheless prepares the public for the gradual desensitization, jamming, and conversion that will take place during our community’s slow-motion coming-out party.

 

Furthermore, carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays could conceivably do even more to reverse negative stereotypes than could the incremental coming-out of one person to another. One of the peculiarities of bigotry is that its carriers have a tendency to exceptionalize the few minority friends they have, retaining their dislike of the minority group as a whole. They accomplish this neat mental contortion by perceiving their minority friends as somehow different from, unrepresentative of, the rest. […] Homohaters would find it harder to get away from such selective prejudice if a media campaign were to expose them to an unending series of ‘positive’ gay images.

 

Indeed, the wide range of favourably sanitized images that might be shown in the media could eventually have a more positive impact on the homosexual stereotype than could exposure to gay friends, since straights will otherwise generalize a suboptimal impression of gays from the idiosyncratic admixture of good and bad traits possessed by their one or two gay acquaintances. (One of the special advantages of a media campaign is that it can – and should – portray only the most favourable side of gays, thereby counterbalancing the already unfairly negative stereotype in the public’s mind. When this is done, the picture labelled ‘queer’ is aggressively painted over; prior images of dirty old queens or coarsened dykes are overlaid with pleasing new images of all-American and Miss American types.)

 

Lastly, the media campaign will work well in tandem with the Everyone Comes Out strategy because it is actually a catalyst to coming out. As mass-media advertising legitimizes homosexuality, enhancing public receptiveness and sensitivity, the balance between the costs and benefits of coming out will shift decisively toward the latter, prompting more and more gays to declare themselves. A media campaign, then, becomes an iron pickaxe driving at a widening crack in the dam of gay secrecy until, sooner or later, everybody comes rushing forth. The sooner, the better. p 167-170

 

 

I'm sure we can all think of 'positive gay images' that were used in films and TV shows to gradually desensitise us to homosexuality. It is also the case in my experience that when you ask someone why they have changed their views on homosexuality, they will often cite the fact that they've spoken to perfectly nice homosexuals, who assure them they were born that way. If the person had opposed homosexuality on the correct grounds in the first place, then these encounters should have made no difference, but they were based on bigotry, so they did work.

 

I think however, that we need to be honest, and admit that what makes these strategies so successful is that most people's opposition to homosexuality is based on bigotry (note that I don't mean the word in the very loose way it is used now, to mean anyone who opposes something society thinks is good). Now, with some people of low intelligence or education, there may be no alternative to this. However, most Muslims should not oppose things (or indeed favour things) on purely emotional grounds, because this makes it easier to use emotion to manipulate us. We shouldn't primarily be against homosexuality because we find it disgusting, or anything of the sort. We should be against it, because it has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and that we believe it is bad for the individual, and society. And although it is certainly a grave sin in Islam, that simply places it in the same bracket as other grave sins. Neglecting salah is also a very grave sin, but we don't treat people who hardly ever pray with anything like the same moral revulsion as we do homosexuals. As I've mentioned in the past, in reacting in this way, we also make it virtually impossible for anyone struggling with same-sex attraction to seek help from their own community, and instead drive them into the hands of people with a secular outlook who will tell them that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that they should 'accept who they are'.

 

There is no point in having a good understanding of how homosexuality became widespread if we don't reform ourselves so that we can actually deal with people who suffer from same-sex attraction with compassion. And if one of our children ends up with this condition, then what? Do we want to be left with the choice between changing our beliefs or driving our child away? These are issues that need to be dealt with by the Muslim community. 

[StrugglingForTheLight]

You bring an interesting point:

 

I think the compassion should not be "Your evil", nor to say "there is nothing wrong with you". I think the balance is, work it through, think about it, think about Islam, and consider the possibility it's an affliction from Shayateen of Jinn and humans, and you to learn to destroy it with the sword of God talked about by in Du'as of Imams.  If you cannot do it, then seek help from God and perhaps obedient spirits will come, empower your will , your resolution, and root out that affliction of uncleanness from the heart.

[Haydar Husayn]

Maybe one of the most important passages:

 

Political conspiracies

 

As most activists see it, there are two different avenues to gay liberation: Education (i.e., propaganda) and Politics. The dissemination of propaganda is enormously expensive and difficult, however, so little has been done to date. Instead activists have concentrated their efforts on politics, meaning efforts to secure gay rights by conspiring with liberal elites within the legal and legislative systems.

 

Gay activists first tried to manipulate the American judicial system via the Bill of Rights but, as noted in an earlier chapter, most courts have provided cold comfort, especially recently. Many activists turned, therefore, to the tactic of urgent whispering into the ears of liberal and moderate public servants at all levels of government. Given the generally conservative climate of recent years, our lobbyists have worked extra hard to present themselves as terribly polite, dignified, and respectful ladies and gentlemen; […] The goal here has been to forge a little entente or conspiracy with the power elite, to jump ahead of public sentiment or ignore it altogether.

 

Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which sidestep the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain limited civil rights for gays in selected cities. Many of these victories constitute political payoffs by elected officials whose candidacy the organized gay community has supported, and demonstrated both our electoral muscle and savy backroom politicking.

 

Yet the scheme to build elite conspiracies often proves impractical in the short run and imprudent in the long run.

[…]

The solution is not for activists to abandon Politics for Education, of course. All things considered, legal and political efforts have come along slowly but surely – at least until AIDS threw the brakes. Yet, with the first gust of direct opposition, elite conspiracies blow apart like a house of cards, unless fortified by a significant shift in public attitudes. Like the other partial solutions discussed above, our political success could be greatly advanced by a media campaign conducted prior to, or simultaneously with, political initiatives. p 170-172

 

Generally speaking, the most effective propaganda for our cause must succeed in doing three things at once.

·  Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert bigots on an emotional level. This is, by far, the most important task.

·  Challenge homohating beliefs and actions on a (not too) intellectual level. Remember, the rational message serves to camouflage our underlying emotional appeal, even as it pares away the surrounding latticework of beliefs that rationalize bigotry.

·   Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon those messages and, therefore, upon their gay sponsors. To be accepted by the most prestigious media, such as network TV, our messages themselves will have to be – at least initially – both subtle in purpose and crafty in construction.

p 172-173

 

 

Normalising homosexuality and dealing with religious institutions

 

The third principle is our recipe for desensitizing Ambivalent Skeptics; that is, for helping straights view homosexuality with neutrality rather than keen hostility. At least at the outset, we seek desensitization and nothing more. You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

 

Application of the keep-talking principle can get people to the shoulder-shrug state. The free and frequent discussion of gay rights by a variety of persons in a variety places gives the impression that homosexuality is commonplace. That impression is essential, because, as noted in the previous chapter, the acceptability of any new behaviour ultimately hinges on the proportion of one’s fellows accepting or doing it.

[…]

The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more aboveboard. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable bloc – the most modern, up-to-date citizens – accept or even practice homosexuality. […] The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

 

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behaviour itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.

 

[…]

 

While public opinion is one important opinion is one important source of mainstream values, religious training in childhood is another. Yet, two things can be done to confound the homohatred of the moderately religious.

 

First, gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ’justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards. This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings. It also means exposing the inconsistency and hatred underlying antigay doctrines.

[…]

Second, gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings in psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion, one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed ‘secular humanism’). Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work for gays.

 

Where we talk is critical. We’ll discuss specific media tactics shortly. It suffices here to recall that the visual media – television, films, magazines – are the most powerful image makers in Western civilization. For example, in the average American household, the TV screen radiates its embracing bluish glow for more than fifty hours every week, bringing films, sitcoms, talk shows, and news reports right into the living room. These hours are a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. p 177-179

 

 

I think this all speaks for itself, but I would remind you all of the importance of not exposing your children to television, unless very carefully monitored, for exactly the reasons mentioned towards the end. This of course applies even more to the internet.

 

[Haydar Husayn]

Portray gays as victims and push the idea that gays are born that way

 

 

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly non-conformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image.

 

[…]

 

The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.

 

To this end, and effective media campaign would make use of symbols and spokespersons that reduce the straight majority’s sense of threat and induce it to lower its guard. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, ‘They are not like us (so they deserve to be punished).’ Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards, and completely unexceptional in appearance; in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we’d like to reach.

 

In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays.

 

[…]

 

Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating. First, the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.) To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labelled ‘moral choice and sin’ and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual and it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds – one in ten – as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.

 

Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don’t fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays, and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation, etc.

 

Bear in mind that these arguments are no more than an appeal to rationality and as such would scarcely make a dent in an emotional condition like homohatred. What arguments can do, however, is suspend the straight viewer’s rush to judgement just long enough to slip in front of her visual images that either arouse shame over her homohatred or else build favourable emotions towards gays. P 183-185

 

 

The bolded text in the middle is extremely important, and is perhaps one of the most effective techniques that was used.

 

 

Make Gays look good

 

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights, you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign will be more aggressive and upbeat. To confound bigoted stereotypes and hasten the conversion of straights, strongly favourable images of gays must be set before the public. The campaign should paint gay men and lesbians as superior – veritable pillars of society.

 

[…]

 

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping. From Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikocsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman, the list of suspected ‘inverts’ is old hat to us, but surprisingly new to heterosexual America. Famous historical figures are especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since highschool history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement. By casting its violet spotlight on such revered heroes, in no time a skilful media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization.

 

Along the same lines, our campaign should not overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities in question can, of course, be either straight or gay (or alive, for a change), but must always be well liked and respected by the public. If homosexual, the celebrity jams homohatred by presenting a favourable gay image at odds with the stereotype. If straight, the spokesperson (who deserves the Medal of Valor) provides the public with an impressive role model of social tolerance to emulate.

 

 

Portraying more and more dead people as secret homosexuals is definitely something I've been noticing, and as the authors say, those people aren't around anymore to refute it.

 

 

Make victimizers look bad

 

The objective is to make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them. This, of course, is a variant on the process of jamming. We also intend, by this tactic, to make the very expression of homohatred so discreditable that even Intransigents will eventually be silenced in public – much as rabid racists and anti-Semites are today.

 

The best way to make homohatred look bad is to vilify those who victimize gays. The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appal and anger Middle America. The images might include:

-  Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;

-  Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;

-  Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have bashed or would like to bash;

-  A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured or gassed.

 

In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique.’ For example, for several seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is shown pounding the pulpit in rage against ‘those perverted, abominable creatures.’ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to heart-rendering photos of badly beaten persons, or of gays who look decent, harmless, and likeable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

 

 

This is all I will be quoting from the book for a while. The last section is devoted to listing the problems with the gay community at the time, and while it is very interesting for many reasons, it is also extremely disgusting. Detailing some of the behaviour that is mentioned is simply not suitable for this website. Or, at the very least, it's not something I particularly want to type out right now, and I'm not sure it's directly relevant to the thread. It would be more relevant to a discussion on the problems of living a homosexual lifestyle, rather than the methods used to brainwash the masses into accepting homosexuality. For the rest of the thread, I'm going to focus on trying to find specific examples of the propaganda that was described above.

[Haydar Husayn]

Here is a very important film that was influential in changing attitudes towards AIDS, which was a big thing for several reasons, one of which was that AIDS was the primary reason public opinion had hardened against homosexuality (prior to the outbreak of AIDS, it was softening). Just by watching the trailer, you can see some of the emotional manipulation going on:

 

 

And yes, it was a 'good' film, but we are looking at how various kinds of emotional manipulation were used, not judging the artistic merit.

[baradar_jackson]

This is all I will be quoting from the book for a while. The last section is devoted to listing the problems with the gay community at the time, and while it is very interesting for many reasons, it is also extremely disgusting. Detailing some of the behaviour that is mentioned is simply not suitable for this website. Or, at the very least, it's not something I particularly want to type out right now, and I'm not sure it's directly relevant to the thread. It would be more relevant to a discussion on the problems of living a homosexual lifestyle, rather than the methods used to brainwash the masses into accepting homosexuality. For the rest of the thread, I'm going to focus on trying to find specific examples of the propaganda that was described above.

 

I know you promised you wouldn't make gay threads no more, but whenever you get the time, can you share parts of this last section (if you are willing, of course)?

[The Green Knight]

I think its just that the gloves are coming off and they are going hardcore satanic to please the antichrist and tell him they care.

[Haydar Husayn]

I know you promised you wouldn't make gay threads no more, but whenever you get the time, can you share parts of this last section (if you are willing, of course)?

 

Ok, I might add it in this thread later on. A lot of it is really disgusting though. I'd have to check I could even post it. I might just give a description, rather than giving quotations.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Haydar Husayn

[Bakir]

Would be nice if the book were quoted instead of explained though, would be more objective imo.

The book is hard to read anyway. I would also like to add that the book must be read carefully. The fact the authors admit some strategies, it doesn't mean that, for example, throughout history, gays haven't been harshly discriminated and abused. Be careful to separate facts from lies.

[Haydar Husayn]

Would be nice if the book were quoted instead of explained though, would be more objective imo.

I would prefer that, but some of the material just isn't quotable.

The book is hard to read anyway. I would also like to add that the book must be read carefully. The fact the authors admit some strategies, it doesn't mean that, for example, throughout history, gays haven't been harshly discriminated and abused. Be careful to separate facts from lies.

Yes, I'm not defending the way they may have been treated, although of course I reject the idea that they should form any sort of 'community' in the first place. Since sin should be kept private, had they never been 'out and proud' in the first place, then they wouldn't have suffered mistreatment. But of course, I don't condone physical or verbal abuse. General societal disapproval for homosexuality is another matter though.

[The Green Knight]

Well its both hilarious and sad that in a country where the white policemen are murdering a black teenager every other day and whose military always has to bomb schools and weddings in foreign countries and steal all the resources, and have a history full of genocide and hideous crimes like nuking cities full of unarmed civilians, are often found debating about "gay rights" and "feminist rights" or complaining of Australian farmers mistreating their live bacon. A people who have not the slightest idea nor respect of human rights and are comprehensively lacking in such basic qualification to speak of such things really have no right nor authority to illuminate or debate such issues and no doubt their opinions are worthless. Rather the experiences will soon set the trend to not just not listen to what they have to say but rather soon the rest of the world will learn to outright oppose the new ideas originating from that country with no debate or serious thought. Its what I do now and I'm sure eventually everyone else will too.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Darth Vader

[Purged]

This reminds me of the movie V for Vendetta. I'm not going to go into details, However Hollywood somehow manages to slip in their own agenda and people don't even realize how effective their dirty campaign is.

[baradar_jackson]

^ the terrible thing about v for vendetta is that it is the only Hollywood movie I know of which presents the Quran in a positive light. Even without that, you have the "God is in the rain" scene. Very clever of them to play a double game like that.

[Bakir]

I would prefer that, but some of the material just isn't quotable.

Yes, I'm not defending the way they may have been treated, although of course I reject the idea that they should form any sort of 'community' in the first place. Since sin should be kept private, had they never been 'out and proud' in the first place, then they wouldn't have suffered mistreatment. But of course, I don't condone physical or verbal abuse. General societal disapproval for homosexuality is another matter though.

Many gays do share that view, in which the "out and proud" is totally unnecessary. I personally hold my views on it, I consider more knowledge is required on the context in which that trend started. Indeed, in some countries, sexual orientation is seen as something absolutely respectable but also private, and most people cant care less about the differences (in my country, for example).

As for what you say about the community, I may agree and disagree. I disapprove of gay ghettos as they serve no purpose but self discrimination and lack of integration in a society. As for gay political or social pressure groups, I found that these have been historically positive when it comes to get basic equal rights to heterosexuals and laws against homophobia.

[King]

How come all of your enlightening obsessive posts on homosexuality completely the hideous discrimination these people have faced for thousands of years, and still do today in most of the world?  Where is your sympathy, or at the very least a fair acknowledgement in an attempt to present a somewhat balanced perspective?  

 

Of course there is gay propaganda and a program, there is propaganda from every conceivable group that is interested in pushing its agenda, including muslims. 

 

As far as the current state of gay rights is concerned, I hate to break it to you but it was inevitable, given the stupendous advances over the past few decades in womens rights, religious freedoms, treatment of refugees, rights of prisoners, animal rights, environmental concerns, rights of indigenous people etc etc.  The world has changed tremendously over the course of a very short time due to increased mixing of different cultures, technological advancements and education. Did you really think one of the most marginalized groups would simply sit back while others lobbied successfully for their rights?  It isn't as if this satanic homosexual program has worked wonders in isolation from everything that has transpired around it.  You and other homosexuality obsessed sc'ers really seem to lack some perspective on these things.  Perhaps the most telling aspect in all of this is the striking similarities between some of your paranoia and the way you go about explaining these concerns with what indoctrinated westerners say and fear about muslims and sharia. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by King

[Haydar Husayn]

How come all of your enlightening obsessive posts on homosexuality completely the hideous discrimination these people have faced for thousands of years, and still do today in most of the world?  Where is your sympathy, or at the very least a fair acknowledgement in an attempt to present a somewhat balanced perspective?

There is nothing obsessive about my posts on homosexuality. I don't particularly enjoy making threads on this, but I perceive that there is a very real danger that many Muslims are going to start weakening on this issue, due to the immense amount of propaganda out there, as well as more direct pressure that is going to be applied to all groups in the near future to cave on this issue. Look at what Obama is doing in Africa right now for example. This is why it is important for Muslims to be armed with facts.

As for the rest, I've addressed that in my earlier response to Bakir, who incidentally doesn't seem to share your bizarre views of my posts.

Of course there is gay propaganda and a program, there is propaganda from every conceivable group that is interested in pushing its agenda, including muslims.

So what? Not all positions are equal, and the fact is that most people don't realise that they are victims of propaganda. The fact that 'everyone does it' doesn't mean it's not worth pointing out. I think we both know that on average, it would make a difference for a Muslim struggling with how to reconcile society's views on homosexuality with that of his religion to know that society changed their own views based on a massive propaganda campaign. This is why I make these threads, and maybe why you have a problem with them.

 

As far as the current state of gay rights is concerned, I hate to break it to you but it was inevitable, given the stupendous advances over the past few decades in womens rights, religious freedoms, treatment of refugees, rights of prisoners, animal rights, environmental concerns, rights of indigenous people etc etc.  The world has changed tremendously over the course of a very short time due to increased mixing of different cultures, technological advancements and education. Did you really think one of the most marginalized groups would simply sit back while others lobbied successfully for their rights?  It isn't as if this satanic homosexual program has worked wonders in isolation from everything that has transpired around it.  You and other homosexuality obsessed sc'ers really seem to lack some perspective on these things.

Talk about stating the obvious. Of course this didn't happen in isolation, and there are many things that can be said about the overall trends in society, but I'm not writing a book here, so I'm focusing on one issue. Of course, since I'm a believing Muslim, I have a completely different worldview to you, and therefore don't think these trends are necessarily always good, or that they are somehow the inevitable consequence of the 'mixing of cultures, technological advancements, and education'. These factors were all present in the Islamic civilisation, and they didn't become pro-homosexual. In fact, a little thought would reveal that these factors have nothing whatsoever to do with issues like gay rights (unless you want to use 'education' to mean propaganda, and technology as the means of spreading propaganda). But of course, you are more into mindless slogans than thought, which is why we rarely hear anything original from you.

Perhaps the most telling aspect in all of this is the striking similarities between some of your paranoia and the way you go about explaining these concerns with what indoctrinated westerners say and fear about muslims and sharia.

What paranoia? I'm quoting from a book outlining the methods by which homosexuality could become widely accepted in the United States, which turned out to be exactly the methods that were employed. You yourself admitted that of course propaganda is used. How is it paranoia to point that out?

[Abu Hadi]

How come all of your enlightening obsessive posts on homosexuality completely the hideous discrimination these people have faced for thousands of years, and still do today in most of the world?  Where is your sympathy, or at the very least a fair acknowledgement in an attempt to present a somewhat balanced perspective?  

 

Of course there is gay propaganda and a program, there is propaganda from every conceivable group that is interested in pushing its agenda, including muslims. 

 

As far as the current state of gay rights is concerned, I hate to break it to you but it was inevitable, given the stupendous advances over the past few decades in womens rights, religious freedoms, treatment of refugees, rights of prisoners, animal rights, environmental concerns, rights of indigenous people etc etc.  The world has changed tremendously over the course of a very short time due to increased mixing of different cultures, technological advancements and education. Did you really think one of the most marginalized groups would simply sit back while others lobbied successfully for their rights?  It isn't as if this satanic homosexual program has worked wonders in isolation from everything that has transpired around it.  You and other homosexuality obsessed sc'ers really seem to lack some perspective on these things.  Perhaps the most telling aspect in all of this is the striking similarities between some of your paranoia and the way you go about explaining these concerns with what indoctrinated westerners say and fear about muslims and sharia. 

 

By Conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues mentioned, you are playing right into the hands of the propagandists. 

There are two major difference between 'gay rights' and all the other issues you mentioned

 

Women's rights - Already there in Islam / Being a women is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Religious Freedoms - Already there in Islam / Rest of the world is catching up

Treatment of Refugees - Already there in Islam / Being a Refugee is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Prisoners - Already there in Islam / Being a prisoner is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Animal Rights - Already there in Islam / Being an animal is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Environmental Concerns - Already there in Islam / Living on this Earth is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Indigenous People - Already there in Islam / Being an Indigenous person is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

 

Rights to have gay sex - Not there in Islam / This is a choice / Rest of the world is making stuff up

 

So instead of conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues that are obviously different, both from a logical and religious perspective, we should focus on the real issue, which is whether being gay is a choice or not. If you believe it is not a choice, please present evidence. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by Abu Hadi

[Haydar Husayn]

By Conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues mentioned, you are playing right into the hands of the propagandists. 

There are two major difference between 'gay rights' and all the other issues you mentioned

 

Women's rights - Already there in Islam / Being a women is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Religious Freedoms - Already there in Islam / Rest of the world is catching up

Treatment of Refugees - Already there in Islam / Being a Refugee is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Prisoners - Already there in Islam / Being a prisoner is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Animal Rights - Already there in Islam / Being an animal is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Environmental Concerns - Already there in Islam / Living on this Earth is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Indigenous People - Already there in Islam / Being an Indigenous person is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

 

Rights to have gay sex - Not there in Islam / This is a choice / Rest of the world is making stuff up

 

So instead of conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues that are obviously different, both from a logical and religious perspective, we should focus on the real issue, which is whether being gay is a choice or not. If you believe it is not a choice, please present evidence.

He doesn't care about what's in Islam or not, so this is irrelevant to him. I'm not even sure why he still lists Islam as his religion, as it is clearly not much more than a cultural label for him given his posting history. The guy almost certainly thinks Marx had deeper insights into society than anything Islam provides.

[baradar_jackson]

Dude, King, obviously we as Mozlems don't really have a problem with rights for indigenous people, different races, etc...

 

You act as though we are arguing against the very principle of propaganda. Who said anything like that? The point here is that very sophisticated methods of propaganda are being used to advanced an illegitimate cause. There are legitimate causes and illegitimate causes. There is legitimate paranoia and illegitimate paranoia. You can't say: "Oh, this other group is prejudiced towards you, So it is ironic that you are prejudiced against this other, completely unrelated group." No, it's not ironic. It would only be ironic if our prejudice were in some substantial way, analogous to the other prejudice you're talking about. Which it isn't.

 

And you are advancing a narrative which only makes sense in the context of the gay rights movement. In the sense that: you are treating this as an identity issue ("this is a group that has been marginalized for millenia"). We do not subscribe to this view because we do not view this group as a class of society or a subculture. This group is defined by an action, much like a drug addict or an alcoholic. There is no alcoholics' rights group as far as I know.

 

Even if every society in the world were to "marginalize" them, we do not see this as an injustice because we define them not in terms of identity politics but in terms of their action. As long as you conflate this with issues of identity then of course we will never see eye to eye.

[Bakir]

Many gay muslims are also direct victims of propaganda, as well as their relatives in many cases. Propaganda that may be even stronger if the gay person comes out to his family. In such a case, you barely can mention or debate with your relatives about living a celibate life or try to build a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, even if you personally decide to do so.

As many people know, I'm all for individual freedom. And I believe such pressure is draining freedom of choice to even homosexuals who may decide not to practice sex nor to have a relationship with someone of the same sex.

And I pretty much agree on the justification Haydar gave. It is important to note that the acceptance of homosexuality in the modern world is a very recent shocking phenomenom. I honestly believe that one should be free and very conscious of the choices he makes in life. If you choose to follow your religious principles on the issue, let it be not because of repression, but because you genuinely choose to do so after you have gathered all the information and knowledge possible. And viceversa, in case you decide to be a sexually active homosexual.

I myself have had strong arguments and even got called an homophobe for daring to debate this topic. A topic I find worthy of debate, because one should be free to make choices on life and not pressured by propaganda nor prejudices. Also, knowledge is the best tool to make the most genuine and sincere choices in life.

I know this is not an attractive topic, but it is nonetheless affecting or potentially affecting many people. Whether in favour or against, let knowledge reach the most of people. The book quoted here is a jewel, the most revealing book on modern day homosexuality in the Western world.

The suffering of homosexuals throughout history came out because of homophobia (abuses, bigoted hate and discrimination), not because the topic was debatable. During the time of the Prophet, you may find historical facts of tolerance towards LGBT in the book The Effeminates of Early Medina. I also believe that answers your question Abu Hadi, that being gay by itself is not punishable nor it is a sin.

Tolerance to the individuals feeling this way doesn't mean tolerance to the act nor open exclusive acceptance and support for it. Worst thing is the extremes we have today, that if you don't support it, you cannot be labeled as anything else but as an intolerant homophobe. That's unfair and not right, for any learned person.

[King]

There is nothing obsessive about my posts on homosexuality. I don't particularly enjoy making threads on this, but I perceive that there is a very real danger that many Muslims are going to start weakening on this issue, due to the immense amount of propaganda out there, as well as more direct pressure that is going to be applied to all groups in the near future to cave on this issue. Look at what Obama is doing in Africa right now for example. This is why it is important for Muslims to be armed with facts.

As for the rest, I've addressed that in my earlier response to Bakir, who incidentally doesn't seem to share your bizarre views of my posts.

So what? Not all positions are equal, and the fact is that most people don't realise that they are victims of propaganda. The fact that 'everyone does it' doesn't mean it's not worth pointing out. I think we both know that on average, it would make a difference for a Muslim struggling with how to reconcile society's views on homosexuality with that of his religion to know that society changed their own views based on a massive propaganda campaign. This is why I make these threads, and maybe why you have a problem with them.

Talk about stating the obvious. Of course this didn't happen in isolation, and there are many things that can be said about the overall trends in society, but I'm not writing a book here, so I'm focusing on one issue. Of course, since I'm a believing Muslim, I have a completely different worldview to you, and therefore don't think these trends are necessarily always good, or that they are somehow the inevitable consequence of the 'mixing of cultures, technological advancements, and education'. These factors were all present in the Islamic civilisation, and they didn't become pro-homosexual. In fact, a little thought would reveal that these factors have nothing whatsoever to do with issues like gay rights (unless you want to use 'education' to mean propaganda, and technology as the means of spreading propaganda). But of course, you are more into mindless slogans than thought, which is why we rarely hear anything original from you.

What paranoia? I'm quoting from a book outlining the methods by which homosexuality could become widely accepted in the United States, which turned out to be exactly the methods that were employed. You yourself admitted that of course propaganda is used. How is it paranoia to point that out?

It is good to see you reply with personal insults or comments about personal beliefs instead of sticking to the issues, but okay. Anyway, this is where I feel you lack perspective, you blow things out of proportion, there are far greater dangers out there from within the islamic community and outside. I am not here to debate whether islam is tolerant of homosexual behavior or not, that is a waste of time, but so is what you are doing for the most part.

Going back to the actual discussion, where I mentioned that you conveniently ignore a lot of important drivers for the current state of affairs, this is absolutely true, and no serious individual trying to understand a phenomenon should ignore them, but you do since you have an obvious agenda rather than an honest attempt to try and understand things. I mentioned it was rather inevitable given the rapid developments in the rights of other marginalized groups over the past few decades and that their militancy was understandable, you responded by mentioning something totally irrelevant about muslim societies of the past. Your point about the tolerance of homosexuality in rather inclusive islamic societies in the past is irrelevant, it was explicitly prohibited and punishable so why would it? What does that have to do with anything I said?

Of course these factors have a lot to do with gay rights today, marginalized people have always sought to fight off discrimination, without the conditions created by the obvious factors I mentioned, it would be extremely difficult to do so, despite all of the propaganda you tend to focus on, ignoring this fact is literally ignoring history much akin to ivory tower theories about the causes of poverty.

There is a reason homosexual propaganda is dominating the airwaves, it's not because it is a great danger to society, it's for the the opposite reason: it serves as a distraction and is relatively harmless to the elite class. Election after election in the western world, the most important issues are off the table, instead we get to focus on these issues, just like the interview you posted before. Dissidents from the left have constantly pointed out that although homosexual rights are important, it would be way more prudent to focus instead on class issues, so it isn't as if I have ever ran around championing gay rights. Homosexuals are still targeted in the muslim communities, in the most horrific ways, the kinds of inflamed rhetoric I still hear to this day is cringe-worthy and goes further against the spirit of islam than most of what others on television or in print are up to. I hardly ever see any condemnation on sc against these attitudes which are prevalent in our communities. If you were truly concerned about your fellow muslims falling prey or having a difficult time reconciling homosexuality with islam, what do you think is more likely to push them over the edge, vile intolerance from their own people or gay propaganda? As someone who claims to be genuinely concerned about these things, you don't seem to have your priorities right.

By Conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues mentioned, you are playing right into the hands of the propagandists.

There are two major difference between 'gay rights' and all the other issues you mentioned

Women's rights - Already there in Islam / Being a women is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Religious Freedoms - Already there in Islam / Rest of the world is catching up

Treatment of Refugees - Already there in Islam / Being a Refugee is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Prisoners - Already there in Islam / Being a prisoner is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Animal Rights - Already there in Islam / Being an animal is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Environmental Concerns - Already there in Islam / Living on this Earth is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights of Indigenous People - Already there in Islam / Being an Indigenous person is not a choice / Rest of the world is catching up

Rights to have gay sex - Not there in Islam / This is a choice / Rest of the world is making stuff up

So instead of conflagrating the issue of 'gay rights' with these other issues that are obviously different, both from a logical and religious perspective, we should focus on the real issue, which is whether being gay is a choice or not. If you believe it is not a choice, please present evidence.

You missed the point, in most of the cases mentioned above, rights have been expanded beyond what islam accords and provides, I did not talk about the religious perspective, there is no denying the advances in gay rights have a lot in common with advances in other areas. There is also no denying the each of those groups were persecuted in one major form or another and this has played a major role in the so called militant approach in their desire for tolerance and acceptance, but this is usually discounted here on sc, including the original post. How can you have a serious discussion about their program without a fair look at the primary causes of it?

And you are advancing a narrative which only makes sense in the context of the gay rights movement. In the sense that: you are treating this as an identity issue ("this is a group that has been marginalized for millenia"). We do not subscribe to this view because we do not view this group as a class of society or a subculture. This group is defined by an action, much like a drug addict or an alcoholic. There is no alcoholics' rights group as far as I know.

Even if every society in the world were to "marginalize" them, we do not see this as an injustice because we define them not in terms of identity politics but in terms of their action. As long as you conflate this with issues of identity then of course we will never see eye to eye.

I really do find it difficult to believe that you actually feel this way, you can sit back and try to theoretically categorize discrimination all you want, it is very convenient to do this from where we sit, the fact on ground remains and these people have been brutally victimized, driven to suicide, and harshly treated in ways totally counter to the spirits of islam and basic humanity.

Edited July 28, 2015 by King

[Bakir]

I must again point out that the cases of suicide come from abuses, what I would call homophobia, King. Gays don't suicide because their people don't approve of their actions. It is unbearable pressure to change, physical and psychological abuse as well as bigoted social discrimination and marginalization what may drive someone to suicide for this specific reason. Holding an opinion against homosexuality, homosexuals or gay propaganda is not offensive nor homophobic in anyway as long as it doesn't come with some sort of abuse.

Baradar, though I understand that from a purely islamic perspective it is reasonable to define the homosexual community by an act (due to the lack of apparent recognition of this sexual orientation), from an academic and social perspective that is wrong (and wouldn't be effective in this debate).

Gay identity is even more influential and tough for a gay person than his actual feelings and orientation. Thus, the so called gay community is rather made up of people who adopted that identity actively in the social sphere rather than people who committed the act (who may not even describe themselves as homosexuals).

[Q.A]

whew im glad i dont live in america.

[Hassu93]

Even in India an American based director tried to release a movie based on Homosexuality but it wasn't cleared by our censor board