by MC Team
On our youspeakwespeak blog (which was the forerunner to the Muslim Chronicle), we posted an article on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriages after Barack Obama publicly expressed his personal support for it back in 2012. We published that article in full in the first issue of the Muslim Chronicle, which you can access on our website: www.muslimchroniclett.com.
Now that Obama’s personal belief has become a reality with the recent US Supreme Court ruling, we felt it timely to update that article and re-present it here for our readers in light of some of the most recent happenings and discussions on the topic.
As Muslims, we make no apologies for what we believe in and stand for. We believe that the moral and ethical outlook of Islam has a divine basis and that it is in perfect accordance with what will bring about the greatest good for humanity, for all times and in all places. On this issue of legitimising homosexuality by affording persons who engage in such behaviours the same civil rights as heterosexuals, our position is clear and unequivocal: engaging in homosexual behaviour is a major sin, and contrary to what liberal supporters of homosexuality try to argue, legalising such behaviour and making it part of the mainstream of any society will ultimately result badly for the moral and spiritual well-being of that society.
In the radically materialistic societies of the West, any mention of morals and spirituality is bound to be disdainfully dismissed as mere religious prudery and puritanical bigotry. It is not our intention here to get into a philosophical discussion about the pitfalls of the materialistic worldview. Rather, we would simply like to highlight the double standards of those who champion the homosexual cause, and the slippery moral slope that this issue leads one towards.
Firstly, let us re-characterise the main argument of the ‘pro-gay’ lobby in starker terms. Their argument goes something like this: whatever sexual acts two (or more) consenting adults choose do participate in in private is their personal business (“as long as no one gets hurt”), and the state has absolutely no business sanctioning the private lives of these individuals in its law books. So the argument is premised on considerations of privacy, consent, a lack of harm and whether or not the state has any legitimate business intervening in the private lives of adults.
There is a lot that can be said on each of these points. For example, we may take issue with the highly materialistic way the pro-gay advocates define “harm.” Whereas for them the absence of physical or emotional harm constitutes ‘no harm’, as Muslims we will want to point out that in fact severe ‘harm’ is being perpetrated against the individual’s soul…but we digress. Even if we were to take the argument as stated above at face value, we can still counter their propositions in the following ways.
If the matter is as they put it (i.e. basically, that the private sexual lives of consenting adults should never be criminalised, “as long as no one is hurt”), then what about the bigamy laws in almost all Western countries that prohibit polygamous marriages? The underlying considerations (i.e. privacy, consent, lack of harm etc.) that are used for justifying the legalisation of homosexuality can easily be marshalled to argue for the legalisation go polygamy. So then, should the minority of Muslims who opt for such relationships begin mobilising and pounding the pavements shouting for their rights as well? When are the “enlightened” activists for sexual inclusion going to pencil this one in on their agenda? The fact is that many of them will be severely hard pressed to do it. And this highlights clearly their hypocrisy and double standards. Like the emperor in the Hans Christian Anderson story, the cloak of “enlightenment” and “rationality” that they have arrogated onto themselves is a mere figment of their imagination; in fact, they wear no clothes.
Some pro-gay liberals have already recognised this hobgoblin of theirs. The famous liberal newspaper, the Economist, recently published an article on the topic in which they concluded saying:
“Fredrik deBoer, writing in Politico, speculates that liberal opponents of plural marriage remain “trapped … in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage”. This is probably right. Now that gay marriage is finally legal from sea to shining sea, it’s time for liberals to refine their arguments against polygamy. We need better, more rationally compelling arguments if we wish to be fair in shutting against would-be polygamists the libertarian door that we’ve just blasted open.” (Our emphasis)
But it doesn’t stop there. This argument can be extended even further in justification of the most revolting of human perversion. Take the matter of incest for example. Can you bring yourself to imagine a brother and sister (two consenting adults) arguing a case to engage in sexual relations (in private) on the basis of their “human rights”? Now, some of our pro-gay interlocutors might try to get clever and squirm their way out of this by pointing to the exceptionally high risk of having handicapped children as sufficient justification for criminalising such practices (i.e. they will invoke the issue of ‘harm’). But what if they undergo the necessary medical procedure to eliminate the chance of having children (no harm to anyone, see?), what then? What are these “progressive thinkers” going to conclude in such an instance? That such couples should have “rights” too? If you think this is just a hypothetical example, think again. This was in fact a case that reached before the judges of the German high court a few years ago to adjudicate on. Perhaps it was on the basis of this argument that the German national ethics council recently recommended that incestuous relationships between siblings be legalised by the Government.
This is exactly why no Muslim should get deceived by these so-called progressive, post-modern fads of ethics and identity politics. The image of rationality that they claim for themselves, and the label of irrationality and religious bigotry that they attempt to tag people like us with is disingenuous and intellectually puerile. Like we said at the beginning, we believe that there is divine wisdom behind our moral and ethical outlook; but more than that, we can actually show the rational basis underlying this outlook. Even if we haven’t done so fully here, we hope that we have done enough to expose the fallaciousness and socially dangerous direction that the pro-gay advocates are headed in.