More erudite contributions from Aunty Tourette, I see
Printable View
More erudite contributions from Aunty Tourette, I see
aunty, not being famous, I am as yet unable to reach out to any entire population and proclaim my sexuality - i wonder if i could, would i wish to? :dontknow:
as a matter of interest why do some members of this board view differing opinions as a virtual all-out declaration of war - do the accepted rules of debate not apply to gay fora?
It is a bit pathetic that people seem to go on the attack all the time, with snide comments and quasi-pompous put-downs. It is not surprising, yet very sad, that out of the thousands of people who read these boards, only a handful bother to contribute.
I was enjoying the discussion, and diverging viewpoints have really made me re-assess and think more about this issue - but comments about my sexuality when I have worked in Muslim countries is quite irrelevant to the furore surrounding the Archbishop of Cantebury, and simply not relevant to the point I was making.
They don't apply anywhere else - or is this the only Forum to which you belong/contribute?Quote:
Originally Posted by YardenUK
no - i belong to them all i think - Baht Stop and Ting Tong are lovely places. GT can be good and is starting to pick up again. This one I like because it is busy although there is a lot of off topic postings and bitchy comments that are not appealing to most people I guess (and now, thanks Homintern, i am totally off topic on this thread !! ha ha)
:geek:
"Your other point that he should not speak on this matter as the Archbishop but could do so as an academic (which he once was) - I find this baffling because academics speak out and publish day in day out, but who listens? I truly cannot imagine the following front page headline: "PROFESSOR THINKS SHARIAH COURTS INEVITABLE" It is only because he is Archbishop that his ideas hit the front page surely? (YardenUK, above).
I don't think that would be the headline... It would certainly say "ex-archbishop" rather than "professor". Just look at the way that George Carey (who now, apart from being the ex-archbishop, is just a peer) has been quoted on this issue in the last few days.
Williams would still get publicity - but could no longer be accused of betraying the specific church that he is supposed to be leading.
Largely by people who are not membersQuote:
Originally Posted by Marsilius
Does one have to be a member of Al Qaeda, then, in order to criticise its leadership for their words and actions, too?
Playing with words again, I see - how very Noam Chomsky. The word you used, and to which I referred, was "betray" not "criticise"Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsilius
YardenUK said:
"I was enjoying the discussion, and diverging viewpoints have really made me re-assess and think more about this issue - but comments about my sexuality when I have worked in Muslim countries is quite irrelevant to the furore surrounding the Archbishop of Cantebury, and simply not relevant to the point I was making."
I think you are unfair on the Board there, Yarden.
You yourself brought the fact that you had lived in Muslim countries ("Muslim societies as far apart as Gaza, Pakistan and Bangladesh") into the discussion, and although I accept that you were not trying to personalise by doing so, the very fact that you talked about your personal experience was BOUND to raise a reaction along the lines you got from Aunty.
Obviously, this being a mainly gay male Board, the angle taken was relating to how you fared there as a "practising homosexual"
In other discussion boards other angles would be raised - in most cases the women's rights angle would be stressed. If you were a women posting on a general politics discussion board in Britain on this issue, and you let slip that you had lived in Muslim countries, you can be sure you would get comments like "Well, how did you like wearing the veil," etc.
And by the way, the issue Aunty raised WAS relevent, although the way it was personalised on you may have irritated you.
The gay community in Britain is a lot more open now, and any attempt to introduce any Sharia provisions into law would have to take into account the fact that gays can now get married and have legal equality in Britain. Any discussion on how Sharia courts would deal with a gay Muslim divorce case sounds like a joke now, but do not forget, the very idea that civil marriage ceremony could take place between to men would have seemed farcical to most twenty years ago.
There are some good articles on this issue in the (London) Independent recently.
Johann Hari (who is himself gay, btw) give the idea of Sharia law a good blasting HERE:
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has another very critical viewpoint HERE:
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
And Deborah Orr feels the Archbishop's idea has some merit HERE:
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-dont-be-fooled-the-archbishop-wants-to-beat-extremists-at-their-own-game-780195.html