Name:     Michael L. S.   [E-Mail]
      Location:  Earth
      Website:  Middle East Resource Center

Read my complete profile

 

HOME PAGE

---

RECENT POSTS:

Two news items caught my keen, cynical eye today. The first is the proclamation issued in the name of supposed 2.5 million Muslim users of Facebook "threatening" to desert Facebook. Why? Because Facebook apparently removed four pages with Islamic/Islamofascist content. They promise to make good on the threat unless Facebook accedes to their demands of which there are several. One is that the removed pages be reinstated. That is - in light of the fact that Facebook has all kind of crap on it, a lot of it offensive -, in fairness, not all that unreasonable.

The other 2-3 demands concern banning any and all anti-Islamic content. Now, let me get this straight: They want the freedom to proselytize their stone-age religion urbi et orbi but any criticism thereof should be muzzled to protect their "feelings." This type of belligerence, hubris and rank hypocrisy are what have turned previously tolerant people, such as myself, if I dare say so, into admirers and supporters of the Bush administration's unstated Weltanschauung. I now fully endorse the latest initiative by the Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders to awaken the people of the West to the dangers of unbridled Islamofascism by promoting a pro-freedom alliance.

I do not seek a destruction of Islam. I do, however, firmly contend that an Islam that is not secularized and neutered in the same way Xianity has been over the past three or so centuries is INCOMPATIBLE and ANTAGONISTIC vis-a-vis the values and life as practiced in the vast majority of the non-Muslim world. We ARE talking about a clash of civilizations and, having been living in Muslim countries for the past several years, I can speak from first-hand experience.

Anyway, if they end up leaving Facebook, I say: Goodbye, good riddance, don't let the virtual door hit your smelly ass on the way out, and STAY OUT! Insh3allah ;)

* * *

On another notion, Argentina just legalized gay marriage. I have something of a problem with that.

I have nothing against gays. I am not interested in the nature or nurture polemic because it is irrelevant. A person is homosexual and that is that; I fully accept it and think neither more nor less of that individual. I have a problem with "gay pride" parades in the same way I'd have problems with "straight pride" parades: Scantily clad freaks sticking their tongues down each other's throats while gyrating as if possessed and contorting their bodies, faces and voices is not a spectacle that edifies or empowers any human being, of whatever sexual orientation.

I divagate. I propose that marriage itself is an outdated concept and, rather than allowing it to take different forms as far as its constitution, I suggest that it be abolished altogether. If the economic systems calls for it, let two people be rewarded thru tax breaks, etc. by simply registering their union. Let that union be opened to two individuals, of whatever parameters, including sex. A few years or decades from now, who knows, perhaps the societal views change to such an extent that such a registered union could be opened to include more than two individuals.

I appreciate that this gainsays the received wisdom that the family (i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) is the cornerstone of civilization and that many social problems today can be traced to the breakdown of that model. That model, it is advanced, should therefore be propagated now more forcefully than ever before as the one toward which to strive. I reject this for two reasons. Firstly, it is doubtful, to say the least, whether the perceived social disintegration really owes solely or primarily to the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family. There are a number of other facets to consider and attribute it to, not least of all the pervasiveness of the "progressive" media, the ascendance and ultimate perversion of the "civil liberties"/"human rights," technological developments, etc. Secondly, the society has simply changed too much as far as long-term expectations and planning. I would say, and I have only anecdotal evidence to support this, that the preponderance of the members of modern societies are so accustomed to instant gratification and the ability to dispose of whatever does not suit one's needs that this is translated to their attitudes toward their personal partners and mates. Marriage is simply not seen as a lifelong union anymore but as a seal upon something that one enjoys at the moment and expects him-/herself enjoying for some, indeterminate, time in the future, but which is by no means permanent and which can be rescinded at any time with few (mostly financial) adverse ramifications. (For my part, I still hope to find the perfect woman and stay with her "till death do us part" but I may be in the minority here.) What, then, is the point of forcing the perpetuation of the concept of marriage?

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<