What is the difference betwen enforcing wearing of the burka and banning gay marriage?

Question

The Taliban enforced law that women must wear burkas. This is based on Islam :
---
'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."
---

When some Americans fight to keep gay and lesbian people from having the right to marry, their main argument is based on Christianity :
---
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
---

The biggest reason that gays are kept from marrying legally in the United States is because there are outspoken Christians who don't want it.

If that is a justified position, should we then pass law that all women should wear the burka in the United States under the same argument - that there are outspoken Muslims here that desire that?

(Not talking about what should be accepted within religions - but the separation of church and state)

cashflowchris1 : So you would deny people rights to keep them from having a certain title? What if by law all "marriages" were called "civil unions" and the term "marriage" was only used by the church? And does your answer mean that you belive all women should wear burkas? I'm interested in what you think the difference is.

Citizen1984 :

I was hoping someone would bring up that comparison. The reason that some want to ban gay marriage is because they are afraid they will be tempted into becoming homosexual. The reason that some want to enforce the burka is because they are afraid that they will be tempted into raping women.

Thank you for your answer. We don't all have to agree, I am just hoping to get people to think.

To the people saying "it's always been thus" - I'm not sure how that relates to the question. I'm sure that both of these examples have been practiced for some time in their parts of the world. If something has been done incorrectly for long enough it doesn't make it suddenly correct at any point in time. It's still incorrect.

Answer 1

While I admire your research and knowledge of scripture. I must respectfully disagree.

Your argument falls apart when you say "If that is a justified position. . ." Despite the rantings of Christian fundamentalists we are a secular nation and our laws are in no way based upon Scripture.

Read the First Amendment and Jefferson's interpretation of it

The fact that some Christian fundamentalists want to treat gay people like the Taliban treats women is not justifiable.

Most people are afraid of gay people because the very sight of them reminds them of their own repressed homosexual thoughts and they are scared of them. (Look at the tremendous number of scandals wherein supposedly straight Christians get caught engaging in homosexual behavior, i.e. Senator Larry Craig.)

Gay people should be treated the same as anyone else under the rule of law and therefore should be allowed the legal status of marriage and the legal protections and rights it bestows upon other citizens.

Check out the URLs on the separation between Chuch and state as the framers intended.

I thank you for an intelligently proffered question.

Answer 2

I think making someone wear something is kind of minimal, compared to a lifelong committment of marriage. I don't think women should have to wear a burka at all, but I think if a woman chooses that, we should respect her choice.

I do think that making someone wear something visibly different can be oppressive, so I don't like that aspect of it.

On gay marriage, its not making someone do something, its preventing someone from doing something. So its a little different there. Also, I think someone pointed out that gays have never been married before, so its a new thing, and you have to ask what kinds of issues will society as a whole have with it, and why now, and never before?

I think the government has a small part to play in deciding some things about promoting/discouraging certain relationships for the good of society, like you can't marry your cousin, for example, because of birth defects, etc.

But as far as homosexual people wanting to be permanent partners, I think for a lot of people it is really just a big surprise still. How will this affect some people's deeply held beliefs about men and women and marriage? I think people will come to terms with this in the US, and we just need to give people time. I like Ron Paul's statements on giving states more authority to decide things, because it gives people in those states time to accept it. No one likes to be forced to do (or not do) anything, but since the status quo is easier to accept, I think if we give people time, things will change.

I hope this kind of answers your question. xoxo Trin

Answer 3

I'm not christian by no means but I do not want the sanctity of marriage to lowered in such a way that two people of the same sex can marry. I do not mind them having the same benefits as a marriage but not the same title. I am not alone by far. I live in Massachusetts and the law allowing same sex marriages was suppose to be on the ballot. we had the signatures required to get it on the ballot but our dictator Governor deval patrick used back door politics to keep our right to vote from us. It is now legal for same sex couples to marry in MASS. Why do you think he would go through all that trouble to prevent us from our civil rights? more people by far are against same sex marriages than those that are for them.

If we allow any two people that love each other to marry without saying who can and can not than why not your cousin or sister? All I'm saying is put it on the ballot nation wide Once the voting is done the issue should be dropped!

Answer 4

Gays have the right to marry. Just as heteros do. What gays are asking for is an additional right to marry the same sex. The question is not for heteros or even Christians to explain themselves. The point for you to defend is why for the first time in recorded history we should allow gays to marry. Gays are the ones upsetting the status quo. It's incumbent on you to explain why the law should be changed. Your analogies get a D+ at best, they are irrelevant.

Answer 5

Yes, & Britney & Jamie Lynn Spears should be the 1st to have to start wearing the burkas?

Answer 6

One involves forced action
the other involves not changing the definition of a word to suit a specific group.
The penalties for noncompliance are also vastly different....
one is Draconian
the other is almost nonexistent.

Answer 7

In places where women are forced to wear a burka they hang and beat gays to death.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071902061.html

http://www.thewordofgeorge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/irangayexecution1.jpg

http://www.gay-astrology.com/images/IranExecution3.jpg

Answer 8

Great argument. Republicans will now attack you for your flawless logic. Wear it as a badge of honor. They hate the constitution and all religions other than christianity. Of course banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It forces a christian belief on all nonchristians in a profound way.

Answer 9

One might draw some fine distinctions, but
essentially you are correct.