Qwelane: Homosexuality akin to Beastiality

Jon Qwelane is at it again. This time his mean spirit has (again) been directed towards homosexuals. Writing in the nation’s biggest daily, the Sunday Sun, Qwelane equated homosexuality with beastiality.

Professor Pierre de Vos has more at Constitutionally Speaking.

Qwelane has recently been infamous for his inflammatory anti-Jewish statements on Channel Islam International.

Speaking of Jews (not Israelis, though that distinction shouldn't matter) in America, Qwelane recently said:

“Those are the people who control America. Those are the people who control the European Union, control the World Bank. Those are the people who control the IMF.”

Responding to a caller who denied the Holocaust Qwelane replied:

“I always say that if it is true that these people suffered, in the way that is always being portrayed then how come they have not learnt any lessons? You cannot by any stretch of the imagination go and visit the same hardships, the same sufferings on someone else.”

Update: Apologies - this was old news and occured some time in July earlier this year.

Comments

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

The link refers to an article published in about June?

Qwelane is considered beyond the pale when he talks about gays. But his comments on Zim and Israel are generally taken as him "expressing his opinion" and being within his rights. How do we go about setting "the line" ?

[Gary]

I suppose, Religious Fundamentalist 1, that some ahtred is PC and some is not.
It's ok to hate Israelis and to support tyrannies but not to dislike gays.

[Religious Fundamentalist]

I'm really aiming at the broader question of how (liberal western) society decides what is and isn't acceptable.

Who are the arbiters?

[Brett]

Ok, I know I'm going to get blasted for this but what the hey.

RF, I think that that is exactly the point Quelane was making. Who decides what is acceptable. If homosexuality is fine then why not bestiality. 100 years ago they were both taboo, now its "generally" accepted that homosexuality is quite normal. SO who's to say in another few years "we" won't have "progressed" some more. Really, if some wishes to express his sexuality with a different species why should he not have the right to. No one is being harmed. Anyone who claims the right of a person do be homosexual based on the idea of freedom of expression, right to privacy etc, will have a hard time arguing that bestiality is should be legal.

[Mike]

Brett is easy to explain the difference. In the Homosexual case both are consenting adults. You cant say the same for the animal now can u.

[Steve]

Brett, perhaps I am ascribing excessively sinister motives onto your argument, but from where I am sitting your comparison reveals a profoundly simplistic and immature view of both love and relationships.

It seems that you see love as purely a physical, entirely instinct driven base animialistic pleasure instead of an emotional engagement and embrace. (It can and should also be a spiritual experience but not reaching that level, which few people ever do, doesn't condemn it to being purely physical).

From the moment an animal is sexually mature, it can't stop itself from mating if the opportunity presents itself. Can I conclude that you view a homosexual person in the same light?

I am curious that you can't see the difference between the affection one can have for another human and the affection one can have for an animal?

I suppose my conclusion will have to be that you take the bigotted view that all homosexuals see their relationship as one of purely physical pleasure. This is a bigotted secular view rather than one based on Torah, which doesn't preclude this possibility even though it condemns the execution.

Your comment debases other humans to the lowest of levels - is that how you speak about Jews who don't keep other mitzvot with equally serious consequences (nidah, shabbat, etc)?

Help me out here, but does Torah forbid Homosexuality per se, (I.e. a man who loves another man) or actual penetration?

Furthermore, what of women? The Torah does not forbid women from sleeping with each other. But you still condemn homosexual women as beast lovers?

[Gary]

Another question of interest.
Israel accepts gay rights, the Arabs and Iran do not tolerate gays in their country and presecute and even kill them.
Why is it then that most gays and lesbians (ESPECIALLY those born Jewish) are so violently anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian?

[Brett]

Steve

Do you remember Italia 90'. Roberto Bagio missed the goal in the final penalty shootout. He wasn't even close, he was a metre over the crossbar. But he was still closer than you were to understanding my point.

I was not comparing the love of two men, consenting adults, to the pure physical lust of bestiality. What I was saying was that the very liberal arguments that allow for the former to be acceptable are as relevant to the latter. I feel that homosexuality is wrong, why\? Because G-d says so. I can give a number of reasons why I think he said so, but these are possible explanations, not the reason I think its wrong. A non religious liberal will argue that he does not believe in this particular word of G-d (or perhaps no word at all) and that according to the fundamentals of western liberal society, namely freedom of expression, freedom of sexuality etc, there is no reason homosexuality should be disallowed. Now I'm saying, fair enough, but please explain why the same cannot be said for bestiality. You can't say its wrong because G-d says so (because you rejected his homosexuality prohibition), so on what basis do you claim that it is wrong? Obviously a homosexual relationship has depth and emotion that bestiality does not have, but that's irrelevant because if you hold by that then only deep meaningful homosexual relationships should be allowed, but if two consenting men wish to have a one night stand then that should be illegal. Western liberalism allows for a person to engage in whatever activity he wishes as long as it does not hurt anyone else or infringe on their rights.

Essentially my argument is not on whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, it is on the hypocrisy that the reasons given for the legitimacy of 2 men lying together are not applied to other circumstances they are equally valid for. My "tayna" in this case is not on homosexuals but on western liberalism.

I have to say that I am rather disappointed in you Steve. It is not like to to jump to conclusions and put words in people's mouths. You are usually far more intellectual that your most recent post. I do not see your point with regard to Jews who do not keep mitzvot. Even with your misunderstanding of my post there is no connection.

Mike. An animal is incapable of giving consent other than not resisting or initiaitng. The Torah (in the Yom Kippur reading no less) forbids a woman for lying in front of an animal in order that they will initiate. This seems to suggest that they are capable of initiating. I would prefer not to discuss any further the particular details of this disgusting practice but felt it necessary to address your point.

Brett, one could argue that bestiality is cruelty to animals and oppose it on that grounds.

[Brett]

True. But firstly you'd have to prove it, or at least show evidence that it is and secondly it changes nothing regarding my argument. If it were cruel then it would not be allowed because its cruel, but if it were not then, according to western liberalism, there is no reason it should be disallowed.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

viva NAMLBA, viva

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Sorry, that's NAMBLA.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Steve, you make good points about love etc. But I must agree with Brett that they miss his central point altogether.

In many other societies these practices (homosexuality, pre-marital sex, bestiality, sodomy, oral-sex) are considered normal or even desirable.

If we now allow some of these practices on the basic presumption that as long as you're not physically hurting someone else and all parties are consenting, then why should only some be allowed and not others?

i.e. the central reason for looking down on these practices was western (judeo-christian biblical) morality. If we scrap that aside, and our standard is now "consent / harm" - then why rule out bestiality etc?

Giving you the heeby jeebies isn't a good enough reason, nor is a dubious claim as to whether the animal enjoys / doesnn't enjoy or even knows.

Besides, start a moral argument like this:
"We can kill a goat to eat it, but if you just take it into your cave on a cool afghany evening for a cuddle and it won't even notice then that's morally reprehensible"

[Brett]

RF1, as good as your last point is, now you're giving me the heeby jeebies.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

The one about NAMBLA or about the chilly afghany evenings?

Go to www.thenoseonyourface.com for more on how to pass those chilly evenings in Iraqi caves.

[Brett]

You know I meant the afghany one but now that I've googled NAMBLA I have to say that that comment has alot more heebie and whole bunch more jeebie

[abz]

The person (above) who stated that it's ok for two consenting adults and not with beasts (consent is the issue)- hence the two are different does not make any sense to me whatsoever, as they are most likely adult - and so is their mother. would they not get angry at me if i said that both are adults, so they should think of commiting such a disgusting crime. YES, THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD! so likewise in Islam they are both crimes of the same "nature" and these leaders in those countries which plan to practice it in parliament should think before feeding people the "consenting adult" line.
only an opinion,
abz