Will Gay Iranians Come Out of the Revolt Better --or Worse?

Ever since the Iranian Revolution empowered a socially conservative theocracy led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, the country has been a difficult place for gays, lesbians and transgender people to call hom e.

[nikk]

bless them all thats so sad

[Resist Ignorance]

For the real link click here:

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php...

[Glynn]

So now Ahmadinejad points the finger of blame for the unrest in Iran on "thieves, homosexuals and scumbags". Thats funny only 12 months ago he said there are no homosexuals in his country. Is this progress?

The man is in denial about EVERYTHING including his own people.

I have noticed rather alot of Iranian mo's at www.manjam.com who simply refuse to be ignored - bless'um.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

Glynn wrote:

So now Ahmadinejad points the finger of blame for the unrest in Iran on "thieves, homosexuals and scumbags". Thats funny only 12 months ago he said there are no homosexuals in his country. Is this progress?

Of course he didn't say there are no homosexuals in Iran, his comment was that there is no organized community of g/l/b/t people as we have in the West. That was the disingenuous, mainstream, US media purposefully pushing a mistranslation.

This is not to defend homophobic theocracies or near theocracies, as you find in Iran and Alabama, to take two examples, it is merely to point out that the mainstream media gets most worked up about gay rights worldwide when the US government is trying to overthrow some despot who also happens to be a Pat Robertson-like homophobe somewhere in the world that the US government probably installed or inadvertently created in the first place.

[Frank]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course he didn't say there are no homosexuals in Iran, his comment was that there is no organized community of g/l/b/t people as we have in the West. That was the disingenuous, mainstream, US media purposefully pushing a mistranslation.
This is not to defend homophobic theocracies or near theocracies, as you find in Iran and Alabama, to take two examples, it is merely to point out that the mainstream media gets most worked up about gay rights worldwide when the US government is trying to overthrow some despot who also happens to be a Pat Robertson-like homophobe somewhere in the world that the US government probably installed or inadvertently created in the first place.

Good point. But I would add that Ahmedinijad was right, albeit by accident. This mess was caused by "thieves, homosexuals and scum bags". The ruling clerics are "thieves" of elections, many of them are repressed "homosexuals" and they are certainly "scum bags". Agreed?:)

[JohnInToronto]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course he didn't say there are no homosexuals in Iran, his comment was that there is no organized community of g/l/b/t people as we have in the West. That was the disingenuous, mainstream, US media purposefully pushing a mistranslation.
This is not to defend homophobic theocracies or near theocracies, as you find in Iran and Alabama, to take two examples, it is merely to point out that the mainstream media gets most worked up about gay rights worldwide when the US government is trying to overthrow some despot who also happens to be a Pat Robertson-like homophobe somewhere in the world that the US government probably installed or inadvertently created in the first place.

Which of course, is exactly what happened in Iran, due to US overthrow of the Mossadegh government and the resulting disgust of the Iranian people for the Shah and his policies, causing them to revolt and install the mullahs.

[Frank]

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
Which of course, is exactly what happened in Iran, due to US overthrow of the Mossadegh government and the resulting disgust of the Iranian people for the Shah and his policies, causing them to revolt and install the mullahs.

That's all true but the clerics promised to bring freedom and democracy. They lied and no western power can be blamed for what has happened since.

[tomas]

Of course not. They are a convenient scapegoat, just as gay men were during the Nazi era. I don't think most people even know what is going on and, if they did, care--after all, these are only gay men. Why bother to protest? We need to keep this information in the forefront. These are vicious murderers!

[Glynn]

Exactly Tomas - what do we know? We can only make up our minds from what we see on TV and read in the "serious" press, not some ranting power bigot on Fox news.

But, there are also have many Iranians seeking asylum in western (especially English speaking) countries. These people are very vocal about how it is in Iran.

Iranian culture and politics in particular (even if it worked with the will of the majority) is a pretty alien concept to us westerners to get our heads around (those of us ordinary folks that is). They go through the charade of nominating many candidates then they wittle them down to (basically) two, and they still get the same old crap they had before imposed on them - sounds rather familiar doesn't it?

At least in the west we don't have some cranky bishop or cardinal dictating the score - although I'm sure there are plenty right wing christian fundamentalist who would vote for that option if it was available to them - Christ, they have so much in common don't they?

[JohnInToronto]

Frank wrote:

<quoted text>
That's all true but the clerics promised to bring freedom and democracy. They lied and no western power can be blamed for what has happened since.

That is true but what ultimately happened can be laid at the foot of America. So too, to a certain extent, can WWII in Europe, as the US refused to join the League of Nations and moderate the "punishment" of Germany by the Alliance, which might have lessened Hitler's chances of coming to power.

[JohnInToronto]

Glynn wrote:

At least in the west we don't have some cranky bishop or cardinal dictating the score - although I'm sure there are plenty right wing christian fundamentalist who would vote for that option if it was available to them - Christ, they have so much in common don't they?

You may not in the UK and we don't in Canada, but remember that parts of the United State come pretty close to being theocratic!

[SilenceKills]

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
You may not in the UK and we don't in Canada, but remember that parts of the United State come pretty close to being theocratic!

Where?

[Tear4]

SilenceKills wrote:

<quoted text>
Where?

Where the muslims are.

[JohnInToronto]

SilenceKills wrote:

<quoted text>
Where?

Most rural areas of the South.

[Frank]

JohnInToronto wrote:

<quoted text>
Most rural areas of the South.

I think some areas of the south might surprise you. It really depends on where you go. I like parts of the south. But that's not to say that I would want to live there. I like living in the north east where we certainly have nothing that even remotely resembles religious government.