>> ^quantumushroom:
As archaic (or not, since there are still child brides in some Muslim countries) as arranged marriages were/are for power , they were still between a man and a woman (or women).

No, these were arrangements between two men, a father and a husband, concerning a piece of property, a bride. Women were not legal persons, and could not enter into such a contract in most cases. The fact that the husband has sex with the property exchanged does not change who entered into the contract, two men.

Even societies that either were indifferent to homosexuality or--in the weakest form of approval--looked the other way, never condoned gay marriage.

Nobody wanted "gay marriage" by the old definition, since the bride is property, no such analog was desirable. Marriage has been redefined, very recently, to be a contract between legal persons which confers benefits. The folks who are complaining about "redefinition" have benefited from their redefinition, and now they want to set it in stone, and pretend it has always been that way.

If they could provide any evidence that this redefinition is more socially destructive than the redefinition they have been using, let them state their case. The fact that the creator of the video don't seem to have an argument beyond "redefinition conspiracy", and seems to be completely ignorant of the historical context, does not speak well for the position.

I'll not mention the Scamulus and our new communist PresiTeleprompter's endless Unconstitutional power grabs in unrelated threads if select left-wringers here will stop desperately referencing Black people and slavery to somehow make a point about gay marriage. Remember, it was Blacks as a voting bloc who helped vote down legalized gay marriage in Commiefornia, resulting in many, many uses of the N-word over at Daily Komatose and other liberal web meccas.

A property arrangement in which a father sells his daughter to an unrelated man in exchange for the social gain associated with the familial connection, and dependent on the culture and status of those involved, sometimes including other property such as a dowry or a bride price.

As archaic (or not, since there are still child brides in some Muslim countries) as arranged marriages were/are for power , they were still between a man and a woman (or women). Even societies that either were indifferent to homosexuality or--in the weakest form of approval--looked the other way, never condoned gay marriage.

Men and women are not interchangeable, there are real differences between the sexes.

And for the trendy religion-bashers, Christianity has given more good to the world than it has taken, and done far less evil than communism, socialism and fascism.

Yeah I don't give a shit what else they've got going for them, the way they treat women makes me fucking sick. The weird thing is most people here in Canada grew up with one or two muslim girls who are still willing to accept arranged marriages... there's a couple girls from my high school who are now married to fat greasy guys from the UAE and Dubai. One of them used to pass out blowjobs in the trunk of her car lol.

That some moderate Muslim states have modified their religious laws to suit new ideas about morality does not prove anything about the intent of those who originally created the system of laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab lays out the scriptural 'evidence' for and against forcing women to wear a veil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a specific way to "dishonor" her family, is sufficient to trigger an attack."

Where do you think such traditions of harsh punishment for inappropriate sex come from?

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)


How can you honestly claim to believe that Islam has nothing to do with the domination of women by men?

http://www.apostatesofislam.com has several well-cited and well reasoned arguments for why people should abandon Islam.