Obergefell vs. Hodges may sound familiar, and that’s because it’s the gay marriage Supreme Court case. Justice Alito explicitly raises the possibility that if gay marriage is legalized, then there won’t be much ground to oppose legalized polyamory (two men and two women together, etc.).

Here’s an excerpt from the oral arguments of the case:

Justice Alito: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case, and then after that a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”

Lawyer for Obergefell: “I believe so your honor.”

Justice Alito: “What would be the reason?”

Lawyer for Obergefell: “There would be two, one whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons…”

Justice Scalia: “I didn’t understand your answer.”

…

Justice Alito: What if these are four people, two men and two women—it’s not the sort of…polygamous relationship that exists in other societies and still exists in some societies today, and let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case, what would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

The lawyer tries to deny the possibility. Her answer is a variation of her earlier answer above, with additions about how such a union could even work, particularly if it is then dissolved. It seems she’s working through it as she goes (pages 19-20). Alito seemed unconvinced and, as we can now see, he was right to be.

Here’s something else she says which is simply not true:

“…there is…a social science consensus that there’s nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of the parent that is going to affect child outcomes. And this isn’t just the research about gay people. It’s research about…the effect of gender for 50 years.” (21)

At the very least, in the social-science world such an assertion is highly disputed. For us as Muslims (and for most human beings that have walked this earth), we know that what she’s saying is nonsensical.

The conservative justices lost this case, and their predictions are now becoming reality. What was also embedded in their questions to the lawyer was something even deeper than the definition of ‘marriage.’ If who can get married to whom is something that can be changed, then why wouldn’t the path for other types of sexual relationships and other displays of sexuality also become acceptable?

The New One Percent

Homosexual behavior as well as, let’s say, other activities associated with LGBTQ+-identification is deviant by nature of the fact that they do indeed deviate from the norm. This is why gay people, trans people, ‘non-binary’ people, etc., account for around a mere 1% of the world’s global population.

RELATED: Study Shows Disgust Reactions to Homosexuality

From our bug-pushing friends at the World Economic Forum (June 2021):

As has been pointed out many times by now, the rise of LGBTQ+-identification among the younger generation is likely due to the fact that they have been confused and given many options from which to experiment with. It is actually not too dissimilar to fashion trends. One year, everyone’s wearing bell-bottoms, the next, it’s skinny jeans. That may come across as somewhat reductive, but young people in particular are impressionable and subject to society’s whims as they make their way in the world and try to forge identities for themselves.

RELATED: Disney Commits to Pushing LGBT: What Muslim Parents Should Know

Religious Discrimination & ‘Humanizing’ LGBTQ

This video is actually about the work of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Defamation (GLAAD), an organization in the US that tries to de-stigmatize LGBTQ-whatever behavior by ensuring that these groups are represented in the media, in shows, etc.

From this same embedded video, a GLAAD employee explains the following about their approach to normalizing homosexuality around the world:

“It’s really about humanizing who we are and telling our stories, so that’s about getting into scripts, in television, into movies, storylines about LGBTQI people so that people who don’t know personally someone who is transgender, someone who’s gay, learn through media….And so if you look back to India, decriminalizing LGBTQI 2 years go [2018], a lot of that was led by business leaders and us working with business leaders to bring about an awareness to education…”

Just at it is interesting that the WEF is pushing for rights that are more about sexual desire than anything else, it is equally as interesting that the most critical group that GLAAD mentioned was business leaders and not, say, civil society leaders.

What’s more is that we don’t really need these stories to be ‘humanized.’ We are not incapable of seeing that these people are people with feelings, challenges, good aspects, bad aspects and desires. We simply disagree with acting on these types of desires. We believe that acting on them is harmful for both the individual and society.

So, why would they need to be ‘humanized’ for us?

This implies that we’re incapable of seeing people as people.

I would argue that Islam in fact gives us far more ‘humanity’ than the culture of the Western liberal world, one that is so focused on sodomy and dressing like the opposite sex (as if wearing a dress and liking pink is the ultimate indication of feminity) that they have little time these days to see the harms they commit around the world.

RELATED: The Inhumanity of the US Army Laid Bare

Strangely though, this campaign works. Go around explaining to people, no matter how patronizing you may be about it, that they need to understand how LGBTQ+ people have feelings too.

Being racist typically involves hating a person based on superficial things like skin tone. This is not what being against homosexuality entails. At its heart, it is being against acting on certain desires—desires that, when allowed, open up the path for even more deviant desires to be normalized, which is precisely what we are now seeing.

This is why the Republicans have a problem. Many of them ‘don’t care’ about homosexuality, but they are very bothered by the various other forms of deviance that are now being permitted.

Our Own Campaign

Rather than Compassionate Imams bending over backwards to not offend, perhaps we should have campaigns to explain why these activities are wrong. Right now, it’s the pro-Israel Daily Wire that even pretends to take up this activity (at least in terms of the wide-reaching, more-mainstream media outlets), and when it comes to articulating why homosexuality is wrong, they’re pretty weak sauce.

Let’s make the campaign slogan something like this:

Stop Colonizing Religion.

Aren’t these people also Social Justice Warriors? Then they need to understand that they, the WEF and their buddies in business need to cease with their colonial attempts to cleanse our faith (and most traditional societies) of what they perceive as inhumane and savage.

Consider how they would respond to the answers of this Masai man when asked if a man can be a woman. Would the SJWs dare to call this man transphobic? Would they patronize him and see him as not yet enlightened? I’d guess probably the latter.

#DecolonizeReligion

RELATED: Human Rights: A Tool for Governing Muslims

MuslimSkeptic