Why are people overlooking the obvious?

It’s not just some Islamic governments that are anti-LGBTQ, it is Russia and many American “religious” groups that are anti- LGBTQ.

North Carolina, Indiana, and other states pass laws that are vociferously anti-gay; Presidential candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum) make very strong anti-gay statements. You have to realize how much that inspires someone with easy access to guns and internally conflicted with his own sexuality.

There’s a big difference between saying that Islam played a role in Omar Mateen’s actions (which I haven’t seen anyone deny) and saying that he was an agent of ISIS who was acting on the orders of the organization (which is what many have denied). And as @zenvelo has pointed out, plenty of people think that death is an appropriate sentence for homosexuality, including many Christians.

Islam played a role in his homophobia, because he was raised by Muslim parents, but apart from some running at the mouth, he’s been shown to have no ties to ISIS or any organized terrorist groups.

Hitler had a funny moustache, but he didn’t kill in the name of funny moustaches.

The point is not inappropriate or misguided. No matter how vicious Russia is to its LGBT population, they don’t, as far as I know, have an official death penalty for that “crime”, nor do they seem to exercise an unofficial extra-judicial killing system for those they consider in some way “deviant” or “abnormal” in these matters. And while some radical American so-called Christians thunder about “God’s wrath” and eternal hellfire and the appropriateness of a death penalty, they aren’t as a rule performing such executions. (Yes, there are exceptions which have been noted and excoriated nearly universally when they happen. After Matthew Shephard, name the next person murdered in this country by non-Islamic killers explicitly on account of his or her known or perceived sexuality. Matt Shephard was killed in 1998. This is fortunately a rare event in the USA by non-Islamic murderers.)

The fact that homosexuality is punishable by death in ten countries is worth noting. The fact that nine of the ten are Islamic-ruled, and the tenth is heavily Muslim-oriented, are valid areas of concern and diplomacy. So by all means “let’s have a conversation about guns” in the USA, as if that’s going to fix anything here.

There is a culture of homophobia amongst a large number of muslims.

And it is the case that many muslim-majority countries have punitive and discriminatory laws and social practices against homosexuality, and LGBT people in general.

It is true that the Quran regards homosexuality as a sin, as do the Hadiths.

The problem is is that there are other variables other than religion. And what I really tire of is the reductionism and crass generalisations played by too many armchair (and keyboard) sociologists—who think everything is so obvious.

Human and social affairs are complex. Why people hold particular attitudes is complex. Why nations develop in one way or another and how their culture forms is complex. Why a religion may seem authoritarian and intolerant in one place, and relatively benign in another is complex.

There are many muslim-majority countries that don’t criminalise homosexuality. So what’s the difference there? Does anyone stop to analyse?

There are Imams who are openly gay. How is that the case?

And the historical levels of tolerance of homosexuals in Islamic nations hasn’t been static. It’s changed over time and in different places. For long periods it was better than the Christian West—how and why? Does anyone analyse?

What should be obvious is that it is not obvious. And let’s just say that it really is “Islam” that’s the problem, as pretty much the whole of the reactionary right-wing like to claim, and an increasingly number self-styled liberals like Sam Harris and Bil Maher, and various bloggers and vloggers. Then what exactly is the solution? What is the end-game in their (and yours) minds? Becausing blaming and whining isn’t a solution. Nor is putting up a wall and deporting muslims a solution. So what is it that you want to see done exactly?

I have seen it noticed; I don’t think it’s particularly overlooked. I’ve thought about it. I’ve talked to friends about it. But when it comes to reporting, the thing is, in America the Christian right is already linked to LGBTQ hate, so it doesn’t seem like a particularly Muslim thing (recall Ted Cruz’s recent endorsement by pastor Kevin Swanson, who thinks all gays in America should be killed). And because the people who are least tolerant of Muslims are the extreme right wing, they’re less concerned about Muslim views about homosexuality than… pretty much anything else.

Christian and Muslim extremists have a lot in common. Good thing they represent a small fraction of the whole (...hence the term ‘extremist’).

Maybe it is not that obvious, it may have no more connection than a woman entering the sex trade doing so because she was sexed up as a minor, it can be merely arbitrary.

People? All of them? Do you really think anyone has missed the fact that all religions have the capacity for intolerence? Are you suggesting Islam has a greater tendency to be a tool of hate than any other religion? Given the right circumstances, every religion can become an excuse for institionalised mass murder—and most have.

So, what I’m wondering is, what’s your point in asking a completely fallacious question such as this? Would you like to spread just a little more hate around? Is that it? 53 dead in one weekend not enough for you? WHAT’S YOUR FUCKING POINT?

I believe we purposely overlook the obvious in our rabid need to be politically correct.

Because Obama considers it more important to exploit this tragedy to further his gun confiscation agenda.

He left no room for doubt in his speech before introducing the FBI agents at the White House conference.

Disgusting.

It’s really quite simple. The left has their answer ‘Gun Control’ and any data that doesn’t support that answer is irrelevant.

The guy was a registered Democrat – Irrelevant

The guy brought his prayer rug to work every day and prayed for ten minutes, every day.- irrelevant

He met with the suicide bomber that attended his mosque. – irrelevant

He scouted both the pulse nightclub and Disney World as targets – irrelevant

He pledged allegiance to ISIS and terrorism. – irrelevant

He was investigated by the FBI (twice) for possible ties to terrorism. – irrelevant

He laughed and cheered when the World trade center went down. – irrelevant

Muslim countries (and their culture) frequently put gays to death. – irrelevant

Obviously this was a hate crime pure and simple that could be fixed with gun control. Probably inspired by the Christian right and enabled by the Republicans so why look any deeper.

The guy is younger than me. If he laughed and cheered at the WTC falling, he was 14 years old.

Sounds about right. Does that make irrelevant or does it give insight to someone that was radicalized at a young age? Make of it what you will, it’s but one peice of the puzzle.

It’s really quite simple. The right has their answer, “radical Islam,” and any data that doesn’t support that answer is irrelevant.

The guy was a closeted homosexual. – Irrelevant

The guy attended the club regularly and had active accounts on gay dating apps. – Irrelevant

He has a long history of anger problems and marital abuse. – Irrelevant

He had previously gone into a rage at the sight of two men kissing in public. – Irrelevant

His wife and father have both said that he wasn’t very religious. – Irrelevant

Both FBI investigations into his possible ties to terrorism turned up nothing. – Irrelevant

The FBI asked the guy’s wife to cover up his homosexuality. – Irrelevant

Imran Yousuf, the bouncer who saved dozens of lives, is a former US Marine. – Irrelevant

Obviously, this was a hate crime pure and simple that could be fixed by deporting all Muslims. Probably inspired by the Marxist left and enabled by the Democrats, so why look any deeper?