Verses on Homosexuality
-
Yes, also it feels like people who will read these comments will think "well it's ok if i do all the wrong things in private, as long as i'm good in public i will be fine"
No one is saying it's OK. But whose business is it? It's their own problem with God. You have no control over them.
Of course this is not the behaviour of the righteous, but not everyone is righteous; so if someone is doing a wrong thing that does not affect another person, it's better not to do it in public so as not to encourage others by lowering the tolerence threshold. -
I do not believe people are born homosexual and neither do any studies convince me. I take this stance because I choose to excercise one of the greatest gifts given to mankind. Choice. The Quranic verse 780 is very clear to me and needs no scientific explanation. The people of Lot committed sins that no people had committed before them and were thus wiped off the earth. Not some form of aggressive gay rape or submissive gay rape. They were having sexual realtions with the same sex and prefered men over women..
Homosexuality is not natural and neither will it ever be.
We must realise that homosexuals are a minority. Period. The dangerous part is when homosexuals try to justify that homosexuality is normal and part of every day life. In a secular society yes. In Muslim society no.
Being homosexual is not a part of Islam and neither will it ever be despite some people claiming to be 'gay' and incognito with the Quran or Islam.
On a final note if all mankind were to turn 'gay' overnight what would happen to the human race?
I reserve the right to hold my opinion and give no apologies.
Peace.
-
I do not believe people are born homosexual and neither do any studies convince me. I take this stance because I choose to excercise one of the greatest gifts given to mankind. Choice.
Do humans have a choice in everything? Can you choose your sex, skin colour, eye colour, parents, siblings, time of birth und so weiter? No, similarly, you can't chose the way you develop inside your mother's womb, which goes a long way in determining your sexuality.
The Quranic verse 780 is very clear to me and needs no scientific explanation. The people of Lot committed sins that no people had committed before them and were thus wiped off the earth. Not some form of aggressive gay rape or submissive gay rape. They were having sexual realtions with the same sex and prefered men over women..
What is your argument in support of this belief?
Homosexuality is not natural and neither will it ever be.
What is natural? If by nature you mean something that happens in the "natural world", then homosexuality is perfectly natural. This concept of nature is a fallacy because everything is natural including computers, TVs and other modern inventions.
We must realise that homosexuals are a minority. Period.
No one's disputing this.
The dangerous part is when homosexuals try to justify that homosexuality is normal and part of every day life. In a secular society yes. In Muslim society no.
But how is it dangerous? Will your life be endangered if two men or two women marry each other and start having sex?
Being homosexual is not a part of Islam and neither will it ever be despite some people claiming to be 'gay' and incognito with the Quran or Islam.
Evidence?
On a final note if all mankind were to turn 'gay' overnight what would happen to the human race?
But people don't turn gay overnight. People's sexuality never changes.
I reserve the right to hold my opinion and give no apologies.
Of course you do, but shouldn't you be open to the possibility that you might be wrong?
-
Homosexuals in a monogamous relationship does not harm society. No diseases are spread, there is no unstable relations, they contribute to society as much as you and me. When it comes to adopting children, it really depends on how the couple is. Many gay-parents are great parents studies have shown, and the interesting part is, that their adopted children (or their own in some cases), the percentage of their children turning being gay is LOWER then among heterosexual parents.
I strongly suspect that those are false studies, or studies based on small, artificially selected case studies. There are lots of made up statistics going round to justify gay marriage. Can you tell us your source?
-
Peace,
I rarely use internet-sources for my ideas, I try always to get official university sources. It was presented in a documentary on non-commercial Dutch TV that reviewed all the official researches which has been done on this subject.
-
There is no such thing as 'official research' in genuine science. All it means is that false samples were used to obtained desired 'evidence' of pre-determined results.
Here's a study using actual statisics. It says the opposite of what your 'official research' claims.
http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n124_v31/ai_19226135/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
-
All it means is that false samples were used to obtained desired 'evidence' of pre-determined results.
Why do you think "false samples" were used? What were these "false samples"?
Here's a study using actual statisics. It says the opposite of what your 'official research' claims.
That URL doesn't work. Statistics are highly objective and therefore good, but they can't give you much insight into human behaviour.
-
There is no such thing as 'official research' in genuine science. All it means is that false samples were used to obtained desired 'evidence' of pre-determined results.
Here's a study using actual statisics. It says the opposite of what your 'official research' claims.
http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n124_v31/ai_19226135/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Peace,
It is really interesting to observe this behaviour. You take on the notion of knowing what genuine science is and what I mean with official research, and then without having any knowledge, not one scrap because you haven't seen the studies, the researches presented in the documentary are childishly pushed away as false samples and preconceived notions. This is hypocrite, truly unscientific behaviour and completely discredits any argument you have and will have on this subject since it will never be based on research or objective reflection but on preconceived notions.
-
For those insisting that homosexuality is not natural, do bear in mind that homosexual behaviour takes place in the animal kingdom, quite regularly.
On a final note if all mankind were to turn 'gay' overnight what would happen to the human race?
With that sentence, were you trying to assert that since homosexuality in itself would not benefit the propogation of the human race, it is unnatural and hence, bad? Aside from being a pretty strange sentence to support your posture, since it's way out of the ability of human beings to do that, it would be God's will and in that case, how do you argue against that. Would you then have to bite the bullet and accept homosexuality as a part of life, even as part of Muslim society? Do you, in some insane manner, despite your eventual new sexuality, try to argue that it isn't natural even when the world over humans are decidedly homosexual thus negating your argument that "homosexuality isn't natural"? In any case, what may happen is either the world population declines or, more likely, upon realising that it is essential for the good of the economy and other infrastructure that there be more humans produced yearly, humans will find a way to procreate despite being unattracted to the opposite sex. You forget that homosexuality does NOT mean an absence of desire for children.
Come to think of it, if we want to prevent homosexual couples from adopting on the basis that they would corrupt the children (baseless), we should prevent poor people from producing children, sterilise people who have any kind of disease and sterilise people who aren't productive members of society. Sounds good? You don't need to be homosexual to abuse children. A lot of abuse cases come from families with heterosexual coupling. Going by your reasoning, since a lot of people deemed evil arose out of heterosexual couples, we should prevent heterosexuals from procreating because they are likely to produce bad people.
Herein on, 'you' would be referring to those who hold the view.
What? See how strange that sounds. If you don't mean that homosexual parents raise bad children who lie, murder, steal and what you only mean is that they would raise homosexual children which is only morally wrong in the eyes of conservatives, you have a problem with priorities. If my understanding is wrong, please, enlighten us on how homosexual parents raise worser children than heterosexual couples.
For your reading pleasure
http//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
http//seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php
http//www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species
http//www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
http//www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
http//www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
http//www.apa.org/pi/parent.html -
About that article published on BNet written by Paul Cameron and his son Kirk Cameron. Please read this http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron You might dismiss Wikipedia but it is policed rather well. Besides, the career history of Dr Paul Cameron is quite known.
Also, "Many of Cameron's papers have been published in the journal Psychological Reports; unlike many journals, this charges authors a publication fee and does not necessarily reject an article on the basis of a negative peer review" In other words, it's a vanity press. Not very reliable, eh?
Having a doctorate doesn't make someone automatically a beacon of truth as you may very well know since you refute sources that state no differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting. Cameron is well known for his anti-homosexuality views and his tiny organisation 'Family Research Institute'.
Hey lookee here! Methodology problems!
http//psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html
http//psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html#cameronAlso http//www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/cameron/medical.consequences.rebuttal2.txt but you might dismiss that.
http//www.splcenter.org/center/splcreport/article.jsp?aid=152
http//www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/05/08/343
http//www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/11/288http//wthrockmorton.com/2007/04/24/only-the-gay-die-young-part-4-brief-evaluation-of-cameron-cameron-2007/
Before you lambast him, Dr Throckmorton is hardly a liberal. He is a Christian conservative who believes in rehabilitation for those homosexuals who believe that they have to change due to religious beliefs.It's laughable of you to say that Dr Paul Cameron used 'real statistics'.
-
Peace,
It is really interesting to observe this behaviour. You take on the notion of knowing what genuine science is and what I mean with official research, and then without having any knowledge, not one scrap because you haven't seen the studies, the researches presented in the documentary are childishly pushed away as false samples and preconceived notions. This is hypocrite, truly unscientific behaviour and completely discredits any argument you have and will have on this subject since it will never be based on research or objective reflection but on preconceived notions.
I know what scientific method is, yes. It requires falsifiability. And when you can't quote a source at all, that is unfalsifiable.
-
About that article published on BNet written by Paul Cameron and his son Kirk Cameron. Please read this http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron You might dismiss Wikipedia but it is policed rather well. Besides, the career history of Dr Paul Cameron is quite known.
Also, "Many of Cameron's papers have been published in the journal Psychological Reports; unlike many journals, this charges authors a publication fee and does not necessarily reject an article on the basis of a negative peer review" In other words, it's a vanity press. Not very reliable, eh?
Yes, I've seen articles ranting about Cameron before. Almost all of them are ranting about his politics. But I have not seen one replicating this kind of study. Your links complain about his small sample sizes - over 4000 respondents - but all of the studies I've heard about saying gay parents are just as good as other parents are based upon far, far smaller studies than this.
That's when my bullshit detector starts making noise. Can you point to any study as detailed as his with a similar or greater sample size? That actually gives detail its results.
-
A 4000 sample size is nothing if your data is biased and methodology, flawed. Cameron has demonstrated time and time again his dubious methods and 'findings', the scientific community doesn't take him seriously and only the conservatives seem to keep on using his 'studies'. Oh wait, even some of them are deserting him.
The American Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association disassociate themselves from him. So he calls himself a sociologist, the American Sociological Association condemns his research and states that he is not a sociologist. Then he claims that he presented a particular paper at the Eastern Psychological Association, they disputed that, saying he presented something else. Most of his papers were published by a vanity press and the rest are bottom-of-the-rung journals. When his findings are questioned, he responds in an unprofessional manner. Yep, this is a man we should be believing.
See, my bullshit detector rings too. You don't believe the literature on the capabilities of homosexual parenting citing small sample size as proof, fine I accept that. However, you choose to present the findings of an unreliable 'scientist' whose published articles are in crackpot journals as your evidence, which isn't any better. You're comparing the supposedly large sample sized study of a pseudo-scientist who is published by vanity journals and helms a tiny think-tank that has little funding, with the findings (albeit with smaller sample size) accepted by an established organisation with hundreds of thousands of members under them with funding in the millions. You seem to be a Paul Cameron supporter which means this'll never end, I won't be responding to you any further.
-
Scrotu
My friend. Despite how you want to package homosexuality, it is not normal or natural and never will be and will never be compatible with Islam. The ayats in the Qur'an make it very clear on what is permissable and non permissable for Muslims.
55 (Asad) Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And , in wedlock, women from among those who believe , and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time -provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. But as for him who rejects belief - in vain will be all his works for in the life to come he shall be among the lost. .ASAD
55 (English) This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). YUSUF ALI
The Qur'an says all good things. Once again, good things. Not bad things, but good and pure. And women are mentioned, not same sex homosexuals. So in essence, homosexuality is not good.
In a more easy to understand terminology, homosexuals are the enemies of mankind. This is a more cruder way of explaining the analogy than I put previously about everyone turning 'gay' overnight. Let's not try and fool people here with financial burdens, over populated societies and probabilities. The fact remains homosexuality is peverse and dangersous to the whole of civilization.
Homosexuals in my view give up the right to bear or raise children as soon as they start following their perversions. How the hell can homosexuals say that want to give up their right to children by becoming homosexual, but want to raise children in order to fulfill the natural and traditional trend of familyhood which they have given up in the first place. Kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised, emotionally and socially.
Statistically, it's obvious same sex parents are less liklely to abuse children than their hetrosexual counterparts because homosexuals are a minority in this world and thus the statistical ratio for parenthood is a minority, thus the likelihood of abuse is going to also be a minority. Come on Scrotu, you can do better than this.
-
Scrotu
It's Srotu, not Scrotu, I have to wonder why you added that extra 'c'. Talk of homosexuality getting to your head? heh, I kid, I kid.
Despite your attempt at explaning, you still haven't explained how they are a threat to civilisation. Heck, you haven't really clarified what in the world that 'analogy' was.
Proof, please, that the kids are traumatised.
Which is why I and other like-minded people say that sexuality is not an indication of likelihood of abuse which basically means that homosexuals are not more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children. C'mon man, you can do better than this.
Look at it this way, homosexual couples adopting is a good thing because all the heterosexuals in the world aren't adopting those kids they just did. Heck, barring death, it's those irresponsible heterosexuals who are at fault!
Also you forget that there are homosexuals who can raise biological children. Homosexuality doesn't mean they aren't able to have biological children, they don't 'give up' their right to have children by 'becoming homosexual'. How do they give it up exactly? None of them are sterilised the moment they come out of the closet.
I'm not advocating that gay marriage should be legal in Islam, I know that is simply impossible to legislate, my stance is that what people do in private is their business between them and God.
-
55 (Asad) Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And , in wedlock, women from among those who believe , and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time -provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. But as for him who rejects belief - in vain will be all his works for in the life to come he shall be among the lost. .ASAD
55 (English) This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). YUSUF ALI
The Qur'an says all good things. Once again, good things. Not bad things, but good and pure. And women are mentioned, not same sex homosexuals. So in essence, homosexuality is not good.
Not a very strong argument because women are mentioned in addition to "good things". 55 doesn't say "Good things like chaste women"; 55 says "Good things and chaste women". It's okay if you want to pretend that homosexuals are a major threat to humanity, but please don't pretend like the god agrees with you because the god doesn't. Why would It? Neither you nor anyone who's argued against homosexuality has proven homosexuality to be "perverse" or "dangerous".
-
Strotu. My sincerest apologies on the 'Scrotu' mis-spelling. It was indeed a genuine typo error and not malicious in any form.
Secondly, I do not have a problem with peoples individual choices or lifestyles for that matter as we all excercise choice. The problem for me arises when someone tries to justify their lifestyle and actions as part of normal and acceptable behaviour in line with religious beliefs which includes trying to hoodwink the innocent and vulnerable. Children in this case.
As far as enemies to civilization is concerned, like I said before, the easiest way to put it is if all mankind was to turn 'gay' overnight, what would happen to the human race? Whether it is possible or not is besides the point. The fact is in order for mankind to continue, male and female need to procreate. If we give up his fundamental right, natural course and way of life, mankind will cease to exist. Period. There is no super science required in order to understand this simple concept.
Being 'gay' or homosexual is an individual choice made after birth and not a condition which is determined in the womb or foetus before being born. You might be gullible to the 'so called' studies and research, but not me.
As far as Supernaut is concerned, The Qur'an is very clear in the ayats. Whether you understand, accept or agree is not my problem. You can manipulate, disagree, bend over backwards to find a compatible reason to fall in line with homosexuality, but the fact remains, the Quran states in numerous ayats relating to man marrying woman. Not man marrying man.
2221 (Asad) AND DO NOT marry women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to belief for any believing bondwoman is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to belief for- any believing bondman is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind.
43 (Asad) And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among women such as are lawful to you - two, or three, or four but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then one - or those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course.
423 (Asad) Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your aunts paternal and maternal, and a brother's daughters, and a sister's daughters; and your milk-mothers, and your milk-sisters; and the mothers of your wives; and your step-daughters - who are your foster children - born of your wives with whom you have consummated your marriage; but if you have not consummated your marriage, you will incur no sin ; and the spouses of the sons who have sprung from your loins; and to have two sisters at one and the same time - but what is past is past for, behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
425 (Asad) And as for those of you who, owing to cir?cumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women, believing maidens from among those whom you rightfully possess. And God knows all about your faith; each one of you is an issue of the other. marry them, then, with their people's leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner - they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions. And when they are married, and thereafter become guilty of immoral conduct, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free married women are liable. This to those of you who fear lest they stumble into evil. But it is for your own good to persevere in patience and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
You can shout at the top of your voice until the cows come home regarding homosexuality being 'normal'. When the sublime reality, course of nature, Islam and God states it is not!
Peace
-
You know what the "gay muslim" who are in a active relation ship with other men want.
They want to find an excuse to "rightfuly" be able to go on their "husband".
Hey none of my business long as they keep this stuff private, and also as long as they don't try to justify their acts using other "meanings" by manipulating words in the quran.
And it's not a few gay men and women that will make the world go down, they are like people who are born ermaphrodites, they are rare cases.
Except that for homosexuals, the difference isn't physically notifiable, it's in the brain
"how do i brain surgery to see if i'm gay lol"
-
As far as enemies to civilization is concerned, like I said before, the easiest way to put it is if all mankind was to turn 'gay' overnight, what would happen to the human race? Whether it is possible or not is besides the point. The fact is in order for mankind to continue, male and female need to procreate. If we give up his fundamental right, natural course and way of life, mankind will cease to exist. Period. There is no super science required in order to understand this simple concept.
We seem to not understand each other here. As I've said before, being homosexual doesn't mean they do not want children, on top of that it doesn't mean they do not have the ability to have children. Human beings will not cease to exist as long as that need exist and their parts still function. Spartan, Greek society functioned in this manner, they recognise the need to produce issues despite a liberal approach to sexuality. You do not give up your "fundamental right, natural course and way of life" upon realising you are not attracted to the opposite sex. You are posturing on "what ifs", here I present to you another likely scenario and in a strange, pompous way you shoot it down despite not knowing what the world be like either. In any case, I do not see any sense in that rhetoric as it is not happening any time soon and will not. Logic, mister. And even if it does happen, it will be because God stated it to be so and then how are you going to argue with that?
Being 'gay' or homosexual is an individual choice made after birth and not a condition which is determined in the womb or foetus before being born. You might be gullible to the 'so called' studies and research, but not me.
The greatest minds have been denounced through the years by ignorant religious folk who refuse to accept science. I prefer to accept concrete evidence as opposed to the baseless beliefs of another person. It is the same reason I left Sunni Islam, it is the same way I approach many things in life. Agree to disagree, alright?
You can shout at the top of your voice until the cows come home regarding homosexuality being 'normal'. When the sublime reality, course of nature, Islam and God states it is not!
Brother, I don't have to shout, I know that once you let knowledge out and still people revel in ignorance it's time to let go and move on. Let's just see how it's gonna be like in the Afterlife, eh? And what God truly feels about the matter.