Verses on Homosexuality
-
Peace FAR,
Yes and some people realize they aren't attracted to that same body they were once fornicating with. If you believe the homosexual or even the heterosexual is so shallow... sir, please remember that fornication is not an option. And most same sexers do not get married.
Why do you think they don?t get married?
I have already explained that I am a homosexual that understood the Andrea Dworkin's model, which is closer to the Quranic method than "orthodox" practices. Those people who do not wish to recognize the homosexual people, will obviously promote that either they coform to society's notions of same sexism or living with heterosexuals partners. Neither method works for us.
Forgive me, but I don?t understand what you mean by that.
-
This thread is getting sad. At first it was amusing, and then it's just sad.
Most homosexuals don't get married because in a lot of places...THEY CAN'T.
Andrea Dworkin. She held misandrist views and was more known for her anti-pornography stance, her radical feminism and, unfortunately, her bizarre claims of being raped in Paris.
Second, being a lesbian means to me that there is an erotic passion and intimacy which comes of touch and taste, a wild, salty tenderness, a wet sweet sweat, our breasts, our mouths, our cunts, our intertangled hairs, our hands. I am speaking here of a sensual passion as deep and mysterious as the sea, as strong and still as the mountain, as insistent and changing as the wind. --"Lesbian Pride" from "Our Blood Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics"
Doesn't sound like she was opposed to homosexual sex. At least for lesbians. Let me remind you, she didn't like men much. The man she married is gay, John Stoltenberg in some ways, denies his manhood, subscribing to Dworkin's beliefs. Always it is about male aggression and dominace; in a homosexual relationships, the only way to explain it, according to her, is that the 'bottom' is a feminised male used by the 'top' much in the same way heterosexual sex is like rape.
As long as male sexuality is expressed as force or violence, men as a class will continue to enforce the taboo against male homosexuality to protect themselves from having that force or violence directed against them. Women will be their surrogates, and every institution in the society will continue to demand that men do to women what men would find insufferable if done to themselves. -- from "Pornography Men and Boys"
However, she also says this.
We must move away from the perverse, two-dimensional definitions which stem from sexual repression, which are the source of social oppression, and move toward creative, full, multidimensional modes of sexual expression.--from "Woman Hating"Make what you will of it.
Homosexuals are the enemies to civilization and are much worse than racists, bigots, sexists, homophobics and any other form of ics' or ists'. Why? Because Homosexuals have a vendetta and hatred towards all mankind by practising an act which will not procreate the human race and due to the perverted attraction to the same sex, you have no concerns for your fellow human race.
Heterosexuals, by virtue of the sheer number and prevalence, have done much of the damage to the human race without the need for help from deviant sexualities. But does that make them evil because of their sexuality? NO. The enemies to civilisation are hatred, fear and ignorance. I am disgusted by your claim that homosexuals are worser than racists, who have killed numerous people (can you compare the statistical damage of homosexuals whatever the hell that is, to the damage wrought by genocides?), the bigots (hey remember September 11, the Inquisition, the Zionists?), sexists (by your claim this would mean that the deaths of innocent women at the hands of misogynists are insignificant compared to the mere existence of homosexuals) and various other forms out of the combination of hatred, fear and ignorance.
Let me come up with a list. By your reasoning, all these people have done damage to humanity
Helen Keller, author
Annie Sullivan, H. Keller's teacher
Mother Teresa, nun
Florence Nightingale, pioneer in nursing
Harriet Tubman, humanitarian
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, first female doctor
Ludwig Van Beethoven, composer
Mahmoud Darwish, Palestinian poet
Leonardo Da Vinci, polymath extraordinaire possibly the greatest genius
Emily Dickinson, poet
T.S. Eliot, poet
Cecil Green, philanthropist/geophysicist
Howard Harold Hanson, Pulitzer Prize-winning composer
Georg Friedrich Handel, composer
Sir Isaac Newton, scientist
Linus Pauling, scientist
Wislawa Szymborska, Nobel Prize-winning poet
Nikola Tesla, inventorJust a short one. All these people have no children and a few of those are possibly asexuals (note, no sexual attraction, hence possibly, by your reasoning, even more evil than homosexuals). I reckon, they have done more for humanity and civilisation than you can ever hope to do. Which is what, merely reproducing your genes? My apologies if you are actually a brilliant scientist/poet/humanitarian/artist/philanthropist in training.
-
Peace,
To say Homosexuals are the enemy of humanity because they do not produce children is the weirdest of them all. The earth is over-populated and there will be not enough resources on earth for everybody, even if all resources would be handed out equally. Most scientists agree that we must cut down the birth rates if we want to stabilize mankind and its enviroment.
Second, the argument would fail if every homosexual still would create a child, but remain gay after the child is born.
-
To say Homosexuals are the enemy of humanity because they do not produce children is the weirdest of them all. The earth is over-populated and there will be not enough resources on earth for everybody, even if all resources would be handed out equally. Most scientists agree that we must cut down the birth rates if we want to stabilize mankind and its enviroment.
Second, the argument would fail if every homosexual still would create a child, but remain gay after the child is born.
Although I do not agree with the claim that homosexuality is a enemy of humanity, I still find your justification that the earth is over populated unucceptable. It's not for us to worry about the "rizg" of people. (Not that I am aginst fmily planning, but this is not because the earth is overpopulated, but for the family concerned An individual welfare). The earth's resources are not scarce but are badly distributed. There is still great potential yet to be digged out by future knowledge.
What if there was no homosexuality? Should we introduce it to fix the problem of overpopulation? Should we condone wars because they help reduce earth population? Should we stop fighting disease and mitigating disasters?
In my belief, homosexuality is not always a choice (it's definitely a choice in the case of bisexuals). There are many factors that make someone homosexual. This intself is not unaccepted by the religion in my opinion, until they start acting upon it (having homosexual sex). They are not different from heterosexuals having sex outside the marriage.
I do not understand why homosexuality should take all this credit as if homosexuals are the only people who are not supposed/ cannot have access to heterosexual sex there are those with congenital deformity, with organic or psychlogical conditions that prohibit them from having sex, the impotent whether primary or secondary..etc. Do they search for homosexual sex or are they advised to do so? No. God asks them to be patient (425), or marry those who accept their case. I believe that verse 424 has a shift of address to those homo and others who are unable to have sex with the opposite sex they are prohibited from marrying the "mu7sins those who can have sex with the opposite sex" except when those mu7sin agree to be their milku yameen. This kind of "marriage, in my opinion, is what is called (milkul yameen) each one of the pair is "milku yameen" the other. Vers 425 is even more explicit Whoever is unable to marry the mu7sins (wrongly understood as by poverty. God has already advised to marry the poor If they are poor, God will make them rich), then marry milku yameen. This is the only case where the family should be involved because of such sex-less marriage. -
Strotu
My dear friend. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point. Yes, the majority of damage that has been done to the world has been by hetrosexuals and it has also been done in the name of religion. However, on the same token, the greatest feats carried out in the world and benefit to the world have also been done by hetrosexuals and not homosexuals. So if you are going to pick faults with hetrosexuals, I suggest you look at the pro's and con's in order to balance out your argument.
Now, even after the atrocities 'hetrosexual' man has committed in the world, mankind has continued it's existence through procreation. Not by homosexuality. Homosexuality cannot, I repeat cannot procreate the human race. Let's not beat about the bush here. The first pregnancy achieved through in vitro human fertilisation of a human oocyte has only been developed this century. Even then, sperm from man and egg from woman is required. So the question that begs to be answered is how has the human race continued in Homosexual communities when they have quite clearly given up the right to procreation? You know the answer.
The most important sanctity on the face of the earth regardless of creed, colour, religion and sexual orientation is LIFE. If one forfeits their right to give life through procreation, how can they be classified as humanitarian, just, compassionate and normal. Homosexuals , through a choice of their own, take this path of enemyship to mankind. Nobody forces them to take this stance but themselves. They prefer to give up the opportunity to continue the life cycle in return for their own lusts and sexual preferences. Most racists, bigots, sexists etc etc determine their actions and stance primarily out of fear and ignorance in the first instance. They believe their superiority by attaching one fault or another from the victims end. However, when you decide to take the most important sancity (life) the right of life away from life itself. Who is worse? 'ists or homosexuals.
The list of people you have given in your post would never have seen the light of day and neither would you with all due respect, if the parents had been homosexual! They came into this world through procreation and not homosexuality. Regardless of what they did or did not do. Humanitarian or Non Humanitarian is besides the point. What looks like 6 to you, can look like 9 to me depending on our position.
Nothing is more precious than life apart from life itself.
Peace
-
Strotu
My dear friend. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point. Yes, the majority of damage that has been done to the world has been by hetrosexuals and it has also been done in the name of religion. However, on the same token, the greatest feats carried out in the world and benefit to the world have also been done by hetrosexuals and not homosexuals. So if you are going to pick faults with hetrosexuals, I suggest you look at the pro's and con's in order to balance out your argument.
Now, even after the atrocities 'hetrosexual' man has committed in the world, mankind has continued it's existence through procreation. Not by homosexuality. Homosexuality cannot, I repeat cannot procreate the human race. Let's not beat about the bush here. The first pregnancy achieved through in vitro human fertilisation of a human oocyte has only been developed this century. Even then, sperm from man and egg from woman is required. So the question that begs to be answered is how has the human race continued in Homosexual communities when they have quite clearly given up the right to procreation? You know the answer.
Peace
A person being a homosexual, does not rule out procreation and that individual avoiding same sexism.
Homosexuals aren't an evil to humanity, it's those that do not recognize them and those that promote them to same sex fornication
-
FAR
My friend. From where I come from, this is the definition of homosexual
Main Entry 1ho?mo?sex?u?al
Pronunciation \h-m-sek-sh(-)wl, -sek-shl
Function adjective1 of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sexHow have homosexuals been procreating over the centuries without the use of the opposite sex and how would one avoid same sexism?
Please elaborate.
Peace
-
The world only seems to be overpopulated when people do not cooperate. For example, you turn your television on and you see people starving, so you think - Oh No! The world is overpopulated! But in fact, when you look closer, there is no shortage of land. People are starving people instead of farming, they are fighting. It doesn't matter how few people there were in the world. If instead of spending their time growing food, they spent their time fighting, they would still have no food, even if you had the whole continent of Asia all to yourself.
And so when the question is asked "How many children is too many" - the answer depends not upon the population of the world, but upon the capacity of the parents. If the parents love each other, are good and cooperating, if they work well together in earning money and managing the household, then they can have lots of children. Each child will be well educated and will manage to learn a living and be of benefit to society, with the good example of its parents.
If the parents are lazy, if they do not live together, let alone cooperate, and if they fight a lot with each other and other people, it is different. It doesn't matter how empty your country is. If the children are raised badly like this - if they see the example of their father not working, and not supporting their mother, they can only learn that bad behaviour pays, and they will be a burden on society.
Hence this important link to sexuality. Good sexuality is sexuality which encourages the child conceiving and raising couple to love and support each other, and to cooperate, and in the process benefit society. This is why homosexuality doesn't really fit in well - because it does not encourage the two biological parents to stick together and raise the child.
-
liquiddharma,
Hence this important link to sexuality. Good sexuality is sexuality which encourages the child conceiving and raising couple to love and support each other, and to cooperate, and in the process benefit society. This is why homosexuality doesn't really fit in well - because it does not encourage the two biological parents to stick together and raise the child.
Huh? You've not shown how sexuality and parenting are connected therefore your argument against homosexuality is a non sequitir. Explain how one's sexuality affect one's parenting skills. Studies show that a person's sexuality has zero bearing on their parenting skills and there's even a tiny bit of evidence that lesbians make the best parents so as per your reasoning, only lesbians should be parents.
And what's this nonsense about being a bad person if you don't have children? What evidence is there in the great reading that the god wants us to reproduce? Humans will reproduce whether or not the god wants them to because it's natural for all organisms to want to pass on their genes.
-
It's natural for all organisms to reproduce, including humans, because it's God's will. Forgotten who designed the universe?
Sexuality is important for your parenting skills because it keeps the two parents in the same house feeling positively towards each other. The children benefit from that.
-
Peace Samia,
This intself is not unaccepted by the religion in my opinion, until they start acting upon it (having homosexual sex). They are not different from heterosexuals having sex outside the marriage.
Which is why I humbly believe that the god allows homosexuals to marry.
I do not understand why homosexuality should take all this credit as if homosexuals are the only people who are not supposed/ cannot have access to heterosexual sex there are those with congenital deformity, with organic or psychlogical conditions that prohibit them from having sex, the impotent whether primary or secondary..etc. Do they search for homosexual sex or are they advised to do so?
Homosexuals don?t seek people of the opposite sex for the same reason heterosexuals don?t seek people of the same sex. People with deformities don?t have sex because often times no one wants to have sex with them, but homosexuals find each other attractive. Why should they endure the unhappiness people who can?t have sex have to endure? And people don?t start having homosexual sex because they can?t have heterosexual sex.
No. God asks them to be patient (425), or marry those who accept their case. I believe that verse 424 has a shift of address to those homo and others who are unable to have sex with the opposite sex they are prohibited from marrying the "mu7sins those who can have sex with the opposite sex" except when those mu7sin agree to be their milku yameen. This kind of "marriage, in my opinion, is what is called (milkul yameen) each one of the pair is "milku yameen" the other. Vers 425 is even more explicit Whoever is unable to marry the mu7sins (wrongly understood as by poverty. God has already advised to marry the poor If they are poor, God will make them rich), then marry milku yameen. This is the only case where the family should be involved because of such sex-less marriage.
But where?s the sense in that? What is the logic in depriving homosexual people the right to have sex ? which the god acknowledges is an activity humans enjoy ? with the kind of people they like? And wouldn?t the kind of marriages you explained above be miserable ones?
-
Sexuality is important for your parenting skills because it keeps the two parents in the same house feeling positively towards each other. The children benefit from that.
And gay men and lesbian women also feel attracted and therefore positive towards each other.
-
Well, not exactly, sexual intercourse is a biologically unique function - there's certain kinds of hormone transfer between semen and vaginal fluid that occurs during coitus that does not happen in same gender activities. Sure it may bond people to an extent, but this does not serve the purpose of bonding together the parents of a child because children have one father and one mother.
-
Peace Roshan,
I don't think it's insidious.
Peace
Firstly, sorry for the delay in reply. I hope you are still here.
Secondly, yes it is so insidious and your answer has shown this to be true.
Plenty. No one really eats with their rear, but it's a fact that some people enjoy anal and oral sex. The fact that anal and oral sex don't serve the purpose of procreation doesn't make them wrong. To say they're wrong because their "unnatural" (which is nonsense anyway) is an appeal to nature logical fallacy.
EXACTLY! 'No one eats with their rear'. This is the statement that shows you understand the principles of what I am talking about on 'homosexuality', but because you have let other people think for you, on some issues, you have allowed their views to become your own insiduously. First of all, plently of people put food (and many other things) up their bottoms, but no-one calls it eating because eating is the process of consuming foods to be absorbed by the body. Ditto for sodomy.
What is your evidence that the quran (great reading) calls homosexuality and anal sex fahisha?
There is no such thing as homosexuality. However, God mentions same sex perversion in some verses of the Quran (they have already been mentioned). See 415-16
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or God makes for them a way out.
416 And the two men who commit it from amongst you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.The story of Lut is also worth a perusal.
As for the other things you wrote, let me tell you the way society (at least in the UK) works. Since the 1960s left wing atheists, secularists (in reality self-deists) have sought to decrease the influence of religion in society through promoting the nanny state and encouraging people to be selfish and ignore the consequences to society. And of course, the government picks up the tabs and it is a viscious circle. So, free sex is allowed. Children are brainwashed at school to believe it is O.K. so long as you know about contraception. The obvious result is that hoards of unwanted children are either born or aborted and a new underclass is created who are entirely dependent on government hand-outs. These children are mentally unstable and this has huge consequences for society. Part of this breakdown in the family also involves the promoting of homosexuality as a valid sexual choice (by equating it with heterosexuality’. If you really want to know about sodomites look up cruising, cottaging, rimming and other terms that go along with the perversion. Apparently near a park where I used to live, after these perverts had engaged in their perversion it was left littered with needles, syringes etc. But of course people are so stupid that they equate gays with Jack from Will and Grace, or the other open perverts paraded as fashionable eccentrics on T.V.
Think about it.
Roshan
-
I'm not bloody blaming the heterosexuals zulu1, you're taking my arguments to simply suit your strange ideas. It's NOT a heterosexal versus homosexuality debate and who is inherently better though you obviously seem to slant it that way.
There are extremes in all factions of human behaviour, attributing it to only homosexuals is ridiculous, that was my point. There's no reasoning with bigots right? So I take my leave, there, be happy in your bigoted little world I won't torment you with 'anti-religious' ideas anymore.
-
Salaam Supernaut
Which is why I humbly believe that the god allows homosexuals to marry.
Yes you can only arrive at this conclusion when you isolate what I said from my whole post. God clearly frowned upon same gender sex. What I am saying is that being simply gay without having homosexual sex is not a sin intself. The sin starts with the act.
People with deformities dont have sex because often times no one wants to have sex with them, but homosexuals find each other attractive. Why should they endure the unhappiness people who cant have sex have to endure? And people dont start having homosexual sex because they cant have heterosexual sex.
Those with deformities and others do have desire but can't have sex. Why shoul they endure the unhappiness people who can have sex (and do have it) do not endure? What I am saying is, homosexuals are not a special case to make societies feel guilty for not allowing them to marry. No one is stopping them from enjoying their homosexual sex as long as they keep it private, just like heterosexuals having illegal sex..It's between them and God. Why don't homosexuals behave like those who have desires and can't have sex? It might be difficult but not impossible if the homosexual cares for their belief. If they don't, then what's the problem? Why do they want a "fatwa"?
But wheres the sense in that? What is the logic in depriving homosexual people the right to have sex which the god acknowledges is an activity humans enjoy with the kind of people they like? And wouldnt the kind of marriages you explained above be miserable ones?
Who is depriving them from having sex? What they want is not just sex, but a "fatwa" to legalize it. Please show me the verse where the god acknowledges sex as an activity humans enjoy "with the kind of people they like". I am not saying sex is not an enjoyable activity, but when you mention the god as acknowleging this act to prove "therefore homosexual act is OK" then you have to prove this.
Any marriage can be miserable. Marriage is not all about sex, and having wonderful sex is not a guarantee to a happy marriage. Even after a marriage has started, one of the couple may become impotent. Does this break the marriage? This is the difference/ and the problem with homosexual idea about marriage it's all about sex; and this is why people with deformity are not whining all over the world, because they know a happy life can have many faces when sex is not one of them.