Same sex relationships/ marriages
-
I have not had many conversations with animals to know their histories or runarounds nor I hear people usually talk about animals experiences on that count. What I have seen is quite common. I nearly have a dog, but he runs awy from problems be they male or female. Seriously, I mean I do not know much about animals by myself. What I know not by myself is what I may pick up in books, articles, tv, etc., just anybody else may know.
As you may have noticed in the whole of my message, I do not make such a great difference between what may mislead by the hetero door or by the homo door. However, it is my observation that male homo contacts have a very strong pull. As the popular saying goes, those who try it, fall for it. I also find, that a proportion of female homo conducts come from giving up hope of finding understanding and support from males, no as much from being attracted by females, although, of course, one you get into it, it so happens.
However, I would hate to turn this into a sociolgical study or a discussion whose only object sould be to stamp at the end the haram or halal label. My purpose on writing the message I put was that we should go beyond labels and think more deeply that these questions for many people are very difficult, that everything to do with sexuality usually has a lot to do with other things, specially emotional life, which when not lived consciously, like in childhood, lies ununderstood and unassimilatd. That in anfancy and also later, but particularly in infancy we may sustain very deep wounds that retreat from the conscious and may rule our emotions and lives unrecognized and unacknowledged and may surface only, like the shoes of a drowned person, in sexual impulse. Also curious people with some other components may be led to live experiences that if they could know beforehand perhaps they wouldn't choose, but which once started, depending on different factors also, they may be uncapable or unwilling to undo, because what we do changes us. Then, of course there is the question of what we intend to do with our lives. For some may be simple , clear and manageable, for others may be clear but unmanageable, for others unclear complicated, painful and impossible to manage.
I find that this need to immediately jump to sin or not sin or haram or halal and to draw thick black lines between this and that (hetro, homo or whatever), as if they really existed, muddles issues and pushes still further back into the recessess of the mind the real ones. Of course to stamp halal or haram may be very useful in many cases. But in this, for the moment, as I see it, is going completely astray of any real understanding of personal issues for people for whom they create problems. That I mean when we are not talking about plain lewdness which obviously shouldn't rule us, but which is not a problem to recognize. If we fall for it, we fall kowingly, not because of birth or compulsion or whatever, we just want to fall because we like it and that is it. We should rather try to understand ourselves, know ourselves, help others understand themselves by listening, by being compatising, by putting us in their place, and lending support; and rule our lives instead of being ruled by what we do not grasp and pushes us and many times makes for much suffering.
Salaam
-
Hi Leyna, you know the real answer to that? You won't like it. The reason is, lets face it, there are a few gender stereo types in the Quran, one of which is that men are the initiators of marriage and sex.
The Qur'an was revealed to a society that was extremely patriarchal, so of course that's reflected in the text. I don't have a problem with that at all; I only have a problem with people claiming that because something was being practiced in a particular manner by early Muslims, we have to practice it exactly like that nowadays.
You said "If it was an illness it would be "curable" but is this how "illness" is defined, i.e. a condition that is curable. ?
Not that I think of it as an "illness" but I do not think your statement is correct.Yeah, my reasoning was not very logical, you are right. Of course not every illness is curable.
I think what I had in the back of my mind when writing that was that there have been many attempts at "curing" homosexual people in past and present, and in most cases those attempts had a negative effect on the individuals in question.
-
I think that if homosexuality was an illness that God wouldn't hold you responsible for it. That would be like being punished for suffering depression or some other mental illness.
I can't quote right now were in the Quran it says that mentaly ill people whose judgment is deluded due to illness are not going to be punished for it. I am not saying that someone who is sick doesn't know at all what they are doing but in some instances it Illnes would greatly contribute to their judgment.
I don't think its an illnes and I don't think that you are born with it otherwise it would be unfair to say its a wrong act!!!
Thanks
I think you are born with "it". I didn't choose to be heterosexual, it was overwhelming there. No effort or conditioning required. I went to an all boys school but I knew what I fancied.
Gay sex is repulsive to me, there is no way in hell someone could condition or "cure" me to that way. So why should the reverse be true.
The actual gay population (in uk) is like 1%, if it was conditioning/choice I'd expect it to be it be higher. I guess we will know in a decade or so if it grows as society gets more accepting.
I bet in Saudi (where you have death penalty for gays) it is also 1%.
Of course people are going to take my arguments and say I'm justifying paedophiles. brickwall
I feel sorry gay men; they get ridiculed by society and miss out a family life. Why would you choose that life unless the opposite was equally oppressive?
BTW, the Lot story is a pretty clear case of male rape by heterosexuals, nothing about happy gay couples wanting equal rights. Nobody still has an answer for why Lot offered up his daughters? There is clue in Lot's actions.
-
The Qur'an was revealed to a society that was extremely patriarchal, so of course that's reflected in the text. I don't have a problem with that at all; I only have a problem with people claiming that because something was being practiced in a particular manner by early Muslims, we have to practice it exactly like that nowadays.
Peace,
Respect.We do have to take lessons from the previous examples, do you agree with that?
After all, that is why Qur'an contains them.God knows Best.
Peace. -
Of course people are going to take my arguments and say I'm justifying paedophiles. brickwall
What does homosexuality have to do with paedophilia? ???
BTW, the Lot story is a pretty clear case of male rape by heterosexuals, nothing about happy gay couples wanting equal rights.
That's how I understand it as well.
-
We do have to take lessons from the previous examples, do you agree with that?
After all, that is why Qur'an contains them.Yes, but we do have to understand them in the light of the circumstances of the time of revelation.
For example, the Qur'an brought about some improvements of women's rights. But if we apply those things nowadays exactly as they were applied back then, that would lead to less rights and discrimination, and we would ultimately achieve the opposite of the intended goal. Just take a look at the laws in some of the more conservative Muslim countries and you know what I mean.
The Qur'an also contains verses telling us how to deal with slaves. Does that mean we should still practice slavery? Of course not. It means that slavery was a reality back then that had to be addressed.
I'm sure you get my drift ? peace
-
Peace Leyna
What does homosexuality have to do with paedophilia? Huh?
I think in both cases it is something that is not brought about by conditioning or if it is, it is the type of conditioning that the self has no controle of. I don't think a homosexual or someone attracted to children or someone attracted to animals sexually wanted turn out that way. So perhaps in this way homosexuality and paedophilia are related.
-
Peace Leyna
Yes, but we do have to understand them in the light of the circumstances of the time of revelation.
For example, the Qur'an brought about some improvements of women's rights. But if we apply those things nowadays exactly as they were applied back then, that would lead to less rights and discrimination, and we would ultimately achieve the opposite of the intended goal. Just take a look at the laws in some of the more conservative Muslim countries and you know what I mean.
The Qur'an also contains verses telling us how to deal with slaves. Does that mean we should still practice slavery? Of course not. It means that slavery was a reality back then that had to be addressed.
I'm sure you get my drift ?
This is a very important point for me in studying the Quran.
Slavery is a good example to explain. Slavery existed, it was regulated by Quran in what seems to be different stages, with the ultimate being that it was abolished.
It is not so much a matter of should we or shouldn't we practise slavery today. Anyone who accepts the Quran objectively, imo, would have to say "NO". The more important point is that if there is a society today that practices slavery, the Quran can guide such a society out of the darkness of slavery to the light of freedom in the stages that are required for this to happen successfully.
I have found this principle to be true for a variety of topics in the quran. These include sadaqat, riba, salat and others. The topic under discussion may be another example, but I haven't looked into it.
Imraan
-
Yes, but we do have to understand them in the light of the circumstances of the time of revelation.
For example, the Qur'an brought about some improvements of women's rights. But if we apply those things nowadays exactly as they were applied back then, that would lead to less rights and discrimination, and we would ultimately achieve the opposite of the intended goal. Just take a look at the laws in some of the more conservative Muslim countries and you know what I mean.
The Qur'an also contains verses telling us how to deal with slaves. Does that mean we should still practice slavery? Of course not. It means that slavery was a reality back then that had to be addressed.
I'm sure you get my drift ? peace
But the difference is that whilst the spirit of the text is very much against slavery, with the freeing of slaves a moral virtue, it is wholly and aggressively hostile to homosexuality both explicitly and in the spirit of the writing. The theme of the writing is that of a moral crusade which sees gayness as an unmitigated evil!
-
But the difference is that whilst the spirit of the text is very much against slavery, with the freeing of slaves a moral virtue, it is wholly and aggressively hostile to homosexuality both explicitly and in the spirit of the writing. The theme of the writing is that of a moral crusade which sees gayness as an unmitigated evil!
Interesting how differently people read a text. I can't see that in there at all. The "aggressiveness" and moral condemnation you mention is imho aimed at rape, i.e. using sex as a weapon, and also at people who have lost all sense of morals, mercy, love. I honestly can't see that it should be referring to peaceful, loving homosexual relationships.
-
I think in both cases it is something that is not brought about by conditioning or if it is, it is the type of conditioning that the self has no controle of. I don't think a homosexual or someone attracted to children or someone attracted to animals sexually wanted turn out that way. So perhaps in this way homosexuality and paedophilia are related.
I still think you can't compare. Someone who is homosexual basically desires the same things heterosexual people desire ? love, companionship, connecting with another person on a mental, spiritual and physical level. Those things, obviously, are not possible with a minor or an animal. Wanting to have sex with a child means you are desiring something that will cause damage to the other person, this is clearly not the case when desiring a person of the same sex.
-
Hmmm... seem to have lost a post in the backing up!
26160 The people of Lot denied the messengers.
26161 For their brother Lot said to them Will you not be righteous?
26162 I am to you a trustworthy messenger.
26163 So be aware of God and obey me.
26164 And I do not ask you for any wage, for my reward is upon the Lord of the worlds.
26165 Do you approach the males of the worlds?
26166 And you leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!
26167 They said If you do not cease O Lot, you will be among those driven out.
26168 He said I am in severe opposition to your acts!2754 And Lot, when he said to his people Are you committing lewdness while you can clearly see?
2755 You are approaching the men out of desire instead of the women! Indeed, you are an ignorant people.
2756 But the reply of his people was that they said Expel the family of Lot from your town, for they are a people who are being pure!
2757 So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We found her to be of those doomed.
2758 And We rained down a rain upon them. Miserable was the rain of those warned.2928 And Lot, when he said to his people You commit a lewdness that no others in the world have done before!
2929 You sexually approach men, and you commit highway robbery, and you bring all vice to your society. But the only response from his people was to say Bring us the retribution of God, if you are being truthful!
2930 He said My Lord, grant me victory over the wicked people.
2931 And when Our messengers came to Abraham with good news, they said We are to destroy the people of such a town, for its people have been wicked.As you can see, it is quite explicit that homosexuality is the focus of condemnation here. The bible isn't explicit, it doesn't clarify the details of why God smites the Sodomites. In contrast, the Quran is explicit. It makes very clear why God disapproves of the Sodomites - and yes, it isn't just homosexuality, but it very much includes homosexuality. Luckily it's not quite as pervy as the bible story, no mention of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites to stop them raping his male guests ("thanks dad, you really know how to look after a girl", but it is most definitely an expression of antagonism towards guy on guy sexuality.
-
Salaam,
Bottom line is we will disagree.
I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
They just don't know what they're missing.
Check this outhttp//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001512/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001287/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0809938/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
and many more, very pretty gals, don't know why gays don't feel .... attracted .... confused
Peace.
-
Luckily it's not quite as pervy as the bible story, no mention of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites to stop them raping his male guests ("thanks dad, you really know how to look after a girl"), but it is most definitely an expression of antagonism towards guy on guy sexuality.
Then you may want to look at 1571 & 1178.
You need to remember the time Lot lived in, women were commodities. It wasn't uncommon to
offer/trade women to prevent or cause something to happen.Also remember it's Lot speaking not God. Do you see how the story is repeated several times. If God wanted to say "gay=wrong" he could have done it in a few words very clearly. Why waste so much space to so say so little? Can you see the bigger picture?
-
Salaam,
Bottom line is we will disagree.
I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
They just don't know what they're missing.
Check this outhttp//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001512/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001287/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0809938/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
and many more, very pretty gals, don't know why gays don't feel .... attracted .... confused
Peace.
Attraction is based on more than just looks. Women have a lot more than that in case you didn't know.
-
I think in Lot's narrative what shocks most is the aboslute lack of modesty of intimacy, the bestiality of the whole thing.
Somebody said that sex in the mind. I agree that in most cases, incuding what they call hetero or homo is so too. And many sexual problems are not so, but mental and emotional problems. That is why, I think, the Qur'an asks for bringing four witnesses or to shut up. People have a wright to tprocess their murky waters in their own terms, at their own pace... to walk that path and evolve without being intruded upon nor watched nor judged. They do not have to bare their minds. What lived in voluntary intimacy should not be brought out. To break the loyalty that one commits upon marriag is heinious, but there is no need to hang it on billboards.
I do not think that marriage is something that makes sense betwen people of the same sex, because as far as I understand it, marriage is for the benefit of assuring next generations, ar at least attempting to. Were there no generation, then there would not be a reason for society to uphold such an institution. The other aspects that we usually put into marriage, companionship, sex for the sake of sex only, love, or whatever can be had and exchanged without such an institution. People are friends and loyal even without being married, it is not as if outside marriage there was no possible human relationship. May be we are putting today to much store by marriage and not enough in relations, as if marriage was a universal policy for assured hapiness. We can see it is not, and may be it is not, because we have overloaded it with enormous expectations for everythin, which some marriages do fulfill, but others do not and there is nothing wrong with that.
Salaam
Salaam
-
I still think you can't compare. Someone who is homosexual basically desires the same things heterosexual people desire ? love, companionship, connecting with another person on a mental, spiritual and physical level. Those things, obviously, are not possible with a minor or an animal. Wanting to have sex with a child means you are desiring something that will cause damage to the other person, this is clearly not the case when desiring a person of the same sex.
True but perhaps those who have this desire with regards to kids may also have such wants such as love, companionship etc with the kid but considering the difference between an adult and a kid, this would make it less possible if not impossible for them.
My point is that the desire in both cases is most likely sameish and perhaps and most likely the same as heterosexual desires. Whilst in the case of paedephillia the wrongness is clear, it is less clear in the case of homos.
Should two homosexuals have a relationship that is based not on lust but rather love, i can't see how they can be faulted morally UNLESS they also feel attracted to women in which case it would be a transgression I think.
But if they have no attraction towards women and then find others like themselves who lets say have the attributes of a believer whilst they themselves also have such attributes, then how can we fault them?
-
Then you may want to look at 1571 & 1178.
You need to remember the time Lot lived in, women were commodities. It wasn't uncommon to
offer/trade women to prevent or cause something to happen.Also remember it's Lot speaking not God. Do you see how the story is repeated several times. If God wanted to say "gay=wrong" he could have done it in a few words very clearly. Why waste so much space to so say so little? Can you see the bigger picture?
Yep, I stand corrected, the Quranic story does share that perviness with the bible. Although I can't see in these Quranic stories about Lot any mention of the next stage of the pervy Bible episode, where Lot's daughters get him drunk and get pregnant by him. Please tell me that's not somewhere else in the Quran?
So the count has been raised to 5 repetitions of the Sodom story, of which 3 explicitly condemn the Sodomites for their homosexuality, 1 strongly suggests it, and the remaining 1 only moderately insinuates it.
If the Quran wanted to say homosexuality is wrong but not draw much attention to the wrongness it would say it only once. If it wants to hugely emphaise the wrongness of it and the importance of avoiding homosexuality, it would repeat it many times. That's what it does with other moral issues, like how it repeats the command "Guard your privates, except from your wives" several times. I can't see any wiggle room at all here.
-
Hmmm... seem to have lost a post in the backing up!
As you can see, it is quite explicit that homosexuality is the focus of condemnation here. The bible isn't explicit, it doesn't clarify the details of why God smites the Sodomites. In contrast, the Quran is explicit. It makes very clear why God disapproves of the Sodomites - and yes, it isn't just homosexuality, but it very much includes homosexuality. Luckily it's not quite as pervy as the bible story, no mention of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites to stop them raping his male guests ("thanks dad, you really know how to look after a girl", but it is most definitely an expression of antagonism towards guy on guy sexuality.
From the verses you have quoted, it can still be argued that the Quran is not against homosexuality i think.
In the first set of verses, it is Lot who thinks that being attracted to males is lewdness (since he is being quoted) but there is no clear quranic verse which backs this. Another issue is that Lot says something which i would think is wrong (offering his own daughters) implying that he does make mistakes in his approach.