Same sex relationships/ marriages
-
Peace Wakas
The word in 416 as ?wa-alladhni? is masculine dual which refers to 1male+1 female as well as 2 males too?.Therefore since the verse 415 refers to homosexuality looking at 416 in context too is talking about 2 males which means homosexuality.
Asana
-
It has been said that 4.15 is about homosexuality, but I cannot see why. Fahisha is a general term and is not homosexuality and there is no indication that the fahisha that is being alluded to has anything to do with homosexuality or that the group of women does it with each other. Also, it would mean that homosexuality between two women is not targeted, but that it has to be group.
A writer in this forum put forward the insight that 4.15 is not about homosexuality, but about prostitution. To me that makes sense. Far more sense that this homosexuality thing. In fact it makes a lot of sense.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf
Maybe you should compare the usage of Fahisha in verses like 3135, 422, 728, 1732 with 415, 780, 2754, 2928 as Al-Fahishah in order to see the difference of the meanings in context.
If you would like to consider the 415 is about female prostitution then you should show me what the punishment for the male prostitution is unless you?d like to tell me that it?s ok for male to do prostitution or it?s only women who do prostitution.
Any kind of sexual activity out of marriage is adultery and fornication and punishment for them is in 242.
The word for prostitution is "Al-bighi? not Al-Fahishah which we can read it in below verse
Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.
Asana
-
I think fahisha is not homosexuality. Fahisha is very geneal term which may include zina, lewdness, any abhorrrent deed.
On the other hand I cannot see a punishment in 4.16, true, but I cannot see it either in 4.15. Al it says is take those women into the houses and take care of them till death or till God gives them any other means. Where is the punishment? Also is soliciting not fahisha? That is what prostitutes do when they work the street. It doesn't say to keep them locked. In current English or other languages, it would be, take them off the streets and keep them off the streets in decent housing. And I do miss the indicatin that the fahisha we are talking about is homosexual acts. I see no indication of that. And least of all group acts. On the other hand, where is the punishment for male homosexual acts? Soliciting is fahisha, but if somebody is actually caught by four witness in sexual intercourse it is zina, therefore that is something else.
Also in 4.16 I do not see that it is specifically referring to homosexuality, since it could also refer to a male and female couple and it does not prescribe either any punishment.
In fact I do not get a clear picture of what you are getting at.
Regarding bigha' I want to study it carefully, but I think it is quite a different proposition from what is pictured in 4.15 or 4.16, mainly exploitation of prostitution, which obviously is more abhorrent than plain prostitution.
Otherwise there is no provision in Qur'an for those unfortunate women who are tapped in that situation. I find it is quite consistent with the Qur'an, particularly in sura nisaa' where it is the question of those most vulnerable in society, that a provision for those women should be made.
I do not discard that if it fits it may be applied to other situations or cases, even homosexuality, but as it is and such as the world is, I find that female prostitution fits the aya more than anything else. Many prostitutes fall into it because they have children and have no means to maintain them or bring them up.
Salaam
-
Regarding 24.33 I am not even sure that it is prostitution in the sense of being used by many men. It may mean merely men should not get sexually involved with girls without marriage. 3araD, as far as I can see can be simply vanities of this world as it appears in other ayas. So, in fact, I am not even convinced that by bigha' in 24.33 is actual prostitution what is meant. It may simply be that young unmarried women are used by men who do not intend to marry them, since the speech is addressedd to believers in general and all it tells them is not to use a woman for pleasure and then forget her.
Salaam
-
I read this today http//seedmagazine.com/content/print/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
Interesting to note that homosexual practices are more common in the animal kingdom than we think. I don't agree with the writers conclusions, including that "gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along" (is she serious??), but it still discusses some interesting points.
-
I read this today http//seedmagazine.com/content/print/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
Interesting to note that homosexual practices are more common in the animal kingdom than we think. I don't agree with the writers conclusions, including that "gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along" (is she serious??), but it still discusses some interesting points.
I think the writer has make a big error in failing to examine the differences between monogamous and promiscuous animals. About 10% of mammal species are monogamous. When it comes to promiscuous animals, then she may be right, making indiscriminately is part of their social behaviour. But when it comes to monogamous animals, be it prairie voles, swans, penguins or human beings, having sex is not a casual form of social behaviour. It is something taken very seriously, and if you only have sex with one person, then homosexuality is very bad for your fertility!
-
But when it comes to monogamous animals, be it prairie voles, swans, penguins or human beings, having sex is not a casual form of social behaviour. It is something taken very seriously, and if you only have sex with one person, then homosexuality is very bad for your fertility!
?
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior?entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks. ?
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
http//www.ok4me2.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/penguins.jpg
-
Yes - exactly. When promiscuous homosexual (bisexual) male sheep use each other for sexual pleasure as social bonding, this does not come at the expense of mating with female sheep, so it is not an evolutionary disadvantage. Because they're promiscuous, homosexual attraction does not limit their heterosexual mating opportunities. It is not a maladaptive characteristics for them.
For those penguins, on the other hand, sex means commitment. Thus when they mate with members of the same gender, this is to the exclusion of the opposite gender, they're fully homosexual. Thus it is an evolutionary dead end, a maladaptive characteristic. Each year they mate with the same gender, they produce no egg. A years opportunity to bring life into the world is lost.
Thus the article Rana linked to is only talking about the benefits of bisexuality to promiscuous animals. For monogamous animals like us, and penguins, and prairie voles, it is a dead-weight evolutionary loss.
-
I think that I will have to research a bit more on what I have to say. However I have heard from someone actualy quite recently that there are things like murder that ocur among animals. So saying that because animals do it its natural and OK doesn't work when you take into account the fact that animals also do stuff that we consider crimes.
That said, a person I call brother, who also calls me brother because we are that close but is actual very distant cousin of mine is gay and married to another man.
In the end we have to work out what God wants from us wich I supose sometimes necesitates looking to nature.
I personaly don't think that they should be discriminated against.
Thanks
-
Salaam Pel
I agree with Wakas if you can't help the urges then it is best to abstain from it, clearly the Quran frowns upon this practice.
Respectfully
Simone sun -
Greetings and peace, all group
Regardless of whether homosexuality is pleasing or not to Allah, it is wrong for us to force our beliefs on others. In other words, I believe that if marriage is offered to straight couples BY A GOVERNMENT, marriage should also be offered to gay couples BY A GOVERNMENT. We must allow equal opportunities for all--no "separate but equal." If a government only offers civil unions to gays, it should also only offer civil unions to straight couples. Should the government mandate that pork can not be sold?
<rhetorical question>
Does any person have a choice regarding physical sexual arousal? hmm To me, this indicates that homosexual tendencies are as natural as heterosexual tendencies. Should what is natural be condemned? Are homosexuals destined for extra temptation or trial by Allah's will? temptIt is easy to deny to others what we ourselves do not partake of...but that doesn't make our denials justifiable. We should offer what we can of knowledge, as appropriate. handshake Neither our individual preferences, nor "group think" determine morality.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination/ Al-fishata; no one in the world has done it before!
If Lot is speaking about homosexuality, then his statement that 'no one in the world has done it before' is not accurate.
-
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination/ Al-fishata; no one in the world has done it before!
If Lot is speaking about homosexuality, then his statement that 'no one in the world has done it before' is not accurate.
Interesting. This would suggest that the act his people are commiting is not just homosexuality.
But what Lot says does not make it solid proof. The Quran (in which what it says is solid proof) is only quoting someone (Lot) the person being quoted could be making a mistake. In this case historically. -
Greetings and peace, all group
Regardless of whether homosexuality is pleasing or not to Allah, it is wrong for us to force our beliefs on others. In other words, I believe that if marriage is offered to straight couples BY A GOVERNMENT, marriage should also be offered to gay couples BY A GOVERNMENT. We must allow equal opportunities for all--no "separate but equal." If a government only offers civil unions to gays, it should also only offer civil unions to straight couples. Should the government mandate that pork can not be sold?
<rhetorical question>
Does any person have a choice regarding physical sexual arousal? hmm To me, this indicates that homosexual tendencies are as natural as heterosexual tendencies. Should what is natural be condemned? Are homosexuals destined for extra temptation or trial by Allah's will? temptIt is easy to deny to others what we ourselves do not partake of...but that doesn't make our denials justifiable. We should offer what we can of knowledge, as appropriate. handshake Neither our individual preferences, nor "group think" determine morality.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
It depends on how you define marriage. And I do not think marriage is something that a "Government" offers. Marriage, as far as I can see, springs from the need of attributing responsibiity for offspring. If there were no offspring from the sexual relation between males and females, who would care as to who sleeps with who?
Why do I have to have any knowledge of whether to or more individuals have or do not have intimate sexual relations? When from those relations people have offspring social consecuences of first order not to be ignored by anybody. When it is a matter only of a personal intimate relationship, why shouldeverybody be aware f it? I do not care as to who sleeps with who. It is not my business.
It is something elso if people who are close and share residence and live in common want tomake that into a contrac for the sake of economical clarity. But that should also be the question of any two people who entertain that kind of relationship whether they sleep together or they don't. Or is there some kind of romantic mimicry of marriage without the main component of marriage?
Yes it is true that people without any hope of having children, if they are man and woman marry, mostly for companionship. Nobody cares what they do in their intimacy.
I think, more than homosexual mariage, what should be possible for EVERYBODY is a contract of mutual support where all economic questions between the parts whold be settled and foreseen, to be signed by any people of any sex or age in whatever familiar relationship or without any, so that those who commit themselve to that kind of situation are adequately protected.
Salaam
I thi
-
We must allow equal opportunities for all--no "separate but equal." If a government only offers civil unions to gays, it should also only offer civil unions to straight couples.
What you're failing to take into account is that gender is a functional aspect of marriage.
Example - When the government decides who is allowed to vote and who is not, it is not considered unfair discrimination to deny young children the right to vote, because their minds have not fully developed yet. Intellectual maturity is a functional aspect of voting, therefore it is a legitimate basis for excluding young children. On the other hand, skin colour, social class, gender and sexuality are not functional aspects of voting, so it would be wrong to restrict voting rights to one race, one gender, one social class or people with one form of sexual desires.
When it comes to marriage, the basis of marriage is sex. Gender is a function aspect of sex. You have sex with the bits of you that define your gender. The purpose of there being two genders is to facilitate sex. The purpose of marriage is likewise. Therefore, the requirement for a married couple to consider of one man and one woman is a legitimate requirement for the partnership to fulfil the function of the relationship-institution. On the other hand, race, skin colour, social class, education, citizenship, etc etc, none of these are functional aspects of marriage. Black, white, rich, poor, clever, ignorant - all are capable of sexual reproduction, so these are not legitimate criteria for restricting who can marry whom.
Social institutions need to reflect reality if they are to serve their purpose. As Thomas Jefferson said; "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."
-
Greetings and peace, all group
What you're failing to take into account is that gender is a functional aspect of marriage.
Example - When the government decides who is allowed to vote and who is not, it is not considered unfair discrimination to deny young children the right to vote, because their minds have not fully developed yet. Intellectual maturity is a functional aspect of voting, therefore it is a legitimate basis for excluding young children. On the other hand, skin colour, social class, gender and sexuality are not functional aspects of voting, so it would be wrong to restrict voting rights to one race, one gender, one social class or people with one form of sexual desires.
When it comes to marriage, the basis of marriage is sex. Gender is a function aspect of sex. You have sex with the bits of you that define your gender. The purpose of there being two genders is to facilitate sex. The purpose of marriage is likewise. Therefore, the requirement for a married couple to consider of one man and one woman is a legitimate requirement for the partnership to fulfil the function of the relationship-institution. On the other hand, race, skin colour, social class, education, citizenship, etc etc, none of these are functional aspects of marriage. Black, white, rich, poor, clever, ignorant - all are capable of sexual reproduction, so these are not legitimate criteria for restricting who can marry whom.
Social institutions need to reflect reality if they are to serve their purpose. As Thomas Jefferson said; "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."
If the basis of marriage is sex, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/whatever couples have sex too! Lesbian couples can also use artificial insemination.
Couples can adopt, or have children from one or more previous marriage, among various scenarios. Further, there are people that are not biologically capable of having children. Would you exclude marriage on this basis? I'm not arguing that religious entities should be forced to provide marriages--but governments should treat all people, regardless of sexual orientation, equally. There are certain protections under the law for married couples, and to deny these protections is unequal. Regarding the quotation, are gay/lesbian/bisexual unequal? Please do explain! ;D
If you ~were~ gay, how would you wish to be treated? hmm
Does disallowing gay/lesbian marriages discourage/prevent people from being gay or lesbian? Or is it more a moral judgement on a minority that can't defend itself adequately? If the population were 95% gay/lesbian, I guarantee you that there would be no problem with same sex marriage! It is not our duty to impose our beliefs upon others--that is oppression. police
Thomas Jefferson said many things, including the following
The most sacred of the duties of a government to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.
-- Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14465To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10258All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
If you ~were~ gay, how would you wish to be treated? hmm
I actually do have a (christian) gay friend who is against gay marriage. I admit, most of the gay people I know are pro-gay marriage, but none of them have actually expressed a desire to marry someday themselves.
Mark Vernon in Cif gives a good explanation why obsessing about equality is wrong when the context is inappropriate. His article below is arguing against straight people in the UK being allowed to enter civil partnerships
Today, no decent father would claim to own their daughter, as perhaps used to be the case. However, many brides still want to be "given away" at weddings. That must be a reflection of a deep psychological connection to do with the inevitably gendered nature of the relationships between parents and children.
Gay relationships don't have that. Ours is a different historical legacy. It's not so much told in economic terms but social, the most obvious facet of which is to do with persecution. CPs, then, are important partly because they're about lesbian and gay couples having the opportunity to forge new ways of being public and rather than being marginalised by society, contributing to it.
Culturally, there's another story of difference to be told. Marriage is in a state of flux as a result of cultural changes, and inevitably so. What's increasingly clear, though, is that simple equality between a man and a woman in a marriage often doesn't work. There's the evidence that women tend to remain the main child carers, for example, and that having such a dedicated carer is good for the child, particularly when young.
This may be an uncomfortable finding, clashing with the values of equality, but it's pretty commensurate with much recent writing by feminists who make the point that the women's movement has not necessarily done women many favours by demanding the kind of equality that would have it all ? career and children.
How these relational shifts, gay and straight, will all work out remains unclear. However, it takes time for institutions to grow the wisdom, as it were, that is good for people. What clearly doesn't help is the overuse of the blunt instrument of equality. It becomes the hammer that sees every issue as a nail.
http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/10/civil-partnerships-marriage-lite
The issue is the socio-cultural meaning of the institution of marriage. Many gay people like Mark Vernon want to develop civil partnerships into something with a different socio-cultural meaning to marriage - so they don't want heterosexual couples just using it as 'marriage lite'. Likewise, the socio-cultural meaning of the existing institution of marriage is based upon the nature of heterosexual relationships.
I think this existing meaning of marriage is important to preserve. Obviously, heterosexuals who cannot have children for medical reasons can't be discriminated against - but that is because they have a health problem, whilst gays do not. At the same time however, we should be aware that if everyone was like that, we wouldn't bother with marriage at all. There would be no point in government recognising marriage at all if we did not conceive children sexually.
