Same sex relationships/ marriages
-
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.
-
The purpose of there being two genders is to facilitate sex. The purpose of marriage is likewise.
Marriage also has practical and legal aspects. Inheritance issues, property issues, the right to visit a spouse in the emergency room or intensive care, guardianship issues in case one of the partners becomes sick or demented, adoption and so on. Homosexual couples need an option to take care of those things as well ? either in the form of marriage or another sort of civil contract that settles those issues.
-
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
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.
Scott Kugle's Homosexuality in Islam says something along these lines. His argument is that gays can have partnerships based on muta' or misyar contracts which are different to the normal heterosexual nikah contracts. This way, the identities are kept separate whilst allowing gays to have relationships. The general gist of his book is that Allah's religion is a problem-solving system, not a set of dos and don'ts. I tend to agree with this.
-
Funny how people try to twist facts when the Holy Quraan plainly tells us that such acts are an abomination.
Today's "modern" society that gets its kicks from doing all things radically different, legitimizes gays as being programmed that way and therefore their acts as harmless and natural. Tomorrow we'll probably hear the same thing about incest and pedophilia and there would be a million reasons to support those acts too.In the end, GOD knows best.
-
But why should a civil partnership be restricted to people who have sex with each other. Why people who may want to have a partnership, have to support their claim to it alleging some sexual intent. Isn't that their private business? And if they intend to have sex, isn'T that their private business as well. Why should we know or care whether person so and so has sex with person so and so? If they are our friends or acquaintances we may know all that, but why should it be a matter of public concern. They are not going to become pregnant, so what do we care. All that matters is that they want to enter into a partnership and that they register such partnership and its terms and clauses. Tehre other people who do not intend to have sex and who may want to have assurance as to their social, residence, or economic arrangements, why should they be obliged recognize themselves as gays, be they or not, in order to enter that partnership if they in fact wnat or already are in de facto partnership, but unrecognized?
Salaam
-
Haha, this topic clearly shows the laughable state in which the so-called liberal/freethinking Quraniyyun is in. Because, on the one hand they do try to get rid of racist/sexist/ignorant remarks as found in the hadith, - rejecting those hadiths NOT necesarrily because they are weak BUT because they defy common sense and logic.
Yet, the same approach isn't done when considering the Qur'an, instead they engage in an endless attempt to all conceal those inconvenient truths in the Qur'an like "it was only meant for them", "historical context", "wrongly translated" etc.
Qur'an is VERY clear on homosexuality, yet those clueless Quraniyyun here don't cease their desperate attempt to all talk it OK. -
Please remove your foot from your mouth. Such issues arise from taking a liberal mindset, not a free thinking mindset. A liberal mind has just as much power to cause delusion as a conservative mind but a free thinking mind by definition is the fastest way to remove delusion from one's soul.
-
I have always found my stand with homosexuality as "they can do whatever they want, as long as they do it privately". I am quite liberal.
That was until I found out my sister is gay. To my utter disbelief I started feeling it was really wrong. Homosexuality is a sin. That naturally put me in a mental no-man's-land. I love my sister and I respect her but on the same time I hated her being gay... It was not until I started reading in the Quran I started understanding
There are arguments for yes and no, back and forth, up and down......What I have come to realize is; What difference does it make if a person is gay or not? Will gayness lead a person to violating the system of Islam? Will he stop being kind to his parents? Will he stop caring about people? Will he turn against God?
The answer is. Yes of course. That is, if homosexuality is forbidden. A gay muslim will stop being muslim if pushed too far. He will hate people if people hate him. He will stop talking to his parents if they shun him.
Is this what Allah wants? To make barriers between people, to make us hate eachother?
I was against homosexuality because it hit me a little bit too close to my heart. With the guidance of Allah I have fortunately repented. He has taught me that if I interpret his way so it could lead to making barriers between people, I am not interpreting it right.
-
Haha, this topic clearly shows the laughable state in which the so-called liberal/freethinking Quraniyyun is in. Because, on the one hand they do try to get rid of racist/sexist/ignorant remarks as found in the hadith, - rejecting those hadiths NOT necesarrily because they are weak BUT because they defy common sense and logic.
Yet, the same approach isn't done when considering the Qur'an, instead they engage in an endless attempt to all conceal those inconvenient truths in the Qur'an like "it was only meant for them", "historical context", "wrongly translated" etc.
Qur'an is VERY clear on homosexuality, yet those clueless Quraniyyun here don't cease their desperate attempt to all talk it OK.You don't even believe in the Quran, so how can you say that the Quran is very clear? Your argument is invalid.
-
I think citizenderkosmos projects his own feeling a little when he says
"...don't cease their desperate attempt to all talk it OK."
Nobody is desperate if you are not. We talk and we express. Desperat are we not. We don't care whether you are convinced or not. It is your business. We are talking, discussing. You believe whatever you believe or doubt whatever you doubt. That does not concern us. And there is no reason why we should be right. The Qur'an is revealed by God, but we are not God, and we are still on ths earth, and therefore try and learn as best we can.
As to the question of homosexuality right or wrong. I have said it many times, but I will say it again. I think that those categories of hetero and homo are artificial. There may be feelings sensations emotions that entangle with sex relationships, which in turn are dependent and shaped by many things, starting with inheren temperament of the person and all conditionings and circumstances in his or her life. But there is not a line by any means that separates one thing from the other and there is also evolution in many persons who are called homosexual or heterosexual.
There are acts which may be wrong, and the people of Lot did very wrong acts. But that does not mean that every person who feels always or at times attracted and has intimacy with somebody of the same sex comits those acts. And those acts of the Lut people weren't restricted to men, were they? and even if they were, if they did the same thing with women, would it have been right? No, those people were using sex as power show. It was not sex, it was rape and dominance. Very different thing.
With this I am not endorsing homosexual acts or condemning them. It is for every person to sorte the best he or she can her own emotions and emotional needs. I think it is more fulfilling and full of teachings for a man to have a wife and for a woman t have a husband, but I also think that that is better to be married than staying single, and obviously I am not pretending that people should be forced to marry if they do not want to, nor do I want single people to be treated any differently from married people. Also being divorced is worse than having a nice husband or wife, but it is not a sin and that does not detract form the person, his or her goodness and their value.
The thing is that persons are individuals and not a single one of individuals has all the best qualities. We must take us as we are. There are some things better than others, but we are not getting them all, nobody is. And a single person can be very valuable socially, just as people who won't be able to accomodote to the other sex. There is a way for every person, and provided they do not do As Lut's people or any other transgressors, alhamdulillah, we do not have to judge them, nor even mind their business if we are invited or if we do not see them in distress or opressing others.
Salaam
-
Haha, this topic clearly shows the laughable state in which the so-called liberal/freethinking Quraniyyun is in. Because, on the one hand they do try to get rid of racist/sexist/ignorant remarks as found in the hadith, - rejecting those hadiths NOT necesarrily because they are weak BUT because they defy common sense and logic.
Yet, the same approach isn't done when considering the Qur'an, instead they engage in an endless attempt to all conceal those inconvenient truths in the Qur'an like "it was only meant for them", "historical context", "wrongly translated" etc.
Qur'an is VERY clear on homosexuality, yet those clueless Quraniyyun here don't cease their desperate attempt to all talk it OK.No one is concealing anything. There are no verses prohibiting homosexuality. I challenge you to find me a clear case to back up your claim. The Quran mentions zina, fahisha and transgression. The last two are at times subjective concepts. So whether homosexuality is a fahisha is subjective.
-
Dear Nimnimak,
Your challenge is not much of a challenge.
- Homosexuality is called a "Fahisha" 780, 2754 - and, as we all know, "Fahisha" is not to be approached 6151.
Additionally, if you read 416, this further gives is a law in dealing with homosexuals.
Dear Emil,
I don't follow your logic about not speaking out against homosexuality because it may scare people away from the laws of God! The same argument could be made for heterosexual relations or even pedophilia (lets be nice to them cause it might scare them away form submission). An adulterer with the required criteria set out on 242 will be lashed 100 lashes - no questions asked. People need to understand that deviant behavior (be it sexual or otherwise) comes with the consequences of going against God's laws and therefore being subject to His punishment. If you loved your sister you would try to spare her walking the path of selfishness that could lead her to an eternal misery.
-
Dear Nimnimak,
Your challenge is not much of a challenge.
- Homosexuality is called a "Fahisha" 780, 2754 - and, as we all know, "Fahisha" is not to be approached 6151.
Additionally, if you read 416, this further gives is a law in dealing with homosexuals.
Dear Emil,
I don't follow your logic about not speaking out against homosexuality because it may scare people away from the laws of God! The same argument could be made for heterosexual relations or even pedophilia (lets be nice to them cause it might scare them away form submission). An adulterer with the required criteria set out on 242 will be lashed 100 lashes - no questions asked. People need to understand that deviant behavior (be it sexual or otherwise) comes with the consequences of going against God's laws and therefore being subject to His punishment. If you loved your sister you would try to spare her walking the path of selfishness that could lead her to an eternal misery.
Additionally, if you read 416, this further gives is a law in dealing with homosexuals.
What is the punishement ? I see only punish them, but it doesn't say how, and what's the codition, witnesses and all etc.. -
Dear Emil,
I don't follow your logic about not speaking out against homosexuality because it may scare people away from the laws of God! The same argument could be made for heterosexual relations or even pedophilia (lets be nice to them cause it might scare them away form submission). An adulterer with the required criteria set out on 242 will be lashed 100 lashes - no questions asked. People need to understand that deviant behavior (be it sexual or otherwise) comes with the consequences of going against God's laws and therefore being subject to His punishment. If you loved your sister you would try to spare her walking the path of selfishness that could lead her to an eternal misery.
Dear Layth
Speaking out against homosexuality is of course ok if we feel it is wrong. But once we say "God hates fags" then we are excluding homosexuals from God. We give people a reason to hate in the name of Allah. We give parents a reason to shun their children in the name of Allah. We give homosexuals a reason to hate Allah. I think it is up to every homosexual muslim to make that choice him/herself. They must read the Quran and they must see if they are going against Allah's will or not.
Putting pedophilia and homosexuality in a comparison is quite a stretch don't you think? Pedophilia is taking advantage/oppressing/raping of a child, thus falling into the category "oppression". Heterosexual rape is of course also "oppression". And not forgetting bestiality either. As far as I know homosexuality has nothing to do with oppression.
Oppression (rape/pedophilia/bestiality) must contain two elements, one perpetrator and one victim. Does gay mean you either one of them?
Adultery is sex between two consentual adults which are not married to eachother. Does gay mean you cheat on your spouse?
We are to make a clear stand on oppression, so of course we can "scare" the oppressors.
And by the way, Lot's people were gay oppressors, not gay only. That is why my conclusion of using the story of Lot to condemn homosexuality is standing on shaky grounds.It all comes down to the same debate yet again. What is the difference between your and my opinion of
deviant behavior
? And this we have already tried to sort out. I failed to make you realize the sexual revolution has already taken place. You failed to give me a list of lewdness according to the Quran. So let's not get into that discussion again. I am asking please.
Don't get me wrong about my sister. I do not like it that she is gay. I know that even if I was an atheist I would still not like my sister being gay. But just becaue I believe in God will I use his words to justify my feelings? No way Jose.....I rather stay clear of such matters where it is not CLEAR in its literal translation what it means. Allah MAY judge you for being gay, Allah WILL judge you for setting up prohibitions not approved by Him. I am responsible for my own actions, I rather not take the risk of interpreting the word of Allah so it can lead to oppression, hate or unfair judgement.Let me ask you something, dear Layth;
Hypothetically speaking, what would think would happen to us, our families, our communities, the world, the system of Islam if we miraceously all agreed that the Quran says ok to homosexuality? I am asking you this because with your knowledge you clearly can see beyond the words of Allah, you can see what they mean to us, what the guidance is all about jedi
