Same sex relationships/ marriages
-
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
-
I think we get trapped by dividing people into ficticious categories hetero and homo. Those categories are artificial. I know of people who got into homosexual practices. They were not homosexuals, but they became homosexuals. Others have leanings early in life, there are others who enjoy sex with both sexes, most people if they try it. I think that it would be those people who look for sex-enjoyment no matter what, for mere lust, who would be committing fahisha. However I doubt whether that it is the case with persons who do have emotional leanings to same sex, for reasons that would take time and understanding to ground. There is a difference in looking for sex for the sake of lust and looking for sex as part of an emotional commitment, be it with same sex, be it with the other sex. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, just that there is a big difference. I also know that many homosexual dealings and also heterosexual are for mere lust sake.
Now, for punishment, why would the Qur'an ask in sura AnNur for four witnesses and then go on at such lengths against those who mind other people's business, slander and gossip around? It doesn't do as much for theft or agression or other wrong deeds. Why should be that? For me it is obvious that sexual errors are not to be dug nor held against people unless they are a provocation, so nobody should dig for adultery or what is done in intimacy, but we should indeed uncover murder, agression or rape and other misdeeds no matter how intimate it is.
I think people get guidance and some space to rule and discipline themselves in this matter and that we should not prod any further. We do not want men or women parading what should be part of intimacy, that seems clear. God praises marriage between man and woman and protects it, that is also clear. I do not know whether we should go beyond that.
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.
I am not sure that in Lut's condemnation it refers to any leaning for same sex which is not lustful. What the Lut scenes depict is lust run riot with a homosexual specialty. Agressive, or at least, open pursuit of any male for lustful purposes. That is fahisha, no question. I am not sure whether extending that to relationships which are not agressive nor lustful nor are exhibited is warranted. To see men harass women for the same purpose would also be fahisha, I suppose.
As to 4.16 concerning those who exhibit themselves, when they are two men in homosexual attitudes, what it says is to annoy them (reconvene them, I guess), but no punishment seems to be foreseen if they are two.
Salaam
-
Dear Emil,
Somehow the subject of homosexuality or hetrosexual behavior and it being labled a "fahisha" in the Quran has been changed in your post to "God is not against sex, by He is against oppression"!
In my world - the one were the Quran rules, when I have 2 "consentual" adults who have sex out of wedlock, and upon whom a confession or 4 witnesses have be provided will get a nice lashing in public...652.
In your world - the one where you compromise to not offend people, you will let them off telling them its OK because you want to deviate from the clear laws stating absurd statments like "its not clear!"
In my world - when I have 2 "consentual" male adults having homosexual relations, I will make sure they are made uncomfortable in their situation until the refrain from such acts...416.
In your world, as long as they aren't oppressing anyone, you will let them have "fahisha" relations until they get bored or death overtakes them!
In my world - when I have a "girl" having "consentual" sex with a man or boy, I will make sure the girl gets 50 lashes while the man gets 100...425, 242.
In your world, even if they have consented, it seems to me you will seek to apply civil/human law which defines an adult as a person over the age of 16.
If we can learn anything from the Quran, it is not to compromise on the truth.
The prophet had the urge to compromise on the Quran to please the people and he was threatened by God that he would b in Hell! (1773-75).
I say to Hell with the people if they want to deviate from the laws of God...They either submit fully to God and stop themselves from selfish desire (7940), or, they do as they please and have none to blame but themselves when they find themselves shackled and thrown into Hell.
-
Dear Layth
Nononono, you get me all wrong now. I have never said that I am scared to offend people. I am probably offending you right now, eh? voodoo. I am scared to make people HATE eachother. And please we are not talking about pedophilia, adultery or anything else but homosexuality here. You brought those other subjects into this. All I pointed out was that homos and pedophiles do not fall into the same "category" when one is clearly an act of oppression. Pedophilia is so beyond "fahisha" it calls for a much stricter "punishment". Pedophilia can destroy a child, mentally and physically for the rest of their lives. I am sorry Layth but you have made me cross at you now. How dare you even imply that I would not be strict on pedophiles?
The same goes for adultery. I am sorry to say again. You are with bad retorics making it sound like I would say OK to adultery because I don't want to offend people yeahLet me show how I am thinking. First I go through what a particular subject, in this case homos, are NOT in the Quran.
Homosexuality is not oppression. It is not adultery. It is not prostitution. Therefore, I cannot find any CLEAR violation of Allah's will.
Second, I look at the community and scientific view.
It is not an illness. It is not genetic. It is not the mother of various diseases. It is not the downfall of a community. It does not disrupt the order of the world. This makes me understand that homosexuality cannot be "dangerous" to me or my community.Third, I look if it may be part of a group of activities that is against Allah's will. This is where "fahisha" comes in.
If I understand "fahisha" it is somehow broadly used, interpreted from illegal sexual intercourse to sodomy. As far as I know the only time fahisha is linked to an act is in 3135. It states that adultery is fahisha.
Whenever it can be linked to homosexuality it is addressed to men only. To me, that doesnt make sense because why would women be exempted?
When the punishment was given to Lot's people, his wife was punished as well. So if homosexuality is fahisha, why is Lot's wife punished when she is not homosexual?It just doesnt make sense, it is not clear and it can be twisted and turned to suit the interpretor's personal opinion of fahisha. HOWEVER, when reading the f-m english translation it is more clear.
In the f-m Quran it is only translated to one english word "lewdness", and this word is more specific.
"Behavior that is deemed morally impure or unacceptable in a sexual sense; open and public indecency tending to corrupt the morals of the community; gross or wanton indecency in sexual relations."Is homosexuality lewd? No, not according to the f-m Quran.
The last step I ask myself what the practical and moral implications are.
No I am in danger of putting up barriers between myself and people who are NOT violating any of Allah's clear prohibitions. I am in danger of prohibiting something against Allah's will. I am in danger of making the Quran contradictory (men and women have equal rights vs. lesbians are OK but not gay men)
Yes I am in danger of misinterpreting the Quran.Since a "No" can lead to a gross mis-conduct I would not like to say no. And "yes" is not a good option either. That is why I say they (homosexuals) must read the Quran and they must see if they are going against Allah's will or not. You say that there is no compromise in truth. The truth is that you are bending the concept of truth to fit your opinion. Truth IS black and white. You tell me my sister is wrong and she should repent. You do this because you claim it is the truth according to the Quran that she is wrong? Let me ask you, where in the Quran does it say lesbians are "fahisha"?
For the record. I do not like homosexuality but I WILL NOT USE ALLAH TO JUSTIFY MY FEELINGS.
-
Salaam all,
I believe the real reason why homosexuality is more prelevant in today's modern society is because of the changing roles, personalities and appearance of men and women. Today women and men look and act so much like each other that the minds of many people are confused in their attraction for mating. Think about it. confused confusedhttp//youarenotsosmart.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/twins_illusion_awesome.jpg
http//images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Mitch-Hewer-skins-755166_393_500.jpg
http//quierosaber.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rosie.jpg?w=234&h=300Regarding whether Allah condemns gays, a basic reading of the Holy Quran will clearly give us the answer. If anybody has any confusion, u can check the example of the people of Lot. The following verses will make this clear.
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one in the world has done it before! "You practice sex with the men, instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."
"Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake the wives that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are transgressing people."
The Quran forbids any sexual relationship other than in a marriage between a man and a woman. Many homosexual men and women claim that they are born with their sexual preferences and that they have no choice. Although this point is very much in dispute in the medical world, it has no support in the Quran. Even then, irrespective of the nature of homosexuality, this matter would not affect the laws spelled out clearly in the Quran .
We know that this life is a test. Everyone of us has his/her own test. For example someone may be born blind, but that person is expected to live his/her life according to God's law. Others are born poor, short, tall, weak, missing fingers, having big nose...etc but all of them are expected to follow God's law. Some men or women may never marry in their life, or spend part of their life without a spouse. As per the Quran they still have to live a chaste life and avoid any sexual contacts outside a marriage. They have to suppress their sexual feelings to follow God's law. It is a major test and not an easy one for many. Only those who submit to God will do everything they can to follow His law. They know that their salvation and eternal happiness rests in doing so.
Since God condemns homosexuality, then we have to believe that a man or a woman with homosexual feelings is expected to behave like any other human being and follows God's laws if he/she truely believes in them. He/she shall resist his/her feelings , maintains abstinence , use all available resources of help including medical, social and behavioral therapies to overcome their behavior and feelings.
We have cited for the people in this Quran all kinds of examples,
but most people insist upon disbelieving.We have cited in this Quran every kind of example, but the human
being is the most argumentative creature. -
I believe the real reason why homosexuality is more prelevant in today's modern society
How did you come to the conclusion that it is more prevalent in today's societies? confused Do you have any proof or statistics for that?
I don't think this is true at all.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
Abu Nuwas, the first and foremost Islamic gay poet
Homosexuality in Japan
