Gay and Muslim?
-
Oh God.
Alright. You have not mocked or humiliated me either. Oh fine. Satisfied?
God bless you
-
Alright. You have not mocked or humiliated me either. Oh fine. Satisfied?
Salam
Sure, it is always other peoples' problems and be in hell.
I am wrong, not a muslim and will be in the hell fire because I believe and relying on the exact words and context from the Qur'an?
That's it?
Peace peace
-
Peace,
Just that knowledge is not all that matters, or is it? Anyway I am not the one who puts you in Heaven or Hell. And you decide yourself what you want to be.
God bless you
-
Anyway I am not the one who puts you in Heaven or Hell. And you decide yourself what you want to be.
Salam
You've already being judgemental and decided it, and for the reason I'm referring to the words from the Qur'an. Funny.
People like you will have problems with God at the end of days.
and refer here and here
Peace
-
Salaam brother,
What are you fighting? I give you right in absolutely everything you say so why do you keep posting arguments which make me look bad?
I am sorry about the the one line that says people like you will have problems at the end of days. I lost my temper.
God bless you
-
Salaam,
Okay I make myself look bad. Satisfied? Can we be friends now?
God bless you
-
Salaam,
Oh really. Friends then.
God bless you
-
For those people who justify homosexuality using "homosexuality is proven in animal nature", Some animals are also paedophiles and eat their babies.
-
Salam
The reason of "natural" in "human behaviours" (vs. human organs) may not be entirely correct in finding the right path.
It is "natural" for people not to believe in the Qur'an and "be unjust"; ie. "human conditions etc."
And the Day the wrongdoer will bite on his hands he will say
"Oh, I wish I had taken with the Messenger a way
Oh, woe to me!
I wish I had not taken that one as a friend
He led me away from the remembrance after it had come to me
And ever is Satan, to man, a deserter"And the Messenger (Muhammad) has said,
"O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an
as abandoned."(2527-30)
It is natural for human beings to abandon the Qur'an.
Therefore...
http//s12.postimg.org/x1fv1nnr1/natural.png
Peace
-
Salaam Yuliana,
Did you miss my post to you about pedophilia in humans?
Well, I do not justify homosexuality, just trying to put up a basic understanding for the phenomenon and I also said it might as well be a sin. Since we have not been able to scientifically prove, and due to political pressures not able to efficiently research on this topic properly, that homosexuality is either innate or not, it is difficult to really prove anything on this subject. But we need to have a certain understanding for these individuals.
The question is why it would render them non-Muslim on one falling point if they are otherwise goodly people and wholeheartedly believe in God. They can perhaps not do anything to change their behavior about the homosexual part.
It was said here that if they were homosexual and wanted to reform they could be regarded as Muslims, but if they did not they would not be Muslims. But changing something they cannot help I think it difficult.
Of course I take it as the homosexuality would be added to the repository of sins rather than rendering one a non-Muslim. But that is just my interpretation.
God bless you
-
I must have said not less than thirty times that marriage is sex between a woman and a man and sex is marriage between a woman and a man precisely because therefrom comes the birth of a new life, and then you come with this...
You still do not seem to value at all sex between a woman and a man, that is why you think that it is the same as sex between two people of the same sex. Obviously it is not. Sex between people of the same sex, the same as paper contracts and wedding ceremonies cannot result and will not result ever in the birth of a new life, while a one night stand between a woman and a man can result in it.
Salaam
?????
I think you have seriously tied yourself in knots with your argument. Sorry but you are all over the place and lack any consistency in your argument. If sex is marriage and marriage is sex, then that means a gay couple can have sex and then should be considered married. You are the one who is coming with this sex is marriage nonsense, not me! so how in any way am I devaluing sex or marriage between straight couples? You are the one who is simplifying sex and in turn simplifying marriage too. So according to your simplistic notion of sex and marriage, to be consistent with your premise, by saying sex is marriage and marriage is sex, you are not making any distinctions between the sexes. So gay sex is also marriage according to your premise. But then you say Gay sex is not comparable to straight sex (I know it isn't) But you are trying to say sex between a couple is marraige, so it's your words which you contradict.
so therefore you are saying then that sex is NOT marriage and marriage is NOT sex, because for your argument to be consistent it has to work for all sexes.
So then you must accept that it's more complicated than how you have it.
-
?????
I think you have seriously tied yourself in knots with your argument. Sorry but you are all over the place and lack any consistency in your argument. If sex is marriage and marriage is sex, then that means a gay couple can have sex and then should be considered married. You are the one who is coming with this sex is marriage nonsense, not me! so how in any way am I devaluing sex or marriage between straight couples? You are the one who is simplifying sex and in turn simplifying marriage too. So according to your simplistic notion of sex and marriage, to be consistent with your premise, by saying sex is marriage and marriage is sex, you are not making any distinctions between the sexes. So gay sex is also marriage according to your premise. But then you say Gay sex is not comparable to straight sex (I know it isn't) But you are trying to say sex between a couple is marraige, so it's your words which you contradict.
so therefore you are saying then that sex is NOT marriage and marriage is NOT sex, because for your argument to be consistent it has to work for all sexes.
So then you must accept that it's more complicated than how you have it.
Again, that sexy between a woman and a man is marriage, the one for which men pay ujur, and where they give the woman a mithaq ghalizan, what the Qur'an considers lawful, is sex what constitues marriage, so it is not me, it is the Qur'an, and I quoted some ayas and I am sure you have seen even if you do not want to recall them.
So no, if marriage is not sex between a man and a woman, but something else, why should gay people not marry if sex is not decisive and the fact that sex is the source of new beings is not decisive for marriage either, then what is the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage? That is your problem not mine. I think that your problem is that still you consider that sex between a woman and a man as something of no value and not sacred, therefore to you it comes as akin to gay sex. It is not.
Salaam
Salaam
-
After so many pages of this subject, I am starting to think that the fact that the Qur'an only speaks about homosexual acts in the context of the people of Lut may be indicative that what we are warned against is against a social more that is definitely ugly, destructive, when it does becomes a social more. In the whole of Qur'an outside the Lut ayas there is no injunction or condemnation or mention the evilness (or the goodness) of feeling attracted to the same sex, but there is plenty of warning against pure lust and there is plenty of praise or injunctions to get a partner of the opposite sex. So, if we can, we should have a partner of the opposite sex. That is the guidance.
The Lut ayas are there to warn against the evil of the vices that mainly males can be led to through making out of homo acts a socially recognized, indiscriminate behaviour. The acts and behaviour of the people of Lut make their deeds appear as those of a people who has fallen into the worst trap of lust, when sexuallity is taken over by lust as an offshoot of the power compulsion, of power-lust. The behaviour of Lut's people was a show of lust and power as they tried to trample on Lut's guests, they were a people gone beyond all bounds, it was collective public behaviour. When socially no bounds are set on sexual usages, it may end up, in homosexual as well as heterosexual acts in mere demonstrations of brute power. Male over female is the usual fare and very much admitted, either through payment or otherwise. Male over male is just step on the same road.
The intromission and the pounding on homo acts in societies when they are strictly private at the same time that there is no outcry for prostitution and other usages of women are only a sympton of the character of power show that some people have of the sexual acts as marks of power-lust. Power over women is not in discussion, it is basic, but when you do that to men, you are endangering their monopoly over power and risking the power security of all males, who should be de holders of that power over the women, but not deprive of power any other man. The boysclub conception of existence. The Qur'an does not allow and prohibits such a conception of sex and explains the sacredness of sexual coupling between men and women as mark of love and compassion, far from from the power-lust compulsion of those who attract on themselves the divine wrath.
The sexual mores of many oberreligious people seem still to be based on prohibitions rather then on the understanding of the goodness of the good things. Sex between woman and man should recommend itself not because of any prohibitions, but because of its deep virtues and fulfillment. When prohibitions overshadow commendations, it is a sympton that we are not appreciating the good things, and are like donkeys that only understand the stick.
Salaam
-
Salaam huruf,
Exactly, the biggest moral issue with the story of Lut may have been that they disregarded their women and even froze them out because of their preference to be only with their men, intimate relations or not.
Now that I think of it, is it really explicitly told in the story in Qur'an that it is homosexual sex the issue is about?
To me it feels mostly that they freeze out the women, like discrimination, to be only with their male counterparts, much like ancient Athens. Estrangement? Well, pragmatically it seems to be about homosexuality but can this really be it? I mean can a whole community turn on and engage in homosexuality as most men are disgusted by it?
Even with so much open-mindedness today about homosexuality, most men I know feel a bit disgusted by the thought of this kind of sex.
But okay, it is true that the people of Lut came to his house and demanded to get the disguised angels of God (probably because they were fair to look upon) and Lut offered his daughters instead so how are someone able to interpret it more than that they wanted them for intimacy. It just feels far-fetched that a whole community would engage in homosexuality.
God bless you
-
Salam
So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?
(285)Rules
And those who guard their private parts
Except from their wives <- is referring to marriage
(7029-31)Definition of "wives"
a man's partner in marriage
Further, the "wives" can never be referred to "men".
"Man" cannot be "wife", but "husband".
Facts
It is "natural" for homosexuals to have "private parts".
(cf. natural human organs vs. human/animal behaviours (issue of just or unjust) -> is natural?)Therefore, they are also affected by the above rules relating to "private parts" (7029-31), UNLESS they have none.
Question
Whether "homosexuals" must guard their "private parts" EXCEPT to "wives" (women/marriage)?
Answer, choose one
Homosexuals "must guard" their private parts except to "wives" (ie. marriage)
Homosexuals "can use" their private parts to "anyone" (ie. same-sex marriage, etc.)
Indeed, you approach men with desire
instead of women
Rather, you are a transgressing people."
(781)Peace all peace