gay people and islam
-
The idea thrown around here seems to be that if one is opposed to homosexuality, automatically means that the individual is FOR punishment/exile/stoning of the homosexuals. If I'm not mistaken, there's only one person (maybe two) who agree with this idea at all.
Can one say they're against something, as Kyle pointed out numerous times, and speak up against it, without the follow-up of violence? idea
Peace
it is difficult to make the two things fit. I mean, every time that the word 'perversion' is used here or when equating homosexuality with children molestation I find those expressions denigrating for the homosexual people who don't commit children molestation, abuse, or any other crime. It is not direct violence but I find it intolerant, as much time it is repeated 'we are not against the person'
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
To those who favor homsexuality-
Is it okay for humans to have sex with animals? Even if they "love" thier animals? Perhaps that falls under one of the NON PRIMARY uses of "plugs and sockets". Someone please advise me.
yup that's right, sounds good to me
You see, when you allow the emotions to lead, there is no end to the perversion of both thought and act.
Thank you for your honesty at least, hopefully it will make the seriousness of this topic clear to others.
-
idolfree.... When in adoleselce, SOME people find themselves confused over what they are feeling in regards to others. Some may find that they are atracted to an individual and feel that they are either one way or another sexually and look into those feelings. Some find out they are homosexuals, some find out they were confusing their emotions. THAT is experimentation. Emtions are not always easy to figure out, but sexual atraction coes down to how a body reacts. it DOES or it DOESN'T
and YES that goes for both genders. Sometimes the IDEA of a taboo can be a turn on while the reality proves to be a complete turnoff, but you don't know until you put it to the test SOMETIMES
-
Peace idol-free and all. With the example of farm animals,rape,child-abuse etc..These are wrong...Why? Because there is no consent from the abused. What can also be harmful is abusing the trust/vulnerability of members of society who have either not yet reached maturity, or have not come to understand their sexuality.
Peace all. -
Peace be upon you Elena,
Zenje
Can one say they're against something, as Kyle pointed out numerous times, and speak up against it, without the follow-up of violence?Elena
it is difficult to make the two things fit. I mean, every time that the word 'perversion' is used here or when equating homosexuality with children molestation I find those expressions denigrating for the homosexual people who don't commit children molestation, abuse, or any other crime. It is not direct violence but I find it intolerant, as much time it is repeated 'we are not against the person'Respected sister, you have to understand it is your FEELINGS(emotions) about ths situation that are causing you not to make the two things fit.
The human will NEVER see clearly until emotions are taken out of the reasoning process.
Sister, I cant sugar coat what is obvious. A perversion is a perversion.
Main Entry per?ver?sion
Pronunciation p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function noun
1 the action of perverting the condition of being perverted
2 a perverted form; especially an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitusOn another note, why cant we also address those Homosexuals that DO molest like the Catholic Priest Epedemic? Are they all born homosexuals also?
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
However, in regards to tolerance, should we be tolerant of people having sex with farm animals?
Elena
again equating homosexuals with other kind of peopleThis question is about tolerance of sexual acts, not human beings. Please understand the difference. Do not get "angry" wih me, stay at PEACE and reason with me.
-
Peace Elena,
It is not direct violence but I find it intolerant, as much time it is repeated 'we are not against the person'
This is true. Atleast with most I've seen are people who are against the act. Sure, those opposing equate the act (not the person) to other acts, like child molestation, because they believe both are a matter of choice, not that both do the same thing or interchange in any way. While some may be disgusted at the thought of abuse or public indecency or any other "crime"... others see it in the same light. -
Peace idol-free and all. I am going to make an observation to you idol-free. Why do you tell certain members that they are 'emotional' and so cannot see the situation in a 'true' light? Has it occured to you that you may be being emotional yourself on this topic? Im saying this as a brother and not to disrespest you. I think we all need the feedback(constructive) of others.
Peace all. -
Peace
On another note, why cant we also address those Homosexuals that DO molest like the Catholic Priest Epedemic? Are they all born homosexuals also?
every person who commits a crime, of course demand him, persecute him and jail him.
you are resorting to my emotions. When we agree it is also my emotions that drive me?
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
idolfree.... When in adoleselce, SOME people find themselves confused over what they are feeling in regards to others. Some may find that they are atracted to an individual and feel that they are either one way or another sexually and look into those feelings. Some find out they are homosexuals, some find out they were confusing their emotions. THAT is experimentation. Emtions are not always easy to figure out, but sexual atraction coes down to how a body reacts. it DOES or it DOESN'T
Thats not true. The "body" reacts based on programming. There are heterosexual couples who "loved" each other but have gone through so much EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS (arguments or what have you) that they cant get excited for sex with each other anymore. Likes and dislikes change, they are not "YOU". They are not the "I".
and YES that goes for both genders. Sometimes the IDEA of a taboo can be a turn on while the reality proves to be a complete turnoff, but you don't know until you put it to the test SOMETIMES
So since there is KNOWLEDGE hat crack kills, you are saying thatit is natural for someone to "try it out" just to be extra extra sure?
-
Peace all. Other sexual acts which are harmful include those which carry an irrational amount of risk to the doer and/or the people around. eg People have hurt themselves with bondage,whips,electricity,drugs,exposing themselves,unhygienic practises,animals etc..
Consent,rationality,knowledge and ethics are required to avoid harm.(as with all other fields of life).
Peace. -
Peace be upon you Enquirer,
Peace idol-free and all. With the example of farm animals,rape,child-abuse etc..These are wrong...Why? Because there is no consent from the abused. What can also be harmful is abusing the trust/vulnerability of members of society who have either not yet reached maturity, or have not come to understand their sexuality.
Peace all.How about the dog that humps your leg? Surely that would be "consenting", is it okay for the human "returns the favor"?
-
Peace be upon you Enquirer,
Peace idol-free and all. I am going to make an observation to you idol-free. Why do you tell certain members that they are 'emotional' and so cannot see the situation in a 'true' light? Has it occured to you that you may be being emotional yourself on this topic? Im saying this as a brother and not to disrespest you. I think we all need the feedback(constructive) of others.
Peace all.I respect that question GREATLY! Please go back through the posts and you will CLEARLY OBSERVE who is reasoning behind emotion and who is not.
The key words for emotions are those who are stating "love", "Hate", "feelings", "sympathy", etc.
Thats emotion.
My position is based on FORM and FUNCTION, there is no emotion involved with that. There is no emotion in my decision to put a plug in a socket. Please respond if there is any point at all that you disagree with what I have said here. I would like to make this as clear as I can.
That is what this "religion" stuff is truly all about, once we get rid of the nonsense.
-
Peace idol-free and all.. The example of the dog would be that i have not consented,therefore it is harmful to me so i would move away from the dog. I take consent to be between the two parties.(not just one) Certain sexual behaviours can be harmful even if both parties consent(eg use of a whip in sex),but this has to be deemed harmful either by those indulging in it or 'neutral' people suggesting that this 'act is/can be harmful. We ourselves(or even 'universal law' )are not the sole judges of what is harmful.
Peace all. -
Peace be upon you Elena,
idolfree1 wrote
On another note, why cant we also address those Homosexuals that DO molest like the Catholic Priest Epedemic? Are they all born homosexuals also?Elena
every person who commits a crime, of course demand him, persecute him and jail him.Where is the rehabilitation aspect? (check Herekhuti in Maat 11 Laws Book). We should not be jailing people for a time then letting them go with teh very same mindset, or even worse. Thats theproblem with the business of prisons, but thats another topic.
you are resorting to my emotions. When we agree it is also my emotions that drive me?
How is asking you about Catholic Priests resorting to your emotions sister?
If that question causes you to get emotional, then you realize there is work to be done thier for your person. If this is an emotional topic for you, how will you expect to see clearly?
-
Peace be upon you Enquirer,
Peace idol-free and all.. The example of the dog would be that i have not consented,therefore it is harmful to me
I didnt say anything about "YOU", I asked of the sexual pervert who responds to the dog humping his/her leg, would they be wrong to respond to the dog, since they are both "consenting"?
We ourselves(or even 'universal law' )are not the sole judges of what is harmful.
By saying "sole" judges, you are saying that we are indeed judges, correct?
-
Peace idol-free and all. I feel that you are suggesting that your post is objective(not driven by emotions) whilst other posters posts are subjective(driven by by emotions). I would state two things. a) i dont believe humans can be absolutely objective.(which means you still have a subjective element to your thinking ) and b)you are implying that (beacause you are totally objective) that whatever final conclusion you come up with(ie knowledge or verification) that this is correct and absolute. However....This is a form of intellectual bullying(which big boys like me dont get intimidated by too often ) ) and can lead to the 'religious mentality' which you said you wanted to avoid.(ie dogmatic statements and opinions,self-righteousness etc..) we are always learning,we always have some incomplete opinions(or misunderstandings) and we are always subject to some subjectivity.
Finally a question,can anyone control their emotions totally? Im posting respectfully to try to understand /clarify a few points,not to argue or cause harm. Peace brother idol-free and all. -
Peace
How is asking you about Catholic Priests resorting to your emotions sister?
If that question causes you to get emotional, then you realize there is work to be done thier for your person. If this is an emotional topic for you, how will you expect to see clearly?
nooo, there is misunderstanding
I was referring to your previous post when you said
Respected sister, you have to understand it is your FEELINGS(emotions) about ths situation that are causing you not to make the two things fit.
-
Peace be upon you Enquirer,
Peace idol-free and all. I feel that you are suggesting that your post is objective(not driven by emotions) whilst other posters posts are subjective(driven by by emotions).
Did you make the observations I pointed out?
I would state two things. a) i dont believe humans can be absolutely objective.(which means you still have a subjective element to your thinking )
I disagree, if someone asks me to get a pound of sand, I can weigh and measure (objective) and get a pound. What is subjective about that?
and b)you are implying that (beacause you are totally objective) that whatever final conclusion you come up with(ie knowledge or verification) that this is correct and absolute.
Give me an example of where objective knowledge would be incorrect conclusion.
However....This is a form of intellectual bullying(which big boys like me dont get intimidated by too often ) and can lead to the 'religious mentality' which you said you wanted to avoid.(ie dogmatic statements and opinions,self-righteousness etc..)
Intellectual bullying? Big Boys? I am debating with you, nothing more.
we are always learning,we always have some incomplete opinions(or misunderstandings) and we are always subject to some subjectivity.
Yes, but we should be moving to VERIFY things objectively.
Finally a question,can anyone control their emotions totally? Im posting respectfully to try to understand /clarify a few points,not to argue or cause harm. Peace brother idol-free and all.
Until I fully "control my emotions, I cannot say yes definately, but based on the process I am implementing, it seems that one can indeed "control" thier emotions entirely, or at least to a very high level.
Actually, its about IGNORING emotions, not controlling them. Once we observe and reason something out, then emotion can (and must) follow.