Verses on Homosexuality
-
Strotu
My dear friend. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point. Yes, the majority of damage that has been done to the world has been by hetrosexuals and it has also been done in the name of religion. However, on the same token, the greatest feats carried out in the world and benefit to the world have also been done by hetrosexuals and not homosexuals. So if you are going to pick faults with hetrosexuals, I suggest you look at the pro's and con's in order to balance out your argument.
Now, even after the atrocities 'hetrosexual' man has committed in the world, mankind has continued it's existence through procreation. Not by homosexuality. Homosexuality cannot, I repeat cannot procreate the human race. Let's not beat about the bush here. The first pregnancy achieved through in vitro human fertilisation of a human oocyte has only been developed this century. Even then, sperm from man and egg from woman is required. So the question that begs to be answered is how has the human race continued in Homosexual communities when they have quite clearly given up the right to procreation? You know the answer.
Peace
A person being a homosexual, does not rule out procreation and that individual avoiding same sexism.
Homosexuals aren't an evil to humanity, it's those that do not recognize them and those that promote them to same sex fornication
-
FAR
My friend. From where I come from, this is the definition of homosexual
Main Entry 1ho?mo?sex?u?al
Pronunciation \h-m-sek-sh(-)wl, -sek-shl
Function adjective1 of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sexHow have homosexuals been procreating over the centuries without the use of the opposite sex and how would one avoid same sexism?
Please elaborate.
Peace
-
The world only seems to be overpopulated when people do not cooperate. For example, you turn your television on and you see people starving, so you think - Oh No! The world is overpopulated! But in fact, when you look closer, there is no shortage of land. People are starving people instead of farming, they are fighting. It doesn't matter how few people there were in the world. If instead of spending their time growing food, they spent their time fighting, they would still have no food, even if you had the whole continent of Asia all to yourself.
And so when the question is asked "How many children is too many" - the answer depends not upon the population of the world, but upon the capacity of the parents. If the parents love each other, are good and cooperating, if they work well together in earning money and managing the household, then they can have lots of children. Each child will be well educated and will manage to learn a living and be of benefit to society, with the good example of its parents.
If the parents are lazy, if they do not live together, let alone cooperate, and if they fight a lot with each other and other people, it is different. It doesn't matter how empty your country is. If the children are raised badly like this - if they see the example of their father not working, and not supporting their mother, they can only learn that bad behaviour pays, and they will be a burden on society.
Hence this important link to sexuality. Good sexuality is sexuality which encourages the child conceiving and raising couple to love and support each other, and to cooperate, and in the process benefit society. This is why homosexuality doesn't really fit in well - because it does not encourage the two biological parents to stick together and raise the child.
-
liquiddharma,
Hence this important link to sexuality. Good sexuality is sexuality which encourages the child conceiving and raising couple to love and support each other, and to cooperate, and in the process benefit society. This is why homosexuality doesn't really fit in well - because it does not encourage the two biological parents to stick together and raise the child.
Huh? You've not shown how sexuality and parenting are connected therefore your argument against homosexuality is a non sequitir. Explain how one's sexuality affect one's parenting skills. Studies show that a person's sexuality has zero bearing on their parenting skills and there's even a tiny bit of evidence that lesbians make the best parents so as per your reasoning, only lesbians should be parents.
And what's this nonsense about being a bad person if you don't have children? What evidence is there in the great reading that the god wants us to reproduce? Humans will reproduce whether or not the god wants them to because it's natural for all organisms to want to pass on their genes.
-
It's natural for all organisms to reproduce, including humans, because it's God's will. Forgotten who designed the universe?
Sexuality is important for your parenting skills because it keeps the two parents in the same house feeling positively towards each other. The children benefit from that.
-
Peace Samia,
This intself is not unaccepted by the religion in my opinion, until they start acting upon it (having homosexual sex). They are not different from heterosexuals having sex outside the marriage.
Which is why I humbly believe that the god allows homosexuals to marry.
I do not understand why homosexuality should take all this credit as if homosexuals are the only people who are not supposed/ cannot have access to heterosexual sex there are those with congenital deformity, with organic or psychlogical conditions that prohibit them from having sex, the impotent whether primary or secondary..etc. Do they search for homosexual sex or are they advised to do so?
Homosexuals don?t seek people of the opposite sex for the same reason heterosexuals don?t seek people of the same sex. People with deformities don?t have sex because often times no one wants to have sex with them, but homosexuals find each other attractive. Why should they endure the unhappiness people who can?t have sex have to endure? And people don?t start having homosexual sex because they can?t have heterosexual sex.
No. God asks them to be patient (425), or marry those who accept their case. I believe that verse 424 has a shift of address to those homo and others who are unable to have sex with the opposite sex they are prohibited from marrying the "mu7sins those who can have sex with the opposite sex" except when those mu7sin agree to be their milku yameen. This kind of "marriage, in my opinion, is what is called (milkul yameen) each one of the pair is "milku yameen" the other. Vers 425 is even more explicit Whoever is unable to marry the mu7sins (wrongly understood as by poverty. God has already advised to marry the poor If they are poor, God will make them rich), then marry milku yameen. This is the only case where the family should be involved because of such sex-less marriage.
But where?s the sense in that? What is the logic in depriving homosexual people the right to have sex ? which the god acknowledges is an activity humans enjoy ? with the kind of people they like? And wouldn?t the kind of marriages you explained above be miserable ones?
-
Sexuality is important for your parenting skills because it keeps the two parents in the same house feeling positively towards each other. The children benefit from that.
And gay men and lesbian women also feel attracted and therefore positive towards each other.
-
Well, not exactly, sexual intercourse is a biologically unique function - there's certain kinds of hormone transfer between semen and vaginal fluid that occurs during coitus that does not happen in same gender activities. Sure it may bond people to an extent, but this does not serve the purpose of bonding together the parents of a child because children have one father and one mother.
-
Peace Roshan,
I don't think it's insidious.
Peace
Firstly, sorry for the delay in reply. I hope you are still here.
Secondly, yes it is so insidious and your answer has shown this to be true.
Plenty. No one really eats with their rear, but it's a fact that some people enjoy anal and oral sex. The fact that anal and oral sex don't serve the purpose of procreation doesn't make them wrong. To say they're wrong because their "unnatural" (which is nonsense anyway) is an appeal to nature logical fallacy.
EXACTLY! 'No one eats with their rear'. This is the statement that shows you understand the principles of what I am talking about on 'homosexuality', but because you have let other people think for you, on some issues, you have allowed their views to become your own insiduously. First of all, plently of people put food (and many other things) up their bottoms, but no-one calls it eating because eating is the process of consuming foods to be absorbed by the body. Ditto for sodomy.
What is your evidence that the quran (great reading) calls homosexuality and anal sex fahisha?
There is no such thing as homosexuality. However, God mentions same sex perversion in some verses of the Quran (they have already been mentioned). See 415-16
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or God makes for them a way out.
416 And the two men who commit it from amongst you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.The story of Lut is also worth a perusal.
As for the other things you wrote, let me tell you the way society (at least in the UK) works. Since the 1960s left wing atheists, secularists (in reality self-deists) have sought to decrease the influence of religion in society through promoting the nanny state and encouraging people to be selfish and ignore the consequences to society. And of course, the government picks up the tabs and it is a viscious circle. So, free sex is allowed. Children are brainwashed at school to believe it is O.K. so long as you know about contraception. The obvious result is that hoards of unwanted children are either born or aborted and a new underclass is created who are entirely dependent on government hand-outs. These children are mentally unstable and this has huge consequences for society. Part of this breakdown in the family also involves the promoting of homosexuality as a valid sexual choice (by equating it with heterosexuality’. If you really want to know about sodomites look up cruising, cottaging, rimming and other terms that go along with the perversion. Apparently near a park where I used to live, after these perverts had engaged in their perversion it was left littered with needles, syringes etc. But of course people are so stupid that they equate gays with Jack from Will and Grace, or the other open perverts paraded as fashionable eccentrics on T.V.
Think about it.
Roshan
-
I'm not bloody blaming the heterosexuals zulu1, you're taking my arguments to simply suit your strange ideas. It's NOT a heterosexal versus homosexuality debate and who is inherently better though you obviously seem to slant it that way.
There are extremes in all factions of human behaviour, attributing it to only homosexuals is ridiculous, that was my point. There's no reasoning with bigots right? So I take my leave, there, be happy in your bigoted little world I won't torment you with 'anti-religious' ideas anymore.
-
Salaam Supernaut
Which is why I humbly believe that the god allows homosexuals to marry.
Yes you can only arrive at this conclusion when you isolate what I said from my whole post. God clearly frowned upon same gender sex. What I am saying is that being simply gay without having homosexual sex is not a sin intself. The sin starts with the act.
People with deformities dont have sex because often times no one wants to have sex with them, but homosexuals find each other attractive. Why should they endure the unhappiness people who cant have sex have to endure? And people dont start having homosexual sex because they cant have heterosexual sex.
Those with deformities and others do have desire but can't have sex. Why shoul they endure the unhappiness people who can have sex (and do have it) do not endure? What I am saying is, homosexuals are not a special case to make societies feel guilty for not allowing them to marry. No one is stopping them from enjoying their homosexual sex as long as they keep it private, just like heterosexuals having illegal sex..It's between them and God. Why don't homosexuals behave like those who have desires and can't have sex? It might be difficult but not impossible if the homosexual cares for their belief. If they don't, then what's the problem? Why do they want a "fatwa"?
But wheres the sense in that? What is the logic in depriving homosexual people the right to have sex which the god acknowledges is an activity humans enjoy with the kind of people they like? And wouldnt the kind of marriages you explained above be miserable ones?
Who is depriving them from having sex? What they want is not just sex, but a "fatwa" to legalize it. Please show me the verse where the god acknowledges sex as an activity humans enjoy "with the kind of people they like". I am not saying sex is not an enjoyable activity, but when you mention the god as acknowleging this act to prove "therefore homosexual act is OK" then you have to prove this.
Any marriage can be miserable. Marriage is not all about sex, and having wonderful sex is not a guarantee to a happy marriage. Even after a marriage has started, one of the couple may become impotent. Does this break the marriage? This is the difference/ and the problem with homosexual idea about marriage it's all about sex; and this is why people with deformity are not whining all over the world, because they know a happy life can have many faces when sex is not one of them.
-
Well, not exactly, sexual intercourse is a biologically unique function - there's certain kinds of hormone transfer between semen and vaginal fluid that occurs during coitus that does not happen in same gender activities.
All I've read is that having vaginal intercourse the night before can help reduce the stress that men experience while speaking in public. The lack of such a benefit in homosexual intercourse doesn't make it wrong. Popcorn has zero nutritional value so does that mean we should assume the god doesn't want us to eat any? Furthermore, there's evidence that gays and lesbians are aroused by the pheromones of unrelated people of the same sex and humans can smell and taste each others pheromones just by making out.
Sure it may bond people to an extent, but this does not serve the purpose of bonding together the parents of a child because children have one father and one mother.
Some children have no parents and are adopted by homosexual couples who love each other a lot.
-
Strotu
My dear friend.
No need to get nasty!!!! You did state that hetrosexuals caused more strife to mankind than homosexuals in order to counter my statement and you also listed people without children as great humanitarians etc etc.
I personally couldn't care less what your views or lifestyle was. But please do not try to attach Homosexuality as a normal form of behaviour and compatable with Islam or try to fight their corner.
If I am a bigot in your eyes, not a problem. As so is the majority of the world because they also hold similar views towards the un-natural practice of Homosexuality, to which I give no apologies. I feel comfort in the fact that at least 1 billion people also share my views. Democracy rules!!!!!
Peace
-
Peace Roshan,
EXACTLY! 'No one eats with their rear'. This is the statement that shows you understand the principles of what I am talking about on 'homosexuality', but because you have let other people think for you, on some issues, you have allowed their views to become your own insiduously. First of all, plently of people put food (and many other things) up their bottoms, but no-one calls it eating because eating is the process of consuming foods to be absorbed by the body. Ditto for sodomy.
Umm, no, because people do enjoy anal and oral intercourse with members of the same sex. Deny this all you want, but it will always be true.
There is no such thing as homosexuality. However, God mentions same sex perversion in some verses of the Quran (they have already been mentioned). See 415-16
415 And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death terminates their lives, or God makes for them a way out.
416 And the two men who commit it from amongst you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.The story of Lut is also worth a perusal.
The story of Lot isn?t about homosexuals (you should really go through the older thread on homosexuality that I linked Diem to in the first page of this thread) and it?s my humble opinion that 415-16 are about prostitutes, not homosexuals.
As for the other things you wrote, let me tell you the way society (at least in the UK) works. Since the 1960?s left wing atheists, secularists (in reality self-deists) have sought to decrease the influence of religion in society through promoting the ?nanny state? and encouraging people to be selfish and ignore the consequences to society. And of course, the government picks up the tabs and it is a viscious circle. So, free sex is allowed. Children are brainwashed at school to believe it is O.K. so long as you know about contraception. The obvious result is that hoards of unwanted children are either born or aborted and a new underclass is created who are entirely dependent on government hand-outs. These children are mentally unstable and this has huge consequences for society. Part of this breakdown in the family also involves the promoting of ?homosexuality? as a valid sexual choice (by equating it with ?heterosexuality?). If you really want to know about sodomites look up ?cruising?, ?cottaging, ?rimming? and other terms that go along with the perversion. Apparently near a park where I used to live, after these perverts had engaged in their perversion it was left littered with needles, syringes etc. But of course people are so stupid that they equate ?gays? with Jack from Will and Grace, or the other open perverts paraded as fashionable eccentrics on T.V.
Forgive me, but that is just an uninformative and indefensible rant.
-
Salaam Samia,
Yes you can only arrive at this conclusion when you isolate what I said from my whole post. God clearly frowned upon same gender sex. What I am saying is that being simply gay without having homosexual sex is not a sin intself. The sin starts with the act.
I have reason to believe that the god doesn?t have a problem with the act. Why would It? What harm does it cause? I think Arnold?s understanding of the story of Lot?s people is a more logical one because homosexuality isn?t a threat to anyone or anything.
Those with deformities and others do have desire but can't have sex. Why shoul they endure the unhappiness people who can have sex (and do have it) do not endure? What I am saying is, homosexuals are not a special case to make societies feel guilty for not allowing them to marry.
I think people with deformities should also be allowed to marry and have deformed kids because people have the right to do what they want with their bodies, including having deformed children. If that?s not what you?re disputing then my response to the above is that the suffering of one group of people doesn?t justify causing another group of people to suffer. Your argument is similar to saying that just because a poor person?s kids can?t get good healthcare, absolutely no one should get good healthcare. That kind of thinking gave birth to one of the most miserable and atrocious ideologies ever socialism.
No one is stopping them from enjoying their homosexual sex as long as they keep it private, just like heterosexuals having illegal sex..It's between them and God. Why don't homosexuals behave like those who have desires and can't have sex? It might be difficult but not impossible if the homosexual cares for their belief. If they don't, then what's the problem? Why do they want a "fatwa"?
Some homosexuals don?t want a fatwa. All the want to know is why homosexuality is wrong. There?s no logical reason to claim it?s wrong. Why would the god make some people homosexual and then tell them not to exhibit homosexual behaviour for no good reason at all? Does such a being seem merciful, let alone reasonable?
Who is depriving them from having sex? What they want is not just sex, but a "fatwa" to legalize it.
I don?t think the god criminalizes adultery or fornication. I humbly believe that the god prescribes a punishment for exhibitionistic sex only and that the punishment applies only to people who willing come under the great reading?s jurisdiction. Furthermore, what?s wrong with homosexuals demanding the same right as heterosexuals? Why should they be deprived the right to marry and have sex with the people they want? Many Americans would have thought it extraordinary if Blacks and women had demanded the same rights as White men in early America and we see people having the same kind of attitude today, but towards a different group of people (homosexuals). Same injustice (discrimination), different victims.
Please show me the verse where the god acknowledges sex as an activity humans enjoy "with the kind of people they like".
I don?t think I said that. What I meant was that the god acknowledges that sex is an activity that humans enjoy.
I am not saying sex is not an enjoyable activity, but when you mention the god as acknowleging this act to prove "therefore homosexual act is OK" then you have to prove this.
That?s not what I was arguing. I apologize if what I said was a bit vague.
Any marriage can be miserable. Marriage is not all about sex, and having wonderful sex is not a guarantee to a happy marriage.
Indeed, but you must admit that there often, or maybe even always needs to be sex for a marriage to be a good one.
Even after a marriage has started, one of the couple may become impotent. Does this break the marriage?
Impotent but not incapable of having sex. You must admit that sex is very crucial to most marriages and couples that can?t have sex endure misery. And why shouldn?t people enjoy when they can enjoy?
This is the difference/ and the problem with homosexual idea about marriage it's all about sex;
That?s untrue. Fine, if you think sex isn?t too important to marriage, why don?t you ask heterosexual people to marry people of the same sex but not have sex with them? They?ll tell you that they don?t want to because the thought of being in a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex is repugnant. Similarly, gays and lesbians don?t want to be in a romantic relationship with people of the opposite sex. Oh and research has shown that the brain distinguishes between sex and romance. Go to http//www.livescience.com/health/050531_love_sex.html to read all about it.
and this is why people with deformity are not whining all over the world, because they know a happy life can have many faces when sex is not one of them.
But romance is (I feel so stupid and like such a sissy saying this ) and no one wants a romantic relationship with someone they?re not attracted to.
-
Umm, no, because people do enjoy anal and oral intercourse with members of the same sex. Deny this all you want, but it will always be true.
Firstly, an unsubstantiated claim by yourself ('deny this all you want..'. Sodomy is wrong and a perversion whether between two men or a man and a woman (oral 'sex', as mentioned before is a form of masturbation). I note you are unable to make any rebutal to the principles of my analogy and are resorting to unsubstantiated claims.
The story of Lot isn?t about homosexuals (you should really go through the older thread on homosexuality that I linked Diem to in the first page of this thread)
It is, to some extent. Same sex perversion was one of their multitude of perversions.
and it?s my humble opinion that 415-16 are about prostitutes, not homosexuals.
Prositutes are not mentioned, only perversion between members of the same sex. You believe the verse refers to prostitution probably because you do not believe same sex perversion is wrong (based on irrationality as mentioned before).
Forgive me, but that is just an uninformative and indefensible rant.
I forgive you because you are unable to understand the gravity of the situation faced. My comments clearly indicate why this question on 'homosexuality' is important and was in response to your 'what people do in their own bedrooms is no-one's business' ignorant comments. The effect of sex outside of marriage is clearly visible to those who want to open their eyes.
However, some do not wish to open their eyes.
Roshan
-
Firstly, an unsubstantiated claim by yourself ('deny this all you want..'.
Erogenous zones are parts of the body that, when stimulated, elicit sexual arousal. Precisely which body parts are sources of sexual arousal is a very individual experience.
The genitals are the most obvious erogenous zones, but many parts of the body not involved in reproduction are sensitive to sexual touch. The largest sensory organ for both men and women is the skin itself, especially the inner thigh area, the neck, the breasts and nipples, and the perineum.Other erogenous zones include the eyelids, the ears, and the shoulders. Many people also find that having their feet stroked is arousing. Stroking, caressing and massaging of erogenous zones can be titillating forms of sensual pleasure in and of themselves, or they can be invitations to further sexual activity.
The mouth, including the lips and tongue, for most people, is an area of high erotic potential. Kissing is one act that uses the sensitivity of this region in a sexually stimulating way.
The anus, rectum and buttocks are also potentially erogenous zones. The anus is highly sensitive to touch and the insertion of a finger, object or penis in the anus and rectum is part of some people's sexual activity.
The buttocks are sometimes a target for spanking and stroking, which can feel very arousing to some people.
Source http//health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/erogenous.html
Sodomy is wrong and a perversion whether between two men or a man and a woman (oral 'sex', as mentioned before is a form of masturbation). I note you are unable to make any rebutal to the principles of my analogy and are resorting to unsubstantiated claims.
Well I?ve substantiated my claims now (I didn?t think I?d have to before because what you?re arguing is obviously ridiculous) and in doing so have shown your analogy to be a faulty one. The strongest argument you have against homosexuality is based on nothing more than an appeal to nature logical fallacy.
It is, to some extent. Same sex perversion was one of their multitude of perversions.
I take it that you still haven?t gone through the older thread on homosexuality.
Prositutes are not mentioned, only perversion between members of the same sex. You believe the verse refers to prostitution probably because you do not believe same sex perversion is wrong (based on irrationality as mentioned before).
415-16 The women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from amongst you; if they bear witness, then you shall restrict them in the homes until death takes them, or God makes for them a way out. The two who commit it from amongst you, then you shall reprimand them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Compassionate.
415 mentions a group of women (lesbians don?t always engage in group sex) and the word alazani can also refer to a man and woman instead of just two men. It is my humble understanding that the above verses command muslims to put prostitutes (male or female) who willingly come under islamic jurisdiction under protective custody till the god makes it safe for them to come out of their homes. Prostitutes are vulnerable people (pimps and slave traders are sometimes very violent towards their prostitutes, and some punters are very abusive too) and they?re also a health risk to society.
My comments clearly indicate why this question on 'homosexuality' is important and was in response to your 'what people do in their own bedrooms is no-one's business' ignorant comments. The effect of sex outside of marriage is clearly visible to those who want to open their eyes.
What you said isn?t true for all homosexuals. Your argument is similar to saying that since a few Mexicans are drug dealers, Mexicans in general are bad people who deal in drugs an ugly and bigoted fallacious argument.
-
What you said isn?t true for all homosexuals. Your argument is similar to saying that since a few Mexicans are drug dealers, Mexicans in general are bad people who deal in drugs an ugly and bigoted fallacious argument.
When the proper analysis is that since drug abuse harms a lot of people, society benefits from government policy working to minimize drug abuse.
Likewise, misuse of human sexuality harms a lot of people, breaks up a lot of families, and is a bit cause of poverty. The focus of sex education is all wrong, particularly where I am in the UK, it's all about 'feeling comfortable' about what you are doing, entirely ignoring the context of marriage.
This link is typical of sex education in the UK. It encourages teenagers to be a little bit critical of peer pressure to have sex, and has a kind of feel good quality to it. But there is no serious attempt to convey what responsibility actually is, an no mention of the value and importance of marriage.
http//www.bebooksonline.co.uk/girls_and_boys/default.htm
I think there is a strong relationship between this obtuse failure of sex education and the activities of gay lobby groups arguing that anything that feels good is sex and on a par with marriage. It's garbage. Just because some patches of skin are sensitive doesn't mean that sticking dildos into every orifice is going to make a happy family and a stable environment for raising children. Such fallacious arguments need to be rooted out so society can progress.