Same sex relationships/ marriages
-
Salaam,
Bottom line is we will disagree.
I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful.
They just don't know what they're missing.
Check this outhttp//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001512/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0001287/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0809938/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
http//www.imdb.com/name/nm0275486/
and many more, very pretty gals, don't know why gays don't feel .... attracted .... confused
Peace.
Attraction is based on more than just looks. Women have a lot more than that in case you didn't know.
-
I think in Lot's narrative what shocks most is the aboslute lack of modesty of intimacy, the bestiality of the whole thing.
Somebody said that sex in the mind. I agree that in most cases, incuding what they call hetero or homo is so too. And many sexual problems are not so, but mental and emotional problems. That is why, I think, the Qur'an asks for bringing four witnesses or to shut up. People have a wright to tprocess their murky waters in their own terms, at their own pace... to walk that path and evolve without being intruded upon nor watched nor judged. They do not have to bare their minds. What lived in voluntary intimacy should not be brought out. To break the loyalty that one commits upon marriag is heinious, but there is no need to hang it on billboards.
I do not think that marriage is something that makes sense betwen people of the same sex, because as far as I understand it, marriage is for the benefit of assuring next generations, ar at least attempting to. Were there no generation, then there would not be a reason for society to uphold such an institution. The other aspects that we usually put into marriage, companionship, sex for the sake of sex only, love, or whatever can be had and exchanged without such an institution. People are friends and loyal even without being married, it is not as if outside marriage there was no possible human relationship. May be we are putting today to much store by marriage and not enough in relations, as if marriage was a universal policy for assured hapiness. We can see it is not, and may be it is not, because we have overloaded it with enormous expectations for everythin, which some marriages do fulfill, but others do not and there is nothing wrong with that.
Salaam
Salaam
-
I still think you can't compare. Someone who is homosexual basically desires the same things heterosexual people desire ? love, companionship, connecting with another person on a mental, spiritual and physical level. Those things, obviously, are not possible with a minor or an animal. Wanting to have sex with a child means you are desiring something that will cause damage to the other person, this is clearly not the case when desiring a person of the same sex.
True but perhaps those who have this desire with regards to kids may also have such wants such as love, companionship etc with the kid but considering the difference between an adult and a kid, this would make it less possible if not impossible for them.
My point is that the desire in both cases is most likely sameish and perhaps and most likely the same as heterosexual desires. Whilst in the case of paedephillia the wrongness is clear, it is less clear in the case of homos.
Should two homosexuals have a relationship that is based not on lust but rather love, i can't see how they can be faulted morally UNLESS they also feel attracted to women in which case it would be a transgression I think.
But if they have no attraction towards women and then find others like themselves who lets say have the attributes of a believer whilst they themselves also have such attributes, then how can we fault them?
-
Then you may want to look at 1571 & 1178.
You need to remember the time Lot lived in, women were commodities. It wasn't uncommon to
offer/trade women to prevent or cause something to happen.Also remember it's Lot speaking not God. Do you see how the story is repeated several times. If God wanted to say "gay=wrong" he could have done it in a few words very clearly. Why waste so much space to so say so little? Can you see the bigger picture?
Yep, I stand corrected, the Quranic story does share that perviness with the bible. Although I can't see in these Quranic stories about Lot any mention of the next stage of the pervy Bible episode, where Lot's daughters get him drunk and get pregnant by him. Please tell me that's not somewhere else in the Quran?
So the count has been raised to 5 repetitions of the Sodom story, of which 3 explicitly condemn the Sodomites for their homosexuality, 1 strongly suggests it, and the remaining 1 only moderately insinuates it.
If the Quran wanted to say homosexuality is wrong but not draw much attention to the wrongness it would say it only once. If it wants to hugely emphaise the wrongness of it and the importance of avoiding homosexuality, it would repeat it many times. That's what it does with other moral issues, like how it repeats the command "Guard your privates, except from your wives" several times. I can't see any wiggle room at all here.
-
Hmmm... seem to have lost a post in the backing up!
As you can see, it is quite explicit that homosexuality is the focus of condemnation here. The bible isn't explicit, it doesn't clarify the details of why God smites the Sodomites. In contrast, the Quran is explicit. It makes very clear why God disapproves of the Sodomites - and yes, it isn't just homosexuality, but it very much includes homosexuality. Luckily it's not quite as pervy as the bible story, no mention of Lot offering his daughters to the Sodomites to stop them raping his male guests ("thanks dad, you really know how to look after a girl", but it is most definitely an expression of antagonism towards guy on guy sexuality.
From the verses you have quoted, it can still be argued that the Quran is not against homosexuality i think.
In the first set of verses, it is Lot who thinks that being attracted to males is lewdness (since he is being quoted) but there is no clear quranic verse which backs this. Another issue is that Lot says something which i would think is wrong (offering his own daughters) implying that he does make mistakes in his approach. -
Salam
If the verses in 415-16 are not about homosexuality then what are they then?
Surely the punishment for Zena between heterosexual people has been mentioned in 242.Peace
AsanaSalam Asana
verses 415-16 are- And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from among 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.
And the two men who commit it from among you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.The two men in this verse are commiting lewdness. I'm not sure that being a homosexual and having a homosexual partner counts as lewdness.
Because non homosexuals don't really know what homosexuals feel, then judging whether being a homosexual and having a relationship with another homosexual counts as lewdness is perhaps not possible.
-
My personal opinion is being gay is not a sin but acting upomn it is.Any criticism welcome
-
Salam Asana
verses 415-16 are- And those of your women who commit lewdness, you shall bring four witnesses over them from among 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.
And the two men who commit it from among you, you shall trouble them. If they repent and amend, then leave them alone. God is Redeemer, Merciful.416 doesn't say two men, compare and contrast it with 415 which clearly has the word "women" in it. Khalifa translated 416 correctly as couple.
Also 415 doesn't have the qualification "with each other". It is about a women in general acting in a lewed manner and 416 is about couples acting in a lewed manner.So neither are about lesbians and gays etc.
-
Salam to all
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The word in 415 is Al-fishata the same word has been used for people Lot in 780 , 2754 and 2928.
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination/ Al-fishata; no one in the world has done it before!
Lot said to his people, "How could you commit such an abomination/ Al-fishata, publicly, while you see?
Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination/ Al-fishata, no one in the world has ever done it before you.
We know Al-fishata is homosexuality in those verses then why is it difficult for some to accept it that 415-16 are talking about homosexuality and that?s why God commands such a punishment for it like destroying the people of lot by condemning them to death.
Asana
-
Peace Wakas
The word in 416 as ?wa-alladhni? is masculine dual which refers to 1male+1 female as well as 2 males too?.Therefore since the verse 415 refers to homosexuality looking at 416 in context too is talking about 2 males which means homosexuality.
Asana
-
It has been said that 4.15 is about homosexuality, but I cannot see why. Fahisha is a general term and is not homosexuality and there is no indication that the fahisha that is being alluded to has anything to do with homosexuality or that the group of women does it with each other. Also, it would mean that homosexuality between two women is not targeted, but that it has to be group.
A writer in this forum put forward the insight that 4.15 is not about homosexuality, but about prostitution. To me that makes sense. Far more sense that this homosexuality thing. In fact it makes a lot of sense.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf
Maybe you should compare the usage of Fahisha in verses like 3135, 422, 728, 1732 with 415, 780, 2754, 2928 as Al-Fahishah in order to see the difference of the meanings in context.
If you would like to consider the 415 is about female prostitution then you should show me what the punishment for the male prostitution is unless you?d like to tell me that it?s ok for male to do prostitution or it?s only women who do prostitution.
Any kind of sexual activity out of marriage is adultery and fornication and punishment for them is in 242.
The word for prostitution is "Al-bighi? not Al-Fahishah which we can read it in below verse
Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.
Asana
-
I think fahisha is not homosexuality. Fahisha is very geneal term which may include zina, lewdness, any abhorrrent deed.
On the other hand I cannot see a punishment in 4.16, true, but I cannot see it either in 4.15. Al it says is take those women into the houses and take care of them till death or till God gives them any other means. Where is the punishment? Also is soliciting not fahisha? That is what prostitutes do when they work the street. It doesn't say to keep them locked. In current English or other languages, it would be, take them off the streets and keep them off the streets in decent housing. And I do miss the indicatin that the fahisha we are talking about is homosexual acts. I see no indication of that. And least of all group acts. On the other hand, where is the punishment for male homosexual acts? Soliciting is fahisha, but if somebody is actually caught by four witness in sexual intercourse it is zina, therefore that is something else.
Also in 4.16 I do not see that it is specifically referring to homosexuality, since it could also refer to a male and female couple and it does not prescribe either any punishment.
In fact I do not get a clear picture of what you are getting at.
Regarding bigha' I want to study it carefully, but I think it is quite a different proposition from what is pictured in 4.15 or 4.16, mainly exploitation of prostitution, which obviously is more abhorrent than plain prostitution.
Otherwise there is no provision in Qur'an for those unfortunate women who are tapped in that situation. I find it is quite consistent with the Qur'an, particularly in sura nisaa' where it is the question of those most vulnerable in society, that a provision for those women should be made.
I do not discard that if it fits it may be applied to other situations or cases, even homosexuality, but as it is and such as the world is, I find that female prostitution fits the aya more than anything else. Many prostitutes fall into it because they have children and have no means to maintain them or bring them up.
Salaam
-
Regarding 24.33 I am not even sure that it is prostitution in the sense of being used by many men. It may mean merely men should not get sexually involved with girls without marriage. 3araD, as far as I can see can be simply vanities of this world as it appears in other ayas. So, in fact, I am not even convinced that by bigha' in 24.33 is actual prostitution what is meant. It may simply be that young unmarried women are used by men who do not intend to marry them, since the speech is addressedd to believers in general and all it tells them is not to use a woman for pleasure and then forget her.
Salaam
-
I read this today http//seedmagazine.com/content/print/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
Interesting to note that homosexual practices are more common in the animal kingdom than we think. I don't agree with the writers conclusions, including that "gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along" (is she serious??), but it still discusses some interesting points.
-
I read this today http//seedmagazine.com/content/print/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
Interesting to note that homosexual practices are more common in the animal kingdom than we think. I don't agree with the writers conclusions, including that "gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along" (is she serious??), but it still discusses some interesting points.
I think the writer has make a big error in failing to examine the differences between monogamous and promiscuous animals. About 10% of mammal species are monogamous. When it comes to promiscuous animals, then she may be right, making indiscriminately is part of their social behaviour. But when it comes to monogamous animals, be it prairie voles, swans, penguins or human beings, having sex is not a casual form of social behaviour. It is something taken very seriously, and if you only have sex with one person, then homosexuality is very bad for your fertility!
