Putting the Puzzle Together Regarding Homosexuality
-
Good point AL Azhar.
"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk."
This verse clearly indicates that they were married men, and thus heterosexual. Only heterosexual married men would leave their wives for another; a homosexual man would have no wife to leave!!
"Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings evil." And the answer of his people was not but they said, "Bring us the punishment of Allah , if you should be of the truthful."
Yes what Sodom men's did is a forced rape, not just merely sexual activity.
The male travelers HAVE NOT been condemned - meaning that they committed NO wrong doing!! IF their actions were condemned along with the actions of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah,
Can you tell me the verse about "male traveler" in Sodom?
-
@earthdom
"Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings evil"
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah approached men and obstructed their road. That means that these men were not from the city but they were outsiders who were passing through the city (i.e. 'travelers' and were blocked by the men of S & G.
I'm not from the U.S but from what i know, San Francisco is a very extreme case. It is important to point out that the U.S. military offloaded thousands of gay servicemen in San Francisco during World War II after they were discharged for their homosexuality; hence why SF has such a prominent gay male population.
Furthermore, U.S cities such as NY, Boston, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Chicago all have large gay populations, so lets not come to conclusions based on the experiences of only one city.SF is very liberal - they have a number of 'clothing optional' beaches and events and there were a lot of protests when the city banned public nudity. It's a place where 'anything goes' and attracts a fair few 'misfits' and 'weirdos'.
"If a reasonably attractive man walked up a random woman on the street and said "hey baby let's have sex" would he not get slapped in the face 99% of the time? If the opposite happened, do you really think most men would turn down the offer? So homosexual sex becomes super easy to obtain. Thus, because it becomes super easy to obtain, gay men tend to obtain a lot of it. Thus it becomes a habit. Thus they very easily are lead into a hedonistic life-style of being addicted to such pleasures. This was something I saw with my own eyes. And not only that but they've already rejected sound moral guidance and thus they are left without a moral foundation to protect them from such a trap. In San Francisco, a huge amount of the gay men have become meth addicts because of this. Meth makes sex better and it's hard for them to resist when they're been converted into hedonistic pleasure-seekers with no unbending sense of morality. I remember seeing a former muslim leave his religion and becoming such as I've described. It was especially sad because he had a brilliant mind but it became totally warped by his life-style."
That's a very big stretch. Hedonism, promiscuity, meth addicts, rejecting moral guidance is not something specific to the gay community. Promiscuity is widespread among heterosexuals; especially among the young people of today. Hooking up at parties and clubs is celebrated; The term 'get a room' was not created by gay men as well as 'try before you buy'. The famed 'sexual revolution' of the 60s and 70s was lead by the hetero community.
The main reason that issues are so profound amongst the gay male community is that they have been discriminated against and marginalised by the mainstream hetero community for such along time in the US. They have never been left to live in peace. If you look at the HIV/AIDS epidemics in the gay community of the 80s, while European governments took action to reduce the spread, response was really slow in the America. Outside Africa the issue was most prominent in the US simply due to widespread homophobia of the US. There is a term 'hetero-phobia' given to gay people who are fearful of hetero people because they were subject of many negative experiences and attitudes from straight people.
This has all led to a very closed community with many issues.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Links to (some of many) other threads discussing this subject
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605049.msg321335#msg321335
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601872.msg269936#msg269936
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Thanks Abdul Hadi, thanks.In that thread I get more useful information ).
-
IMPORTANT!
When Science is Context Three Questions Show
The Men of the Quranic Lot Story
Are Heterosexual men not Homosexual menIntroduction
Today, there are many studies showing sexual orientation is not environmentally influenced, but rather individuals are born with a sexual orientation.
See Parts I-IX Below
Applying these studies as an element of context within the Quranic Lot story, the story shows a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men, and not a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men. In other words, and the thesis of this short article, the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men not homosexual men. To support this thesis, I will share three commonsensical questions that must be asked about the Quranic Lot story when these studies become part of the story's context.
First Question
The first question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 781. The verse states,
". . . with lust you approach men instead of women . . ."
(Quran 781, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse uses ?instead of.? This usage shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Can homosexual men approach women ?instead of? men?
Second Question
The second question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 1178. The verse states,
". . . Said "O my people! these daughters of mine they are purer for you ! . . ."
(Quran 1178, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states that Lot offered his daughters to these men. This offering shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would Lot offer homosexual men his daughters?
Third Question
The third question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 26166. The verse states,
"keeping yourselves aloof from all the spouses whom your Sustainer has created for you? . . ."
(Quran 26166, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states God created spouses for these men. This creating of spouses for these men shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would God create women for homosexual men?
Conclusion
When science is context, these three questions are enough to rightly question the long held belief that the Quranic Lot story is a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men rather than a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men.
Watch the videos and read.
The source
http//www.godists.com/articles/islam_when_science_is_context_three_questions_show_the_men_of_the_quranic_lot_story_are_heterosexual_men_not_homosexual_men -
Greetings and Peace, all group
@GODsubmitter Something new; brilliant! bravo
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Yes, He surely does!
-
I even forget and remove all my past Quran intepretations including about this
-
My concern about homosexuality relates more to the formation of families - the conception, birth and rearing of children. Homosexuals have been encouraged to deny and/or lie about their sexuality. They are often very unhappy in their marraiges to the opposite sex, usually unfaithful, and often the marraiges end in divorce. This harms the children. This gets to what is really abnormal about homosexuality. It is not their inability to procreate. Clearly they have that ability, and they don't even need to lie to have children anymore - gay men can pay a woman to have his baby through insemination, and lesbians can go to sperm banks. The true disadvantage or disability for homosexuals is that they cannot form a true pair bond with the other biological parent. They can't benefit from the emotional closeness and bonding made possible by sex in the context of marraige. The absence of the buffer of sex and intimacy negatively impacts the emotional state of these parents and this is not of benefit to their kids. In addition, homosexual couples may be wonderful parents, but their children have less exposure to diversity in their caregivers - two males or two females brings less diversity to their children than a man and a woman. Now obviously there are numerous heterosexuals who are unable to form healthy pair bonds too and will never learn to do so, so this is not just a homosexual problem.
Many disabled people have children. I think it is our duty to support them in their efforts to compensate for any negative impact their disability has on their parenting. This is a very sensitive and very hard to do without seeming patronizing, whether you are helping a blind or deaf parent or a homosexual parent.
On what authoriry do I speak. First, I am a psychotherapist, so I meet lots of people with lots of different experiences. Second, I have two biological children form a former marraige, and two adopted children of a different race and from another country. The pair bond with my first marraige failed, and intimacy was a big problem for my former wife, even though I don't think she was a lesbian. The pair bond with my current wife is strong, though it has been a struggle for my bio kids and her to bond. But what makes me really relate to the homosexual parenting experienc is that I am the father of two adopted kids. My adopted kids have a disadvantage. My wife and I are not the same race. This presents challenges in parenting them. Racism exists, and being white in America, we are ill-equipped. We have done a lot of reading and really worked to get up to speed with this cahllenge, but ultimately, we simply lack what parents of the same race of our daughters would offer them in terms of credibility. We rarely are victims of racism in any seriously oppressive way, though minoriites certainly can be harshly racist if you go into their world and they don't want you there. So in a sense, my wife and I are disabled in a certain way when it comes to parenting our adopted daughters. We know we need to compensate for it. I am not sure gay couples with kids would be be open to that notion, that their kids are disadvantaged by their sexual orientation. They have been judged so harshly over the years, they have little taste for hearing anything negative at this point.
So the best thing for us to so , I believe, is to care for the orphans, which is all over the Quran, even with my limited understanding of it. My adopted kids are still orphans to an extent, as blessed as they are materially. Ny bio kids are orphaned in a sense by the divorce, they don't have the access to both parents that they would enjoy if our marraige had been successful. Children of gay parents are orphans in a sense since they lack a tie to at least one of their biological parents.
So those are my thoughts on this. I really appreciate this forum because I honestly don't know where I could post thoughts like these without fear of destructive backlash. Not that I fear disagreement and further discussion. But this is my question to you how do you define orphan? Maybe we need to focus more on that question, and start helping the orphans, all of them, hidden as they may be from view by our preconceptions. My father died when I was 18. Was I ever an orphan? I sure felt like one. Maybe you are one too reader? -
Salaam wchase
I need learn from your experiece, very wisdom post )
Intepretate a Scripture cannot be literally, but also need empirical prespective to understand God's message.