Recent Legalization of Homosexual Marriage in USA
-
Marriage is connected to sex in so far as it is the basis for procreation. If there were no procreation who would care what people do with his or her sex or why should it be of interest to anyone? Making love,like going to the toilet is an intimate act not a social act. So it may have meaning in di intimate sxphere but it is not meant to be an exhibition nor to be a matter of public import.
On the other hand if the question is about rights on property or charing other advantages, why should "sex" be a condition for it.
In fact in countries there are already life contraact or cohabitation contracts which anybody can contract. Why should making love or sex or whatever be a condition for that. The reason why one wants to "share life" is for those interested to have not for society to impose.
Salaam
But the problem is that in current legislation, all these aspects are mixed. The construct of marriage affects child custody AND taxes AND inheritage laws AND right of residence AND right to decide in case of coma etc. etc.
-
Runninglikezebras,
It is okay that you react like you possess a brain. I know you are not ready to accept the origin of "jinn" and it does wreak havoc on the current interpretation which feels farfetched. You may like to want to study the word more in elder Arabic lexicons though. They have no reason to lie as much as the sectarian supernatural beings of Islam. You can find body/outer layer in them.
If you ever will read my finished reinterpretation of Quran you might change your mind completely, or you may not. It depends on how much a chance you give it before reading it through and how much you trust the current heavily hadith influenced interpretation by people who actually did not have much clue at all about what they were reading and propagating.
One thing I predict though and that is that there will be a huge reaction and two camps when the project comes to an end One side supports it and the other will oppose it. Not intending to be arrogant, but it is the deluded that will oppose it.
If you ever got involved in the project you could help me by criticizing or assessing my results on the interpretation I am at instead. I do not intend to be wrong at all so it is always good to check-read everything.
Be well
-
My apologies to you Freedomstands. I didn't feel personally offended. But rather frustrated with the fact people still claim to see sex being a topic in the story of Lut. I still feel none of those claiming this to be true, have provided any argument of the quranic semantics in Lot to contain any reference to sexuality.
The FM quran translation used to contain a hadith injection in the verses dealing with Lot. I addressed this topic and Layth corrected it. The injected word was 'sexually'. Nowhere in the original quranic verses is there any trace of any such word. Still it was there in the FM quran translation. Layth explained this by saying it is hard not to make errors while translating Quran. But this was not an error that comes from translating from scratch. The injected word originated form using hadith based Quran translations as a basis to create the FM translation of Quran. Imho this is a bad methodology.
Peace
I don't have any problems with that and I will take this opportunity to clarify my position and lay down some fatwas.
-
My posts here were not saying this or that, they were merely bringing up things to make people discuss carefully some interesting things.
-
I do not know Lot, his wife, or his daughters, or anyone from that society or what happened there for certain.
-
I brought up a point, as "Devil's Advocate" to try to hone people and make them explain things (but I hate being accused by people), that was "why didn't the Qur'an make it clear to the Jews and Christians who apparently seemed to believe at that time it had something to do with sexuality, men seeking men for sex rather than women, that it did not" this was not saying "Yes it was sex" how the hell would I know? I don't know anything about that, I was never saying I do, but was just bringing up a point I thought was interesting.
-
I complimented JavaLatte in a strange way on her use of logic, which is a kind of computer style of thinking clearly, but not on the particular content since I do not claim to know if homosexuality happened before or after or anything like that, just that she said something logically skeptical which I approved of.
-
I posted some of the verses pertaining to the story so that they were readily available and people could wonder what they were about, but no conclusion can be given as to what they were truly about, nor even what the Qur'an is saying even if it explicitly said "ANAL SEX" in bold letters, one could argue something else is meant, so I don't try to insist on any of that stuff necessarily, only to bring up points that people refine their own points too. I can never prove what happened in the past no matter what, even if Archeologists discover the place, there is a fossilized penis going in an anus left behind, many of them left behind, or whatever else!
-
I have secretly worked to advise the Gay Muslim movement, that was me, I was the one secretly whispering in their ear encouraging them (one particular outspoken leader), and they were the ones writing likewise about how the Lot story had something to do that wasn't related to acts usually associated with homosexuality or homosexuality at all. That is because I support the liberalization of Islam politically, almost completely, even though I'm personally very strict in my own beliefs and would not risk homosexuality (nor do I have any known tendency to want to).
-
I support GAY MARRIAGE 100% politically AND religiously, as I believe that everyone's life story is between them and GOD alone. If a person even wants to be a sincere Muslim but is a homosexual, I am UP for them trying that too and seeing how it works out in the end. Likewise, anyone who wants to KILL A BABY OR BABY TO BE, doesn't bother me much because I don't like humanity much anyway, so its fine if they kill each other ahead of time, but I WILL BRING UP CERTAIN POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION and "Speak words of justice" even though I don't give much of a hoot or a howl if they kill their disgusting little future kaffir baby who will grow up a miserable prostitute probably, and it is God who determines life and death. People often don't understand how I could support things like abortion. I don't support abortion for myself because I'd not dare interfere with the progression of life or survival of something, because I wouldn't like to be impeded either in the struggle to survive and I am unsure if that is ever alright to do and I fear God, but for those who do not have such thinking, I can bring up points before they do whatever it is they are going to do.
-
The same goes for homosexuality. I wouldn't risk it or recommend anyone risks it, because to me it seems a bit bold when there are certain points to address like why it wasn't clarified to the people who seemed to already believe in it a certain way due to their traditions when it had apparently clarified so much else, even if it had clarified it, I have my own religion and I follow it, and I have my own reasons for not liking homosexuality for myself or even others, but it has nothing to do with the Qur'an ultimately, like I've said before, to me the Qur'an is just a linguistic framework that can be used as a tool.
-
I personally find anal and oral sex a bit distasteful between any human beings man or woman for reasons which may or may not be obvious, and I don't care what the sh*t licking animals do either, as if their advice is going to help me always. The reasons are both physical and psychological, my concerns are not really spiritual regarding them except in the mentality and other things. That is not saying the Qur'an said anything so specific or banned such acts explicitly, I have my own reasoning and explanations which do not include the Qur'an. I also don't even like people interacting with each other much at all or the propagation of the human race, so these are just additional on top of that. For me, the ideal is the total annihilation of most of humanity, replaced with servitor robots and the survival of a few people, like me, maybe runningzebras, a couple of handsome homosexual men, and a bunch of girls that belong to me kept in an electro fenced facility.
-
When you say "IT IS THIS WAY!", and yes I know we all do or seem to do stuff like that, is when a problem might be occurring. In this case I'm not talking about the homosexuality thing, I am talking about the Over it is 19 thing. I like your idea, I even believe in your idea, but if I were to state it, I would say "it may be such and such" rather than "it is such and such" and that lack of confidence in our tongues might be a good trait to practice for all of us (except I CAN NOT DO IT when it comes to issues which are of paramount important to me, like basic shirk, due to fear and concern and belief). It may be that "Over it is 19" is a blazing Neon sign that is a big number 19 for all we can say, so we leave it that Allah can produce any sort of thing whether it seems absurd to us or not. It could be all of it, a neon sign, 19 administrators, and the stuff you're talking about, etc etc. That is why I was saying it isn't super important, just a cool little extra possibility or point, and why logical skepticism is necessary.
-
I explained to Arman one day about my approach, encompassing belief and disbelief and how I mean those things. I explained that it is irrelevant to me if the stories of the Qur'an "really happened" or even "how they really happened" just the lessons we take from them, because all we have access to are the simulations that come into our own imaginings, so to get the most value as possible and avoid the most risk in the most careful ways is what I think people should be recommended to do as words of justice. If they don't do it, I don't care much, it isn't as if I don't want them to suffer and most especially die and burn. Think of God's malice, whereas we want to correct people and make them stop, God doesn't guide them and torments them forever apparently, its far more malicious than we could ever be towards these particular beings who receive that if it is true. God necessarily has to be the Supremely Malicious one, people don't understand why that has to be a logical necessity and how each of the "names" of God are exactly just logical truths.
I don't know, I guess I explained enough now, I'll recap
I support legalization of gay marriage and religious people to marry men or women and their issues will be brought before God, we can only advise and give little questions to make people think, and tell them to never be too bold when FEAR rules the Universe. The Fear is to know that God can switch things in an instant or do anything at all, nothing is withholding the Ultimate, no matter what any books might say or seem to say.
It wouldn't matter to me one bit if the Qur'an said Allah is bound by a variety of chains as a slave that can not do anything, because I simply do not worship such, but the Ultimate, and then try to find what conforms to my views to use it as additional stuff for people.
Anyone who says they would believe God is in chains if the Qur'an said so, is worshiping the Qur'an and not the Ultimate, and they will likely suffer for their deluded thinking.
It is much more important to have the right religion (which in my definition means "views + actions" or Strategy) and directing your mind to the right things like the concept of the Ultimate than to listen to any foolishness, even if it flies down from the sky.
That, in my opinion, is a true Anti-Shirk stance, where one really understands why God is NECESSARILY the ULTIMATE or what we call God anyway, and why NONE OF THE STUFF THEY SAY which is false in this regard, can EVER BE TRUE or else logically they are simply calling something other than the Ultimate, God.
-
-
7519 "Then indeed upon Us is its explanation"
There is indeed no point in trying to explain Quran to each other. I will continue my quran study but will silence myself on this forum (see 7519)
Peace
-
That is a misconception runninglikezebras.
The explanation is in the person who can interpret it. Of course many are deluded too.
-
7519 "Then indeed upon Us is its explanation"
There is indeed no point in trying to explain Quran to each other. I will continue my quran study but will silence myself on this forum (see 7519)
Peace
Though that might be fine to do for your peace of mind, the objective should never have been to correct the people or anything which as you've discovered is impossible, but rather to perform your own bird song beautifully and speak justice and goodness to your own credit as God wills, but if God wills to give you the ease and peace of silence, that is a good training and practice too!
I learn from my own words here, and the stuff people say is often a catalyst for speeches I might not have otherwise made or thinking of things which further refine my religion and points, like the idea of how those who believe in their ability to do this or that are really saying Chance is the Ultimate Determiner. So dealing with people and sharing ideas back and forth is like putting a knife against one of those sharpening wheels.
-
Peace all,
I am just curious as to how many in this forum is a supporter of homosexual marriage.
I, myself, am one of those who support the granting of such equal rights, although I've come to this position just last year.
Some of my friends are as well; and as expected, some others reject with varying degrees of vehemence.
This division happens as well within my quranic study group, which I find very interesting.
As you might expect, the division lies in the interpretation of verses such as 780-81, 2174, 2928-30, 26161-173 and some others.So I guess I'm just wondering out loud here. )
Thanks,
AdleyDid you read the story of Lot in the Quran? I really recommend it to you.
There you read about what happened to the gay-"community".
-
Although they did more than that in terms of sinning.
-
I do not believe any religion accepts homoseksuality, except maybe Satanism.
Although the Quran never uses the the term, homoseksuality it clearly condemns man having seks with man. Muslims also except Thora and the gospel as the message from god. The Thora clearly forbids both seksual intercourse between two women and two man.
Sex before marriage is forbidden and as their was no such thing as gay marriage in the time of the prophet it follows that homoseksual contact can never be hallal since it always falls into the categorie of zina or lewdness.
So I do not believe that homoseksuality can be reconciled with an Islamic way of life.This being said. I do support gay marriage.
Why?- There is no force in the Deen and it is Allah's will that there will be non believers. So it follows that not every citizen can be expected to follow quran or the previous books.
2)I am not only a Muslim but also a social worker, friend and citizen in and of a free, non religious society.
Thus it follows that I have professional, personal and social obligations to ensure the human rights of all minority groups are respected.
3)since i live in a time of condoms and STD medication, and in a society where these are readily available to the lgbtq community there is no threat to my human rights.
So there is no objective reason for me too discriminate against or judge members of the lgbtq community who engage in adult, mutual consentual and safe same sex relationships.
- There is no force in the Deen and it is Allah's will that there will be non believers. So it follows that not every citizen can be expected to follow quran or the previous books.