Recent Legalization of Homosexual Marriage in USA
-
Freedomstands,
In case you cannot make any sense of it that means you lack a connection to your body's primate functionality. Usually it is triggering your primate desires that you want more of it.
I suppose you are speaking of "french kissing". Passionate affection which drives up desire for more.
People are not after alcohol for how it tastes but due to the effects of it. If they say otherwise they are addicted to it.
Fresh tobacco smoke I can say smells good when it is smoldering, but it smells better than inhale from the actual cigarette.
The prophets had patience with the lifeless and showed them the same kind of mercy as their Sustainer. If you know they will continue to suffer due to their own life choices you are perhaps meeker. Or do you not have any empathy?
Be well
-
Samira,
That bonding is a little illusive since it is possible to love your bondmate without too much physical stimulus. There is a difference between physical attachment and the one between souls. I said it before, but as reiterated through the prophets it was supposed to be that a man and a woman cleave on to each other and become as one body. This does however refer symbiotically and is quite the phenomenon and is independent of physical bonding (attraction by instincts).
Through empirical signs this can be observed in couples who are bonded on soul level (not physical superficial biological "love" that they begin to act synchronously and when elderly they often die within short intervals from each other. The only enemy against this soul matching is their own bodies and egotistical (instinctive drive) into doing things not beneficial for either of them such as the man dominating the woman to see her inferior or any other discrimination. The man and the woman bodies were created so that their biological features complement each other while in possession of this body. Therefore they should see the best in each created gender and appreciate when the woman is trying to make the man more gentle for example. They can benefit greatly on multiple levels to help themselves master the negative impact of their instinctive drive through their bonding.
Well I agree with most of what you have written above, and they make a lot of sense too. Also from what I am trying to practise myself.
Are you this obsessed with physical needs that if you better abstained from physical stimulus you would skip the marriage altogether?
Well, it depends. If me or my partner is doing a specific spiritual work that requires to abstain for a time being, or my partner has issues that create problems for him in this department, then I don't mind some abstaining fro physical stimulus in marriage. Otherwise I don't quite see the point in marriage. I can simply have a close friend with whom I bond that way spiritually and nothing more.
If one lacks physical exercise this kind of intercourse is healthy though.
What do you mean? Do you mean abstaining from foreplay or something?
Peace.
-
No. I meant that the activity is a decent physical exercise due to the movement included, particularly if one otherwise has a relatively passive lifestyle.
Cannot you see your soul mate as a close friend then? And your different gender identities complement each other in this test environment. And perhaps you mate and get an offspring together.
The sex drive was intended that the human animal is driven towards procreation through lust but it is intelligent that it can prevent conception through preventive methods such as condoms and drugs. It can also prevent it by not having sex at all.
There is a spiritual bonding beyond the primate craving.
Be well
-
Cannot you see your soul mate as a close friend then? And your different gender identities complement each other in this test environment. And perhaps you mate and get an offspring together.
I am not particularly interested in children. Or dont mind adoption. So does that mean sex is something I should avoid?
There is a spiritual BONDING beyond the primate craving.
Obviously. But there is a reason sex is sometimes called "making love". Because a couple who has sex does produce more love between them through the process. A fun, relaxing, pleasuring way to increase love with a partner. And birth control technology made it easier for a couple to focus on that activity without worrying about children as well.
Peace.
-
Samira,
Well it is up to you, but I would limit my personal expose to primate functionality.
However, most have a problem abstaining from sex in the long run so if you have a bondmate you may as well copulate to maintain bodily peace, rather than doing something by yourself.
I am mostly annoyed by my drive because my spirit outdoes the nature of my body. Some days I wish I could just turn it off.
Be well
-
Samira,
Well it is up to you, but I would limit my personal expose to primate functionality.
However, most have a problem abstaining from sex in the long run so if you have a bondmate you may as well copulate to maintain bodily peace, rather than doing something by yourself.
I am mostly annoyed by my drive because my spirit outdoes the nature of my body. Some days I wish I could just turn it off.
Be well
You think that masturbation is worse than sex? I think that sex is worse than masturbation, because it involves someone else, so you are involving someone else in this thing and affecting them. I mean in the mainstream sense even, it is worse I'd imagine to involve someone else in something bad than to do something bad involving only yourself. To fornicate for example and convince someone else to join you, and to not take proper responsibility and be part of harming or misleading someone, is worse than just yourself.
I rank masturbation as less influential and disturbing as sex.
The men and women who have sex are more hurtful and disturbing even to their own futures than the ones who masturbate alone.
A man or woman who has had sex is more disturbing to another person, their past becomes a disturbance due to many reasons, more than one who has masturbated in the past. Similarly, if one has sex with someone else at all, past, present, or future, it is more disturbing than if they have masturbated past, present, or future.
I'm not talking about you directly, but in general people seem to have a terribly skewed judgment system.
-
You think that masturbation is worse than sex? I think that sex is worse than masturbation, because it involves someone else, so you are involving someone else in this thing and affecting them. I mean in the mainstream sense even, it is worse I'd imagine to involve someone else in something bad than to do something bad involving only yourself. To fornicate for example and convince someone else to join you, and to not take proper responsibility and be part of harming or misleading someone, is worse than just yourself.
I rank masturbation as less influential and disturbing as sex.
The men and women who have sex are more hurtful and disturbing even to their own futures than the ones who masturbate alone.
A man or woman who has had sex is more disturbing to another person, their past becomes a disturbance due to many reasons, more than one who has masturbated in the past. Similarly, if one has sex with someone else at all, past, present, or future, it is more disturbing than if they have masturbated past, present, or future.
I'm not talking about you directly, but in general people seem to have a terribly skewed judgment system.
Depends on the kind of sex the couple have. Grouping all types of sexual experiences under one banner only serve to dishonor a gift that our Lord have bestowed to us.
Peace.
-
You think that masturbation is worse than sex?
If you mean spontaneous sex with anyone then sure masturbation was better, if you had to.
-
Hi,
I think homosexuality and bisexuality are allowed according to the Quran.
-
Hi,
I think homosexuality and bisexuality are allowed according to the Quran.
Tell me more!
415
As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).416
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.417-18
Verily, God's acceptance of repentance relates only to those who do evil out of ignorance and then repent before their time runs out and it is they unto whom God will turn again in His mercy - for God is all-knowing, wise;
whereas repentance shall not be accepted from those who do evil deeds until their dying hour and then say, "Behold, I now repent"; nor from those who die as deniers of the truth it is these for whom We have readied grievous suffering.780-82
AND Lot, when he said unto his people "Will you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever done before you?
"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another) Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure.2754
AND Lot, when he said unto his people ?Would you commit this abomination with your eyes open (to its being against all nature)?
What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.The mouth is full of bacteria, the spit smells, the anus is where feces comes from, it also has "e.coli" and whatever, so yes, its literally ignorant, insane, transgression, when there is a vagina rather than an anus or mouth.
No? Feel free to explain your points to justify what is today accepted. Even in Rome they looked down upon oral sex. The ideas of people change, but dogs continue to sniff butts and lick feces from the ground.
-
Could you explain to me how you interprete fahisha as something sexual? There is no quranic argument for even thinking it is referring to anything sexual. Quran defines examples of fahisha none of them contain anything sexual. So please provide me with some quranic reasons why I should understand fahisha as a sexual act?
Furthermore, do people generally have sex while being witnessed? I know I don't. Surely linguistically the context seems more in favour of a definition of fahisha in which sexuality is irrelevant.
Thirdly, Rome did not look down upon homosexuality. In contrary homosexual relationships were in Rome and in Greece a status symbol.
To end my list, if you think fashisha is defined with measures of hygiene, you are probably right now committing a terrible fahisha if you understand most computer keyboards are dirtier than the toilet you sit on.
Are dogs guilty of fahisha? I really dont understand this sexually obsessed understanding of fahisha. It reminds me of those catholic priests who used to go from house to house to check upon peoples sexual and hygienic standards. Most of the time those priests were the biggest perverts themselves.
Peace
-
Could you explain to me how you interprete fahisha as something sexual? There is no quranic argument for even thinking it is referring to anything sexual. Quran defines examples of fahisha none of them contain anything sexual. So please provide me with some quranic reasons why I should understand fahisha as a sexual act?
Furthermore, do people generally have sex while being witnessed? I know I don't. Surely linguistically the context seems more in favour of a definition of fahisha in which sexuality is irrelevant.
Thirdly, Rome did not look down upon homosexuality. In contrary homosexual relationships were in Rome and in Greece a status symbol.
To end my list, if you think fashisha is defined with measures of hygiene, you are probably right now committing a terrible fahisha if you understand most computer keyboards are dirtier than the toilet you sit on.
Are dogs guilty of fahisha? I really dont understand this sexually obsessed understanding of fahisha. It reminds me of those catholic priests who used to go from house to house to check upon peoples sexual and hygienic standards. Most of the time those priests were the biggest perverts themselves.
Peace
So what is it then that it is talking about, when two men, women, or the people of Lot were seeking after men rather than women etc?
How did this grand misunderstanding come about for so many generations, from even before the time of the Qur'an? It was understood by the Jews that the people of Lot were doing things like that, why didn't the Qur'an say "no no, they did not do anything sexual that was bad, you've misunderstood, in fact it was this and this" but instead says what seems to imply that there was no need to correct the people in this regard and even more mentions the seeking after of men rather than women. What, to perhaps deceive the people into thinking homosexuality is wrong when in fact it isn't, yet not helping them understand in this regard? Lot's wife might have been one who thought it was alright, whatever it was, and so she stayed behind with that society when Lot left.
Rome did look down on homosexuality, it was not a positive status symbol as many people might think and imagine, it was levied against people before Christianity in political battles as an accusation and insult, particularly oral sex, but was also used to insult individuals like Caligula and others, written about by certain writers of the time in very negative tones.
In Greece it was also not well accepted at all, they were instead more into pederasty where the bearded men were attracted to the beautiful young beardless boys who they considered "not yet men" and thus that it was alright to do things with them before they grew their beards. People who would want to prolong their homosexual activities would try to keep their beard removed in order to remain feminine looking, they had a very different view of homosexuality and homosexual behavior, and when it came down to two bearded men, considered actual men because of their beards, this was not looked upon as a good thing by the society.
Furthermore, Stoicism based on some Greek philosophies became somewhat popular in Rome, even among the elites, and thus being overly lusty for men and women was looked down upon as well.
So yes, it is a popular idea that the Greeks and Romans were all just a bunch of homosexuals who all adored it, but in fact they spoke out against what they viewed as homosexuality and spoke of it in disparaging terms, never with much support at any point. They did not consider fooling around with young boys at the Gymnasium the same as two grown men having sex. These ideas were prevalent in other societies as well, where they differentiated between sex with boys and sex with men, whereas sex with men was considered far less favorably and spoken against within the various societies that practiced the beardless boy distinction.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
""Greek love" influences aesthetics or the means of expression, not the nature of Roman homosexuality as such. Greek homosexuality differed from Roman primarily in idealizing eros between freeborn male citizens of equal status, though usually with a difference of age (see "Pederasty in ancient Greece". An attachment to a male outside the family, seen as a positive influence among the Greeks, within Roman society threatened the authority of the paterfamilias. Since Roman women were active in educating their sons and mingled with men socially, and women of the governing classes often continued to advise and influence their sons and husbands in political life, homosociality was not as pervasive in Rome as it had been in Classical Athens, where it is thought to have contributed to the particulars of pederastic culture."
From the Rome article on Wikipedia.
You can find lots of documentation where oral sex, or homosexuality, or gay marriages were used as a point of slander in the society, and they were generally looked down upon and discouraged. To be a passive role homosexual was to be compared to a slave or a prostitute or have a low status. The male free-born citizen was not particularly admired for lusting after men, as it was used to insult them in political struggles and at other times, but was considered better than the "penetrated".
You can read about it here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
It isn't much like the modern homosexuality promoted in the world today that is at least trying to propose the idea of equal gay couples where neither is looked down upon. Homosexuality in general was considered not favorable though, and marriage and children was promoted more, and it wasn't extremely prevalent among the people, nor was pederasty was much as it had been in Athens.
That is just a small commentary on academic historical things.
There is widespread propaganda that had accused Greece and Rome of being completely amoral homosexuals, by the Christians, and then by the Homosexuals of today or their supporters to show that societies had accepted the behaviors in the past, but not in any real way that would be liked today or approved of, nor was it really highly approved of for the feminine role members.
In this society, the feminine role members, are often what is being referred to when homosexuals are being talked about, and they were especially looked down upon or considered of lower status in that society.
There is other information online about it, but anyway that is what I was talking about.
Muslim Empires at times adopted both Greek and Roman policies and sometimes had practices like pederasty they found acceptable, so resembled the Greeks and perhaps some Romans in that fashion, whereas they also wrote things in a Stoic manner at times like the Romans too, and for the most part homosexuality was discouraged. My point in bringing that up wasn't to say its totally fine, but it was to say that people could then say the whole Muslim World found homosexuality acceptable because pederasty was practiced by some at times and written about favorably by some, and that would not be true. For the most part, homosexuality, especially for the lower status individual or penetrated or feminine role individual was viewed as very bad, and oral sex was viewed as the realm of prostitutes, and to need oral sex was considered an insult, that a man is not virile so is near impotence and needs oral sex.
Prostitutes were considered badly, and wives often were not considered for doing the acts of a prostitute at times in these societies.
Reading about history in detail, it gives a very different picture of the world and shows how some things might still exist but in a very different manner and perceived with a mindset that might appear rather alien today.
-
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602254.msg355699#msg355699
So far you have only proven homophobia is timeless.
You may want to double check your quranic evidence god is homophobic though.
Peace
-
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602254.msg355699#msg355699
So far you have only proven homophobia is timeless.
You may want to double check your quranic evidence god is homophobic though.
Peace
God is not homophobic, which means "afraid of homosexuals".
God does not fear them, but created them in the first place, and determines who is going to be called one, and who is going to do certain acts, and invented those acts, in every detail.
Does it mean they are good acts to do? God invented many things.
-
Peace Man of Faith,
You have to delve into their minds to know what goes on in there, but I think it is difficult to "convert" a homosexual into being heterosexual. It is probably not a deliberate choice.
It appears that homosexuality occurs in the flesh of other animals as well and it is not that rare.
Yes, a past discussion we had explored the biology aspect of this issue with some biologists (by "we" I mean one of my quranic discussion groups). To sum it up, the paper that I've quoted was one of the main insights of recent studies. It was in the light of this understanding that some of us shifted position towards LGBT.
And as expected, some of us who accepted that LGBT is not something that should be shunned or deplored, did a reinterpretation of several quranic verses. Of course, this could also be seen as compromising ex post facto.
Thanks,
Adley