Recent Legalization of Homosexual Marriage in USA
-
If promoting inequality and discrimination based on solely a sexual preference is part of your faith I will keep calling you people for what you are. Oppressors. The definition of marriage is not changed by homosexual marriage. The meaning of marriage is still the same a bond for life with a partner witnessed by God.
Incest and paedophelia are explicitly forbidden in Quran. Homosexuality is not.
Peace
Oh, please. Stop with the name calling.
I don't think you bother reading my post. I have no hatred against homosexuals and I will let God judge. I do not know what burden homosexuals carry, and I am not judgmental towards them.
My personal stance is that I don't agree with homosexual marriage - but I have NEVER campaigned against homosexual marriage. I only offer this opinion when asked. You are the one being judgmental here.
-
Oh, please. Stop with the name calling.
I don't think you bother reading my post. I have no hatred against homosexuals and I will let God judge. I do not know what burden homosexuals carry, and I am not judgmental towards them.
My personal stance is that I don't agree with homosexual marriage - but I have NEVER campaigned against homosexual marriage. I only offer this opinion when asked. You are the one being judgmental here.
I got annoyed more I think when he took offense to something that had nothing to do with him at all.
-
Agree with these. Very good points.
My personal belief is that the act of homosexuality is not compatible with the Qur'an. Having homosexual tendency is not a sin, unless acted upon
Regarding homosexual 'marriage', I would much prefer that it is called 'civil union' and not marriage. I have to accept that homosexuality exists and I can do nothing to change it.
people need to stop crying 'homophobia!' towards people who do not approve of homosexual marriage
Yea, what if perhaps that's also a kind of phobia or a phobia symptom?
Whether they fear of people like us? Hmm... maybe there's "homophobe-phobia"? ^___^
-
I can't see how considering marriage only when the marrying are of different sex is discriminating x-sexuals (hetero or homo or whatever), whatever homo or hetero may be. Nobody prevents any x-sexuals from marrying. Marrying by definition is of two people of different sex, their sexual likes or dislikes is exclusvely their business. But if they do not want to marry but have sex with somebody of the same sex, I can't see what can prevent them from doing so. On the other hand permitting people to"marry" people of the same sex exclusively for homosexuals, seems discriminatory to other people who would want also to contract a relationship for life but are not keen on having sex with somebody of their own sex or may be with nobody at all.
Salaam
-
Please point out where I'm being illogical. I'm illogical for not believing the story of Lot is about homosexual rape while there is not even a hint towards anything sexual in the quranic text? You can disapprove of equal LBGT rights all you want, I don't even care about that part. It's where you attribute such rules to God that angers me.
Just looking at animal and plant life should tell you a God did not design a world in which heterosexuality is the only format. In nature we see androgyny, hermaphrodites, unisexualism etc etc...
I think the burden is upon you and others here to prove the story of Lot has even ONE word used in another occurrence related to sexuality.
Peace
What are you getting angered about and what are you accusing me of, "applying rules" I didn't do anything of the sort. I don't know if they were homosexuals or not, but that is how the Jews have understood it for a long time too and the Qur'an didn't correct them much or clarify to them or us on this matter, I never applied any rules. MAN DO I GET ANGRY WHEN PEOPLE FALSELY ACCUSE ME OF STUFF, SO MAYBE REFRAIN.
-
MAN DO I GET ANGRY WHEN PEOPLE FALSELY ACCUSE ME OF STUFF, SO MAYBE REFRAIN.
Chill out. People accuse me of a bit of this and that for bringing onto them the truth, saying I do interpretation acrobatics and interpret according to my "whims and desires".
Anger is negative, we should not be angry at all. It lures forth the beast in us (shaytaan).
-
It doesn't bother me, for my life is not affected by it. I am still a bit concerned though. You see we get some tax benefits for being married. It is possible for straight people to do fake same sex marriage for this same benefit. But again, this is like stealing right from the thief ;D. We all know where our tax money goes. And of course, it would not be as big as the amount of tax the corporations avoid giving by taking advantage of our tax law loopholes.
-
Since Lut did not live at the same time when the Qur'an was revealed, then how do we know for sure that homosexuality ever done on the earth before the time of Lut?
So please tell me when Lut lived, and we can see if we find some traces of homosexuality in that era.
Yes, the verses talk about sex (in my understanding), but not about sex of any man with any other man, but about transgression as such. What gave me some insight was the story of Onan in the bible People tend to think the story speaks about masturbation. However, is speaks about not fulfilling one's duty. Onan does not do what he does out of desire, but because he does not begrudge his dead brother the offspring he (the brother) should get out of the sprem of Onan. This is why he prefers to let that sperm fall on the ground.
So in the case of Lut, you also have to look at the intention which is not love for the messengers (or any men) but lust for transgression.I can't see how considering marriage only when the marrying are of different sex is discriminating x-sexuals (hetero or homo or whatever), whatever homo or hetero may be. Nobody prevents any x-sexuals from marrying. Marrying by definition is of two people of different sex, their sexual likes or dislikes is exclusvely their business. But if they do not want to marry but have sex with somebody of the same sex, I can't see what can prevent them from doing so. On the other hand permitting people to"marry" people of the same sex exclusively for homosexuals, seems discriminatory to other people who would want also to contract a relationship for life but are not keen on having sex with somebody of their own sex or may be with nobody at all.
I don't really understand your point. The current definition of marriage is strongly connected to sex. You can see this when the foreigners police searches for fictious marriage when immigrants are involved they ask intimate questions about the sexual life in order to find out if the two have sex or not. My proposition was to change this, but this is not the current state.
-
So please tell me when Lut lived, and we can see if we find some traces of homosexuality in that era.
When Lut lived? Of course I don't know.
However, I'm quite sure that most likely he did not live at the same time with the last prophet.
What I do not understand is, why there seems to be an opinion that "the first case of homosexuality" occurred before the time of prophet Lut. How do they know about that?
And, I also don't understand what's your point for bringing the story of Onan. I don't mix between the Qur'an and the Bible.
-
So please tell me when Lut lived, and we can see if we find some traces of homosexuality in that era.
Yes, the verses talk about sex (in my understanding), but not about sex of any man with any other man, but about transgression as such. What gave me some insight was the story of Onan in the bible People tend to think the story speaks about masturbation. However, is speaks about not fulfilling one's duty. Onan does not do what he does out of desire, but because he does not begrudge his dead brother the offspring he (the brother) should get out of the sprem of Onan. This is why he prefers to let that sperm fall on the ground.
So in the case of Lut, you also have to look at the intention which is not love for the messengers (or any men) but lust for transgression.I don't really understand your point. The current definition of marriage is strongly connected to sex. You can see this when the foreigners police searches for fictious marriage when immigrants are involved they ask intimate questions about the sexual life in order to find out if the two have sex or not. My proposition was to change this, but this is not the current state.
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
-
I WAS NOT CALLING YOU ILLOGICAL, I WAS SAYING ILLOGICAL PEOPLE, NOT YOU. For goodness sakes, I'm sick of being misunderstood constantly, its annoying as heck!
You are not to my knowledge a homosexual, nor are you illogical, and I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying illogical people, a specific category, not you.
I was talking about JavaLatte trying to talk to and explain to people but finding that "reasoning" with people is a practically pointless effort, and I was saying "let em be gay" meaning freedom for homosexuals. Then you popped up thinking I was calling you illogical! I wasn't!
My comments were about her logical statement "Since Lut did not live at the same time when the Qur'an was revealed, then how do we know for sure that homosexuality ever done on the earth before the time of Lut?"
That was logical thinking. That is all I was talking about.
"How do we know for sure homosexuality was ever done on Earth before the time of Lut" is just logical skepticism, I was approving of that but knowing that people don't even listen to sense like that.
It had nothing to do with calling you illogical or anything to do with you AT ALL. This is why its so frustrating that you pop out of nowhere taking offense when I wasn't even talking TO YOU or ABOUT YOU or anything even related to anything except that she made a logical statement and joking about how logic doesn't seem to apply to people much.
NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. So don't get offended. It didn't have anything to do with much at all pertaining to what you are saying and you were not even part of what I was talking about.
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
-
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.
I agree completely.
-
@Man of Faith even though we often clash over the semantics and etymology of quranic words, I do appreciate your approach and methodology. I realized I never said this to you, so please accept this compliment. This does not mean I won't be criticizing if I think you are wrong however.
Peace
-
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".