BIG BIG BIG BIG SINFUL ACT!
-
Peace Kaiwai
You have not answered how you condone the practice of homosexuality in the context of the quran. I asked what type of union marriage is in the quran, can you speak on that?
Joe
A union is not needed because of the context of the Quran, the idea of a marriage is the provide a stable home for the event of pregnancy and to protect the progeny of the family. The fact that I can never get pregnant makes it a non issue. Marriage is an institution for procreation, plain and simple. Look a the Quran in context to Arabia prior to the revelation and you'll see why marriage was a must in the context of heterosexual sex. Alot of Quran readers refuse to learn that history.
Edit The first two chapters of "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Haykal talks about Arabia at that time.
As for homosexuals within the context of the Quran, we shouldn't be promiscuous. In my case, my ideal is to settle down with a partner, and stay together till we're old, grey and die of old age. I don't consider that evil, depraved or bad. You think I should settle down with a female whom I will never have sex with? I'll end up having a dysfunctional relationship with?
As for SkyIron; nice to see you quote research, all of it based on PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. If a person chooses to be promiscuous, that is a choice they made in their own right, no one else's. I choose not to be promiscuous, and I am gay - so how do you match that up with your twisted version of reality?
Regarding the mental health issues; again, it never addresses cause and affect. There are a large number of painters and artists of various backgrounds who have mental illness of one form or another, does that mean that art causes mental illness? of course not! stop being so bloody absurd you would say. I say that your attempt to link homosexuality with mental illness is just as absurd.
Oh, and all the 'diseases' can all be avoided through using a condom and not being promiscuous - again LIFESTYLE CHOICES.
As for the life expectancy, using 20 year old statistics! how desperate are they? first you guys using a study from 28 years ago, and now one from 20 years ago! good gracious! Heck, even gay men in New Zealand will tell you that my generation have become safe sex fundamentalists and demanding that monogamous actually means a one on one. long term committed relationship. So even gays of the old school admit things have changed in 20 years! Heck studies in New Zealand show that safe sex in the 20 category within the gay community is HIGHER than in the heterosexual community!
So I can't work out where you get your facts from or where the so-called Catholic Education did.
-
Interesting how you're not intellectually honest enough to quote the source
http//www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1704818
Also, nice to see you quote a study from 28 years ago - surprisingly, a lot of things have changed in the GLBT community.
For a person who claims he doesn't hate homosexuals you sure do a lot of really crummy research.
Are you by chance related to the well known falsifier of facts Paul Drummond Cameron?
Oh, and btw, sex is for more than just procreation. I'd hate to be married to you if sex was only used for procreation.
Yeah, I would have thought Google would be good enough. Apparently not. Would the LGBT community have changed since then? I have no idea, there are better things to spend time following up on. Lobster asked about how harm can arise from homosexuality - there it is.
And again - you can keep on using your emotional appeals and your strawman arguments - your position is indefensible from a quranic point of view.
-
Yeah, I would have thought Google would be good enough. Apparently not. Would the LGBT community have changed since then? I have no idea, there are better things to spend time following up on. Lobster asked about how harm can arise from homosexuality - there it is.
Now, it demonstrates what promiscurity can do, nothing to do with homosexuality.
And again - you can keep on using your emotional appeals and your strawman arguments - your position is indefensible from a quranic point of view.
Oh yes, back to the 'indefensible. I offered a 'we have different opinions' and to drop the issue but you couldn't shut your trap. It really goes to show that when it comes to debating, you go back in a circle instead of following up what I said. Again, none of what you have provided shows any cause and effect between homosexuality and bad outcomes. You've demonstrated gays who make stupid choices, just like I could point out heterosexuals making stupid decisions, but you have failed that one causes the other - that homosexuality as a sexuality by itself causes promiscuity which then causes everything else.
You also failed to demonstrate that Lot talks about homosexuality when you fail to look at the history of the said place; again, you fail to do your homework. Keep ignorant, keep stupid, and keep regurgitating crap which makes little or no sense.
-
Now, it demonstrates what promiscurity can do, nothing to do with homosexuality.
Oh yes, back to the 'indefensible. I offered a 'we have different opinions' and to drop the issue but you couldn't shut your trap. It really goes to show that when it comes to debating, you go back in a circle instead of following up what I said. Again, none of what you have provided shows any cause and effect between homosexuality and bad outcomes. You've demonstrated gays who make stupid choices, just like I could point out heterosexuals making stupid decisions, but you have failed that one causes the other - that homosexuality as a sexuality by itself causes promiscuity.
The study explicity compared homosexuals to heterosexuals. 30 years ago or whenever, homosexuals had a much higher chance of being infested with parasites - simple as that. If that isn't harm...
Oh yes, back to the 'indefensible. I offered a 'we have different opinions' and to drop the issue but you couldn't shut your trap. It really goes to show that when it comes to debating, you go back in a circle instead of following up what I said. Again, none of what you have provided shows any cause and effect between homosexuality and bad outcomes. You've demonstrated gays who make stupid choices, just like I could point out heterosexuals making stupid decisions, but you have failed that one causes the other - that homosexuality as a sexuality by itself causes promiscuity.
Can you justify your homosexuality FROM THE QURAN? I don't want arguments from emotion, thank you very much, and you can keep blabbering on and on - until you justify that homosexuality is valid from THE QURAN, IN A QURAN STUDY FORUM, then you can talk.
-
Peace Kaiwai
Look a the Quran in context to Arabia prior to the revelation and you'll see why marriage was a must in the context of heterosexual sex. Alot of Quran readers refuse to learn that history
If this is the case explain to me why fornication and adultery are forbidden if marriage is an institution for procreation and homosexuality is not forbidden.
we shouldn't be promiscuous
I agree, but fornication is forbidden.
You think I should settle down with a female whom I will never have sex with?
I think you can do what you want, but do not link it with the system of God provided for mankind's guidance in the quran, unless you can resolve all the contradictions I see to your argument. If you choose to be with someone of the same sex than you are not following the quran. If you believe you are, then you believe in some and reject another. Take note of the directions those who inherit the book take . You might fall between those who wrong themselves or those who partly uphold it because homosexuality is not condoned in the quran as far as I'm concerned.
Alot of Quran readers refuse to learn that history.
History is definately important and one is often reminded to heed it in the quran. Truth is timeless.
Joe
-
Dear friends
Years ago, while I was a student at the University of Arizona College of Law, I had a debate with my classmate on this subject. You might find the discussion interesting and revealing
http//www.yuksel.org/e/law/homo.htm
Edip
-
I found the word 'fahisha' in 415 a little confusing. What are it's different meanings, and also the variants on its meaning. Does it simply mean lewdness, and does that mean unnatural sexual activities, regardless of who the partners are? As opposed to adultery and fornication, which depends on who the partners are? ???
-
I found the word 'fahisha' in 415 a little confusing. What are it's different meanings, and also the variants on its meaning. Does it simply mean lewdness, and does that mean unnatural sexual activities, regardless of who the partners are? As opposed to adultery and fornication, which depends on who the partners are? ???
You can thoroughly study the term here, under root Fa-Ha-Shiin
It lists all of the occurrences in al quran, separated by form with grammar info, and lists classical arabic meanings, with the relevant pages from Lane's Lexicon.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
-
Dear friends
Years ago, while I was a student at the University of Arizona College of Law, I had a debate with my classmate on this subject. You might find the discussion interesting and revealing
http//www.yuksel.org/e/law/homo.htm
Edip
I find your evidence hard to come by given you refer to 'conversion' and yet ignore the aftermath of those so-called conversions - or even ignore the stupidity of the methodology involved with these conversions. The methods used as equal to that of England 1000 years ago where people would eat bread and salt over a dead body to remove sins before it would go into the after life.
As for you 'entitlement' my view is that the tax system should be neutral as to whether you're married, single or what have you. Your relationship status shouldn't play role in how much (or how little tax you pay). For those arrangements pertaining to the protections under marriage, one should be allowed to set up a contract with whom ever they so wish in regards to inheritance, bereavement and so forth.
Regarding the state, the state should be neutral on matters of morality where by consenting adults engage in something which both agree to. If those adults wish to have swingers parties then so be it, if they so wish to grow weed and have a bong inhaling party, then so be it. If two men or two women wish to settle down and be a couple, then so be it. The government should have no role in the regulating the private affairs of individuals as so long as there is nothing negative that can cause harm to society outside the 'morality boogieman'.
In short, if I'm not harming anyone, leave me alone. Me having a long term relationship with a guy is hurting no one except your ego driven wet dream of 'moralising the planet' in the name of 'the power of lord jesus christ' (or what any other boogie man name you should to invoke over others).
Edit You invokation of the following
I think those who prefer bestiality, incest, polygamy, child pornography and torturing animals are similarly situated with homosexuals
Really does show out of touch with reality you are. Heck, why not talk about a elephant driving a mini with a pink tutu if you're going to drag in irrelevant side shows into the discussion. It proves nothing. Child pornography is the infringement up on the rights of the child and because they need to be a consenting age, their rights would be violated. Torturing animals, again, their right to 'live' out weighs your right to be a sadistic psychopath. Bestiality because it can't give consent, thus, is still charged but under the mistreatment of animals act/animal abuse act.
Incest is a special topic, as to whether it can be banned after two (or more) have reached consenting age - would be a good discussion; assumine one could impose limits; they could have sex but could not have children due to the rights of the potential child to live a normal life has been taken away. (Edit Normal pertaining to the health of the child, not the relationship status of the parents involved).
Regarding polygamy, for me, its a non-issue. Like I said, it isn't the governments role to regulate the internal activities of consenting adults - since we're talking about the idealised state where peoples relationship status doesn't dictate the level of tax or welfare they receive (assuming there is going to be welfare to begin with), it should be a non-issue.
Edit 2 Regarding the constitution, I believe that it it is the role of the supreme court to enforce the constitution as it is, not as they think it should be. I remember seeing the Massachusetts supreme court claim that because the marriage law doesn't explicitly state 'man and women' it some how means that it (along with the constitution) allows same sex marriage. What ever happened to the understanding of law in two parts; the literal and spirit of the law. If a law doesn't invoke 'man and women' then its pretty obvious that the spirit of the law, when written, was that only men and women were ever to get married in the first place.
In the case of homosexuality, it should have been legalised through the congress/senate/president, just as in New Zealand we have the homosexual reform act which passed through parliament on a conscience vote (MP's were free to vote by their conscience rather than party) in 1986.
-
Bestiality should be valid. Animals don't give consent because animals DONT HAVE THE POWER TO GIVE CONSENT.
What would be a worse crime than bestiality?
Enslavement perhaps? Is enslavement of animals done with their consent?
Murder perhaps? Is murder of animals done with their consent?
etc, etc, etc.
Every human on Earth has both of those misdeeds in their blood.
-
Bestiality should be valid. Animals don't give consent because animals DONT HAVE THE POWER TO GIVE CONSENT.
What would be a worse crime than bestiality?
Enslavement perhaps? Is enslavement of animals done with their consent?
Murder perhaps? Is murder of animals done with their consent?
etc, etc, etc.
Every human on Earth has both of those misdeeds in their blood.
So I take it you're a vegetarian.
-
You dont have to be a vegatarian to know that every bite you take is techincally cannibalism.
-
Hmm Quran.. Gay. Forbidden. Hellfire. And who is it that God saves on Judgement Day? The Believers.
-
Hmm Quran.. Gay. Forbidden. Hellfire. And who is it that God saves on Judgement Day? The Believers.
Interesting, and the Quran says the same about Christians and Jews...oops, but that was earlier on, and the condemnation was said when he moved to Madina, so which one takes precedence? how can a 'timeless and infallible book' say two things in the same book? contradiction?
-
Interesting, and the Quran says the same about Christians and Jews...oops, but that was earlier on, and the condemnation was said when he moved to Madina, so which one takes precedence? how can a 'timeless and infallible book' say two things in the same book? contradiction?
Citation? Oftentimes the quran speaks about Jews & Christians in a specific context.
-
Citation? Oftentimes the quran speaks about Jews & Christians in a specific context.
Pick up the Quran and refer to the 'unbelievers' - commonly put in brackets and exegesis's as 'Christians, Jews and Pagans'. Its littered right through the book; what I care about isn't the 'sanitised version' but the one which everyone else subscribes to, what the Muslim world believes.
-
AOA guys
I havent come on the forum for a long time .. just been reading the whole discussion and it seems to have picked up momentum. However, has begun going in another direction.
I think I am directed towards wrestling guys etc because I want a bigger physique, 6 pack etc etc ... It takes a lot of drive to get a perfect physique!
