BTW, probably I can conduct a research on the biology of same-sex intercourse as an undergraduate, and the biological difference between same-sex intercourse and heterosexual intercourse. It seems that scientists already know some etiology of homosexuality. If I go to med school, I might want to know what disease will sodomy and transgender surgery cause, let alone the transmission of AIDS. I don't think the rectum will respond to the hormones that causes erection of penis and clitoris. Yeah, seriously, I need to improve my organization of argument, and writing (perhaps grammar and idioms since my mother tongue is not English), and take courses on logic in my undergraduate school whatever school I want to attend for my doctorate degree, as long as I want to be a monotheist activist as well.
BTW, is there the technology that identifies which sperm contains X chromosome and which contains Y?

Hint If there was no way/inclination that people are going to have same-sex sexual relationships, then there was no need for God to instruct us about it at all. Clearly, God didn't say "Don't like/be attracted to the same gender", he would be saying "Don't FOLLOW UP upon your desire/attraction and consummate them with same-sexual relationships, as you're only allowed to have sexual relationships with your spouse."

Your words imply that you don't consider same-sex partners as real spouses to each other. If attraction is allowed, marriage might be allowed, but if married gay couples are not allowed to have sex with each other, then the marriage can only be something like "skim milk marriage," and if married gay partners are not real spouses to each other, and people are only allowed to have sexual intercourse with their spouses, sexual relationship between gay partners will be considered adultery by God.

Furthermore, what's the merit of same-sex intercourse? It's not valid biologically, since such an act will not have the possibility to produce zygotes. Perhaps the only merit is the physical connection between married same-sex couples, if such is not performed out of lewdness. But should the physical connection not considered sex biologically and not out of lewdness be considered sex legally (in man-made law as well as divine law)?

I mean what's the "human beings." Starting from which point of evolution?

Well, I mean Quranic law. I told you that my story takes place in an imaginary state which uses Quran as its constitution.
I agree that God destroyed Sodom not only for the gays. The story of Lot is almost always narrated along with those of Noah, Saleh, Hud, Shuayb and Moses, in which towns were destroyed because its people rejected the messengers, and the acknowledging people were saved. Lot did warn his people about awareness of God (26163), and the people did not acknowledge. It can be inferred that Lot's wife committed some other sins, or she didn't acknowledge. She's not necessarily a lesbian. Sodomy in Sodom might be due to extreme lewdness. I construe 780 as the greatest extent of lewdness ever, either homosexual or heterosexual. But if homosexual adultery is not worse than heterosexual adultery, why is men having sex with men so emphasized in the stories of Lot?
1178 His people came rushing towards him, and were accustomed to committing sin. He said, "My people, these are my daughters, they are purer for you, so be aware of God and do not disgrace me regarding my guests. Is there no reasonable man among you?"
1179 They said, "You know we have no interest in your daughters, and you are aware of what we want!"
Other verse might indicate that homosexuality is unnatural.
1672 God has made for you mates from amongst yourselves, and He has made from your mates children and grandchildren, and He has provided you from the good provisions. Do they acknowledge falsehood, while in God's favor they are denying?
26165 "Do you approach the males of the worlds?"
26166 "You leave what your Lord has created for you of mates? You are an intrusive people!"
It indicates that the mates for men are women, not men, and mates for humans must be a member of Homo sapiens. Now, in biology, if two individuals can breed, producing fertile offspring, then the two individuals are from the same species. The mate can be from another subspecies, if any, of Homo sapiens, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
There is a problem Will God punish anything unnatural?
3030 So establish yourself to the system of monotheism. It is the nature that God has made the people on. There is no changing in God's creation. Such is the pure system, but most people do not know.
If monotheism is natural, then polytheism is unnatural. God will punish those who set up partners, but He asked us to leave it for Him. What about the unnatural sexual orientation? I'm not sure if born gays will be punished for their homosexuality, since even if they're "born" gays, they have the right to recognize their own gender, and they have the right to choose the natural mates, just like people born in polytheist environmental have the right to choose monotheism in spite of all the threats. But I'm sure that you can't justify polytheism by asserting "born polytheism," or polytheism due to mental or genetic illness. If there is an incurable disease causing polytheism, then the patient is doomed to hell, then God must be unjust. Shall we legalize gay marriage in our secular law? I wait for the results from clinical trial.

For us, there's nothing wrong to name our children Jesus or Messiah or Christ, since we don't set Jesus Christ up as a partner besides God. It would be wonderful if our kids are as good as Jesus in the eyes of God. You didn't really convert Islam. You've already acknowledged God.

Peace be upon you. Your past is very similar to mine. I became a Muslim at first just to wear the hijab, but later, I did believe in God. I had been a Sunni for 19 months, and in November 2011, I became a Quranist. I've been a Quranist for almost two years. Really, I think we need to help people who are interested in the Quran or just God to directly get to know pure monotheism without bypassing some kind of lies about God.

There's a book detailed about Code 19. Nineteen God's Signature in Nature and Scripture, by Edip Yuksel. Perhaps you can download one for free. Yuksel e-mailed me a copy of the book.

Something to add. Why animosity? Because the monotheist messengers, or even just preachers, want to turn the bigots away from their beliefs.

I mean that, the Quran asks men to treat women in some manners in divorce and other circumstances regarding marriage. Then, women should treat men the same way that men are asked to treat women in these cases.

You don't need any rituals to convert Islam, nor do you need to read the "shahada." God knows your heart, and He knows if you are indeed His servant. You don't need to correct the shahada anyway, for even if you did read it, God knows if you're a de facto monotheist. Right, you now know God, and you know that you shall serve God and God alone. You should be aware, and uphold God's limits, so you will not become a de facto polytheist.

Establish congregations. We can't force people to acknowledge, but we can deliver God's words. There're already many Unitarian Churches in the US and UK, so we can talk to people in those churches about the Quran. If they're indeed monotheists, then they will have no problem accepting the Quran. I'd warn, that, Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) in the US is not really a Monotheist congregation. "There is no god except God" or anything similar is not in UUA's basic principle, and UUA blesses gay marriage while it's clear from both Bible and Quran that gay is a gross sin, though I acknowledge that there shouldn't be persecutions against gays, for they didn't really act against us or cause dangers in the society. Speaking in a more Christian voice, we love the sinners, for they may hear God's voice and repent, but we hate sins, since God has forbidden them.
Sorry for digressing for a while. What we can do to make God Alone movement advance is to make God's message available to more people. It's not our business whether they acknowledge or not. We should also be good servants of God ourselves, so others can see the difference between a Monotheist and a polytheist, and God's blessings on us. Hopefully, we can have Monotheists who become public celebrities, like Nobel Prize winners and Supreme Court Justices, more hopefully, US President. Perhaps we've already got some of them. They may help a lot in making God Alone movement advance, for their words will sound more "authoritative," so non-monotheists are more likely to consider what they say.
We can also have Monotheist communities.

You took 1329 out of context. Please read Chapter 13 all at once; it's not very long anyway. Chapter 13 asks us to acknowledge God and His signs and His messengers. In 1318-29, the people who don't acknowledge are contrasted with those who acknowledge, and their abodes are compared. It can be inferred that the "good abode" at the end of 1329 means paradise.

The Quran didn't mention Eid at all. Furthermore, I'm in doubt whether we should fast in Ramadan. Construing 2185 literally, fasting in Ramadan is for those who witness how the Quran was sent down. As the Quran was sent down gradually, there're people who witnessed the progress as Muhammad must showed people what was revealed. Did we witness the month? We are not witnesses of how Quran was gradually revealed in Ramadan. We're more than a thousand years away from that. We only know that the Holy Spirit sent the Quran down, and we have no idea about what Muhammad saw when Quran was sent down. We are witnesses of the miracles in Quran, but we are not witnesses of Ramadan. Furthermore, 2183 O you who acknowledge, fasting is decreed for you as it was decreed for those before you that perhaps you may be righteous. I've never heard Jews and Christians who fast for a month each year; they just fast as they will. There is "a number of days" in 2184, but Ramadan is not the only "a number of days" in Quran. If we visit the Restricted Temple, and can't find anything to donate, then we fast 3 days there and 7 days back home. If somebody committed manslaughter, and the victim is a monotheist, then that person should fast for 2 months. We may also fast as we wish.

Fasting continuously for a month is indeed a very rigorous task for me. I lost 3 kilograms in Ramadan in 2011, and I didn't manage to complete the whole month of fast; I donated foods and toys to an orphanage to redeem the remaining 10 days of fast. Since then, my digestive system became fragile. I had numerous of diarrhea in 2012. So I didn't fast in 2012. And I didn't fast in 2013, because I realized that Ramadan is only for those who witnessed the month, while I'm more than a thousand years from that.

Though Quran didn't mention Eid at all, it's not a sin to praise God and remember God and commemorate the revelation of Quran on the Eid, and make it a festival. As it's not mentioned in Quran, Eid is not an obligation. We may do the same thing on any day we wish, to our convenience, like on January 1 if we live in a non-Muslim country, for January 1 is always a holiday, while Eidu Fitri is only a holiday in North West China, never in the South East I'm living in, so we can spend the whole day singing hymns, attending congregational activities, offering sermons, studying the Scripture, fasting, and etc. without asking days off in our companies and schools.

It can be understood as Prophet Muhammad. If so, there should be quotation marks, which is what God orders Muhammad to say to his people.

Please note the context. Verses before 582 are talking how some Jews and Christians were not upholding Torah and Gospel, and invented lies about God, and denied God's signs and messengers. Why do they hate real monotheists? We see that they hate monotheists out of jealousy and animosity, according to the Quran.
Why jealousy and animosity? Because some of them in fact know the book, but they still uphold what their clergymen fabricated. For instance, I read what a Unitarian Christian wrote about logical fallacies in Trinity. In fact, Trinitarians do know the Bible well, but they intentionally mistranslate and avoid logic, to get a translation most favoring the doctrine of Trinity. But as I read through John, there're many Jesus' words supporting a Unitarian God, instead of Trinity. The Unitarian scholar found Unitarianism in more harmony with the Bible. The whole article is at http//www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/logic/logical-fallacies-employed-in-trinitarian-theology, and more about Unitarian Christianity, see http//www.americanunitarian.org/AUCChristian.htm As those people uphold what's fabricated in spite of their knowledge of God's book (621), if it becomes evident that real monotheists who don't follow what they fabricate are indeed blessed by God, then their theory theory will be debunked and shown to be false, so they feel jealousy.

What comes after 582? 582 You will find the people with greatest animosity towards those who acknowledge are the Jews and those who set up partners; and you will find the closest in affection to those who acknowledge are those who said, "We are Nazarenes;" that is because amongst them are Priests and Monks, and they are not arrogant.
583 If they hear what was sent down to the messenger you see their eyes flooding with tears, for what they have known as the truth, they say, "Our Lord, we acknowledge, so record us with the witnesses."
584 "Why shouldn't we acknowledge God and what has come to us of the truth? We yearn that our Lord admits us with the righteous people."
585 So God rewarded them for what they have said with paradises that have rivers flowing beneath them, in them they shall abide; such is the reward of the good doers.
586 Those who rejected and denied Our signs, they are the dwellers of hell.
In this context, those who said, "We are Nazarenes." can be understood as Unitarians, for they acknowledge. There might be Unitarians among Catholic Priests and Monks hiding their faith in Muhammad's era.

There can be ministers in Monotheist congregations, as long as they don't lie about God, and they're nice Monotheists knowledgeable in the Scripture, and they do warn church attenders not to blindly follow ministers. In my understandings, ministers are professional researchers of Scripture, and organizers of congregations. 1094 If you are in doubt regarding what We have sent down to you, then ask those who have been studying the book from before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.
Still, in my opinion, sermons should be given by not only the minister, but also Monotheists working in different realms who are knowledgeable about the Scripture, so church goers can study the Scripture from different perspectives.

There shouldn't be monks. According to 5727, God did not decree monasticism, and monasticism is not a right way to please God. Furthermore, God encourages us to strive in His cause and reform, while monks and nuns only stay behind in abbeys. Not equal are those who strive in God's cause and those who stay behind.

Does that help?

Sorry, I forgot 424, which says that men should not marry women who already have husbands. But still, in other cases, women should have obligations similar to men's obligations towards them. Well, really, we should uphold God's book, not the popular ideology in modern days. Though I'm a girl, I don't support extreme feminism. Some feminist extremists wish that technology will move the obligation of giving birth to children from women to men, as well as menstruation. Beware of tempt

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets and God has full knowledge of all things. (The Noble Quran, 3340)"

this verse solidifies that Muhammad is the last messenger

That's still "prophets." Prophets and messengers are not all the same. So the last prophet is not necessarily the last messenger. You can have a look at
http//www.free-minds.org/messengers-and-prophets

Yes, it helps. I came up with my own answers. Just like I view users' feedback when I'm shopping online, I may do the same for those dietary prohibitions. Though this way doesn't always works, as most people are gullible and will distort observations, at least some feedbacks are objective. Or ask a real expert, just like the court asks the expert witness. It might not always be right, but at least better than being fooled.
Thanks.

I mean that how can we not be gullible. There are people who advocate pseudoscience. We've got one in China in 2010; he claimed that eating raw eggplants can help remove fat in the blood, and that, well, I roughly remember, green beans can cure hypertension and many other disease. His book became a best seller, but later, real experts debunked his pseudoscience. He's got nothing but raw eggplants and green beans, and some of his theories can be easily rebutted with IGCSE Biology. However, so many people got fooled. Not that many people know real biology or medicine, so got fooled. It's not feasible to study biochemistry from the basic for everyone. What to do in that case?

I'm not talking about Jinns and Satan. Do you think it's the members of genus Homo? Or members of the species Homo sapiens? Or members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens or anatomically modern humans? Or people since the emergence of civilization? I think it's Homo sapiens. Biologists, what do you think?

//I'm not an attorney; I'm just a college freshman who wants to go to law school.
I know that Justice Scalia hates gay marriage; he's Roman Catholic. It seems that the Supreme Court did not really solve the problem of gay marriage; the justices just tried to avoid it. Some people claimed that we need to thank Justice Ginsburg for striking down DOMA, but in fact, Ginsburg wan't so sure about gay marriage. Later, I read on a Christian magazine about how the US is turning sinful in the 20th and 21st century; allowing gay marriage is to corrupt the basic building blocks of society, which are marriage and family.

I've been wondering whether a state using Quran as its constitution will allow gay marriage ever since the Supreme Court agreed to hear about DOMA and Proposition 8. I already know that gays have somewhat significant contribution to distribution of AIDS in the West; that's in the A-Level biology textbook. I already know that God destroyed Sodom largely because of gays; that's even more filthy than heterosexual adultery. Yes, sodomy is unnatural; it's against human bodies' natural design, and it's long been labeled "crime against nature." But should the state punish gays? That's a different question, perhaps just like we should leave idolaters to God, instead of our courts.

According to http//www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/more/traits/homosexuality.html, gay marriage is forbidden by God, but we shouldn't persecute gays, because of 608-9. It means that, as long as gays don't pose a threat to society, we should treat them equitably. That was my first idea about homosexuals. However, I changed my mind recently.

1672 God has made for you mates from amongst yourselves, and He has made from your mates children and grandchildren, and He has provided you from the good provisions. Do they acknowledge falsehood, while in God's favor they are denying?

This means that marriage has to be a man with a woman, since two men or two women can't reproduce. What about manually taking the nucleus of a haploid cell from each person of the gay couple, make sure that not both of the cells contain Y chromosome, and merge them to be one nucleus, and substitute the nucleus of an egg cell with this nucleus? Well, for gay men, their child won't have their own mitochondria, since the mitochondria of a child exclusively come from the egg cell. So that child isn't 100% child made from the mates. For lesbians, then whose egg cell to choose? Or pick some from one, and some from the other? Furthermore, what if a lesbian couple wants a son, while they don't have the Y chromosome? The child produced that way still isn't 100% child made from the mates. How would such technology affect the human species' population and evolution? Genetic disease? How would that affect the ecosystem? Perhaps such will show that homosexual marriage isn't valid in the sight of God. Elsewhere in Quran only mentions marriage between men and women, and divorce in Quran is always about a man and a woman.

242 The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity take you over God's system if you acknowledge God and the Last Day. Let a group of the acknowledgers witness their punishment.

What's adultery? You can doubt my definition, since I don't know Arabic except the alphabets. Adultery is sexual intercourse between a person and a person (does it have to be Homo sapiens?) not married to him/her. If same-sex marriage is not valid in the sight of God, then homosexual sex is adultery, and God orders us to punish adulterers. Well, to punish people engaging in homosexual sex, we have the burden to show that same-sex marriage is not valid in the sight of God. BTW, nowhere in Lot's story is relevant to same-sex marriage itself, but all that is is men having sex with men. So if we can show that gay marriage isn't valid in the sight of God, we can make sodomy a crime (I don't know felony or misdemeanor).

Should gay marriage be valid in our secular laws? I don't know. I'm experimenting here.
607 Perhaps God will grant compassion between you and those you consider enemies; and God is Omnipotent. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
608 God does not forbid you from those who have not fought you because of your system, nor drove you out of your homes, that you deal kindly and equitably with them. For God loves the equitable.
609 But God does forbid you regarding those who fought you because of your system, and drove you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out. You shall not ally with them. Those who ally with them, then such are the transgressors.

Most gays didn't fight us or drive us out of our homes because we're Monotheists, so we shouldn't engage in sexual orientation discrimination. But if so, does the mate have to be a human? What about unlimited polygamy?

It seems that law plays an important role to shape a people of a nation. Like in China, where the law is too simple and lacks sanction, bribing is a norm in government staffs, and as a result, a job in government has become the dream job of many Chinese, just for the sake of money. Because of bribing, courts don't work, so terrorist attacks are more and more common, and investigation shows that those terrorists suffered from injustice, but it's impossible for the government to grant them justice. More people in US believe in God than in Europe. In his dissent in Marsh v. Chambers, Justice Brennan quoted Alexis de Tocqueville's impression of US in 1830's to suggest that Establishment Clause and striking down legislative prayer will actually promote religion. I get some clues from these examples.

3104 Let there be a nation from amongst you that calls towards goodness, and orders recognized norms, and deters from evil. These are the successful ones.

3110 You became the best nation that emerged for the people; you order recognized norms, deter from evil, and trust/acknowledge God. If the people of the book acknowledged, it would have been better for them; from amongst them are acknowledgers, but most remain wicked.

So if there is a state that uses the Scriptures as its Constitution, the state should work towards goodness and deter from evil. So it's important that the law will make people more moral, not the opposite. How will allowing gay marriage be like in the light of such goal for our society? I don't know. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear about gay marriage, it was suggested that children with two moms or two dads don't do worse than children with a mom and a dad. However, long before June 26, three Justices opposed; those suggested studies used biased data, and it's shown that children with homosexual parents are less likely to graduate from high school, and we can't strike down what's been established for thousands of year just because of the movements of the recent five years. Perhaps the US is in clinical trial.