Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

[Pygoscelis]

To explore what people would do if their own children were gay, would make in interesting thread.

I'd actually be afraid to ask that question of people around here.

But isn't that the point of the new rule?
That religious groups and places of worship who are not opposed to people leading homosexual lifestyles can offer marriage ceremonies to gay people, whereas those who are opposed can keep their door firmly shut.

Correct. And that's how it should be.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm not sure how sexual discrimination will occur in practice. Generally we all have a presumption that whoever we meet is hetrosexual. Unless the person acts like the opposite gender or reveals their sexuality, I'm not sure how discrimination would occur.

One case in point is right there in the thread title. Homosexuals have for a long while been denied the right to marry the one they love, and gain all the benefits, both spiritual and legal that come with marriage. In the past 20 years or so we have been changing that. Civil unions now exist that carry many of the rights that used to be exclusive to marriage. We are making progress.

Another example is that homosexuals in many regions are denied the adoption of children, even when those children have nowhere else to go. And all for the irrational religious doctrine that homosuality is a "sin" (and we can't have children living around "sin"!)

[Pygoscelis]

you might not have a choice of your feelings, but you certainly have a choice with whom you sleep, and it is really no different than heterosexuality in that regard

We are not telling heterosexuals they can not have sex with the gender they are attracted to, thus telling them they shouldn't have sex at all. So yes, it is quite different.

No one has a hand in being born poor, or yellow or white or green or black, but we do have a choice with whom we lie..

Black people had a choice to sit at the front of the bus where only white people were supposed to be, or to drink from the white-only water fountain too.

[جوري]

We are not telling heterosexuals they can not have sex with the gender they are attracted to, thus telling them they shouldn't have sex at all. So yes, it is quite different.

It isn't different at all when you can't sleep with the one you desire to sleep with.. if it is a matter of lewd sex which in fact I think it is (and nothing related to love at all) then there are all sorts of sordid people and sordid toys to fulfill that purpose.. and lastly I am not telling anyone to sleep or not sleep with anyone, I couldn't care less. I am speaking purely from what is religiously acceptable, especially when seeking something like an institutional wedding from church or mosque or whatever. This is something that will need to be pursued outside of religion!

Black people had a choice to sit at the front of the bus where only white people were supposed to be, or to drink from the white-only water fountain too.

This doesn't relate to anything we're speaking about and I truly have my doubts that you can get your head out of there long enough to stratify thins into their proper categories!

all the best

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[GuestFellow]

One case in point is right there in the thread title. Homosexuals have for a long while been denied the right to marry the one they love, and gain all the benefits, both spiritual and legal that come with marriage. In the past 20 years or so we have been changing that. Civil unions now exist that carry many of the rights that used to be exclusive to marriage. We are making progress.

Another example is that homosexuals in many regions are denied the adoption of children, even when those children have nowhere else to go. And all for the irrational religious doctrine that homosuality is a "sin" (and we can't have children living around "sin"!)

People marching in the streets, wearing rainbow clothing, some semi-naked with loud music and expressing their sexuality in open public? I think the definition of progress has changed lol...of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

To explore what people would do if their own children were gay, would make in interesting thread.

One of my relatives is homosexual. He never engaged in any sexual relations. He has got his masters and works for a company. He lives with his parents. He has four brothers, three are married and one living in Pakistan. Sometimes, unintentionally, he behaved in a feminine manner but it does not bother me. He lives a normal life...

His mom and dad knew that he was gay because he acted feminine when he was younger. So they raised him to ensure he does not date guys and he practiced Islam like any other Muslim. He was made fun of by his older brothers and at primary school, but it did not have a significant impact...he is very successful now. Can't believe he does not offer me any work experience placements.

[Ramadhan]

I have nothing against homosexuality (because I believe it's not a choice and I think it's shameful to try and change who one is for people who don't accept them for who they already are),

It's not a choice? Really? Got any scientific data to support?

How about those men who had been married for years, got kids, and then at the ripe age of 40 or 50 started to enjoy homosexual sex, divorced their wives, and then flount their newly found "sexuality" and parade up and down the street half naked?

It seems like a choice to me.

[Ramadhan]

And all for the irrational religious doctrine that homosuality is a "sin"

I am so glad that most people are still obeying God's laws and still consider homosexuality is a sin, although there is a certain christian here who thinks otherwise.

[Wyatt]

It's not a choice? Really? Got any scientific data to support?

How about those men who had been married for years, got kids, and then at the ripe age of 40 or 50 started to enjoy homosexual sex, divorced their wives, and then flount their newly found "sexuality" and parade up and down the street half naked?

It seems like a choice to me.

Well, I, being gay myself, don't believe it's a choice. I should know. Most of my life I tried to make myself straight because I felt insecure about it and thought it would make things easier. It never worked no matter how hard I tried. I also prayed to God when I was Christian that he would make me straight or at least help.

I also don't flaunt it, advertise it, nor do I support any type of public sexuality like gay parades.

Maybe it can be a choice, but for many, we're like this from the very beginning and a lot do try to make themselves straight so they don't disappoint others.

I may be sinning in the eyes of others, but I've hurt no one, so I don't feel like there's anything wrong with accepting who I am.

[جوري]

Maybe it can be a choice, but for many, we're like this from the very beginning and a lot do try to make themselves straight so they don't disappoint others.

I think disappointing God is worse of all.. but I don't think anyone will persecute you for having these kinds of feelings..

here is a story of one Muslim who was gay

When You Find Out You Are a Gay

My world was so confused as I kept asking myself why men marry women when in fact, they love men?
Editor's note: This is the true story of an ex-homosexual man. It is published here with the author's kind permission.

I was born in a devout Muslim family. All my family members keep the five daily prayers, fast in the month of Ramadan, and observe all the Islamic teachings and rituals. My parents performed Hajj in the 1970s. There are 14 of us in the family. I am the 11th and the last son of a 5-brother and 9-sister family. I am close to my sisters and my mother compared to my brothers. My father passed away when I was 10.

I felt attracted to guys when I was young. Maybe the feeling developed when I was 10 years old. At 14, I knew that I would not want to get married as I was not attracted to women. I thought of how I would face my brothers and sisters when they all would get married and I would stay single.
My world was so confused as I asked myself why men marry women when in fact they love men. Then I realized that it was only me who felt that way. I was never abused by anyone. I still have no clue why it affected me.

Same Sex Experience


Last March, while reading Qur'an after Fajr Prayer, I prayed in my heart that Allah gives me a female companion. I wanted to stop all thisSomehow, time passed by so fast and I had to face the reality that I will stay single forever. Luckily, some of my brothers and sisters got married when I was studying in the US. When I finished my degree, I stayed in Kuala Lumpur away from my family. Therefore, I could escape from the marriage questions.

My first SSE (Same-Sex Experience) started during college days. It continued after completing my studies when I settled back in Kuala Lumpur. It went further as my work took me to the Middle East. During these times, I still continued with my prayers. Sometimes, I felt so shy to face Allah during prayer as I just had sex earlier. Sometimes, I waited till the next day.

Although my career grew, I felt turbulence in life. My career did not go as smoothly as I wanted it to. My life was empty and my emotions were unstable as I kept changing partners. Then, I read a hadith about those committing sodomy.

Two years ago, I was out of work. I thought that was the worst time of my life when in fact it was the best time ever. I started reading the translation of the Qur'an. The imam in a mini mosque read hadiths (from the collection of Imam An-Nawawi) every morning after Fajr Prayer (Arabic for: Dawn Prayer). I now realize how these hadiths have shaped my life and my thinking.
I also read Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) biography and the biographies of the 10 Companions who were promised Paradise. These stories moved me.
Even with all this, I still continued with my SSE, as bad habits die hard.

During my 6-month out-of-work period, Allah taught me how to surrender to Him. When I was hungry with no food to eat, Allah sent people offering me to eat with them. I did not have to ask Allah for this. He read me well. I was glad.
Surrendering to Allah is the turning point of my life. Reading the translation of the Qur'an has changed my perception of thinking and looking at this world. I read the book Road to Mecca by Muhammed Assad. I felt like a totally new Muslim.

Even with all this, I was still having SSE.

Words from Prophet Lut to his people kept me thinking. "Take my daughters for your wife. May you will find peace." I smiled sarcastically as I know these people were not interested in women, how could he offer his daughters? But then again, these are a prophet's words. There must be some truth in them.

Last March, while reading Qur'an after Fajr Prayer, I prayed in my heart that Allah gives me a female companion. I wanted to stop all this. I felt tired of my life, felt like every time I was climbing ladders to reach to the highest level of faith, I fell down when I had a SSE.

Getting Married

Allah gave me a wife who fulfilled 9 out of 10 on my checklistWith my companion, I could channel my sexual desire according to Islam. Within a week, Allah sent someone who wanted to introduce me to her auntie. (I said in my heart: An auntie?) I said, "OK if I have the time." Then the lady was brought to me in the same evening. There was not much conversation except that she said that her favorite journey is from her house to the masjid. That was the last word we spoke before I adjourned to surau for my `Asr Prayer (Arabic for: Afternoon Prayer).

After the first meeting, we contacted each other via text messages. She asked me "Why didn't I get married?" I was a bit stunned and replied with all sorts of excuses. Then I resent to inform that in fact I did not get married because I was born homosexual. After a week of text messaging, I asked her if that it was OK to let my mom know about us and I found the right person. She said "OK." Within three months, we were married in a small ceremony.

Allah gave me a wife. She fulfilled 9 out of 10 on my checklist. I told her the one she did not fulfill is that she is a woman, not a man. She smiled. Allah offered me the qualities in her as if I spelled out my checklist. Allah knows me too well and knows what makes me happy.

During the three months that I knew her (before marriage), I did not feel attracted to her, I did not feel the arousal when I was with her. Nor does she toward me. I surrendered to Allah alone as I read in the Qur'an that He is the One Who showers the love feeling.
I prayed to Allah to shower us with love and make me feel aroused with her. True enough, Allah accepted my plea.

During the process of knowing my wife, I stumbled upon straight struggle Yahoo! groups based in the UK that cater for Muslims who face Same Sex Attraction (SSA) all over the world. I shared my life experience and my successful story with the groups. I am glad that I paved the way and encouraged some to take the first step to get married and counter the fear of first-night marriage.
In sha' Allah, my small contribution will lead to many successful heterosexual marriages in the future. Amen.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...ture/ACELayout

[MustafaMc]

[S][/S]

I am so glad that most people are still obeying God's laws and still consider homosexuality is a sin, although there is a certain christian here who thinks otherwise.

How can there be any question by anyone that practicing homosexuality is a sin?

1) Only heterosexual marriages are halal
In ayat 4:23 Allah (swt) lists those to whom marriage is forbidden. Since every case listed is a female relationship it is implied that males of all classes are forbidden for a man to marry. For example, if Allah (swt) had allowed same-sex marriage in general, then in this ayat He would have listed fathers beside mothers and sons beside daughters as forbidden. Since these are not listed it again implies that all males are forbidden for him to marry.

2) Extra-marital sexual relations are haram
We also know that sexual relationships outside of marriage are forbidden. Since same-sex marriages are forbidden (per the logical conclusion above), it follows that all homosexual acts are forbidden as sinful.

3) Certain sexual relations are forbidden even between man and wife
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone resorts to a diviner and believes in what he says, or has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating, or has intercourse with his wife through her anus, he has nothing to do with what has been sent down to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Sunan Abu Dawood Book 29 hadith 3895
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp...mber=3895#3895
It follows that similar relations with anyone besides one's wife is also forbidden.

[Pygoscelis]

People marching in the streets, wearing rainbow clothing, some semi-naked with loud music and expressing their sexuality in open public? I think the definition of progress has changed lol...of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

Gay Pride is a direct reaction to Gay Shame. People have been shamed for their sexual orientation for decades, no, for centuries. People still constantly drone on about how their sexual nature is deviant and sinful. So the backlash to that is to scream out about it in pride. When Gay Shame subsides (and it will in time, its becoming more acceptable to be homosexual now) Gay Pride will lose its purpose.

One of my relatives is homosexual. He never engaged in any sexual relations. He has got his masters and works for a company. He lives with his parents. He has four brothers, three are married and one living in Pakistan. Sometimes, unintentionally, he behaved in a feminine manner but it does not bother me. He lives a normal life...

I feel for him. And I would not call that a normal life, having to repress who you are. And how do you know he has not engaged in any sexual relations. Do you really think he would admit to you or his family (or anyone else muslim for that matter) that he did? It would seem he'd be justifiably concerned about the reaction he'd get.

[Pygoscelis]

This doesn't relate to anything we're speaking about and I truly have my doubts that you can get your head out of there long enough to stratify thins into their proper categories!

It relates to your complaint about the comparison of bigotry against black people and that against homosexuals. In both cases you tell people that something about them is shameful and that they must act in a particular manner, unequal to the rest of society, or you shame then by saying they are acting un-natural or in "sin".

Black people had a choice to sit at the front of the bus where only white people were supposed to be, or to drink from the white-only water fountain too.

In the Jim Crow south, black people were considered lesser beings and it was simply considered wrong, shameful, un-natural for them to be consorting with white people. Inter racial marriage was a big deal back then. It was declared to be "un-natural" and "shameful" for a white woman to marry a black man (or vice versa). This exact same attitude is now directed at homosexuals and dressed up in even more religious language.

[Ramadhan]

I feel for him. And I would not call that a normal life, having to repress who you are. And how do you know he has not engaged in any sexual relations. Do you really think he would admit to you or his family (or anyone else muslim for that matter) that he did? It would seem he'd be justifiably concerned about the reaction he'd get.

Don't feel bad at all for him, in any case, he should be the one who feels bad for you.

If guestfellow's brother is able to control his sinful sexual urges and keep living in the straight path that Allah has made for us, he will be rewarded far beyond anything in this world because it will be his personal jihad.
How long is the life in this world? 70 years? 90 years tops?
That's less than a blink of an eye compared to the life that he will experience in the hereafter.

[Ramadhan]

I think disappointing God is worse of all.. but I don't think anyone will persecute you for having these kinds of feelings.. here is a story of one Muslim who was gay

This is also a post that I made a while ago on the same issue:

Through my work (I work for an organization that funds many social causes), I got acquainted with a muslim support network in Indonesia whose thousands of members are those with SSA - same sex attraction (they refuse to call themselves gay). They are all muslims, males and females, and they are aware that they have this SSA, but they are fighting it, and they even call themselves muhajeerin (people who do the hijrah - for the sake of Allah). Some of them never had SSE (same sex experience), while some others have. But they all have the same goal: to please Allah SWT and to fight their unnatural urges/nafs and to complete their deen. Many have successfully got married with children and live a (married, straight) happy life. They realize that their SSA is just a test from Allah SWT and if they are successful to overcame it, they will be rewarded immensely Insya Allah. I heard there are also similar organizations exist internationally in many other countries.

[Ramadhan]

In the Jim Crow south, black people were considered lesser beings and it was simply considered wrong, shameful, un-natural for them to be consorting with white people. Inter racial marriage was a big deal back then. It was declared to be "un-natural" and "shameful" for a white woman to marry a black man (or vice versa). This exact same attitude is now directed at homosexuals and dressed up in even more religious language.

In Islam, there is no such thing as racism, and racism never existed among people who follow Islam correctly. Everyone is the same, the only thing that sets people apart is their takwa.
But homosexuality has always been forbidden in Islam.

[glo]

If we condemn anyone, they will condemn us. That about goes along with one of Newton's laws of physics... the whole equal and opposite reaction thing.

I do hate gay parades that are so immodest and sexual. It really doesn't put off a good impression to those from whom they ask for equal rights. And it doesn't do the rest of the gay community that's not like that a favour either.

I have a feeling that not many here will respect this post. I tried wording it very carefully, but I still think I'll be disliked for it. As well, it's just my input. I'm just some person in Nowhere, Kansas.

I think that's very true.

People who attend gay parades, trying to be provocative in the way they dress and act are not representative of the homosexual population as a whole! Most homosexuals are probably sitting at home quietly cringing.

(In that sense the gay paraders are the 'evangelicals of the gay community', the ones who feel they need to speak out, no matter what.)

However, I wonder if as a society we have created those over-the-top paraders, and if they rub their sexuality into society's face (pun not intended) because they are sick and tired with being discriminated against/marginalised/ignored ...?
When people are pushed out of society, they either remain underground or eventually rise up and find a new self-confidence to take on the majority. I think that's what's happening now.

[Ramadhan]

However, I wonder if as a society we have created those over-the-top paraders

nah. those homosexual paraders are nothing compared to their lifestyles of no-limits debauchery.

Yes, they are product of failed christiniaty as a religion in western culture.

[GuestFellow]

Gay Pride is a direct reaction to Gay Shame. People have been shamed for their sexual orientation for decades, no, for centuries. People still constantly drone on about how their sexual nature is deviant and sinful. So the backlash to that is to scream out about it in pride. When Gay Shame subsides (and it will in time, its becoming more acceptable to be homosexual now) Gay Pride will lose its purpose.

So this is about being proud of your sexuality? How can you be proud of your sexuality when you claim you have no control over it?

I feel for him. And I would not call that a normal life, having to repress who you are. And how do you know he has not engaged in any sexual relations. Do you really think he would admit to you or his family (or anyone else muslim for that matter) that he did? It would seem he'd be justifiably concerned about the reaction he'd get.

There are women that decide not to get married and are living a normal life. I'm not going to suspect him at all, there is no evidence. He does not need your sympathy...he's happy. Why is this hard to accept?

[Ramadhan]

...he's happy. Why is this hard to accept?

It seems that especially from atheistic western culture, they cannot believe that a person can be happy unless they follow and fulfill their every desires and selfish whims.

[جوري]

It relates to your complaint about the comparison of bigotry against black people and that against homosexuals. In both cases you tell people that something about them is shameful and that they must act in a particular manner, unequal to the rest of society, or you shame then by saying they are acting un-natural or in "sin".

Again NO relation. one can't help their skin color but one can help who they jump in bed with.. Either way I didn't say that the later is shameful (in feelings) but in action is an estrangement from God and transgression against commandments. For the umpteenth time try to read before hurling out what you want to believe. No one is interested in your inferences and own renditions to what is being said!

In the Jim Crow south, black people were considered lesser beings and it was simply considered wrong, shameful, un-natural for them to be consorting with white people. Inter racial marriage was a big deal back then. It was declared to be "un-natural" and "shameful" for a white woman to marry a black man (or vice versa). This exact same attitude is now directed at homosexuals and dressed up in even more religious language.

Yeah white people have been known to be bigoted, under-educated a holes.. what is your point? See previous replies as relates to sex!

all the best

[GuestFellow]

People who attend gay parades, trying to be provocative in the way they dress and act are not representative of the homosexual population as a whole! Most homosexuals are probably sitting at home quietly cringing.

(In that sense the gay paraders are the 'evangelicals of the gay community', the ones who feel they need to speak out, no matter what.)

lol I suppose they are the evangelicals of the gay community. I like the comparison. :p:

It relates to your complaint about the comparison of bigotry against black people and that against homosexuals. In both cases you tell people that something about them is shameful and that they must act in a particular manner, unequal to the rest of society, or you shame then by saying they are acting un-natural or in "sin".

There is a difference between black people and homosexuals. Everyone is born with the colour of their skin, no one chooses their own skin colour.

Homosexuals can choose to engage in sexual relation. These people did not choose to be attracted to the same gender but can choose whether to engage in sexual relationship.

So there is really no connection between sexuality and skin colour. Sexuality is more complex and develops as a child grows older.

:sl:

It seems that especially from atheistic western culture, they cannot believe that a person can be happy unless they follow and fulfill their every desires and selfish whims.

I do get that impression. Like how the West must civilise everyone else.

atheists really are agents of the devil and a close second are those man worshipers .. instead of trying to help, they urge people on to a sinful life.. and wonder why we question their morality!

I agree that some people do not understand what it means to help.

[Pygoscelis]

There is a difference

But the analogy is apt.

no one chooses their own skin colour.

and

did not choose to be attracted to the same gender

It is true that homosexuals

can choose whether to engage in sexual relationship.

and it was also true that black people in the racist Jim Crow south could choose to "act white", sit at the front of the bus, drink from the white-only water fountain. They also were able to choose wether or not to date or marry white people, which in the racist south was just as, if not more, taboo than homosexual relations are today.

[Argamemnon]

God dislikes homosexuality. CASE CLOSED.

Next thread please.

[Abdul-Raouf]

God dislikes homosexuality. CASE CLOSED.

Next thread please.

Yep.. required clarity has been provided..Close this thread please.... its Enough.

Duno why... i really dont like this thread running this long.

[titus]

There is a difference between black people and homosexuals. Everyone is born with the colour of their skin, no one chooses their own skin colour.

Then let's change the analogy. Let's make it religion instead of skin color.

People can choose their religion, and they can be discriminated based on their religion.

God dislikes homosexuality. CASE CLOSED.

But this thread is not about whether or not God hates homosexuality.

[GuestFellow]

People can choose their religion, and they can be discriminated based on their religion.

If it comes down to that, fine. I'll accept.

[Wyatt]

"Atheist" is a term for someone who does not believe in God and implies nothing else about their lifestyle. It's odd to group a people with a label that only covers one aspect of their beliefs.

I don't have a god, but I don't label myself as an Atheist on here because when I was, I would often get harsh reactions to minuscule posts and I don't want people to assume I'm some "agent of the devil." People without a religion to tell them what's right or wrong base their actions on common sense or personal judgment. That varies from person to person. I've never had any problems myself, but some other Atheist may murder or rape someone. There's no connection, it all comes down to individual personality. (You have Muslims who are perfectly fine, yet some that murder or rape others. You see Atheists who see that and group all Muslims as that, while Muslims see Atheists do that and group them as that.)

Generalisations are the worst form of judging people.

However, I'm sure some don't feel comfortable in accepting the fact that everyone's different and may not agree on everything. Religion keeps us more similar to each other, so the thought of someone with completely original views or feelings towards things may feel threatening.

I think only the understanding and non-hateful ones here would understand what I'm trying to say.

And this is why, even though I really like Islam, I'm not religious. It's because I don't feel comfortable in a setting where I don't have complete control over my judgment towards things. Because I don't agree with certain views, I'm not going to force myself to abide by them. This isn't a topic for this thread though and I'm sure it'll make some people here ragereply.

I hope this thread is closed because it's been getting nowhere, but gone into gay-bashing and Atheist-bashing.

[Pygoscelis]

Then let's change the analogy. Let's make it religion instead of skin color.

People can choose their religion, and they can be discriminated based on their religion.

Indeed. Brings things like bans on head veils to mind. Such bans are often put in place out of bigotry against muslims. Muslims do choose to be muslim. And they choose if they will wear the head veils, and which kind they will wear if they do (hajib or niqab).

Telling them we object to it because we say it is wrong and see it as being repressive of women doesn't help any more than telling homosexuals that homosexual acts are wrong and seen by the religious as sinful acts agaisnt God.

If you wish to stop muslims from wearing head veils, you'd better have legitimate reasons (such as security concerns like requiring photo ID to show the face or not obscuring one's idenity in sensitive areas like banks). And if you wish to stop homosexuals from getting maried or adopting children, same deal. You'll have to come up with much more than "because my God says its wrong!" and show that homosexuals getting married (as opposed to them staying unmarried) puts the rest of us in danger.

[جوري]

Then let's change the analogy. Let's make it religion instead of skin color.

People can choose their religion, and they can be discriminated based on their religion.

Another faulty analogy for if we are to go by the norm then it will be atheism that is banned as it is clearly the anomaly and not religion which is the norm..but that is just to humor you. There is no correlation between religion and giving your seat up to a dude..

But this thread is not about whether or not God hates homosexuality.

Actually it is.. since it is a matter of whether or not it is acceptable to marry in a house of God!

all the best

[جوري]

However, I'm sure some don't feel comfortable in accepting the fact that everyone's different and may not agree on everything. Religion keeps us more similar to each other, so the thought of someone with completely original views or feelings towards things may feel threatening.

I thought you didn't like sweeping generalizations? Religion doesn't keep us similar to each other, I'd argue against that vehemently.. but it does bring us together as one heart..

I don't know why you'd want the thread to be closed otherwise.. I really can't see anything wrong with having different views and evincing them, I don't find anything threatening about that.

Good luck to you, I sincerely mean that.. I hope you find what you're looking for...

[Trumble]

God dislikes homosexuality. CASE CLOSED.

An odd position for God to hold, as (if He exists) He would be solely responsible for its existence in the first place. ^o)

[جوري]

An odd position for God to hold, as (if He exists) He would be solely responsible for its existence in the first place.

God's rules include 'free will'-- you're responsible for how you handle your adversity (if we can call it that in such a case)!
or else we should also blame God for consensual incest, and consensual necrophilia, and consensual coprophilia, consensual zoophilia.. etc. etc.
after all a certain percentage of the population just really can't help their sexual urges!

[Argamemnon]

But this thread is not about whether or not God hates homosexuality.

A sincere Christian would never endorse such a move, those who do are simply not Christian. But then, Christianity is a false religion so there is nothing to lose I guess!

[M.I.A.]

An odd position for God to hold, as (if He exists) He would be solely responsible for its existence in the first place. ^o)

yep but we are not the only things created or tested.. as if they exist

[titus]

Another faulty analogy for if we are to go by the norm then it will be atheism that is banned as it is clearly the anomaly and not religion which is the norm..but that is just to humor you. There is no correlation between religion and giving your seat up to a dude..

I think reality proves you wrong. Look at the world and tell who is being persecuted more, atheists or Muslims? Do you see countries passing laws making things difficult on Atheists? I don't, but I sure see them passing laws that make things tough on some Muslims. Read Pygoscelis's post, he makes it quite clear.

If people weren't prosecuted for their religion you would have a point, but that clearly is not the case either in history or in the current day.

But this thread is not about whether or not God hates homosexuality.

Actually it is.. since it is a matter of whether or not it is acceptable to marry in a house of God!

But this thread is about Christian churches, not Islam. What the Islamic version of God thinks about homosexuality is fairly irrelevant to the topic.

[Wyatt]

A sincere Christian would never endorse such a move, those who do are simply not Christian. But then, Christianity is a false religion so there is nothing to lose I guess!

Yet, Allah recognises Christianity and in the second Surah, says Christians will find their reward, does it not?

[Argamemnon]

An odd position for God to hold, as (if He exists) He would be solely responsible for its existence in the first place. ^o)

Murder also exists, but God is not responsible if you choose to shoot someone dead. On the other hand, God is most forgiving, there is no sin He can't forgive. I'm currently trying to obtain a book (very hard) about Hell not being eternal and how this was the position of the companions of the prophet (Hz. Omar, Hz. Ali and others). There is a special book written on this by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya. I had created a thread about this but it's not approved yet. I have nothing further to add; you are free to believe or reject the truth Trumble. You are responsible for your own soul, not me! Peace.

[Argamemnon]

Yet, Allah recognises Christianity and in the second Surah, says Christians will find their reward, does it not?

Christianity in its original unaltered form definitely. But as always; God knows best. Only He will decide who will enter Paradise or Hell and He is the ultimate Judge. One of His names is "Al-Hakam" (The Judge!)

Peace

[truthseeker63]

Homosexuality should be banned/outlawed.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

But isn't that the point of the new rule?
That religious groups and places of worship who are not opposed to people leading homosexual lifestyles can offer marriage ceremonies to gay people, whereas those who are opposed can keep their door firmly shut.

Thats very naive.

You must of heard of the sales technique 'foot in the door'?

Interesting article from a Catholic perspective.

Catholic archbishop accuses coalition over gay marriage in church move

Most Rev Peter Smith says ending ban is an attempt to change status of marriage and would be strongly opposed by church


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...arriage-church

But this thread is about Christian churches, not Islam. What the Islamic version of God thinks about homosexuality is fairly irrelevant to the topic.

No, its very relevant, what makes you think that Muslims wont be targetted in the same way?

[Argamemnon]

But this thread is about Christian churches, not Islam. What the Islamic version of God thinks about homosexuality is fairly irrelevant to the topic.

This is an Islamic forum, you will only hear the Islamic point of view. Maybe you should discuss it elsewhere.

[جوري]

I think reality proves you wrong. Look at the world and tell who is being persecuted more, atheists or Muslims? Do you see countries passing laws making things difficult on Atheists? I don't, but I sure see them passing laws that make things tough on some Muslims. Read Pygoscelis's post, he makes it quite clear.

Countries going down the path of debauchery is exactly what we're fighting against and it starts with little things like lewd sexual acts being acceptable to people copulating on the streets like donkeys.. It still doesn't change the fact that atheism or homosexuality are the anomaly and not the norm-- and deviance in whatever form by its nature is bound to be perish or at least marginalized. I wouldn't worry about Muslims.. believe me your great concern will come to a halt soon!

If people weren't prosecuted for their religion you would have a point, but that clearly is not the case either in history or in the current day.

The point you're trying to make is how tandem biking equates to under-water basket weaving.
Your stratification and understanding of the world around you should be shared with like minded individuals, for the umpteenth time-it doesn't fit.
A person can be persecuted for stealing and another persecuted for having brown eyes, does that mean the situation is equal or correct? NO.. one is clearly a thief and the other is genuinely mistreated for something beyond his control. Don't come with some large broom and try to sweep it all beneath the rug as the same thing, since it isn't the same thing. I can't make you understand the difference between right and wrong and frankly you are to be pitied for that. But that is as far as we'll humor this B.S!

But this thread is about Christian churches, not Islam. What the Islamic version of God thinks about homosexuality is fairly irrelevant to the topic.

The topic is about imposing secular laws and a lifestyle that transgresses against religious values on religion. Amazingly enough on an Islamic forum.. You're most certainly welcome not to be a part of either but you're not free to make your own reforms as if so sensical and then tighten the variables where suits and ignore them all together when suits you!


all the best

[titus]

This is an Islamic forum, you will only hear the Islamic point of view. Maybe you should discuss it elsewhere.

True. And following that logic this thread should never have been approved in the first place since it doesn't involve Islam.

[جوري]

True. And following that logic this thread should never have been approved in the first place since it doesn't involve Islam.

It involves Islam very much--since the same movement is trying to stick its tentacles in everyone's basic values. A 'New World Order' is in the making & it may very well succeed in everything except against Islam.. That is why Islam is fought so much (and thanks for pointing it out).. not because it goes against 'Humanistic values' as the enemies allege. But because it is the only thing standing against the downfall of humanity.

all the best

[titus]

That is why Islam is fought so much (and thanks for pointing it out).. not because it goes against 'Humanistic values' as the enemies allege. But because it is the only thing standing against the downfall of humanity.

No, there are multiple reasons. Some involve misconceptions, but some also involve people like you who feel the need to impose their religious beliefs on non-Muslims.

[جوري]

No, there are multiple reasons. Some involve misconceptions, but some also involve people like you who feel the need to impose their religious beliefs on non-Muslims.

Not at all.. Islam has been around for millenniums, late in the game to involve misconceptions unless a deliberate move for reasons afore mentioned! Islam has ruled over the Iberian peninsula for 800 years.. Everyone who truly understands it can't help but submit to it and that is in actuality the fear and the prophecy to be fulfilled insha'Allah ..

but you can delude yourself of the reasons of your choosing!

all the best

[titus]

Not at all.. Islam has been around for millenniums, late in the game to involve misconceptions unless a deliberate move for reasons afore mentioned!

If it is your contention that there are no misconceptions about Islam in the world today then you must not get out much.

[Argamemnon]

Countries going down the path of debauchery is exactly what we're fighting against and it starts with little things

I was in Turkey in January...while on a short boat trip along the Mediterranean a young Turkish couple next to me were cuddling and kissing during azan. I thought to myself "at least they could have waited till the end of the ezan?", but no. Like you said it starts with small things and now there are Gay Pride Parades and Gay Organizations (in Istanbul in particular).

:w:

[جوري]

If it is your contention that there are no misconceptions about Islam in the world today then you must not get out much.

To the contrary it is you who lives in a bubble.. Not only was I born in a foreign country- since the age of 40 days I have been traveling the world.. Have you been outside of Texas?

all the best

[جوري]

I was in Turkey in January...while on a short boat trip along the Mediterranean a young Turkish couple next to me were cuddling and kissing during azan. I thought to myself "at least they could have waited till the end of the ezan?", but no. Like you said it starts with small things and now there are Gay Pride Parades and Gay Organizations (in Istanbul in particular).

Turkey will be won back with ''Allah Akbar''

The great war between the Christians and Muslims will result in the Muslims conquering Constantinople (which is modern day Istanbul) without army by the sheer force of Takbeer (Allahu Akbar).
Abu Hurairah reports that the Prophet

said, ''Have you heard of a town of which a part is in the sea?''
''Yes'' said they. He said: 'The last hour shall not occur till 70,000 of the children of Isaac shall attack it. When they come to it, they (Muslims) will not fight with arms, nor throw arrows. They will only say: There is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then on of its sides will fall down. They will recite for the second time : there is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then another of its side will fall down. After that they will say it for the third time: there is no god but Allah and Allah is the greatest, and then it will be opened for them and they will enter and acquire booty. While they will be dividing the booty, a proclaimer will come to them and proclaim: 'Verily Dajjal has come out. 'Then they will leave everything and return. ' (Muslim)
It should be noted that the conquests will take place a very short period. Abdullah-b-Busr has reported that the Messenger of Allah

has said: 'Between the Great War and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) there will be six years, and the Dajjal shall appear in the seventh year,' (abided)
Back to content


and to be frank I really like your current PM.. we're moving in the right direction insha'Allah

[titus]

To the contrary it is you who lives in a bubble.. Not only was I born in a foreign country- since the age of 40 days I have been traveling the world.. Have you been outside of Texas?

I have lived in multiple foreign countries myself.

Is it your contention, though, that there are no misconceptions about Islam? You avoided answering that.

[Argamemnon]

Turkey will be won back with ''Allah Akbar''

The great war between the Christians and Muslims will result in the Muslims conquering Constantinople (which is modern day Istanbul) without army by the sheer force of Takbeer (Allahu Akbar).
Abu Hurairah reports that the Prophet

said, ''Have you heard of a town of which a part is in the sea?''
''Yes'' said they. He said: 'The last hour shall not occur till 70,000 of the children of Isaac shall attack it. When they come to it, they (Muslims) will not fight with arms, nor throw arrows. They will only say: There is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then on of its sides will fall down. They will recite for the second time : there is no god but Allah, Allah is the greatest, and then another of its side will fall down. After that they will say it for the third time: there is no god but Allah and Allah is the greatest, and then it will be opened for them and they will enter and acquire booty. While they will be dividing the booty, a proclaimer will come to them and proclaim: 'Verily Dajjal has come out. 'Then they will leave everything and return. ' (Muslim)
It should be noted that the conquests will take place a very short period. Abdullah-b-Busr has reported that the Messenger of Allah

has said: 'Between the Great War and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) there will be six years, and the Dajjal shall appear in the seventh year,' (abided)
Back to content


and to be frank I really like your current PM.. we're moving in the right direction insha'Allah

Insha'Allah.. thank you for sharing, I remember reading this somewhere else...

:w:

[جوري]

I have lived in multiple foreign countries myself. Is it your contention, though, that there are no misconceptions about Islam? You avoided answering that.

I have answered your 'q'

late in the game to involve misconceptions unless a deliberate move for reasons afore mentioned

Selective reading or intentional omissions? I think if atheists paid more attention in general this thread would be 3 pages instead of 21!
There is something to be said of vain discourse!

[جوري]

Insha'Allah.. thank you for sharing, I remember reading this somewhere else...

I think everything is moving to the will of Allah swt so long as the people change for the better..

:w:

[Maryan0]

But the analogy is apt.




and it was also true that black people in the racist Jim Crow south could choose to "act white", sit at the front of the bus, drink from the white-only water fountain. They also were able to choose wether or not to date or marry white people, which in the racist south was just as, if not more, taboo than homosexual relations are today.

This is truly the most moronic analogy I have ever read... particularly the choosing to act white part. It's a shame that nobody told the black people of those days to just act white. They could have used your forward thinking and ingenuity.
Salam

[Pygoscelis]

They did "act white". That is what the racists objected to. Rosa Parks sitting down at the front of the bus, demanding to be treated with respect. People married inter-racially as well, despite overwhelming outcries by racists against it. The outcries against homosexuals getting married to one another or beingwith each other at all (as the gentleman said a few posts up "homosexuality should be banned/outlawed") is just more bigotry. The analogy is apt. The analogy to the head scarves (which went ignored) is even better.

[Maryan0]

They did "act white". That is what the racists objected to. Rosa Parks sitting down at the front of the bus, demanding to be treated with respect. People married inter-racially as well, despite overwhelming outcries by racists against it.

So because people married inter-racially and demanded respect they were acting "white"? your analogy is even more erroneous and ignorant the more you elaborate.
This is what you stated originally

and it was also true that black people in the racist Jim Crow south could choose to "act white", sit at the front of the bus, drink from the white-only water fountain. They also were able to choose wether or not to date or marry white people, which in the racist south was just as, if not more, taboo than homosexual relations are today.

Tell me could they have also chose to not be oppressed in the first place. Could they by acting white have chosen not to be slaves too? Can Palestinians choose to not be treated like second class citizens on their own land and have their house demolished in front of them. You are a Canadian as am I, could the native people's by acting like the white majority achieve a higher standard of living?
Your analogy is very simplistic.
Salam

[جوري]

This is truly the most moronic analogy I have ever read... particularly the choosing to act white part. It's a shame that nobody told the black people of those days to just act white. They could have used your forward thinking and ingenuity. Salam

agreed...radically post modern hogwash.. like paying for two items and believing that entitles you to steal five more!

:w:

[GuestFellow]

the analogy to the head scarves (which went ignored) is even better.

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

[GuestFellow]

@ Pygoscelis

Can you please explain your analogy again? It is really confusing me...

[Wyatt]

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

Some fight for freedom from religion. Homosexuals that don't believe in God shouldn't have to abide by His laws, should they? Non-Muslims shouldn't have to abide by Islamic law, should they? If they should, then non-Atheists should abide by a Atheist outlook, shouldn't they?

However, since this thread is about homosexuals who apparently believe in God and want to marry in churches, I'd say they're just trolling the religious to get a reaction out of them. ;D

[GuestFellow]

EDIT: Sorry delete this post. I got confused. :(

[Wyatt]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

[Pygoscelis]

So because people married inter-racially and demanded respect they were acting "white"? your analogy is even more erroneous and ignorant the more you elaborate.
This is what you stated originally

Tell me could they have also chose to not be oppressed in the first place. Could they by acting white have chosen not to be slaves too? Can Palestinians choose to not be treated like second class citizens on their own land and have their house demolished in front of them. You are a Canadian as am I, could the native people's by acting like the white majority achieve a higher standard of living?
Your analogy is very simplistic.
Salam

You miss the point completely. "Acting White" is not my term. It is one I borrowed from the racists. The point is that black people were expected to act a certain way and not engage in certain activities, because it was considered "wrong". They were denied equality and respect due to bigotted attitudes. The same holds today towards homosexuals (and also still towards black people).

[جوري]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

I believe what you're asking is of religious reforms?
I can't speak of Christianity or Judaism but Islam is a done deal.. there are no reforms to the spiritual fundamentals to suit a particular political climate or a sexual movement to attract followers. We acquiesce to the laws of God, God doesn't acquiesce to our understanding of right or wrong.

Sodomy will not be one day acceptable (from an Islamic perspective) whether practiced by homosexuals or even a man with his wife..

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

If the Hijab and Niqaab were banned, it woulds only highlight that westerners don't truly believe in "freedom of religion".

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

[Pygoscelis]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

All religions change over time (I define religion here as what people actually believe and practice, not what is written in a book (which is often ambiguous anyway)), even those which claim not to. I would recommend Karen Armstrong's book "A History of God" which explores the various Christianities, Judaisms, and Islams that have existed throghout the ages.

If they become less conventional over time is an interesting question and it would depend on what is meant here by "conventional". They do splinter into subgroups pretty often. I don't think they all beocme more liberal over time though, some go the other way and become more literalist and fundamentaist than before.

[جوري]

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

what is a good rational reason to ban incest?
what is a good rational reason to ban theft?
what is a good rational reason to ban drinking under 18?
what is a good rational reason to make the age of consent 18 in Iowa and 16 in Rhode Island?

what is worst so called bigotry or frank stupidity?

[Maryan0]

You miss the point completely. "Acting White" is not my term. It is one I borrowed from the racists. The point is that black people were expected to act a certain way and not engage in certain activities, because it was considered "wrong". They were denied equality and respect due to bigotted attitudes. The same holds today towards homosexuals (and also still towards black people).

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one.
Salam

[جوري]

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one. Salam

His argument has always been poor.. and not just recently evolved into poor.. the only thing he practices to give any sort of value to his 'arguments' is to pepper them with emotionally charged words like 'bigotry' or 'discrimination' and who wants to be either? but not any sort of real intellectual foundation or even proper similitude to the things he makes sodomy akin to!

:w:

[Wyatt]

Being black or any other race for that matter is not the same as being homosexual. Homosexuality is not stamped on your skin. You do not know someone is homosexual just by looking at them. If you want to argue that gay people face bigotry you may. I do not want to get into an argument on homosexuals and sexuality your analogy was just a very poor one.
Salam

I'm pretty sure his analogy was comparing people's behaviour towards sexuality and race. The reactions are very similar, though sexuality and race are completely different.

In a free state where every man is "born equally," should black people be enslaved?
In a state that promises "freedom of religion," should gay marriage be allowed to those not religious?

I would agree that in a Christian state or Islamic state, gay marriage being banned is completely reasonable because of the principals at hand. However, in a country where one is allowed to be immoral agents of sin, can someone love someone else of the same gender without having their hands lopped off?

[Maryan0]

I'm pretty sure his analogy was comparing people's behaviour towards sexuality and race. The reactions are very similar, though sexuality and race are completely different.

Saying a person who is a victim of racism can "act" a certain way in order in order to be treated equally does not make sense. If he meant differently he should have used a different analogy.
Salam

[جوري]

can someone love someone else of the same gender without having their hands lopped off?

we're not talking about love.. anyone can love anyone.. we're talking about acting on it..
and the rules really don't differ in that regard between homos and heteros..

all the best

[GuestFellow]

I actually have a question that might be a bit unrelated to the topic, but still fits in to the discussion. Do religions become less conventional over time? It's what I've sort of noticed. Maybe this would be an interesting thread... the discussion of the preservation of conventionality within religions and how it changes over time.

Religions do not change but followers of religions can change the religion itself.

Correct. Which is why we shouldn't allow such bans without good rational reasons, such as valid security concerns where they exist (like not allowing full head coverings in banks). We also need rational reasons beyond "eww" or "My god says its wrong" to deny homosexuals the right to marry and be with the one they love, or to ban homosexuality outright as the one guy posted he wants to do above. If I met his "homosexuality should be outlawed" with "Islam should be outlawed" (which I don't say) and offered no more than that, I'd rightly be dismissed as a bigot.

There are some health concerns regarding sodomy which is one reason why Muslims disprove of it. Will this fit in your definition of "good rational reasons."

we're not talking about love.. anyone can love anyone.. we're talking about acting on it..
and the rules really don't differ in that regard between homos and heteros..

all the best

:sl:

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters...

^ Tell me its not true...

[جوري]

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters... ^ Tell me its not true...

Yes I posted a thread once about a guy who wanted to marry his cat...

:w:

[Tyrion]

Yes I posted a thread once about a guy who wanted to marry his cat...

:w:

I think there was recently a story about a woman who married R2D2 (the robot from Star Wars), but I'm fairly certain it was done in a not so serious way. :p I've read tons of articles where it's a bit more serious/pathetic though... One of my favorites was of a man who married a character from one of his video games.

[Wyatt]

I've heard of people falling in love with objects, people marrying pets and marrying cartoon characters...

^ Tell me its not true...

;D and croissants. lol jk etc.

[جوري]

I think there was recently a story about a woman who married R2D2 (the robot from Star Wars)... I've read tons of articles like this. One of my favorites was of a man who married a character from one of his video games.

The world is frankly turning into a very strange place..

:w:

[Tyrion]

Here's a pic:

It was done at some kind of convention though, so I'm pretty sure they were just being silly. :p

Here's the link to the (much sadder, yet slightly hilarious) story of a Japanese man who married a video game character.

[Wyatt]

I don't think I'd object to marrying a foreign language. <33

[جوري]

It was done at some kind of convention though, so I'm pretty sure they were just being silly.

people use machines for pleasure all the time.. I don't think that it is far fetched!

:w:

[GuestFellow]

;D and croissants. lol jk etc.

I should start my own croissants parade...

[جوري]

I should start my own croissants parade...

I do enjoy the pic you have in your siggy.. makes me wanna change my SN to sweet marmalade..

[titus]

what is a good rational reason to ban incest?
what is a good rational reason to ban theft?
what is a good rational reason to ban drinking under 18?
what is a good rational reason to make the age of consent 18 in Iowa and 16 in Rhode Island?

what is worst so called bigotry or frank stupidity?

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

There is no victim in homosexual marriage. It is an act between two consenting adults.

here are some health concerns regarding sodomy which is one reason why Muslims disprove of it. Will this fit in your definition of "good rational reasons."

Probably not. The health risks are minimal. If health concerns were truly that much of a priority then the government would make illegal smoking, driving, KFC and donuts. Also if you want legislate sexuality based on health concerns then the government would have to encourage women to engage in homosexual activities because there is less health risk in a woman having sex with another woman than with a man.

[Ramadhan]

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

It is interesting to note how you conveniently avoided the question on incest. what is a good rational reason to ban incest between consenting mother and son?

[جوري]

Because every act you mention involves someone considered too young to fully comprehend the consequences of their action or it involves a victim or potential victim.

There is no victim in homosexual marriage. It is an act between two consenting adults.

:lol: hmmm do these look like non consenting adults?

Couple stand by forbidden love

By Tristana Moore
BBC News, Berlin

Interview with couple

At their home in Leipzig, Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski are in the kitchen, playing with a young toddler. They share a small flat in an east German tower block on the outskirts of the city. It looks like an ordinary family scene, but Patrick is Susan's brother and they are lovers.
"Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong," said Patrick, an unemployed locksmith.
"We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. Our whole family broke apart when we were younger, and after that happened, Susan and I were brought closer together," he said.
Patrick, who is 30 years old, was adopted and, as a child, he lived in Potsdam.
He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives.

This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights

Lawyer Endrik Wilhelm

He met his sister Susan for the first time, and according to the couple, after their mother died, they fell in love.
"When I was younger, I didn't know that I had a brother. I met Patrick and I was so surprised," said Susan, who is 22.
She says she does not feel guilty about their relationship.
"I hope this law will be overturned," Susan said.
"I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts," she went on, in a hardly audible voice.
Jail sentence
Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years, and they now have four children.
The authorities placed their first son, Eric, in the care of a foster family, and two other children were also placed in care.
"Our children are with foster parents. We talk to them as often as possible, but the authorities have taken away so much from us," said Susan.
"We only have our little daughter, Sofia, who is living with us," she said.

All but one of the couple's children have been taken into care


Incest is a criminal offence in Germany. Patrick Stuebing has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest and there is another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned.
The couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, has lodged an appeal with Germany's highest judicial body, the federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, in order to overturn the country's ban on incest.
"Under Germany's criminal code, which dates back to 1871, it is a crime for close relatives to have sex and it's punishable by up to three years in prison. This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights," Dr Wilhelm said.
"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.
"This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable," said Dr Wilhelm.

We would like society to recognise us, as any other normal couple

Patrick Stuebing


The couple's case is controversial and it has prompted a heated debate in the media.
"We need this law against incest in Germany and in the whole of Europe," said Professor Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin's Charite Hospital.
"It is based on long traditions in Western societies, and the law is here for a good reason," said Prof Kunze.
"Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled," he said.
Patrick and Susan say they have no other choice but to fight the current law.
"I have read that some doctors claim that children born to siblings could be disabled, but what about disabled parents who have children, or older parents?" asked Patrick.
"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.
"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.
Ruling soon
The couple claim they have received a lot of support from friends and neighbours.
"When we go out to the supermarket, people recognise us and many have told us that they support our legal challenge," said Patrick.
"We would like society to recognise us, as any other normal couple," he said.
In 2004, Patrick voluntarily underwent a vasectomy.
"It's legal for the couple to live together, and to share a bed. But they are breaking the law once they have sex. If there are no more children, then who will be able to prove that they are a couple?" asked their lawyer.
Dr Wilhelm said a ruling was expected in the next few months.
"We've already heard that the vice-president of the Constitutional Court said that there will be a 'fundamental discussion' about this issue in Germany," said Dr Wilhelm.
"Many criminal law experts say that we are right and I'm confident that my clients will win their case. The law against incest is based on very old moral principles. The law was abolished in France, it's about time it should be scrapped here in Germany as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424937.stm

clearly a losing argument you've there!

Probably not. The health risks are minimal. If health concerns were truly that much of a priority then the government would make illegal smoking, driving, KFC and donuts. Also if you want legislate sexuality based on health concerns then the government would have to encourage women to engage in homosexual activities because there is less health risk in a woman having sex with another woman than with a man.

They're not minimal in fact I have already posted to the contrary, Sodomites have to be screened for anal cancer which isn't a normal test that folks have to be regularly screened for given its rarity.. plus a host of other what is called 'gay bowel disease' -- of course this country would have the same success rate banning homosexuality as it would abolishing drinking and driving.. so they do the next best thing and make it legal and even encouraged!

[titus]

It is interesting to note how you conveniently avoided the question on incest. what is a good rational reason to ban incest between consenting mother and son?

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

[CosmicPathos]

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

Then so are children victims who are born to mothers older than 35 years of age?


btw didnt you use to be christian? lost faith, lolz?

[GuestFellow]

Then so are children victims who are born to mothers older than 35 years of age?

:sl:

I'm not sure what you mean here? I've heard there are more risks involved when a older women is pregnant, does this include genetic risks to the child?

[Ramadhan]

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

Now now, who are to say that all incest couples want children?
What about post-menopause mother who want to get married with her own son?
then judging by your standard, you must allow them, no?

And what about bestiality? and before you say they are not consenting, who are you to say that a man and his b itch cannot love each other and who are you to say that the b itch cannot enjoy sexual relation with her human husband?

Now you see that your (and the liberal society) standards of what is allowed and not allowed is just so arbitrary.

[Argamemnon]

Yes I posted a thread once about a guy who wanted to marry his cat...

:w:

that's truly unbelievable

I didn't know that people went so far, maybe we are living in ahir zaman (end times)...

:w:

[CosmicPathos]

:sl:

I'm not sure what you mean here? I've heard there are more risks involved when a older women is pregnant, does this include genetic risks to the child?

That is exactly what I mean. Women are born with all the eggs they would have in their life. So the more time those eggs remain arrested in meiosis I before meiosis II takes place after sperm has penetrated egg's layers, higher the chances of abnormalities in further divisions. So in short, the risks of having genetically diseased babies is very high as mothers get old. One such example is Downs syndrome.

So titus is saying that such children are victims who are congenitally diseased due to mom's choice of getting babies later? Why wouldnt titus call such children victims who are born with muscular diseases, metabolis disorders, endocrine disorders, cardiac diseases, eye diseases, neurological diseases as a result of parent's choice to have kids in old age?

He simply comes on forums to show us his mucousy runny green nasal secretions.

[جوري]

I didn't avoid it, actually. Incest was the reason I included "potential victims" because children born to incestual couples have an extremely high risk of birth defects. They are the potential victims.

Brother Mustafa is a geneticist and he can calculate for you and show you that the risk of birth defects in incestuous relationships isn't that much higher than non-incestuous relationships.. be that as it may are you saying that 'Birth defects' are the only deterrent in having an incestuous relationship? and are you by the same token suggesting that any couple with any genetic defect be sterilized for the potential of having children with defects?

See that is what happens when you make your own laws.. you dig yourself into holes from which there is no common sense, logic or a way out!

all the best

[Xena]

Well i personally do know some very religious gay people. I know it might seem verry contradicting to most people, but just because one is gay they still might have their belifs in their religion. And i certainly do not have a problem with that.

[Pygoscelis]

Now now, who are to say that all incest couples want children?
What about post-menopause mother who want to get married with her own son?

I may find them odd, but I would not judge them or stand in their way.

And what about bestiality?

I think it may actually be legal in many places. Disgusting, yes. But Illegal? Why? We do much worse to animals. We eat them. We test chemicals on them. So who am I to say some guy can't get friendly with his goat?

Another case to consider is poligamy. Many in the west find it disgusting and it is illegal in many places. But again, I say that for us to ban it we should have some rational basis to do so (and as Islam allows for poligamy, I think you'd agree with that). Some rational arguments have been put forth and should be examined. Personally I'd err on the side of freedom, and so long as women are not being forced into or abused in poligamous marriages (or men in polyandrous ones) I see no reason for me to interject or judge them.

Same with the muslim head veils. I can see rational arguments for and against them, but personally I'd go with allowing them so long as the women are not forced or pressured to wear them.

Just because I have no interest in any of the above (or in being homosexual), and just because I may be disgusted by each of them, doesn't mean I should judge them, and certainly doesn't mean I have any right to interfere with them.

Practices like circumcision on the other hand, and the other things lily listed, I may object and intercede. Why? Because an innocent non-consenting person or victim is involved.

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple: I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

[GuestFellow]

I think it may actually be legal in many places. Disgusting, yes. But Illegal? Why? We do much worse to animals. We eat them. We test chemicals on them. So who am I to say some guy can't get friendly with his goat?

We eat animals to live. We test products on animals to check what reaction they might have on humans. These benefit us, though I'm against animal testing. I see no benefit in allowing people to have sex with animals. Does this mean we can abuse and torture animals?

Nothing good comes out of bestiality. I think there is a possibility diseases might develop but I will leave that to members that are studying or have studied medicine. Just to make sure, you think it is fine to have sex with an animal?

Another case to consider is poligamy. Many in the west find it disgusting and it is illegal in many places.

I find that strange. I used to know many guys that boasted about having sex and dating several women. Is this not disgusting?

But again, I say that for us to ban it we should have some rational basis to do so (and as Islam allows for poligamy, I think you'd agree with that). Some rational arguments have been put forth and should be examined. Personally I'd err on the side of freedom, and so long as women are not being forced into or abused in poligamous marriages (or men in polyandrous ones) I see no reason for me to interject or judge them.

...In polyandrous marriages, would it not be difficult to identify the father of the child? I suppose you could take some medical tests.

Practices like circumcision, and the other things lily listed, on the other hand I do object to and would interject. Why? Because an innocent non-consenting person or victim is involved.

...You find bestiality perfectly acceptable even though the animal cannot give any form of consent but not circumcision?

There is no benefit in bestiality while there is some benefit in circumcision. That is the difference.

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple; I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

We all know you did not need religion to reach your views. No need to point out the obvious. :p:

It is not simple. You are allowing several types of marriages to occur. Under your rule, bestiality, homosexual marriages and polyandry would be acceptable. This sounds like a recipe for disaster. I suppose you do not object to people marrying objects or anime characters?

[Pygoscelis]

We eat animals to live. We test products on animals to check what reaction they might have on humans. These benefit us, though I'm against animal testing. I see no benefit in allowing people to have sex with animals. Does this mean we can abuse and torture animals?

The reason against it would have to come along those lines. And perhaps a case could be made about animal abuse. But to do so you would have to equally oppose hunting for sport and other animal abuse cases or questionable cases. The other way to go to rationally oppose beastiality would be to speak of negative health effects, which I believe may exist and be a serious issue. My point here is that these kinds of reasons are valid; "eww" and "that's sick" are not so valid.

I find that strange. I used to know many guys that boasted about having sex and dating several women. Is this not disgusting?

I think so. But who am I to judge them? I'm not going to enact a law saying you can't have sex with more than one woman in your life. And I'm not going to make a law saying you can't marry more than one either.

I suppose you do not object to people marrying objects or anime characters?

You do raise some valid points about beastiality and poliandry that should be examined non-emotionally and adjusted for.

But inanimate objects and anime characters? I don't even have a gutteral reaction to that. What possible harm could it do? Come up with some arguments and I'd consider them. But I can't fathom any offhand and I'd much rather err on the side of freedom than repression. If that guy wants to marry an anime character, it is really not any of my business. I wish them well. Maybe I'll even make a avatar and attend their virtual wedding.

lol, it would be funny if Fred Phelps created an avatar and protested the wedding with his "God Hates Fags" virtual signs and some "God Hates Anime" ones.

[GuestFellow]

The reason against it would have to come along those lines. And perhaps a case could be made about animal abuse. But to do so you would have to equally oppose hunting for sport and other animal abuse cases or questionable cases. The other way to go to rationally oppose beastiality would be to speak of negative health effects, which I believe may exist and be a serious issue. My point here is that these kinds of reasons are valid; "eww" and "that's sick" are not so valid.

I'm against hunting animals for sport. I think it should be banned.

Yes I understand your point.

But inanimate objects and anime characters? I don't even have a gutteral reaction to that. What possible harm could it do? Come up with some arguments and I'd consider them. But I can't fathom any offhand and I'd much rather err on the side of freedom than repression. If that guy wants to marry an anime character, it is really not any of my business. I wish them well. Maybe I'll even make a avatar and attend their virtual wedding.

I was just curious to hear what you have to say about it. That is all. I would be concerned if Parliament spent time drafting laws to govern anime/object marriages....waste of time and money.

[Ramadhan]

So no, this isn't terribly arbitrary. It is really quite simple: I stand for freedom and equity to all people, and I don't need religion to get me there.

First off, I was responding to Titus' post. He is for homosexual marriage but against incestuous marriage. And hence I call him off on his arbitrary rule.
So, really, you need to stop the habit of jumping into discussions without understanding context and stop being so tribal.

And good for you for having a go for everyone. I'll stay away clear from your hypothetical country which allows marriages of incest, bestiality, non-animated and animated objects and God knows what else.

Enjoy your time while still have it.

[Pygoscelis]

I would be concerned if Parliament spent time drafting laws to govern anime/object marriages....waste of time and money.

I am actually concerned that government wastes time and money drafting and enforcing laws to govern marriage at all. It really should have no legal implications in my view, and be something spiritual for each religion or person or group to recognize or not as it or they see fit.

[glo]

I am actually concerned that government wastes time and money drafting and enforcing laws to govern marriage at all. It really should have no legal implications in my view, and be something spiritual for each religion or person or group to recognize or not as it or they see fit.

Actually, I agree. I don;t quite understand what the government has to do with the joining of two people in marriage. I suppose it bring certain legal rights ... such as financial security if the marriage breaks up.

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

[Wyatt]

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

That's how I see it too, but apparently it's more sanctimonious when it's restricted to a man and woman. Then again, I've also questioned the necessity of having a "marriage" when there's no God involved and if you took out the legal benefits. Having the same legal benefits, I'd be fine with a "civil union," because if I want to call it a marriage, I would call it a marriage.

I've questioned it a lot, not because I am some grouchy atheist living under a rock on his computer (wouldn't get good signal there, not that I do already), but because I've come from a home of broken marriages. My father is on his third marriage while my mother is on her fourth.

I am engaged, by the way. To me, there's only the promise that we make to each other. Legal benefits would be nice as well, but governmental approval isn't necessary for us to be happy together.

[Pygoscelis]

[COLOR=DarkRed
Also, I am very much against circumcision. I don't think "health" reasons nor religious reasons are enough to allow it. Maybe when the person has the will to do it for either one of those reasons, but being a victim of this mutilation when I was born, even though mine turned out fine, a friend of mine has a botched one. They messed up and the result is pretty awful.

I wonder how many men would have it done in adulthood, with their full consent. I don't think many would. Do new converts to Judaism have to do it? It is supposed to represent their covenant with God. What a very peculiar thing for God to want. He made us perfect in his image, except he erred on the naughty bits and wants us to cut them up for him.

[جوري]

Also, I am very much against circumcision. I don't think "health" reasons nor religious reasons are enough to allow it. Maybe when the person has the will to do it for either one of those reasons, but being a victim of this mutilation when I was born, even though mine turned out fine, a friend of mine has a botched one. They messed up and the result is pretty awful.

Perhaps the Center for disease control can sum it up nicely for you:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

your friend's botched operation undoubtedly the result of lack of training since folks like Pygo completely ignorant of medicine seem to be under the impression that with loud braying and alot of hot air they can sway or halt an autonomous decision that is purely between the health care professional and the parents.. The parents have the right to choose a most skilled person to do the job and not look for someone with half training because there is a shortage or because doctors that perform it for religious purposes only seem to cater only to a limited number of the population. You're also your parents property until the age of 18 according to western laws.. so it isn't an atheist decision under any circumstance!

and lastly, I wouldn't comment on religious reasons, since they exist unless there is a bleeding diathesis which would preclude it.. Since the law in Islam isn't to counter ones health!

all the best

[GuestFellow]

And good for you for having a go for everyone. I'll stay away clear from your hypothetical country which allows marriages of incest, bestiality, non-animated and animated objects and God knows what else.

:sl:

No rules for governing marriage either... o_o

[CosmicPathos]

Actually, I agree. I don;t quite understand what the government has to do with the joining of two people in marriage. I suppose it bring certain legal rights ... such as financial security if the marriage breaks up.

But really a marriage is a promise between two people before witnesses, and - if ones believes in God - a promise before God too.

why is that so? That does not leave any room for polygamous marriage.

Marriage is not a promise between two people. Marriage is a contract between two people at one time. The male can have this contract with a second female, subsequently.

[Woodrow]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

[yas2010]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Salaam Uncle Woodrow.
The best giggle i've had today. Thankyou :)

[Pygoscelis]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Oh my that would be hilarious! Make it happen!

[glo]

Sorry but I can not resist posting this.

Fine let gays get married in a church, under the condition it is the Westboro Baptist Church:

Are you writing to them to suggest it? :D

(Actually, on a serious note, can you imagine how nasty that would turn out to be? +o( Not much of a joyful occasion for the couple, I imagine ...)

[Pygoscelis]

Do they even have a building in which to hold the marriage? They always seemed to me like their sole purpose was to travel around and do protests, not do worship or the other things you sane religious people do.

[جوري]

Do they even have a building in which to hold the marriage? They always seemed to me like their sole purpose was to travel around and do protests, not do worship or the other things you sane religious people do.

traveling around is better than sitting and offering atheists to the gods which is what the rest of the sane religious people do!
either way not a place to join the gay dudes or dudettes in unholy matrimony. Perhaps dawkins and company can hold their own temples for that, will prove quite lucrative I am sure!

[Nizam1]

I wonder how many men would have it done in adulthood, with their full consent. I don't think many would. Do new converts to Judaism have to do it? It is supposed to represent their covenant with God. What a very peculiar thing for God to want. He made us perfect in his image, except he erred on the naughty bits and wants us to cut them up for him.

I was, as were my sons, very recently in fact. I will fully admit that is probably a rarity though.

I don't disagree about what you say regarding consent. It's touchy. My wife and I had to make that choice for two of our sons because they were too young to decide for themselves, and it wasn't easy to make that decision. You can't always be certain what you are doing is right, but you must do what you believe to be right. I do believe we made the right choice, but only my sons will decide that in future.

Regarding gay couples, I would not discriminate against them or treat them as any less a person/couple because of who they are. Firstly, it's none of my business. Secondly, I'm privileged to live in a country where all different peoples can live together and yet be equally free. I am free to be who I am, and someone else is free to be who they are. Perhaps most importantly, I think muslims should remember that there are plenty people who would discriminate against us, and treat us as bad as dog muck, so I find it totally bemusing and unacceptable that muslims should do so to any other. How can we expect to be treated properly and with respect if we don't treat others the same way?

[Ramadhan]

Regarding gay couples, I would not discriminate against them or treat them as any less a person/couple because of who they are. Firstly, it's none of my business. Secondly, I'm privileged to live in a country where all different peoples can live together and yet be equally free. I am free to be who I am, and someone else is free to be who they are. Perhaps most importantly, I think muslims should remember that there are plenty people who would discriminate against us, and treat us as bad as dog muck, so I find it totally bemusing and unacceptable that muslims should do so to any other. How can we expect to be treated properly and with respect if we don't treat others the same way?

Muslims discriminate practicing homosexuals as much as we discriminate practicing adulterers. How do we know one practicing homosexual (or adulterer) from heterosexual (or chaste person)? We cannot, that is, unless they advertise to the whole world what they do in bed (or in the streets for that matter).

Islam does not teach to discriminate people on the basis of who they are, but on the basis of what they do.
Let me give you an example:
some people suffer from kleptomania, that is , they have strong and constant urges to steal. They claim they cannot help it, some of them claim it is in their genes, and theft is also found in the natural world. But they have the option to control their urge not to steal or follow it and steal.

Islam does not discriminate kleptomanics from others, that is unless the kleptomanics steal and publish their thefts for the whole world to see and know.

There are worldly punishments as set in the sharia for some sins but there are also strict conditions before worldly punishments can take place. There are "hikmah" why Allah SWT disallow some acts that we don't know fully the answers until the day of the judgement.
This is the same as male circumcision.
How did prophet SAW know that male circumcision have health benefits so large that current medical associations everywhere recommend it? How did the prophet SAW know that circumcised men in Africa have less than half chance infected by HIV through intercourse than those who are uncircumcised?
There are countless hikmah in our religion that our science, technology and reason cannot grasp yet, but are beneficial for us in this world and hereafter.

[Trumble]

Islam does not teach to discriminate people on the basis of who they are, but on the basis of what they do.
Let me give you an example:
some people suffer from kleptomania, that is , they have strong and constant urges to steal. They claim they cannot help it, some of them claim it is in their genes, and theft is also found in the natural world. But they have the option to control their urge not to steal or follow it and steal.

Lousy example. Who has ever claimed kleptomania is genetic?! It's an (obsessive-compulsive) mental disorder and sufferers frequently do NOT have the option to 'control their urge'.

Islam does not discriminate kleptomanics from others, that is unless the kleptomanics steal and publish their thefts for the whole world to see and know.

Islamic 'scientific' knowledge obviously doesn't extend to psychology!

How did prophet SAW know that male circumcision have health benefits so large that current medical associations everywhere recommend it? How did the prophet SAW know that circumcised men in Africa have less than half chance infected by HIV through intercourse than those who are uncircumcised?

Obviously he didn't know (or need to know) either. Circumcision was, of course, practicised in several cultures for centuries if not millennia before he was born.

[Ramadhan]

Lousy example. Who has ever claimed kleptomania is genetic?! It's an (obsessive-compulsive) mental disorder and sufferers frequently do NOT have the option to 'control their urge'.

Exactly.
Just like gays who claimed that their homosexuality is genetic, which is a lot of bull.
And many kleptomania have sucessfully controlled their urges.
It is still a choice.

Islamic 'scientific' knowledge obviously doesn't extend to psychology!

Only after sexual revolution and gay lobby that homosexuality was taken out from the list of mental disorders by American Psychiatric Association in the 1973. Modern "science" change all the time, eh.
There is still no proof that homosexuality is genetic, but the "scientists" have ruled out that it is a mental disorder for political correctness. So much for being "scientific".

Obviously he didn't know (or need to know) either. Circumcision was, of course, practicised in several cultures for centuries if not millennia before he was born.

I know that circumcision have been practiced since prophet Ibrahim (as) who preceded Muhammad (SAW) by several thousands years, but not only prophet (saw) allowed to continue, but He (saw) made it fard 'ain (personal obligation).

It's amazing how prophet (saw) only picked traditions and customs that benefit humans and took out those that harm us, eh?

[Trumble]

Exactly.
Just like gays who claimed that their homosexuality is genetic, which is a lot of bull.
And many kleptomania have sucessfully controlled their urges.
It is still a choice.

Some have, many cannot, and for them there is no 'choice'. You simply do not seem to understand the nature of psychiatric disorders, so there seems little point in taking that further, other than to say kleptomania is NOT 'just like' being gay.

Only after sexual revolution and gay lobby that homosexuality was taken out from the list of mental disorders by American Psychiatric Association in the 1973. Modern "science" change all the time, eh.

Other than a few pioneers (in other aspects of sexuality as well) it needed at least the beginnings of the 'sexual revolution' for any significant research to occur (no careers in it, no academic respect in it and above all no funding for it). Fortunately, the conservative (a.k.a mindless bigot) element had been sufficiently shunted into deserved irrelevance by 1973 in America. What do you claim is 'changing all the time'?

There is still no proof that homosexuality is genetic, but the "scientists" have ruled out that it is a mental disorder for political correctness. So much for being "scientific".

Fortunately, only the bigot would limit consideration to those possibilities. Scientists do not. The truth is, whether genetic or not, we are all somewhere on the heterosexual - homosexual continuum. Homosexuality therefore can't be a 'disorder' as by definition a 'disorder' can not be something that applies to everybody. Note that that does not disqualify the possibility of psychiatric manipulation (or 'treatment' as the bigots would claim), but the immorality of 'treating' a non existent disorder just to fit in the what does or not 'offend' the homophobes is obvious to anyone except them. The story of Alan Turing was in the news again, recently.. you might read up on his life sometime and learn just what sort of catastophe some people's views on 'morality' can inflict on others.

I know that circumcision have been practiced since prophet Ibrahim (as) who preceded Muhammad (SAW) by several thousands years, but not only prophet (saw) allowed to continue, but He (saw) made it fard 'ain (personal obligation).

It was an obligation in every culture that did it. Some, incidently, had no historical contact with the middle east.

It's amazing how prophet (saw) only picked traditions and customs that benefit humans and took out those that harm us, eh?

What's so amazing about picking the good stuff and rejecting the bad stuff; that's just common sense? What would you expect him to have done?! :?

[Ansariyah]

Well i personally do know some very religious gay people. I know it might seem verry contradicting to most people, but just because one is gay they still might have their belifs in their religion. And i certainly do not have a problem with that.

That doesnt make any sense to be honest. Considering the simple fact that all religions forbid Homosexuality I dont see how they truly can adhere to any religion.

I'm also not buying the claim some gay people make that 'they are born this way n cant help it'.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm also not buying the claim some gay people make that 'they are born this way n cant help it'.

Did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you help it? If we decided that you must be attracted to women only, and not men, that you must be a lesbian because heterosexuality is "a sin", could you do it?

[glo]

I am returning a little reluctantly to this thread, because I came across an article by the Christian Enquiry Agency. Rather than offering the view of a particular denomination, it tries to offer a broader picture of the Christian view on homosexuality - which should incorporate the view of most Christians across the world.

As years go by, more and more is understood about the scientific and social causes of homosexuality. Christians, however, are divided about what the implications of this are for homosexual men and women who want to be followers of Jesus.


Christians who think that the way God has created the natural world should be uppermost in shaping our moral views have come to the conclusion that gay relationships which are faithful, loving and monogamous are blessed by God. However, to hold that opinion means overturning an almost unbroken history of opposition to homosexuality in the Bible and Christian thinking. The majority of the world’s Christians hold the view that all sexual activity outside the context of marriage falls short of God’s ideal.


Opinions about whether or not having sex with someone of the same gender is sinful are so entrenched that this threatens the unity of Christians more deeply than any other issue in recent years. However, all agree that sex which is abusive, promiscuous or violates children is repulsive. And all agree that violence or hatred against gays and lesbians is abhorrent, because all human beings are loved equally by God.


Christians who have a ‘liberal’ understanding of God urge the world to recognise the worth of lifelong same-sex partnerships by encouraging vows of commitment and accepting that being homosexual should not prevent a person from becoming a Christian leader. Christians who have a ‘conservative’ understanding of God maintain that celibacy is the best path through life for those who are inclined naturally toward homosexuality, and that the church community should provide a loving context to support people who have made that choice.

http://www.christianity.org.uk/index...osexuality.php

[Pygoscelis]

And all agree that violence or hatred against gays and lesbians is abhorrent, because all human beings are loved equally by God.

This is obviously not true. See the pic that Woodrow posted.

[glo]

This is obviously not true. See the pic that Woodrow posted.

Sadly, you are right, Pygo.

That's why I added my little clause:

It tries to offer a broader picture of the Christian view on homosexuality - which should incorporate the view of most Christians across the world.
http://www.christianity.org.uk/index...osexuality.php

Hopefully, the article still speaks for the majority of Christians in the world. I know it speaks for the Christians I know personally, without exception. But 2 billion people is an awfully big number to speak on behalf of ...

The fact is, I can only speak for myself.
I can speak out against the kind of people which are represented by Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't know how I can change them. imsad

[جوري]

Lousy example. Who has ever claimed kleptomania is genetic?! It's an (obsessive-compulsive) mental disorder and sufferers frequently do NOT have the option to 'control their urge'.

if you're suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, then I'll be waiting to see you present us with which gene makes people homosexuals!

Islamic 'scientific' knowledge obviously doesn't extend to psychology!

Psychology is the modern substitute for religion for the atheist who wants quasi intelligent responses to things functional in nature!.. most truly organic psychiatric disorders can be classified under neurology. Psychology is a very visceral branch of medicine that pales to the thinking man's religion when dealing with mental illness!

Obviously he didn't know (or need to know) either. Circumcision was, of course, practicised in several cultures for centuries if not millennia before he was born.

it isn't a cultural practice rather a religious one that started with Abraham (you should read up on that) it was also kept up with Abrahamic religion except for the monolithic one (Christianity) The practice is purely for religious reasons!

all the best

[جوري]

Some have, many cannot, and for them there is no 'choice'. You simply do not seem to understand the nature of psychiatric disorders, so there seems little point in taking that further, other than to say kleptomania is NOT 'just like' being gay.

neither do you understand the nature of psychiatric illness. If the classification isn't under the same subheading doesn't denote that it is radically new psychological illness.. Many illnesses that aren't in the same category are still treated with them same meds. Simply because those who stratified them as having one part component of another, not only don't understand in totality the organic nature of said disease, but don't know how the medications available are helpful.. They've Meds that deal with Sodium channels or act on Gaba or noerpi or sertonin.. such hormones aren't exclusive to the brain, sertonin for instant can be found in the gut or lungs or carcinoid tumors.. wherever enterochromaffin cells migrate there you have it. Hence when you open the drug pamphlet you'll read alot of
''Mechanism of action not clearly understood'' or ''Thought to work on the such and such which in clinical trials showed' of course when the NIH holds independent clinical trials the same outcomes aren't produced!
So please don't there and speak of the intricate science that goes into classifying an incestuous relationship or anything akin to deviance as an illegal abomination but welcome homosexuality, because all it makes you is an under-educated hypocrite.

Other than a few pioneers (in other aspects of sexuality as well) it needed at least the beginnings of the 'sexual revolution' for any significant research to occur (no careers in it, no academic respect in it and above all no funding for it). Fortunately, the conservative (a.k.a mindless bigot) element had been sufficiently shunted into deserved irrelevance by 1973 in America. What do you claim is 'changing all the time'?

As stated medical committees sit down all the time and redefine the terms. Not alot of science goes into it.. That is done with any field in medicine.. in Pathology they convene and tweak what makes a stage I vs. Stage 2B Vs. 3A.. happens all the time.. Happens with hepatology what makes a tumor operable if two are in the same lobe vs. two in separate lobes etc. Just to stratify who gets chemo, who gets radio, who gets both, who gets resection. It doesn't change the etiology however!
Science stays independent of your emotionality and catch all phrases with which you like to paint everyone who doesn't share the same view.

Things are taken in or out of the DSM not for particularly scientific reasons. Just a percentage

That is true and hence many things like incest and necrophilia might eventually find their way out of it. The law and science are separate issues. A doctor can understand that you get your pleasure in the morgue but the law doesn't recognize that as normal!

Fortunately, only the bigot would limit consideration to those possibilities. Scientists do not. The truth is, whether genetic or not, we are all somewhere on the heterosexual - homosexual continuum. Homosexuality therefore can't be a 'disorder' as by definition a 'disorder' can not be something that applies to everybody. Note that that does not disqualify the possibility of psychiatric manipulation (or 'treatment' as the bigots would claim), but the immorality of 'treating' a non existent disorder just to fit in the what does or not 'offend' the homophobes is obvious to anyone except them. The story of Alan Turing was in the news again, recently.. you might read up on his life sometime and learn just what sort of catastophe some people's views on 'morality' can inflict on others.

Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm as far as science is concerned, now they call it a 'normal variant' many people don't agree with that! But as stated mental conditions aren't always admissible in court, if you're going to charge every homosexual you'll have many people in jail. If you charge necrophiliacs you might get a few so much goes into play with that, which has no basis in science.
it won't change the facts of the matter though.
1- There is no genetic or biological component to it -- rather a psychological one.. we're taught of homosexuality in psychiatry not genetics!
2- It is always going to be unaccepted in the eyes of religion, so if you desire to subscribe to religion you'll have to acquiesce to it, not get a priest, rabbi, imam to absolve you and force houses of worships into also accepting this as a 'Normal variant'. No one has the power to sit with God and redefine the terms because the DSM-IV now differs from DSM-II.
What is right is right what is wrong is wrong as far as religion is concerned. If you desire that lifestyle outside of religion then you're welcome to, no one will stop you. Simply stop imposing the new definitions on others. And stop using the catch all phrases of 'Bigotry' and 'homophobia' they simply don't fit.. by your definitions every homosexual is also a bigot and a heterophobe!




all the best

[Nizam1]

Exactly.
Just like gays who claimed that their homosexuality is genetic, which is a lot of bull.
And many kleptomania have sucessfully controlled their urges.
It is still a choice.




Only after sexual revolution and gay lobby that homosexuality was taken out from the list of mental disorders by American Psychiatric Association in the 1973. Modern "science" change all the time, eh.
There is still no proof that homosexuality is genetic, but the "scientists" have ruled out that it is a mental disorder for political correctness. So much for being "scientific".




I know that circumcision have been practiced since prophet Ibrahim (as) who preceded Muhammad (SAW) by several thousands years, but not only prophet (saw) allowed to continue, but He (saw) made it fard 'ain (personal obligation).

It's amazing how prophet (saw) only picked traditions and customs that benefit humans and took out those that harm us, eh?

There is plenty evidence of a genetic basis.

You are an example of those who use unacceptable hatred towards others.

[Pygoscelis]

can speak out against the kind of people which are represented by Westboro Baptist Church, but I don't know how I can change them.

You've got a much better shot at it than a godless heathen like myself so I appreciate and commend your efforts, and even your denouncing them here does make a difference.

[Pygoscelis]

[by your definitions every homosexual is also a bigot and a heterophobe!

Are homosexuals attempting to outlaw heterosexual marriage? Do they declare heterosexuality a mental disorder and heterosexual sex a sin? They'd be bigots if they did.

[جوري]

Are homosexuals attempting to outlaw heterosexual marriage? Do they declare heterosexuality a mental disorder and heterosexual sex a sin? They'd be bigots if they did.

Declaring something an act of sexual deviance doesn't denote that one is a bigot, perhaps you should look up the definitions of the terms you misuse in the dictionary?
Homosexuals can have their civil marriages if they so desire. However a marriage in the eyes of religion is a union between man and woman, that also doesn't denote bigotry! If you book an appointment with a gynecologist and he refuses because you're a man doesn't mean that he is a bigot.

all the best

[glo]

You've got a much better shot at it than a godless heathen like myself so I appreciate and commend your efforts, and even your denouncing them here does make a difference.

Thank you, Pygo. It somehow seems that more is needed ...

I would be happy and proud to stand side by side with a 'godless heathen' as well as other brothers and sisters in Christ and in humanity against the stance of Westboro Baptist Church!

(Incidentally, and since I believe in an all-present God, I don't think anybody is 'godless' - some just don't know how brimming with God's guidance and Spirit they are ... :D)

[glo]

Not do worship or the other things you sane religious people do.

Ahh, Pygo, that's a true compliment!

[GuestFellow]

There is plenty evidence of a genetic basis.

:sl:

Like what?

[Ramadhan]

There is plenty evidence of a genetic basis.

Please show us which genes that cause homosexuality.

You are an example of those who use unacceptable hatred towards others.

Excuse me?
Did you even read my posts?

[Ramadhan]

I am returning a little reluctantly to this thread, because I came across an article by the Christian Enquiry Agency. Rather than offering the view of a particular denomination, it tries to offer a broader picture of the Christian view on homosexuality - which should incorporate the view of most Christians across the world.

I didnt know that a UK-based christian website represent most christians across the world.
:mmokay:

[Wyatt]

That doesnt make any sense to be honest. Considering the simple fact that all religions forbid Homosexuality I dont see how they truly can adhere to any religion.

I'm also not buying the claim some gay people make that 'they are born this way n cant help it'.

Me: "I have always been like this."
You: "No you haven't, you're a liar. I would know that it's obviously a choice. I'm straight and can't relate."
Me: "Uhh.."

If I could truly help it, I would have become straight long long ago. Life would have been so much easier. You don't realise that a lot of gay people try to make themselves straight growing up, so they don't disappoint people. After a while, we come to accept that it's not worth it to change for people who judge us like that.

I agree with Pygo, can you help your heterosexuality? No, you were born like that. Same case here.

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"? ;D

Or do all religions to you consist of the few off the top of your head? =P

[Ramadhan]

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"?

First, Tao is not religion, it's a philosophy, much shared and cross-pollinated with Confucianism and Chinese buddhism.

Second, Tao is centered on the balance of Yin-Yang, and NOT Yin-yin or yang-yang ;D

According to tao, homosexuality is as a result of an unbalanced yin-yang, not so natural now eh?

[Woodrow]

Me: "I have always been like this."
You: "No you haven't, you're a liar. I would know that it's obviously a choice. I'm straight and can't relate."
Me: "Uhh.."

If I could truly help it, I would have become straight long long ago. Life would have been so much easier. You don't realise that a lot of gay people try to make themselves straight growing up, so they don't disappoint people. After a while, we come to accept that it's not worth it to change for people who judge us like that.

I agree with Pygo, can you help your heterosexuality? No, you were born like that. Same case here.

Also, when you say all religions, you mean what? Even the ones that don't have a specific god? The ones that don't promise eternal life after death? I'm pretty sure Taoism says nothing about homosexuality. How is this a "simple fact"? ;D

Or do all religions to you consist of the few off the top of your head? =P

Peace Wyatt,

While I can not relate to your specific hardships and trials placed before you I can relate to the battle of fighting temptations and the pains of having to suppress desires that would lead me to sin. I can understand the unfairness I feel when I can not enjoy some things I think I would enjoy if I were allowed to do them. Suppressed perceived pleasures are usually the most attractive and become very much an obsession to obtain.

Yet in spite of the difficulty and giving up what we think is our right to have, comes relief and the strength of finding we can conquer ourselves and discover that often what we think are doors to happiness are just moments of idle, temporary pleasures with no lasting happiness.

Ambrose Bierce: "DEBAUCHEE- a Man who engaged in the pursuit of happiness so well, he had the misfortune of overtaking it"

[Wyatt]

First, Tao is not religion, it's a philosophy, much shared and cross-pollinated with Confucianism and Chinese buddhism.

Second, Tao is centered on the balance of Yin-Yang, and NOT Yin-yin or yang-yang ;D

According to tao, homosexuality is as a result of an unbalanced yin-yang, not so natural now eh?

I don't know if I should take you seriously or not?

I can understand the unfairness I feel when I can not enjoy some things I think I would enjoy if I were allowed to do them.

السلام

It's just that the unfairness here is that any given reason to not be who we are usually comes from a religion we don't practice. Then, we can't do normal things because those religions say it's wrong.

We all see it in different lights. To some it's unnatural, while to us, it's pretty normal, I guess.

Say, a god said that dogs were better than cats. Someone out there thinks cats are better than dogs, what would they do? Change their view on the animal for a god that wouldn't like them otherwise?

I don't even know. My point is in there somewhere, I just can't quite seem to dig it out. It's late, I've worked too much this weekend.

Maybe I can compare it to some people in one's neighbourhood whose god doesn't like cats. There's a cat lady living down the road. They tell her she's immoral and sinning for feeding her cats. The cat lady says, "Why?"

I'm going to zonk out in my bed, now. :uhwhat

Btw, I prefer dogs.

[Ramadhan]

I don't know if I should take you seriously or not?

up to you.
I responded your statement fairly seriously.

Just a thought, depending on whom you ask, all religions may allow homosexuality. You know, there's even groups of muslims who say that homosexuality practices are allowed in Islam as long as it's faithful relationships. There's even a christian here in this forum who thinks homosexuality act is permissible in christianity.
It does not mean those people correct, though.

People pick and choose to delude themselves and satisfy their desire and to take them out of guilt.

Fact is, Religions do teach that homosexuality acts are outside the prescribed way to live.

It's just that the unfairness here is that any given reason to not be who we are usually comes from a religion we don't practice. Then, we can't do normal things because those religions say it's wrong.

You dont have to follow those religions, right? No compulsion. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own choices and no one else takes the fall (unless you are a christian, where you have Jesus to take the fall, I guess).
But it's an act of hypocrisy when the very same people try to force that their choice be accepted by religions, which takes us back to the essence of the thread: why do gays want to have blessings in the places of worship when clearly those faiths say it is not acceptable.

Say, a god said that dogs were better than cats. Someone out there thinks cats are better than dogs, what would they do? Change their view on the animal for a god that wouldn't like them otherwise?

I am confused with this analogue.
It seems you are bitter with God for telling that homosexuality acts are wrong. For an atheist, that's umm... unusual.

[Pygoscelis]

You dont have to follow those religions, right? No compulsion.

It would be nice if there really was "No compulsion". But the debate rages over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married, in churches that are open to it. People want to outlaw it, including a few in this very thread (a few pages back).

"No Compulsion" is another way of saying "separation of church and state". The former gets smiled on by religion, but the latter more often gets assaulted.

As Wyatt said, homosexuals have no more choice in being homosexual than we have in being heterosexual. You have far more choice in being religious (and thereby anti-gay) than you have choice in being gay.

So if you suspect it is a choice, just look at yourself. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? And if you say it is not about the attraction but acting on it, truly consider what you are asking people to give up. Could you give up your spouse? Could you give up all sexual relations (if you are single)? Could you give up your children (the result of sex with your spouse)? And could you give up your right to adopt children (which many anti-gay people want homosexuals to do)?

Perhaps if you were truly devout like a monk or nun you could. But you must see how extreme that is; Its far more extreme than wearing a niqab everywhere you go or praying not just 5 but even 50 times per day. And all for a religion that you may not even completely believe in (ie, children being raised by religious parents who have not themselves decided yet).

[Ramadhan]

So if you suspect it is a choice, just look at yourself. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? And if you say it is not about the attraction but acting on it, truly consider what you are asking people to give up. Could you give up your spouse? Could you give up all sexual relations (if you are single)? Could you give up your children (the result of sex with your spouse)? And could you give up your right to adopt children (which many anti-gay people want homosexuals to do)?

Can you explain why the sudden explosion of the number of homosexuals in the past 20-30 years in the west?
when being gay is now socially acceptable in the west?

You may say that yes there were also many homosexuals in the past but they all got married.

That proves my point isn't it, that it is a choice.

True, giving up what your most desires for God is very hard, but the reward is very big. But since you are an atheists, I did not expect you to believe this.
But I'm sure you know the concept of "sacrificing for your loved ones".

[Wyatt]

Can you explain why the sudden explosion of the number of homosexuals in the past 20-30 years in the west?
when being gay is now socially acceptable in the west?

You may say that yes there were also many homosexuals in the past but they all got married.

That proves my point isn't it, that it is a choice.

True, giving up what your most desires for God is very hard, but the reward is very big. But since you are an atheists, I did not expect you to believe this.
But I'm sure you know the concept of "sacrificing for your loved ones".

There are plenty of gay people in the East, they just don't want to be killed for coming out with it. It's socially accepted because people recognise the freedom from religion. Why should they be affected by a religion they don't practice when there's a separation between church and state (in the West)? Can't say I've seen the East progress to even the concept of that right yet.

Hate on the West as if there's nothing wrong with the East.

I know the concept of sacrificing for my loved ones, but my most loved one is a male, and I'm not giving him up for people who wouldn't love me otherwise—and that includes any god in the books.

[Ramadhan]

There are plenty of gay people in the East,

I did not say there no gay people in the east.

Actually you just proved my point:

Many of those "gay" people get married.

So how come those gay people get married? I thought they absolutely have no choice?

Again, how come all the "gays" in the old days got married (if you think there were as many gays in the old days as they are now)?

It's socially accepted because people recognise the freedom from religion.

Sadly, this is true.

Why should they be affected by a religion they don't practice when there's a separation between church and state (in the West)?

\

I agree, that's why it is very hypocritical for those who don't practice religion to demand to get married in the places of worship when they know religions clearly forbid it.

Hate on the West as if there's nothing wrong with the East.

uh. this is nonsensical.
I mentioned the west because for the fact that homosexuality is not socially acceptable in the east. You are arguing against non-existant point.

I know the concept of sacrificing for my loved ones, but my most loved one is a male, and I'm not giving him up for people who wouldn't love me otherwise—and that includes any god in the books.

Did you read my post?
I gave the analogy because I know that you don't believe in God.
Now you know that it is possible for "gays" who are religious and sacrifice their desires for the one they love, God.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

slightly off topic

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a court battle over their right to become foster carers.

Analysis

The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

Significantly, the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence.

This was the most decisive ruling against the idea of Christian values underpinning English law since judges ruled last year that to protect views simply because they were religious would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.

Today the message was that courts would interpret the law in cases like the Johns' according to secular and not religious values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12598896

[Pygoscelis]

So how come those gay people get married? I thought they absolutely have no choice?

It is ironic that you would tell Wyatt he is arguing agaisnt a point you didn't make when you have done the exact same thing right here. Nobody has said that homosexuals are incapable of hiding who they are and denying themselves from being with the one they love.

They do have that choice, just as you have a choice to denounce Islam and hide your belief in God. Both homosexuality and Islam can be seen as "wrong" and "sinful", depending on one's perspective. A number of times in this thread you have equated homosexuality to dishonesty (adultery and theft - and then ironically you want homosexuals to be hisohonest and deny who they are and what they feel). Islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism. And from what I have seen both muslims and homosexuals react in similar ways - disgust and dismay at the bigoted attitudes directed at them.

Again, how come all the "gays" in the old days got married (if you think there were as many gays in the old days as they are now)?

For the same reason that there were so few open atheists, and for the same reason that mysteriously just about everyone in England during the time of Crusades was Christian, and that just about everyone in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be as well. They did it for self preservation and to escape the hate and bigotry they would otherwise face. They were lucky to be able to fake it, unlike a racial minority. That doesn't mean they should have to.

I agree, that's why it is very hypocritical for those who don't practice religion to demand to get married in the places of worship when they know religions clearly forbid it.

Only that isn't what is happening. When churches are forced against their will to marry homosexuals together, then you will have a point I'd consider. But even then I would have to consider if they are receiving government funding in the form of tax free status.

Now you know that it is possible for "gays" who are religious and sacrifice their desires for the one they love, God.

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Demands that they be ashamed of who they are have been leveled at them for ages. Backlash to this Gay Shame is exactly what sparks the Gay Pride that is so often complained about here.

[Pygoscelis]

Junon, thank you for linking to that article. It reminds me of the couple in the US south who had their children taken away for being "racist against black folks" and naming their children anti-black racist names. I disagree with the court on both counts though I can see how sensitive an issue it would be from both sides.

I do note the very thick irony that we are now about to have an outcry agaisnt this persecution, from the very same lobby that fough hard to deny homosexuals the right to adopt children themselves. It seems that what goes around comes around lol! Separation of church and state may actually work in favour of the Christian couple here, but I'll bet they oppose the concept.

[Ramadhan]

A number of times in this thread you have equated homosexuality to dishonesty (adultery and theft - and then ironically you want homosexuals to be hisohonest and deny who they are and what they feel).

Read my posts again.
I made a difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexuality acts". And i thought it was clear from the start.
a "homosexual" is not the same as "homosexual who practice homosexual acts and then publish them for the whole world to know".
I equate homosexuality acts with adultery and theft not because they are all dishonest, but because they are all sinful actions.
I understand that you don't believe in the concept of sin, but for this argument that is my position.

Islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism

on what basis?

And from what I have seen both muslims and homosexuals react in similar ways - disgust and dismay at the bigoted attitudes directed at them.

I could care less what practicing homosexuals feel disgusted towards religious folks.

For the same reason that there were so few open atheists, and for the same reason that mysteriously just about everyone in England during the time of Crusades was Christian, and that just about everyone in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition claimed to be as well. They did it for self preservation and to escape the hate and bigotry they would otherwise face. They were lucky to be able to fake it, unlike a racial minority. That doesn't mean they should have to.

Really? So there were many atheists during the crusades and spanish inquisition?
Care to share the study?

Only that isn't what is happening. When churches are forced against their will to marry homosexuals together, then you will have a point I'd consider. But even then I would have to consider if they are receiving government funding in the form of tax free status.

The anglican churches have openly voiced their opposition as well as as other religious groups.

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Huh? so you don't actually believe there are people who actually are willingly sacrifice their desires to please God?
Does this mean you also believe that all priests and nuns are also living a lie?

[GuestFellow]

Sacrifice their honesty and integrity and hide who they are and live a lie? Sure, they can do that. But why should they?

Gay people that do not engage in homosexual acts acknowledge that they have homosexual feelings. They simply do not want to have sex with the same gender. If they are Muslim, it is because to please God and not to commit sin.

There could be men that completely deny that they have homosexual feelings. This is different and does not necessarily relate to religion. It could be about masculinity.

[Wyatt]

on what basis?

On what basis do islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism? Are you completely unaware of current day issues?

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way? That's what it feels like to gay people that can't help their homosexuality, and that's what deters them from religion. I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

[GuestFellow]

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way?

Muslims do not believe God made them homosexual. I suppose paedophiles are living a life of lies?

I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

There must be an element of attraction involved. Like I said before, I think all human have homosexual and heterosexual feelings, but one is more stronger than the other.

[Wyatt]

Muslims do not believe God made them homosexual. I suppose paedophiles are living a life of lies?.

Are you comparing?

Do Muslims believe God made them heterosexual?

[GuestFellow]

Are you comparing?

I suppose. From what you said, gay people that suppress their sexual urges to please God are living a life of lies. Do not paedophiles suppress their sexual urges? If they are, according to your logic, they are living a life of lives.

To make myself clear, I'm not saying homosexuals and paedophiles are the same.

Do Muslims believe God made them heterosexual?

I believe God wants people to engage in a sexual relationship with the opposite gender. However, I don't think God determines our sexual orientation. I think the environment plays a role here.

[Wyatt]

I suppose. From what you said, gay people that suppress their sexual urges to please God are living a life of lies. Do not paedophiles suppress their sexual urges? If they are, according to your logic, they are living a life of lives.

I believe God wants people to engage in a sexual relationship with the opposite gender. However, I don't think God determines our sexual orientation. I think the environment plays a role here.

I haven't mentioned homosexual acts. I have merely been talking about the attraction to the other gender. Homosexuality is not just a fetish that can be suppressed. It's the opposite of heterosexuality, where one seeks partnership with the opposite sex.

I think there's a distinction between the seeking of a same-sex partner and the sexual acts. Even though, to me, any attraction, even in personality, is biological in the first place.

I, even as a gay, would be open to the theory that something that wasn't supposed to happen happened in the brain, a mutation of some sort, a genetic error? I also agree that it could also be environmental. But, I do know, that one can't simply be converted to heterosexuality. It can't simply be ignored.

I personally wouldn't label it as a disorder or anything. Just... a variant.

There are also people who feel like they are women trapped in male bodies or vice-versa. I can't relate to them, and to me, it's a bit strange—but I take their word for it because of all people, they would be who knows what it's like.

Sexuality is a complicated subject, and when it's not fully understood by religions nor science, it's bound to be controversial. What's the issue with anything that neither understands, both have completely polar opposite opinions of it? Science tends to take a non-judgmental, apathetic approach while religion tries to take a stance on whether somethings either good or bad.

I don't believe in an intrinsic good or bad, nor would I think my creator would see so. Because, to me, He would have created everything, all possibilities, all matter. To me, good or bad is a mere human conception. Opinions, to me, can't be held as facts. Divine opinion is just kind of... a strange concept to me because everyone says GOD THINKS THIS, GOD THINKS THAT!

and stuff.......

[جوري]

Do Muslims believe God made them heterosexual?

Yup like batteries you can't stick two positive caps in the same position and have a machine function--has to be positive cap to negative cap.. opposites attract..I can't personally fathom how anyone can be attracted to the same sex.. it is odd like being attracted to ones father or mother.. do we love our parents and siblings.. absolutely to death.. I'd personally die for them, I think most people would do the same.. but love and sex are two separate issues .. It is a choice who you take to bed God doesn't make you take a man or woman to bed.. you do that by yourself!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

On what basis do islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism? Are you completely unaware of current day issues?

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way? That's what it feels like to gay people that can't help their homosexuality, and that's what deters them from religion. I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

what is this non-sense?

Why does a relationship has to be totally honest? Many a times we desire to not be honest with ppl who are our friends well because its not the best situation in that time. Does it make us "less of a friends?" No. In the same way, you dont have to be 100% pour-your-heart-out sort of lover in a relationship with your partner, especially as a man. Sounds too sissy for me .... So stop using resorting to emotional appeal by using words such as "dishonesty" by labeling your opponents argument that such a marriage of a gay man with a woman, in order to please his Lord, is a dishonest marriage.

[GuestFellow]

I haven't mentioned homosexual acts. I have merely been talking about the attraction to the other gender. Homosexuality is not just a fetish that can be suppressed. It's the opposite of heterosexuality, where one seeks partnership with the opposite sex.

Yes I'm aware that you did not meant homosexual acts. We are talking about suppressing sexual urges.

I, even as a gay, would be open to the theory that something that wasn't supposed to happen happened in the brain, a mutation of some sort, a genetic error? I also agree that it could also be environmental. But, I do know, that one can't simply be converted to heterosexuality. It can't simply be ignored.

I'm not saying gay people should convert to heterosexuality. As long as they do not engage in homosexual acts, then good for them. If they do, then it is a private matter, God will deal with them.

[Ramadhan]

On what basis do islamophobes equate Islam with terrorism?

It was a rethorical question so you can examine if the basis is valid.

Also, I agree with Pygo. Living a lie just to please God is a bit ironic. So, if one doesn't hide their homosexuality, but keeps themselves from acting upon it to please a god that made them that way?

So you also dont believe that there are people with homosexual inclinations but abstain from the act because they truly want to please God?

That's what it feels like to gay people that can't help their homosexuality, and that's what deters them from religion.

Thats all right. religion shouldnt change to appease people, otherwise it would not be religion, would it?

I would lead a very unhappy life if I were to keep myself lonely, even with a dishonest "straight" relationship, to please my creator.

Reigious people believe in the eternal after life, and this knowledge alone comfort them of all the trials and tribulations in the world.

[Argamemnon]

It's rather futile arguing with non-Muslims about homosexuality or about similar/other subjects. They don't believe in God so we will never agree on anything. What's the point of all these 'debates' then?

[GuestFellow]

What's the point of all these 'debates' then?

Salaam,

To learn about what other members think. Sometimes try to disprove their points.