/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.



Pages : [1] 2

yas2010
02-18-2011, 12:33 AM
Aslaam O likum

Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

This has been running in the press for many days.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
~Raindrop~
02-18-2011, 12:39 AM
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tion-plan.html
Reply

PouringRain
02-18-2011, 01:03 AM
I think it is sad to see some churches promoting this, but I am glad to see that there are those that still stand against it.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 02:39 AM
Why does this surprise anyone?

Since its inception by Paul, christianity has always tried to appease the locales and the trends of the day in order to be accepted. In the process they twisted the words of Jesus (p), changed their meanings and even changed the actual words.


Just read the history of christianity and the church.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
جوري
02-18-2011, 04:40 AM
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
Reply

PouringRain
02-18-2011, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Why does this surprise anyone?
I'm not sure anyone is surprised by it-- it is just quite sad. I am not from the UK, and I honestly do not follow the gay-politics of that area, but I am not surprised at this happening there.

It is also no surprise to me to see the article mentioning "liberal Jewish" groups also supporting gay marriage and wanting to conduct ceremonies in their synagogues. About ten years ago I read an article about a Rabbi in the US who is a huge supporter of gay marriage and conducts ceremonies for them. But we could even go back much, much further than that in history and also see these things. I am not slamming the Jews in general, on the contrary, there are Jewish sects that I absolutely adore.

I am just happy that there are churches, as mentioned in the article, who are not afraid to stand up against it.
Reply

PouringRain
02-18-2011, 04:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
Agreed.

Reply

ardianto
02-18-2011, 05:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain
It is also no surprise to me to see the article mentioning "liberal Jewish" groups also supporting gay marriage and wanting to conduct ceremonies in their synagogues.
Are they liberal ?. No wonder, liberal 'Muslim' also urged Muslim scholars to allow same-sex marriage. But, Alhamdulillah, Muslim scholars always refuse that stupid idea.
Reply

'Abd Al-Maajid
02-18-2011, 05:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
No wonder, liberal 'Muslim' also urged Muslim scholars to allow same-sex marriage.
Never heard of it before...:ermm:
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 06:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain
I think it is sad to see some churches promoting this, but I am glad to see that there are those that still stand against it.
As I understand it, the drive to allow gay marriage comes from government.
I am glad that places of worship are not made to conduct gay marriages (that would cause a great uproar in some places!), and that each place can make their own decision whether they are willing to do so or not.

I am still trying to get my head around how a gay marriage is different from a civil partnership, since civil partnerships were introduced to give gay couple the same legal rights as heterosexual couples ...
Reply

ardianto
02-18-2011, 08:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by abdulmājid

Never heard of it before...:ermm:
Now you have heard.
Reply

Trumble
02-18-2011, 08:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
Probably much the same point as at present for many/most heterosexual couples. In the UK, anyway, I doubt the participants in most weddings give much if any thought to God. It's just the place to go for a traditional (and mother appeasing) wedding with the dress, bridesmaids, etc, etc.
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 08:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Probably much the same point as at present for many/most heterosexual couples. In the UK, anyway, I doubt the participants in most weddings give much if any thought to God. It's just the place to go for a traditional (and mother appeasing) wedding with the dress, bridesmaids, etc, etc.
That might be different for gay couples though.

My guess is that a gay couple who wishes to have a marriage in a religious place of worship would have thought long and hard about this, and that they would have spiritual/religious reasons for their decision.

After all, you can have all the pomp and embellishment that go along with consumer weddings in any other place - without it being in a religious place.

In fact I would say that more and more church weddings are held because it gives people at least some religious meaning. People for whom the religious ceremony means absolutely nothing are more likely to go elsewhere. (That's just my own perception)
Reply

سيف الله
02-18-2011, 12:53 PM
Salaam

Hmmmm, why do Gay people want to marry in Church? Rather odd

Heres a post I found on the whole subject of Gay marriage

Joel

Gay couples are free to live their lives as they please and if they want to be in a loving relationship with a member of the same sex for the rest of their lives, no one is going to stop them. Homosexuals do not want the right to live together and love each other forever. They already have that right. What they want is for everyone else to validate their relationship. To see it as equal in every way and intrinsically no different than a male-female relationship to the point that the same word applies. But that's nonsense. It is intrinsically different. It may qualify as "marriage" if you define marriage as "a loving relationship between consenting adults." But if that is your definition your beef is with Merriam-Webster and every other existing dictionary, not me. It is no different with "creationism" failing to meet the definition of "science." Christians can whine and complain all they want, creationism does not meet the criteria of "science." Gay couples can whine and complain all they want, their relationship does not meet the criteria of "marriage."
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 01:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
and mother appeasing

it appeases mothers to have her son marrying a dude?
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-18-2011, 01:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


it appeases mothers to have her son marrying a dude?
I m sure Trumble's mother would be ok with that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Can somebody show me where in the bible Jesus speaks against homosexuality?

I know it is in the Old Testament. But is it in anything Jesus said himself?

If it is then I agree it is very perplexing that a homosexual faced with such bigotry would want to join a religion spouting it.

But if it isn't, then I could see wiggle room. The Old Testament also says you can't eat shellfish, wear mixed fibres or allow witches or disobedient children live, etc. Modern Christians disregard a lot of what is in the Old Testament, so why not this too?

For what it's worth, I know some homosexuals (mostly in the closet still) who claim to be Christians (but maybe they are also in the closet about that?).

Also keep in mind that the bible is very paternalistic and yet some feminists manage to be Christians. Cognitive dissonance is apparently not much of a barrier to religiousity.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 02:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I am still trying to get my head around how a gay marriage is different from a civil partnership, since civil partnerships were introduced to give gay couple the same legal rights as heterosexual couples ...
The difference is the name. Married couples and civil partners can adopt children, become joint tenants, tenants in common, divorce, etc. There is no difference other than the name and both get full legal rights.

I think gay couples want to be accepted. This is why they want to get married in religious institutes. Sometimes, gay couples want to get married in Churches because of religious reasons. I think it is a combination of both.

Time will tell whether this will become the norm. I will personally sit back and see how this will end. Should be interesting.

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

it appeases mothers to have her son marrying a dude?
:sl:

I don't exactly understand what Trumble meant by that...

format_quote Originally Posted by appease

1. pacify: to say or do something in order to make somebody less angry or aggressive, especially by giving in to demands that have been made

2. satisfy need: to satisfy a need for something, especially a physical appetite
appeased their thirst with a long cool drink
I think Trumble meant some mothers like to see their children get married in Churches? Since it is traditional. Some women like to see their children get married in a Cinderella fairytale environment...
Reply

Perseveranze
02-18-2011, 02:46 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Not really suprising since Islam's going to be the last unchanged religion left one day.
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 02:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Can somebody show me where in the bible Jesus speaks against homosexuality?
Nope. That's because he didn't.
The nearest he got to mentioning sexual relationships was in Matthew 19:5 (also in Mark 10:7)
‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
Not very clear at all, since he is speaking for heterosexual relationships, but not explicitly against homosexual ones (although some people choose to understand it that way).

Paul, however, does speak against homosexual practices in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

If it is then I agree it is very perplexing that a homosexual faced with such bigotry would want to join a religion spouting it.
Many Christians I know (myself included) would argue that we are all sinners, and that without the grace of God none of us can ever be 'good enough' to earn our salvation.
If you look at Paul's description of the people who will be denied entry into the kingdom of heaven, we are probably all included in that group there in some shape or form:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Therefore homosexuals consider themselves sinners, just like the rest of us - and in need of God's saving grace.
They are definitely not outside of God's love and grace.

But if it isn't, then I could see wiggle room. The Old Testament also says you can't eat shellfish, wear mixed fibres or allow witches or disobedient children live, etc. Modern Christians disregard a lot of what is in the Old Testament, so why not this too?
I agree.
When I read the Bible, I don't see a book 'written in stone', I see an account of how people's understanding of and relationship with God grew and matured. Call it 'the evolution of humanity's faith journey', if you like.
That process still goes on today. We read and interpret and understand what the Bible teaches within each and every new generation. That makes it a living tool rather than a dead book!
(Don't tell anybody else I said that. I know that many people would disagree with me. But I am sure that if I am shunned as a heretic I can find shelter with my atheist friends. :))

For what it's worth, I know some homosexuals (mostly in the closet still) who claim to be Christians (but maybe they are also in the closet about that?).
I know people who are openly gay and Christian, and who are welcome in our church.
(That's not to say that as a denomination the Church of England will make the shift to allowing gay marriages any time soon. I think so far they have spoken out against it.)
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Not really suprising since Islam's going to be the last unchanged religion left one day.
:sl:

Yes, I've noticed that. The government and some institutes will pressure Islamic groups to make gay marriage acceptable, especially if it funds these groups.

I remember David Cameron said in his speech that Islamic groups that are against British laws (e.g. civil partnerships) will not be given any funding.

So if they are any Islamic groups that openly support civil partnership, we will know why.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 02:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
As I understand it, the drive to allow gay marriage comes from government.

When was the last time you were in a church?

These were a couple of news by BBC from 2005 and 2009, and it is very likely the number of churches that bless same sex marriage has increased.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm

US Church backs same-sex marriage


The million-strong United Church of Christ (UCC) has become the first major US Christian denomination to come out in support of gay marriage.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...marriage.shtml

Same-sex marriage is a divisive issue in many Christian churches, but not all.

Christian attitudes to same-sex marriage
In the Church of England, many Anglican clergy already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis but there is no authorised ceremony in England.
The Anglican Communion still remains divided on the issue of homosexuality. Its first openly gay bishop - Gene Robinson of New Hampshire - visited the UK in November 2005 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Changing Attitude, a group which campaigns for equality for lesbian and gay Anglicans in Britain.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 03:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
know it is in the Old Testament. But is it in anything Jesus said himself?


who says christians follow anything that jesus (p) say? are you really that naive or pretend to be?

If they did, they would not have worshipped Jesus.
Reply

Trumble
02-18-2011, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I think Trumble meant some mothers like to see their children get married in Churches? Since it is traditional. Some women like to see their children get married in a Cinderella fairytale environment...
Thank you; exactly. I'm glad somebody is paying attention!
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 04:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I think Trumble meant some mothers like to see their children get married in Churches? Since it is traditional. Some women like to see their children get married in a Cinderella fairytale environment...

I understand what he meant, however the 'fairytale' ends when your son is marrying a dude or your daughter is marrying another broad.
I don't see anything satisfying about that on any level!

:w:
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 04:23 PM
It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter.
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
When was the last time you were in a church?
This morning. Why do you ask?

These were a couple of news by BBC from 2005 and 2009, and it is very likely the number of churches that bless same sex marriage has increased.
I think you are confused by the difference in a blessing of a gay relationship and a same-sex marriage.

The first may be something that has been practiced in various churches for some time, but the latter is a very recent development. BTW, the change in law to allow gay people to have a marriage-style ceremony in places of worship - as far as I understand - has not been approved yet. At this moment in time it is something the Coalition government is considering a change.
Reply

Danah
02-18-2011, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
May be to make it looks "normal" to the society if the church approved and recognized such "marriage"!


format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter.
SubhanAllah the last hour is near!!
May Allah save us!
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-18-2011, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter.
.... or to bless a marriage between a married man and an additional wife. :embarrass

I think once Homosexual Marriage becomes mainstream poligamy may be next, not incestual marriage.

Personally I oppose state recognized marriage and special rights for married people altogether (it is discrimination against single people) so I really have no horse in this race.

My outsider's point of view solution would be this:

Have the state recognize something we call "civil union" that carries with it all the legal rights marriage now does. Have this "civil union" be a contract that any pair of people can enter (or maybe threesomes or foursomes). Men can enter this with women, with men, with friends, with siblings, whatever. Have no romantic or spiritual attachment to it whatsoever.

Then have "marriage" be a spiritual bond between people, with no legal implicaitons or rights attached to it. Then various religions may recognize (or reject) people as being in marriages however they like, and they need not agree with one another. The pious church or mosque can then reject homosexual marriage while the liberal one accepts it. The mormons or muslims could have poligamous marriage and the christian church need not recognize it.

I see this homosexual marriage issue as opening up a broader issue of the separation of church and state. The church has no business telling the state who should be entitled to certain legal rights. And equally, the state has no business telling the church who must be recognized as being in a spiritual union.

Would you accept this compromise? If not, why not?
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Danah
SubhanAllah the last hour is near!!

very true:

When men lie with men and women lie with women (Al-Haythami)
Bearing false witness will become widespread (Al-Haythami & Ahmad)

http://etori.tripod.com/dajjalsystem/judgement.html

this is it.. we're truly in one of the worst of times..
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 05:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
This morning. Why do you ask?

It just seemed that you are out of touch with the current trend among the more "enlightened" churches.


format_quote Originally Posted by
I think you are confused by the difference in a blessing of a gay relationship and a same-sex marriage.

read again in the articles about gay marriage by United Church of christ.

Oh, and I see that you are playing semantics again.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Can somebody show me where in the bible Jesus speaks against homosexuality?
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Nope. That's because he didn't. The nearest he got to mentioning sexual relationships was in Matthew 19:5 (also in Mark 10:7)

maybe you ought to read your bible sometime Glo?

2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but *****mongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”
Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.




all the best!
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I think once Homosexual Marriage becomes mainstream poligamy may be next, not incestual marriage.

I was not talking about what's next.

I said "it's only a matter of time before a church bless marriage between a father and his daughter"

not long ago, a practicing homosexual would be expelled and ostracized from his church, but now the same homosexual can bring in his sodomy partner and have their sodomy relations blessed by a pastor/priest on behalf of the father/jesus/holy spirit in a holy matrimony.

As I have previously said, christianity is on a slippery slope since its inception by paul.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-18-2011, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
maybe you ought to read your bible sometime Glo?

I've just asked her when she went to a church last time!
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 05:14 PM
more:

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV) Romans 1

“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.humna humna...

Jesus loves ya..

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 05:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I've just asked her when she she went to a church last time!

The church of the poisoned minds?..
we all knew our dear glo has been following her whims that is not news..... what disturbs me however is disseminating the wrong info.. surely she's heard of google for cross reference even if she doesn't know what her religions is about?

:w:
Reply

BoredAgnostic
02-18-2011, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Aslaam O likum

Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

This has been running in the press for many days.
Even if Churches are given the choice of allowing gays to be married in Church, I don't think its a good idea. It's already a struggle for gays to have their civil unions fully recognized and to receive all the legal benefits of marriage, so its just treading in dangerous waters to allow this. Too much bigotry in the world as it is, don't need to give hate-filled people more of a reason to protest by getting married in that type of place. You don't need a church to validate your love and commitment to another person.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
02-18-2011, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter.
Even i thought the same....when i saw the title of this thread...But there many more combinations left...they will acheive it.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 06:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by BoredAgnostic
don't need a church to validate your love and commitment to another person.

You're right..all you need is Cupid's itch..


all the best
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The church of the poisoned minds?..
we all knew our dear glo has been following her whims that is not news..... what disturbs me however is disseminating the wrong info.. surely she's heard of google for cross reference even if she doesn't know what her religions is about?

:w:
Still engaging in slander and back-biting, I see, Lily ... A shame really, because it prevents any sensible conversations ...

Anyway, thank you for your lessons in Bible study! :D

Pygo asked about what Jesus himself said about homosexuality.
None of the Bible verses you quote are from Jesus. They either come from the Old Testament or were written after Jesus' death, most likely by Paul ...

God bless.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo

Still engaging in slander and back-biting, I see, Lily ... A shame really, because it prevents any sensible conversations ...

Anyway, thank you for your lessons in Bible study! :D

Pygo asked about what Jesus himself said about homosexuality.
None of the Bible verses you quote are from Jesus. They either come from the Old Testament or were written after Jesus' death, most likely by Paul ...

God bless.

pshawwwwww dear glo.. you need to look up the definitions of all those terms along with some serious bible study.. Not sure otherwise how much longer you can assume that role of ditsy and misunderstood? It is getting stale..
Backbite, is to speak behind your back no? That would seem more your style (like you used to in the mixed female section away from prying eyes) I write for all to see.. and well slander is a terrible term especially when google is so filled with articles contrary to the Christianity you profess..

However two questions remain..
is Jesus the same god of the OT? or did he have a personality change?
and how much of the bible can you actually attribute as to having been said by Jesus?

all the best
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-18-2011, 08:50 PM
gay marriage = fruitless





me mum and me dad = me

me = sweet fruit
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
gay marriage = fruitless

me mum and me dad = me

me = sweet fruit
Salaam,

What about adoption? How would that fit in the equation? :p:
Reply

BoredAgnostic
02-18-2011, 08:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


You're right..all you need is Cupid's itch..


all the best
Mmmkay then, if you feel that way.... can't say I feel the same.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 08:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by BoredAgnostic
Mmmkay then, if you feel that way.... can't say I feel the same.

I have no feelings toward the matter.. it is inconsequential to me whether churches become more or less allowing!

all the best
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-18-2011, 09:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Salaam,

What about adoption? How would that fit in the equation? :p:
does the adopted kid look like you?..........

can you produce a fruit that will look like you!!!

Come on man!....key and key will never work

lock and lock...will not work

they both dont work!

key and lock is the way forward....to open doors of opportunity
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 09:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
does the adopted kid look like you?..........
:p:

can you produce a fruit that will look like you!!!

Come on man!....key and key will never work

lock and lock...will not work

they both dont work!

key and lock is the way forward....to open doors of opportunity
LOL Nice analogy.

@ glo

There was no backbiting, everyone can see these posts....
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-18-2011, 09:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:p:



LOL Nice analogy.
Get yourself a lock man....to lock out the shaytan.
Reply

Abz2000
02-18-2011, 10:44 PM
There shall be no ***** of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a *****, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
deut 23:17-18

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday visited the Tel Aviv gay youth center 08-06-09 - ynet news

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday a gay father waiting in India with his infant twin sons due to the Interior Ministry's refusal to administer a paternity test must be allowed to come back to Israel. haaretz 19-02-2011

In UN Speech, Netanyahu Condemns Iran for Subjugation of Gays - gay patriot 25-09-09

Israel
Main article: LGBT rights in Israel
The State of Israel inherited its sodomy ("buggery") law from the British Mandate of Palestine but there is no record that it was ever enforced against homosexual acts that took place between consenting adults in private. In the late 1960s the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that these laws could not be enforced and they were formally repealed by the Official legislature in 1988. The age of consent for both heterosexuals and homosexuals is sixteen years of age.
wikipedia

Sodomy was historically known in England and Wales as buggery, and is usually interpreted as referring to anal intercourse between two males or a male and a female. In England and Wales Buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. The punishment for those convicted was the death penalty right up until 1861. A lesser offence of "attempted buggery" was punished by 2 years of jail and some time on the pillory. In 1885, Parliament enacted the Labouchere Amendment,[24] which prohibited gross indecency between males, a broad term that was understood to encompass most or all male homosexual acts. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. The three UK crown territories also did this as well since 1983 in Guernsey, since 1990 in Jersey and also since 1992 on the Isle of Man.

Netanyahu Uses Bible to Claim Jerusalem - cbn . com
Netanyahu: Israel's claim to Jerusalem based on Bible - secular news . com

There shall be no ***** of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a *****, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
deut 23:17-18
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-18-2011, 11:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
gay marriage = fruitless





me mum and me dad = me

me = sweet fruit
That may have made sense back when underpopulation was an issue. But isn't the problem now leaning more towards overpopulation?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-19-2011, 12:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That may have made sense back when underpopulation was an issue. But isn't the problem now leaning more towards overpopulation?
Present evidence for this please.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 01:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Therefore homosexuals consider themselves sinners, just like the rest of us - and in need of God's saving grace.
Is God's saving grace for sinners one of the churches' ploy to increase revenues?

It's one thing to tolerate and even accept sinners, but to actually give blessings to a sin so heinous it is clearly strictly prohibited in the bible?

Next, thieves could go march to churches and demand that their "work" be blessed by the church.

Oh wait, it already happened.
How can I forget that the mafia are so dearly loved by the vatican.
Reply

Faatin
02-19-2011, 04:39 AM
He's even wearing a rainbow colored erm.... tie o.O
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar



who says christians follow anything that jesus (p) say? are you really that naive or pretend to be?

If they did, they would not have worshipped Jesus.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
02-19-2011, 05:11 AM
I think
... the some of the christians..who have posted...here from christian perspective
...can consolidate their comments..and release a book...(A book without proper Reference)

They will be treated like freedom fighters by the Ls and Gs.
Reply

truthseeker63
02-19-2011, 05:33 AM
Gays should not be allowed to marry each other.
Reply

Aprender
02-19-2011, 05:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
does the adopted kid look like you?..........

can you produce a fruit that will look like you!!!

Come on man!....key and key will never work

lock and lock...will not work

they both dont work!

key and lock is the way forward....to open doors of opportunity
Are you saying that adoption is not good? Not to get off topic though.
Reply

جوري
02-19-2011, 05:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by truthseeker63
Gays should not be allowed to marry each other.

I don't think gay people do very well unfortunately even if they convince themselves and society that it is a normal variant .. every other day there is an overdose or a suicide .. today it was the Narnia producer dying from an apparent overdose even though he is openly gay and appeared happy..

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full
Reply

Trumble
02-19-2011, 06:02 AM
Nothing like a selective quote, is there? ^o)

How about

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.
Although I think the thread is best summed up by

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being
Reply

Aprender
02-19-2011, 06:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Nothing like a selective quote, is there? ^o)

How about



Although I think the thread is best summed up by
Well, she gave us the link so we could read it in full for ourselves.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 07:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Although I think the thread is best summed up by

this thread is about gay marriages in church, not about some gay human rights.

Isnt it interesting that the state tried to force the church to allow gay marriage in church on the basis of human rights, while at the same time oppressing the rights of the religious folks who uphold the tenets of their religion which does not even allow the practice of homosexual acts.
Reply

glo
02-19-2011, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

However two questions remain..
is Jesus the same god of the OT? or did he have a personality change?
and how much of the bible can you actually attribute as to having been said by Jesus?

all the best
I assumed that Pygo was referring to the direct teachings of Jesus, as he walked the earth and preached to the people.
I am happy to let Pygo confirm whether that was indeed what he was asking.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
02-19-2011, 07:26 AM
Its like a lawyer... who doesnt comply with the law..is in court..for his duties...and the court happily allows and accepts him..to be part of the court proceedings.

Which means..

the law (Christianity)..and the Court (Church)...contradict each other.
Reply

glo
02-19-2011, 07:36 AM
^
But the British law and government is secular ...
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 07:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I assumed that Pygo was referring to the direct teachings of Jesus, as he walked the earth and preached to the people.
Jesus also never expressly forbid bestiality and necrophilia.

So when's your church going to marry a man with his goat, or a woman with a deceased priest?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 07:45 AM
More Bible study for Glo:
http://www.helium.com/items/1617185-...-homosexuality


Jesus never directly addressed the issues of homosexuality but he also never directly addressed issues such as pedophilia, bestiality or incest. He did, however, make it perfectly clear that a sexual union was fully intended to be between a man and a woman.


"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt.19:4)




In the Old Testament, Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked cities whose inhabitants were homosexuals. Lot, Abraham's nephew, lived in Sodom and God sent angels into the city to bring him out.
"... all the men from every part of the city of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' Lot went outside... 'Don't do this wicked thing... 'Get out of our way,' they replied... They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside (angels) reached out and pulled Lot back into the house... Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness." (Gen. 19:4-10)


When it came to blasphemous sins, Jesus often referred to Sodom and Gomorrah as a rule of measure. "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Mark 6:11) "But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt. 11:24)


Judging by the Lord's own words it doesn't take a PhD to see that he does not approve of homosexuality. The God of the Old and New Testament is one and the same and homosexuality is condemned in both.


The church at Corinth was having a problem with homosexuality and Paul told them in no uncertain terms, "Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves... none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God." (1Cor.6:9)
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 07:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I assumed that Pygo was referring to the direct teachings of Jesus, as he walked the earth and preached to the people.

But you believe that Jesus of the NT is the same as God of the OT, right?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 08:00 AM
in Leviticus 18 verse 22, Jesus say: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Reply

Trumble
02-19-2011, 09:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Isnt it interesting that the state tried to force the church to allow gay marriage in church on the basis of human rights, while at the same time oppressing the rights of the religious folks who uphold the tenets of their religion which does not even allow the practice of homosexual acts.
Sorry, which state is supposed to have tried to 'force' the church (which church?) to do anything? This proposed legislation (which incidently I disagree with on the grounds that 'marriage' is the union between a man and a woman by definition, and hence there is no such thing as a literal 'gay marriage') is to remove obstacles in English law that prevent a 'gay marriage' taking place in church. No church is being forced to allow them, indeed the Church of England has already said it will not.

Which state is supposed to be oppressing the rights of those 'religious folks'? What 'rights' are being oppressed and in what way are they being prevented from upholding the tenets of their religion?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 11:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Sorry, which state is supposed to have tried to 'force' the church (which church?) to do anything? This proposed legislation (which incidently I disagree with on the grounds that 'marriage' is the union between a man and a woman by definition, and hence there is no such thing as a literal 'gay marriage') is to remove obstacles in English law that prevent a 'gay marriage' taking place in church. No church is being forced to allow them, indeed the Church of England has already said it will not. Which state is supposed to be oppressing the rights of those 'religious folks'? What 'rights' are being oppressed and in what way are they being prevented from upholding the tenets of their religion?

You're right.

I guess the church themselves are actually willing and allow that the gay marriage are officiated in the church.

I'm just so surprised that the church in england is meek and weak and willing to go bend over to appease few homos (pun truly intended), sacrificing one of the most important God's commandments.
Reply

truthseeker63
02-19-2011, 01:25 PM
Homosexuality seems to be accepted in the West it was not always this way.
Reply

جوري
02-19-2011, 02:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Nothing like a selective quote, is there? ^o)

How about



Although I think the thread is best summed up by
How is it selective when the analysis hasn't been repeated and is speculative that HIV is a major cause influencing homosexual mortality when it is clearly not even high on the list! As I have stated in my previous post.. every other day we read of a homosexual death related to drug or a suicide or multitudes of other ways that are mostly functional rather than organic affecting their life expectancy.
The ending quote you posted is one of political correctitutde rather than an epidemiological statistic and is irrelevant-- many people use such statistics to echo their own agenda whatever it maybe .. we're only interested in the facts not a christian bible thumping or bullying or mob mentality!

put two and two together then the cause you advocate won't be so lost on everyone!

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-19-2011, 02:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I assumed that Pygo was referring to the direct teachings of Jesus, as he walked the earth and preached to the people. I am happy to let Pygo confirm whether that was indeed what he was asking.

I asked you two simple questions, it seems you're unable to answer them or reconcile them with what is written in the bible?.. stalking me on PM will not make the difficult questions go away!

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2011, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Isnt it interesting that the state tried to force the church to allow gay marriage in church
Do you mean they tried to force a church to allow it in their church? They told the pastor he must marry a gay couple? If so, where and when did this happen? I would oppose this as strongly as I oppose the bigots who would deny homosexuals the right to marry where a church is pleased to marry them.

The rich irony of this is that here we have muslims speaking against rights for homosexuals and seeking to repress and demonize them, when muslims themselves are often oppressed and demonized.

The one thing these muslims have in common with Ann Coulter and her ilk is that they both speak bigotry against homosexuals and homosexuality. Homophobia seems to run through all Abrahamic religion. I often tell far right islamophobes that they have more in common with the muslims they hate than the "libruls" do. They don't like to face that truth any more than the muslims do.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2011, 03:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Jesus also never expressly forbid bestiality and necrophilia.

So when's your church going to marry a man with his goat, or a woman with a deceased priest?
Jesus also never forbid slavery, and the bible speaks favourably of it (unless it is of hebrews). Does the Quran forbid beastiality and necrophilia? Incest too?
Reply

جوري
02-19-2011, 04:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The one thing these muslims have in common with Ann Coulter and her ilk is that they both speak bigotry against homosexuals and homosexuality. Homophobia seems to run through all Abrahamic religion. I often tell far right islamophobes that they have more in common with the muslims they hate than the "libruls" do. They don't like to face that truth any more than the muslims do.

I am not sure why you seem perpetually confused, you and a few other homoerotics seem to construe not approving of a sinful lifestyle to be akin to either a phobia or a hate.. why such extremes in emotions? does not approving of incest make you an incestophobe? or frowning upon pederasts make you a pederastophobe? what else do you fear pray do tell ... how does not accepting this life style as a norm = to demonization or oppression? more importantly how does a sexual life style choice relate at all to religion? This is precisely what we mean by atheists having a lack of definition or baseline all topics seem to blend under one massive brush, that it makes it both tedious and absurd to dignify the meaningless statements with a response all together!
Reply

سيف الله
02-19-2011, 04:25 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


You're right.

I guess the church themselves are actually willing and allow that the gay marriage are officiated in the church.

I'm just so surprised that the church in england is meek and weak and willing to go bend over to appease few homos (pun truly intended), sacrificing one of the most important God's commandments.
The Main Christain denominations (eg. Anglicans) having been going downhill for some time, (particularly since the 1960). There has been a battle between the traditionalists and the secular/liberal wings of the church, who would rather subordinate themseves to the various fashions and vagaries of society rather than the teachings of Jesus (pbuh).

the latter have won control of key Church institutions and you can see the results.

Serves as a nice warning what will happen if secular/liberal types gain control of our faith.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-19-2011, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Serves as a nice warning what will happen if secular/liberal types gain control of our faith.
:wa:

There have been attempts, like the Quillam Foundation. Thankfully, they are not working.
Reply

Aprender
02-19-2011, 06:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:wa:

There have been attempts, like the Quillam Foundation. Thankfully, they are not working.
Right. Which is one of the reasons why I think Islam is amazing and I respect it. Of all of the three monotheistic faiths, to me, Islam is the only one in which followers actually follow what is commanded. Of course, you have a few outliers in Christianity in Judaism in America but for the most part the word of God is ignored or so distorted. I think people like the idea of being religious but don't actually follow through which is why some people might be jealous of the Muslims' close relationship with Allah (swt). For following the word of God, Muslims are said to be "stuck in the past."

This is merely from my observations within my community. Might be different elsewhere and I am open to learning what others have to tell me about how it is where you live. If you haven't seen it, you should check out the documentary Jesus Camp to see some of what I mean...
Reply

lostsoul99
02-19-2011, 06:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
yea I totally agree with you. people can't be gay and still be christians or muslims or jews at the same time.. it makes no sense to me either. it's like they wanna defy god but still act like they believe in him. that's why gay marriage was outlawed in the first place, because marriage is a religious thing. the whole church wedding is at least. it makes no sense that they wanna perform a ceremony that is created by and for God in christianity to unite two people when God never intended that ceremony to be used by homosexuals. it sickens me. there still are many people against it though, even though the media tries to act like the majority of people are for it.. what a repulsive way of life.
Reply

lostsoul99
02-19-2011, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I am not sure why you seem perpetually confused, you and a few other homoerotics seem to construe not approving of a sinful lifestyle to be akin to either a phobia or a hate.. why such extremes in emotions? does not approving of incest make you an incestophobe? or frowning upon pederasts make you a pederastophobe? what else do you fear pray do tell ... how does not accepting this life style as a norm = to demonization or oppression? more importantly how does a sexual life style choice relate at all to religion? This is precisely what we mean by atheists having a lack of definition or baseline all topics seem to blend under one massive brush, that it makes it both tedious and absurd to dignify the meaningless statements with a response all together!

you tell 'em sister lol. homosexuality is just like pedophilia.. sexual deviancy of a sickening kind. the pedophiles have a civil rights movement too.. are these homo-lovers gonna grant pedophiles their rights too and let them molest their kids? i doubt it. they lock up pedophiles but act like homosexuals are normal.. sickening.
Reply

lostsoul99
02-19-2011, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PouringRain
I'm not sure anyone is surprised by it-- it is just quite sad. I am not from the UK, and I honestly do not follow the gay-politics of that area, but I am not surprised at this happening there.

It is also no surprise to me to see the article mentioning "liberal Jewish" groups also supporting gay marriage and wanting to conduct ceremonies in their synagogues. About ten years ago I read an article about a Rabbi in the US who is a huge supporter of gay marriage and conducts ceremonies for them. But we could even go back much, much further than that in history and also see these things. I am not slamming the Jews in general, on the contrary, there are Jewish sects that I absolutely adore.

I am just happy that there are churches, as mentioned in the article, who are not afraid to stand up against it.
Sister the so-called "priests" or "rabbis" that support homosexuality only fake being religious in order to fulfill their agenda of corrupting their congregations by promoting this repulsive way of life. I am a Muslim and a pretty open-minded woman but homosexuality will NEVER be acceptable, and any TRUE abrahamic follower will never condone it.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-19-2011, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lostsoul99
you tell 'em sister lol. homosexuality is just like pedophilia.. sexual deviancy of a sickening kind. the pedophiles have a civil rights movement too.. are these homo-lovers gonna grant pedophiles their rights too and let them molest their kids? i doubt it. they lock up pedophiles but act like homosexuals are normal.. sickening.
Salaam,

There is a difference. Homosexuality involves consent while pedophilia does not involve consent because children are considered to be too young to give consent.

There are homosexuals that are against pedophilia too.
Reply

lostsoul99
02-19-2011, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Can somebody show me where in the bible Jesus speaks against homosexuality?

I know it is in the Old Testament. But is it in anything Jesus said himself?

If it is then I agree it is very perplexing that a homosexual faced with such bigotry would want to join a religion spouting it.

But if it isn't, then I could see wiggle room. The Old Testament also says you can't eat shellfish, wear mixed fibres or allow witches or disobedient children live, etc. Modern Christians disregard a lot of what is in the Old Testament, so why not this too?

For what it's worth, I know some homosexuals (mostly in the closet still) who claim to be Christians (but maybe they are also in the closet about that?).

Also keep in mind that the bible is very paternalistic and yet some feminists manage to be Christians. Cognitive dissonance is apparently not much of a barrier to religiousity.
you need to read the account of the people of Lot.. that is the part of the Quran that speaks against homosexuality too. and I'm sure that Lot is mentioned in the Bible as well.
Reply

yas2010
02-19-2011, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lostsoul99
you tell 'em sister lol. homosexuality is just like pedophilia.. sexual deviancy of a sickening kind. the pedophiles have a civil rights movement too.. are these homo-lovers gonna grant pedophiles their rights too and let them molest their kids? i doubt it. they lock up pedophiles but act like homosexuals are normal.. sickening.
Very true. Throughout history we are shown examples of when mankind exceeded limitations and Allah (swt) punishes them. The people of Prophet Lot(pbuh).
But also the Greeks and Romans where padeophillia and homosexuality were rife. The destruction of the Roman city of Pompeii. It is said that there were artefacts of a sexual nature discovered that were locked away for many years due to the vile nature.

May Allah(Swt) have mercy on us. We are truly blessed to belong the ummah of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Ameen.
Reply

lostsoul99
02-19-2011, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Salaam,

There is a difference. Homosexuality involves consent while pedophilia does not involve consent because children are considered to be too young to give consent.

There are homosexuals that are against pedophilia too.
that is true but sometimes there are cases where the child thinks that they are in love with the pedophile that is pursuing them.. I saw a couple of those stories on law and order special victims unit and that show uses real crime accounts to base its storyline off of.. and in America anyone over 18 having a relationship with anyone 16 and under gets convicted of statutory rape even if the child consents .. so like a 40 year old can't have sex with a consenting 15 year old because the thought is that the child is much too young and not legal and therefore it is a form of pedophilia.. but yea I understand what you're saying.

But consent doesn't make homosexuality acceptable..
Reply

GuestFellow
02-19-2011, 07:09 PM
^ Yes, practicing homosexuality is not acceptable.
Reply

جوري
02-19-2011, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Salaam, There is a difference. Homosexuality involves consent while pedophilia does not involve consent because children are considered to be too young to give consent. There are homosexuals that are against pedophilia too.

many alleged children consent to sex.. if 11 year olds are considered children then perhaps they shouldn't be passing condoms and BCP to them in middle school?..
It isn't a matter of consent.. it is whether the act itself is right or wrong.. these children/teenagers have raging hormones and desires animals have desires too, siblings have desires.. so what? Are we simply to act on every desire because we feel an impulse to?
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-19-2011, 07:53 PM
Media + homosexuality = hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad...its a perfectly normal alternative

hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad = decline of fruit baring relationships (heterosexual marriage)

decline of heterosexual marriage = no more babies

no more babies = more money available for greedy elitists


the promotion of three things will kill off fruit baring marriage.....casual sex...feminism...homosexuality ( i call on anyone to show us a mainstream movie or a song that promotes heterosexual marriage.)
Reply

Aprender
02-19-2011, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
Media + homosexuality = hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad...its a perfectly normal alternative

hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad = decline of fruit baring relationships (heterosexual marriage)

decline of heterosexual marriage = no more babies

no more babies = more money available for greedy elitists


the promotion of three things will kill off fruit baring marriage.....casual sex...feminism...homosexuality ( i call on anyone to show us a mainstream movie or a song that promotes heterosexual marriage.)
Check out a Tyler Perry movie called Why Did I Get Married? and the sequel Why Did I Get Married, Too? They both promote heterosexual marriage and the problems that arise from it but also how it's important to work that out and keep the marriage going strong. Only issue is that I can't really say if it's "mainstream" because in America it's considered a movie for the "black community" so it didn't get as much promotion outside of the "black" community. It was still showed in theaters nationwide though.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Do you mean they tried to force a church to allow it in their church? They told the pastor he must marry a gay couple? If so, where and when did this happen? I would oppose this as strongly as I oppose the bigots who would deny homosexuals the right to marry where a church is pleased to marry them.


Before you go on a rant, read my post #69.

You really do have a penchant for jumping into discussion without reading the posts in the thread.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
esus also never forbid slavery, and the bible speaks favourably of it (unless it is of hebrews). Does the Quran forbid beastiality and necrophilia? Incest too?

It's either you haven't read the previous posts at all or your reading comprehension is such an embarrassment (for a native english speaker).

The funny thing is, you are actually supporting my argument without realizing it.

LOL.
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 12:09 AM
It seems to be comedy night on the forums, folks!

format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Very true. Throughout history we are shown examples of when mankind exceeded limitations and Allah (swt) punishes them. The people of Prophet Lot(pbuh).
But also the Greeks and Romans where padeophillia and homosexuality were rife. The destruction of the Roman city of Pompeii. It is said that there were artefacts of a sexual nature discovered that were locked away for many years due to the vile nature.
It is estimated some 3,000 lost their lives in Pompeii and Herculanium, including those killed in the associated tsunami.

250,000+ were killed across SE Asia in 2004/5 (tsunami)
50,000+ were killed in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan in 2005. (quake)
26,000+ were killed in Iran in 2003 (quake)
50,000+ were killed in Iran in 1990 (quake)
500,000+ were killed in (what is now) Bangladesh in 1970 (cyclone, floods)
110,000+ were killed in Turkmenistan in 1948 (quake)
32,000+ were killed in Turkey in 1939 (quake)
30,000+ were killed in (what is now) Pakistan in 1935

etc, etc, etc.

Were those people all homosexuals and pedophiles, too? :hiding:





format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullahii
Media + homosexuality = hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad...its a perfectly normal alternative

hang on a minute lock and lock is actually not that bad = decline of fruit baring relationships (heterosexual marriage)

decline of heterosexual marriage = no more babies

no more babies = more money available for greedy elitists


the promotion of three things will kill off fruit baring marriage.....casual sex...feminism...homosexuality ( i call on anyone to show us a mainstream movie or a song that promotes heterosexual marriage.)

Are you for real?! All that casual sex, feminism and homosexuality has resulted in;



Or is that just the most spectacular failed conspiracy in history? :hiding:
Reply

Lynx
02-20-2011, 12:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lostsoul99

But consent doesn't make homosexuality acceptable..
The question people should ask themselves is what makes homosexuality unacceptable?
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-20-2011, 12:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
It seems to be comedy night on the forums, folks!



It is estimated some 3,000 lost their lives in Pompeii and Herculanium, including those killed in the associated tsunami.

250,000+ were killed across SE Asia in 2004/5 (tsunami)
50,000+ were killed in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan in 2005. (quake)
26,000+ were killed in Iran in 2003 (quake)
50,000+ were killed in Iran in 1990 (quake)
500,000+ were killed in (what is now) Bangladesh in 1970 (cyclone, floods)
110,000+ were killed in Turkmenistan in 1948 (quake)
32,000+ were killed in Turkey in 1939 (quake)
30,000+ were killed in (what is now) Pakistan in 1935

etc, etc, etc.

Were those people all homosexuals and pedophiles, too? :hiding:








Are you for real?! All that casual sex, feminism and homosexuality has resulted in;




Or is that just the most spectacular failed conspiracy in history? :hiding:
No one said that those people were killed for homosexuality. The guy simply said that Quran says that "Pompeii" was destroyed cuz of homos sexing around but Quran does not say that all those countries you mentioned were destroyed for such perversions. Stop creating false assumptions and then destroying them.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 02:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
It is estimated some 3,000 lost their lives in Pompeii and Herculanium, including those killed in the associated tsunami.

250,000+ were killed across SE Asia in 2004/5 (tsunami)
50,000+ were killed in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan in 2005. (quake)
26,000+ were killed in Iran in 2003 (quake)
50,000+ were killed in Iran in 1990 (quake)
500,000+ were killed in (what is now) Bangladesh in 1970 (cyclone, floods)
110,000+ were killed in Turkmenistan in 1948 (quake)
32,000+ were killed in Turkey in 1939 (quake)
30,000+ were killed in (what is now) Pakistan in 1935
From the data you presented above, it seems to make just as much sense to claim that practicing Islam brings natural disasters upon people, as claiming that homosexuality does.

And what is with the "allowing homosexuality = ending heterosexuality = ending babies" argument? It makes no sense whatsoever unless of course the speaker is secretly homosexual and assumes everybody else is too. I mean, if it was suddenly considered ok to be homosexual, you really think we'd all be homosexual? And do you really think there is a shortage of births in the world today?

Finally, "not endorsing and promoting homosexuality" is fine. That is entirely different from equating homosexuals with pedophiles and rapists. And it is quite different from denying homosexuals the right to marry (given a church who is cool with doing the ceremony). And it is quite different form making homosexual acts illegal and punishable (as has happened in various places, usually by religious folk)
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 02:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
The question people should ask themselves is what makes homosexuality unacceptable?
Yes. That is the heart of it. And the answer is twofold. (1) Religion. (2) the "eeeww" factor.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-20-2011, 02:15 AM
^ Yay you answered the question. So answer mine now if you want.

What makes homosexuality acceptable?
Reply

Aprender
02-20-2011, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Yes. That is the heart of it. And the answer is twofold. (1) Religion. (2) the "eeeww" factor.
LOL @ "eww" factor. Any way you put it, religious or not, there are going to be some people out there who just aren't OK with it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
LOL @ "eww" factor. Any way you put it, religious or not, there are going to be some people out there who just aren't OK with it.
I think that "eww" factor stems from imagining oneself engaging in homosexual sex and being revolted by it. I see that as not so different from ugly people though; same "eww" factor. And if that's enough to stop homosexuals from getting married, then perhaps we should stop ugly people from getting married too.

Oh and before somebody takes a cheap shot and calls me ugly (and you know they will), I am actually quite dashing (and modest too! lol) :p
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-20-2011, 02:34 AM
Its funny for two sausage owners to play with each other's sausages. thats why its disgusting.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 02:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
The question people should ask themselves is what makes homosexuality unacceptable?

Truth of the matter is no one cares for anyone' sexual orientation if they didn't bring it into the foyer. People don't go advertising their heterosexuality and by the same token they shouldn't advertise their homosexuality.. people shouldn't advertise their pre-marital or extramarital affairs either.. if you're going to commit a known sin then have the common decency not to brag about it!

all the best
Reply

Aprender
02-20-2011, 02:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I think that "eww" factor stems from imagining oneself engaging in homosexual sex and being revolted by it. I see that as not so different from ugly people though; same "eww" factor. And if that's enough to stop homosexuals from getting married, then perhaps we should stop ugly people from getting married too.

Oh and before somebody takes a cheap shot and calls me ugly (and you know they will), I am actually quite dashing (and modest too! lol) :p
LOL. Being modest rocks. This is stretching it a bit, but through artificial natural selection, don't we kind of already stop "ugly" people from getting married? At least here in the west.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 02:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I think that "eww" factor stems from imagining oneself engaging in homosexual sex and being revolted by it. I see that as not so different from ugly people though; same "eww" factor. And if that's enough to stop homosexuals from getting married, then perhaps we should stop ugly people from getting married too.

Oh and before somebody takes a cheap shot and calls me ugly (and you know they will), I am actually quite dashing (and modest too! lol) :p
ugly people don't hold parades about their ugly selves engaging in sex or force books about their ugly selves on first graders.

Of course beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.. I find it hard to believe that anyone would truly know you as you display yourself here and find you at all attractive!

all the best
Reply

Aprender
02-20-2011, 02:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
Its funny for two sausage owners to play with each other's sausages. thats why its disgusting.
o_O. Terrible mental image. Now I have to go pray.
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-20-2011, 02:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
o_O. Terrible mental image. Now I have to go pray.
well i am kind of surprised that the word "homosexual" doesnt evoke equally terrible mental images in your brain.

On an aside, this reminds of this Muslim girl in my class talking about how shes not going to take bus to go to her city anymore. Upon asking why, the reply was "this terrible cow-boy hat wearing homophobic was sitting beside me, making comments against two lovely gays sitting in the front seat, I hate to be around homophobics, they are dangerous."
Reply

Godel escher
02-20-2011, 02:57 AM
Are some people actually claiming that legalization of homosexuality will lead to man - goat or pedophilia ? LOL

It's like saying :

  1. If A is true then it implies, causes, may cause people to, or creates, B.
  2. B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, has a negative consequence.
  3. Therefore, A is false.

It's a slippery slope fallacy. Its like creationists claiming that teaching evolution may lead to some people theorizing eugenics and eugenics is bad, therefore teaching evolution, and even evolution itself, is wrong.

Makes perfect sense.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 02:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Godel escher
Are some people actually claiming that legalization of homosexuality will lead to man - goat or pedophilia ? LOL It's like saying : 1. If A is true then it implies, causes, may cause people to, or creates, B. 2. B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, has a negative consequence. 3. Therefore, A is false. It's a slippery slope fallacy. Its like creationists claiming that teaching evolution may lead to some people theorizing eugenics and eugenics is bad, therefore teaching evolution, and even evolution itself, is wrong. Makes perfect sense.
That is not what anyone is saying.. are you reading the same pages as the rest of us or just wanted to review your first year in college courses publicly?
Reply

Banu_Hashim
02-20-2011, 03:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I personally don't understand why gay couples would seek a church wedding as opposed to a civil one? This is clearly not a union recognized by God, so what is the point of this?
lol, that's the funniest thing. This is their desperate attempt to be recognised by everyone. But there you go, that's how stupid they are.
Reply

Godel escher
02-20-2011, 03:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That is not what anyone is saying.. are you reading the same pages as the rest of us or just wanted to review your first year in college courses publicly?
Hmm...

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Jesus also never expressly forbid bestiality and necrophilia.

So when's your church going to marry a man with his goat, or a woman with a deceased priest?

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter.
format_quote Originally Posted by lostsoul99
you tell 'em sister lol. homosexuality is just like pedophilia.. sexual deviancy of a sickening kind. the pedophiles have a civil rights movement too.. are these homo-lovers gonna grant pedophiles their rights too and let them molest their kids? i doubt it. they lock up pedophiles but act like homosexuals are normal.. sickening.
Reading comprehension fail lady?
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 03:14 AM
bored out of your wits in philosophy 101 & what better way pray do tell to review a worthless elective, raise your GPA and 'sound smart' than expressing some concocted bull **** on an Islamic forum.. you know if the rumors from last night's ten o'clock news are correct and they so often are on corporate media this fellow can be hailed as king in five posts flat!
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 03:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Godel escher
Hmm...

Reading comprehension fail lady?
stuck at a preoperational stage or why not the crap?
Reply

Lynx
02-20-2011, 03:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
^ Yay you answered the question. So answer mine now if you want.

What makes homosexuality acceptable?
If there's nothing unacceptable about it then why shouldn't we say it's acceptable ;\
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 03:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
If there's nothing unacceptable about it then why shouldn't we say it's acceptable ;\

what makes something acceptable?
there is a laundry list of why homosexuality isn't acceptable in singularity without having to be made an object of comparison to other things!
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 03:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Are you for real?! All that casual sex, feminism and homosexuality has resulted in;

the world popupation growth is certainly not caused by casual sex, feminism and homosexuality.

Just check the natural population growth in europe.

For more focused statistics, you will be pleased with the natural population growth in west hollywood, ca. or west village, nyc
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 03:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Are some people actually claiming that legalization of homosexuality will lead to man - goat or pedophilia ? LOL

no one has said that.

Are you imagining things?

It's amazing how atheists keep bragging how rational and intelligence they are, and yet in this thread alone there are a few who have spectacularly failed at those by writing posts that display their lack of reading comprehension (at least)
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 03:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Hmm... Quote Originally Posted by naidamar View Post Jesus also never expressly forbid bestiality and necrophilia. So when's your church going to marry a man with his goat, or a woman with a deceased priest? Quote Originally Posted by naidamar View Post It's only a matter of time before a church bless a marriage between a father and his daughter. Quote Originally Posted by lostsoul99 View Post you tell 'em sister lol. homosexuality is just like pedophilia.. sexual deviancy of a sickening kind. the pedophiles have a civil rights movement too.. are these homo-lovers gonna grant pedophiles their rights too and let them molest their kids? i doubt it. they lock up pedophiles but act like homosexuals are normal.. sickening. Reading comprehension fail lady?
This is what you wrote:

format_quote Originally Posted by
Are some people actually claiming that legalization of homosexuality will lead to man - goat or pedophilia ? LOL
Did I say legalization or refer to legalization in my sentences?

unless you believe the church have the power over state.

Also, did you actually read the preceding posts/arguments that lead me to say "Jesus also never expressly forbid bestiality and necrophilia"?

Apparently my advice apply to all atheists in this forum: Read all the posts in the thread before jumping in.
Reply

Lynx
02-20-2011, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


what makes something acceptable?
there is a laundry list of why homosexuality isn't acceptable in singularity without having to be made an object of comparison to other things!
Well don't keep us in suspense :)
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 07:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Well don't keep us in suspense

There's been plenty of threads in the past about the subject of homosexuality. You can use the search function, but if you are too lazy, here's a few of them:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ty-chosen.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/23789-us-military-deems-homosexuality-mental-disorder.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...y-animals.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...rate-them.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...sexuality.html

Now, if the subject of homosexuality so interests you or you have any specific issue to raise that was not answered in those threads, you can start a new thread.
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 08:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
the world popupation growth is certainly not caused by casual sex, feminism and homosexuality.
I never claimed that it was. It has not, however been inhibited by those things or at least, if it has, the more inhibition the better!


Anyway, back on topic, the homophobic contingent is really gonna like this. :D

British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 08:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I never claimed that it was. It has not, however been inhibited by those things
Are you sure about this?
I'd like some data, preferably from areas where practices of casual sex, feminism and homosexuality are rampant.
Logic and reason alone dictate that population growth should be stunted by those practices.


format_quote Originally Posted by
British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings
It will be the end of the world when what those people seek materialize.
Reply

Woodrow
02-20-2011, 09:16 AM
One problem is in how to define marriage. You have business concepts, social concepts, legal concepts and religious concepts for just a few. The religious concept is going to be based upon the faith the person follows in Islam and probably in all of the Abrahamic Monotheistic faiths a marriage between people of the same gender is an impossibility. Same gender marriage does not meet the definition of marriage in the Islamic concept.

The legal concept of marriage is essentially the same as a corporate merger agreed upon by 2 business entities and is used as the basis for taxation purposes and the legal responsibilities of the entities involved regarding future income/benefit/liability division and the obligation of each if the merger is dissolved.

I do not like to use the word never as that implies I know all of the potential possibilities, which I do not know so I will simply use the word seldom. In regards to the legal and religious concepts of marriage seldom will the twain meet. A secular nation under the State laws is only concerned about the legal concept. A religion that succumbs to altering it's belief to align with the legal secular contract will most likely be changing it's original religious beliefs and be the same religion in name only.
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 10:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
It will be the end of the world when what those people seek materialize.
I doubt it. Hopefully it will just be the end of incidents like this, though, Tale of gay woman forced to marry to protect 'honour'

A demonstration of what really should be 'unacceptable'.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 12:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I doubt it. Hopefully it will just be the end of incidents like this, though, Tale of gay woman forced to marry to protect 'honour' A demonstration of what really should be 'unacceptable'.

That kind of things happen across nations, cultures and religions and all kinds of creeds (including among atheists).
Don't believe me? I can google it for you if you want. Just like you did with Islam + gay marriages


It's your wishful thinking that gay marriages will be officiated in Islam, just like your wishful thinking that there's no god or after life.
Reply

سيف الله
02-20-2011, 12:58 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:wa:

There have been attempts, like the Quillam Foundation. Thankfully, they are not working.
First of all Id like to recommend this book, obviously I dont agree with everything it says (hes a right winger) but its worth reading for a different perspective on how Christianity and its culture was marginalised from society (among many other things to do with British politics).




On the Quillam foundation - Yes despite the millions of taxpayers money they have been given. In fact under New Labour there was a governmental department dedicated to creation of a new 'Islamic theology' which of course happens to be perfectly in line with their secular liberal ideology. (surprise, surprise).

There is a relentless propoganda war against Islam and it seems there favoured strategy is to dismember our undertanding of the faith. Whats particularly distrubing about it is how the establishment want to define Islam as they see fit. From the UK perspective look at the amount of documentarys targetting the muslim community, and the amount of media coverage given to 'secularised' Muslims, compared to those who actually practice the faith.

Though there has been a slight change in the propoganda line. Suddenly so called 'devout' Muslims are appearing out of the woodwork, trying to convince us to adopt the government line.

I wouldnt be surprised if the secular/liberal elites are trying to forment 'civil war' within the muslim community so to speak, the usual 'divide and conquer' strategy. Not a new strategy if you look a British colonial history.

On another many gay people are not enthusiasitic about getting married.

Tisthammerw

A most interesting link for this discussion! Some noteworthy points from the link:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.

For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don’t deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.

Gays want to be accepted by society broadly. Usually they demand that they are accepted as they are, and that society’s expectations morph to accommodate their lifestyles. But in rejecting civil unions as insufficient, they are revealing their hand — they don’t just want acceptance as they are, they want to mimic heterosexuals.

....You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble


Anyway, back on topic, the homophobic contingent. . . . . .
No, its to do with understanding the basics of Islam. The idea of 'Gay' Islamic marriage is preposterous - do these people even understand the basics of the faith? The history of the faith? This is basic BASIC stuff.

Finally

Joel

I'd be fine with that. Homosexuals can set up their own institution of farriage which means they're going to love each one person of the same sex for life. I'm good with that. They're well within their rights to do so.

Now the debate will shift to whether or not farriage is something that we as a society deem beneficial and noteworthy to the point that we the people should support and affirm it the same way we do marriage. That's a very different issue and one that I can see both sides of. But it is a much easier debate to have once we've stopped conflating idea that gay marriage is identical in every way to actual marriage (and, therefore, we're able to avoid pitfalls like the idea that anyone who wishes to point out that there is a legitimate distinction between the two is an antiquated bigot).
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
That kind of things happen across nations, cultures and religions and all kinds of creeds (including among atheists).

Don't believe me? I can google it for you if you want. Just like you did with Islam + gay marriages
Actually, I didn't google anything. The first story is one of today's headlines at BBC news. The second was linked from there.

So I'll leave the googling to you as your penance for being a smartass. A few examples of forced atheist marriage to avoid loss of 'honor' in this context would be great.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
So I'll leave the googling to you as your penance for being a smartass. A few examples of forced atheist marriage to avoid loss of 'honor' in this context would be great.


I am sure you will be happy and pleasantly surprised to find out that the atheists of your fellow buddhists are among those at the forefront of forced marriages for lesbian daughters:

http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mNVSAqG1lp
Although as a teenager, Sanh wore men’s clothes and had a girlfriend, her parents arranged for her to marry a marine officer in 1969. She was deeply unhappy about it, but she had to honour her parent’s wishes. Sanh has lived her whole life experiencing discrimination from her family and her community.

http://ilga.org/ilga/en/countries/WORLD/Your%20Stories
Su is a femme who has been forced to get married when she was just 16. She took poisoning drug once her parents forced her to get married and stopped her from loving with another girl.

There are also a few stories about lesbians forced into marriages by their buddhist parents in this books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=X6-...page&q&f=false
http://unilife.curtin.edu.au/sexuald...lth_access.pdf
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 04:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Well don't keep us in suspense :)
1- Lower life expectancy than the rest of the population independent of HIV although not excluding it. (depression, substance abuse, suicide)
2- higher rate of anal fissures than the rest of the population (although I did say I'd not make this an object of comparison)
3- higher rate of anal cancer http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200...er-experts-say
4-non-epidemic Kaposi' sarcoma independent of HIV exclusively in gay/bisexual men http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6116083
5-Polyamory in a same-sex setting Polyamory is "a well-accepted part of gay subculture", although "often viewed by some therapists as problematic";[37] somewhere between 30%[38] and 67%[39] of men in male couples report being in a sexually non-monogamous relationship. According to Coleman & Rosser (1996), "although a majority of male couples are not sexually exclusive, they are in fact emotionally monogamous."[40] Shernoff states that:
One of the biggest differences between male couples and mixed sex couples is that many, but by no means all within the gay community have an easier acceptance of sexual nonexclusivity than does heterosexual society in general [....] Research confirms that nonmonogamy in and of itself does not create a problem for male couples when it has been openly negotiated.[41] Source
6-Pneumocystis carinii, Cryptococcus neoformans http://www.annals.org/content/96/6/700.full.pdf
7-Giardia lamblia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045343/
8-"Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals: http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=7907017

We could be here all day but I think the most important disappointment of all living outside of God's grace and laws.

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
One problem is in how to define marriage. You have business concepts, social concepts, legal concepts and religious concepts for just a few.
Yes and I think that is the heart of the problem. We use "marriage" to define too many things and it causes blurs, one of which is of the line of separation between church and state. What do you think of my suggested solution back on page 29 of this thread?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Have the state recognize something we call "civil union" that carries with it all the legal rights marriage now does. Have this "civil union" be a contract that any pair of people can enter (or maybe threesomes or foursomes). Men can enter this with women, with men, with friends, with siblings, whatever. Have no romantic or spiritual attachment to it whatsoever.

Then have "marriage" be a spiritual bond between people, with no legal implicaitons or rights attached to it. Then various religions may recognize (or reject) people as being in marriages however they like, and they need not agree with one another. The pious church or mosque can then reject homosexual marriage while the liberal one accepts it. The mormons or muslims could have poligamous marriage and the christian church need not recognize it.

I see this homosexual marriage issue as opening up a broader issue of the separation of church and state. The church has no business telling the state who should be entitled to certain legal rights. And equally, the state has no business telling the church who must be recognized as being in a spiritual union.

Would you accept this compromise? If not, why not?
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
(depression, substance abuse, suicide)
And why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with people and religions constantly telling them they should be ashamed for being who they are? You complain about "gay pride". Gay Pride is the direct result of Gay Shame. It is the homosexuals way of speaking back to a society that constantly shames him/her.

5-Polyamory in a same-sex setting Polyamory is "a well-accepted part of gay subculture", although "often viewed by some therapists as problematic";[37] somewhere between 30%[38] and 67%[39] of men in male couples report being in a sexually non-monogamous relationship. According to Coleman & Rosser (1996), "although a majority of male couples are not sexually exclusive, they are in fact emotionally monogamous."[40] Shernoff states that:[INDENT] One of the biggest differences between male couples and mixed sex couples is that many, but by no means all within the gay community have an easier acceptance of sexual nonexclusivity than does heterosexual society in general [....] Research confirms that nonmonogamy in and of itself does not create a problem for male couples when it has been openly negotiated.[41] Source
This one is the most fascinating in the setting of this thread. People complain about Gay people being promiscuous, and then rail against them for publicly declaring a meaningful long term monogamous relationship (marriage).
Reply

glo
02-20-2011, 04:39 PM
British gay Muslims are joining the global fight for equality and seeking gay Islamic marriage. The BBC's 5 live Investigates speaks to one couple about their 'nikah' - a Muslim matrimonial contract - and asks how they balance their sexuality with the Islamic faith.

[...]

Asra and Sarah decided upon a 'nikah' - a Muslim matrimonial contract. Whilst nikahs have traditionally been the reserve of heterosexual Muslims, Asra and Sarah were aware that other gay Muslims had followed this route and the couple decided to investigate further.

[...]

Sarah and Asra know their marriage is unorthodox, and the idea of a gay nikah would be rejected by the majority of Muslim scholars, but Sarah says it is nobody's business.
"It is between me and God, and when we got married it was not ideal, but we were doing our best."

However, there is a small but growing voice within the Muslim community representing gay people, with the emergence of British gay Muslim support groups such as Imaan and Safra Project.

One of the key advocates of Muslim gay marriage is the American Imam, Daayiee Abdullah - who himself is gay. He has performed a number of gay nikahs in America and has also advised gay British Muslim couples on how to perform the ceremony.

He reasons that to deny gay Muslim couples the right to a religious union, goes against teachings in the Koran.
Speaking to 5 live Investigates, he says: "Since Islamic legal precedence does not allow same sexes to wed, Muslim societies make it a legal impossibility within Islam [but] by not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Koran's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003
Reply

glo
02-20-2011, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This one is the most fascinating in the setting of this thread. People complain about Gay people being promiscuous, and then rail against them for publicly declaring a meaningful long term monogamous relationship (marriage).
One argument I have heard from Christians (gay and straight) is that the Bible places a greater emphasis on faithful and committed relationships (= marriage), and that the homosexual/heterosexual element is of lesser significance.
Thereby, by denying gay couples the opportunity to express their commitment to each other, they then 'fall into sin' in two areas - not being straight and not being married.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 04:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with people and religions constantly telling them they should be ashamed for being who they are? You complain about "gay pride". Gay Pride is the direct result of Gay Shame. It is the homosexuals way of speaking back to a society that constantly shames him/her.
Because they've chosen an unnatural lifestyle and not due to some speculative thoughts that you've concocted .. Perry Moore the latest casualty, wasn't only openly gay but had fame and fortune and acceptance went on to write a novel about a 'gay superhero' was found dead by his partner from just that drug overdose not lack of acceptance.. Stop looking for a scapegoat to placate yourself and dispense with excuses as to why they turn to drugs and alcohol. Yes everyone who loses a job or a marriage turns to drugs and alcohol and suicide because society forced them to!
give me a break!

This one is the most fascinating in the setting of this thread. People complain about Gay people being promiscuous, and then rail against them for publicly declaring a meaningful long term monogamous relationship (marriage).
firstly their marriages don't last and secondly a marriage doesn't preclude them from having 'swinging' parties or switching partners in fact as the quote above suggests emotional commitment doesn't equate with physical exclusivity.. which makes it another conundrum as to why a church marriage is necessary at all?

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 05:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
This has been posted by Trumble in his post number 122, what's your point in posting this story again, Glo?

Is there any specific issue about the story you want to discuss?
Reply

glo
02-20-2011, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
firstly their [homosexuals] marriages don't last and secondly a marriage doesn't preclude them from having 'swinging' parties or switching partners [...]

all the best
No offense, but that's a very sweeping statement to make about the whole homosexual community.

Where do you draw that conclusion from?
If nothing else, civil partnerships have not been around long enough to establish any evidence as to whether they will last longer, shorter or as long as their heterosexual counterparts ... and gay marriages (at least here in the UK) have not yet been legalised.

I know this is only anecdotal, but I know of several homosexual couples, which are in a) faithful, b) loving and c) long-standing relationships.
Whilst that hardly counts as evidence, as least it disproves your stereotypical view that homosexual relationships "don't last and don't preclude gay people from having 'swinging' parties or switching partners" ...
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo

One argument I have heard from Christians (gay and straight) is that the Bible places a greater emphasis on faithful and committed relationships (= marriage), and that the homosexual/heterosexual element is of lesser significance.
Thereby, by denying gay couples the opportunity to express their commitment to each other, they then 'fall into sin' in two areas - not being straight and not being married.

But what do YOU actually think about gay marriage, glo?
Or for that matter, people who continue to engage in homosexual acts?
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 05:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
No offense, but that's a very sweeping statement to make about the whole homosexual community.
I never take offense from someone this emotive and pedestrian!
Where do you draw that conclusion from?
If nothing else, civil partnerships have not been around long enough to establish any evidence as to whether they will last longer, shorter or as long as their heterosexual counterparts ... and gay marriages (at least here in the UK) have not yet been legalised.
From research done on the matter!
I know this is only anecdotal, but I know of several homosexual couples, which are in a) faithful, b) loving and c) long-standing relationships.
Whilst that hardly counts as evidence, as least it disproves your stereotypical view that homosexual relationships "don't last and don't preclude gay people from having 'swinging' parties or switching partners" ...
What you know is negligible in the scheme of the bigger picture!

all the best
Reply

glo
02-20-2011, 05:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

This has been posted by Trumble in his post number 122, what's your point in posting this story again, Glo?

Is there any specific issue about the story you want to discuss?
I realise that now, naidamar.
I came across the article on the BBC site, which I visit most days, and thought it fitted very well into this topic.

I posted it without having read the whole thread (which had grown considerable since last visiting it).
If the mods think it appropriate, I am happy for them to remove my post, since it duplicates what Trumble had already posted.

I think the overriding issue for me in this thread is that - whatever our views on homosexuality may be - the gay community is here to stay!
The times when gay people were afraid to come out and be honest about their sexuality and themselves are over, and in my view that is a positive thing.
Gay people coming out in religious communities, even strict religious communities, just shows that they are gathering strength and confidence and self-respect.

So, whatever the outcome and whatever out personal stance, we as religious communities have to get our heads around this, and learn to deal with our homosexual friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way.
Trying to see life from the viewpoint of others is something I sometimes feel challenged about, but more often get excited by.
Reply

glo
02-20-2011, 05:38 PM
Please share the research you have done, Vale's Lily. I would be interested to understand the nature of homosexual relationships better.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Please share the research you have done, Vale's Lily. I would be interested to understand the nature of homosexual relationships better.

flip to the previous page and click on the numerous links provided!

all the best
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-20-2011, 05:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I realise that now, naidamar.
I came across the article on the BBC site, which I visit most days, and thought it fitted very well into this topic.

I posted it without having read the whole thread (which had grown considerable since last visiting it).
If the mods think it appropriate, I am happy for them to remove my post, since it duplicates what Trumble had already posted.

I think the overriding issue for me in this thread is that - whatever our views on homosexuality may be - the gay community is here to stay!
The times when gay people were afraid to come out and be honest about their sexuality and themselves are over, and in my view that is a positive thing.
Gay people coming out in religious communities, even strict religious communities, just shows that they are gathering strength and confidence and self-respect.

So, whatever the outcome and whatever out personal stance, we as religious communities have to get our heads around this, and learn to deal with our homosexual friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way.
Trying to see life from the viewpoint of others is something I sometimes feel challenged about, but more often get excited by.
Well strict Islamic communities do not want gays to have such "strength and courage." We will do anything, in our power, as ordained by God to prevent fags coming out in our Islamic communities. The Islamic community in which I decide to settle in with my family, I would not like myself and them to even "see" a homosexual "Muslim" walking down the street.
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I am sure you will be happy and pleasantly surprised to find out that the atheists of your fellow buddhists are among those at the forefront of forced marriages for lesbian daughters
Were there anything in any of those that stated the parents concerned were Buddhists, I most certainly wouldn't be. However, that does seem likely and I'm afraid neither Buddhists nor atheists are guaranteed to be free of homophobia or bigotism in general. This was encouraging, though.

There are conflicting opinions within Khmer Buddhism as to the morality of homosexuality. While some texts condemn homosexuality as immoral, there are others that say it does not conflict with Buddhist ideology. During a recent workshop for LGBT people and their families, a highly regarded monk explained that Buddhist teaching simply asks that people live good lives, regardless of who they loved.
I'm not sure why you included the last. It is about transgender people, not lesbians.
Reply

ardianto
02-20-2011, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I never claimed that it was. It has not, however been inhibited by those things or at least, if it has, the more inhibition the better!


Anyway, back on topic, the homophobic contingent is really gonna like this. :D

British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings
Maybe they assume if story of Prophet Luth/Lot (as) that mentioned in Qur'an is just a fiction.

Al-A'raaf : 80-84
Huud : 77-83
As-Shuaraa : 160-173
Al-Hijr : 59-74
An-Naml : 54-58
Al-Ankabut : 26-33
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Maybe they assume if story of Prophet Luth/Lot (as) that mentioned in Qur'an is just a fiction.

Al-A'raaf : 80-84
Huud : 77-83
As-Shuaraa : 160-173
Al-Hijr : 59-74
An-Naml : 54-58
Al-Ankabut : 26-33

There is no such thing as gay and Muslim.. They have to choose one or the other.. and they're certainly more than welcome to leave a religion that under no circumstance will make this abomination an allowance!

:w:
Reply

GuestFellow
02-20-2011, 07:13 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
One problem is in how to define marriage.
format_quote Originally Posted by Marriage
Legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.
^ Definition of marriage according to Microsoft Dictionary. I could use the Cambridge Dictionary but it is so big. :skeleton:

format_quote Originally Posted by Godel escher
Are some people actually claiming that legalization of homosexuality will lead to man - goat or pedophilia ?
No.

format_quote Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
lol, that's the funniest thing. This is their desperate attempt to be recognised by everyone. But there you go, that's how stupid they are.
Yes, it is a matter of acceptance.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
If there's nothing unacceptable about it then why shouldn't we say it's acceptable ;\
A member said homosexuality is unacceptable due to religion. So I'm asking you what makes homosexuality acceptable? I would like to hear your arguments for supporting homosexuality, that is all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Anyway, back on topic, the homophobic contingent is really gonna like this. :D

British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings
I'm not surprised.
Reply

Woodrow
02-20-2011, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:sl:


^ Definition of marriage according to Microsoft Dictionary. I could use the Cambridge Dictionary but it is so big. :skeleton:


.
From Merrian Webster:

mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
the definition of marriage seems to depend on who is writing the definition.
Reply

Trumble
02-20-2011, 10:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
There is no such thing as gay and Muslim.. They have to choose one or the other.. and they're certainly more than welcome to leave a religion that under no circumstance will make this abomination an allowance!
Obviously some people who consider themselves muslim disagree with you, and do not accept they 'have' to choose.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-20-2011, 10:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Obviously some people who consider themselves muslim disagree with you, and do not accept they 'have' to choose.
I agree that people do not choose their sexual attraction. There are people attracted to strange things like objects and even anime characters. People, however, can control their sexual urges. So if two male Muslims have sex, then they chose to do this.
Reply

جوري
02-20-2011, 11:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Obviously some people who consider themselves muslim disagree with you, and do not accept they 'have' to choose.
They very much have to choose.. and I have posted a story of a Muslim (homosexual) here before who made the choice to become Muslim over his base sexual desires and feels 'cured' of his unnatural attractions.. went on to marry and have a happy life, started a website to help others like him.

So yes it is a choice..You don't get to define the terms of the religion and neither do they. Islam is a done deal, the book has been written.. there are no reformations! If you desire to practice homosexuality then you can't be a Muslim!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
02-20-2011, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Islam is a done deal, the book has been written.. there are no reformations! If you desire to practice homosexuality then you can't be a Muslim!

all the best
:sl:

I disagree there. There are Muslims that commit serious sins such as rape and murder. These Muslims, however, are still Muslim but not very good ones.
Reply

سيف الله
02-20-2011, 11:38 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Obviously some people who consider themselves muslim disagree with you, and do not accept they 'have' to choose.
No, its to do with understanding the basics of Islam. The idea of 'Gay' Islamic marriage is preposterous - do these people even understand the basics of the faith? The history of the faith? This is basic BASIC stuff. Islam does not permit same-sex Islamic marriage period.

End of discussion.

He reasons that to deny gay Muslim couples the right to a religious union, goes against teachings in the Koran.
Speaking to 5 live Investigates, he says: "Since Islamic legal precedence does not allow same sexes to wed, Muslim societies make it a legal impossibility within Islam [but] by not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Koran's message that each person has a mate who is their 'comfort and their cloak'."
This is so moronic one wonders how to begin. This is an affront to basic BASIC Islamic scholarship, seriously +o(
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 12:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
So, whatever the outcome and whatever out personal stance, we as religious communities have to get our heads around this, and learn to deal with our homosexual friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way.
I don't see why we have to be accepting of someone who is openly living a sinful life. Would you feel that way about a pedophile or a rapist living next door?
Trying to see life from the viewpoint of others is something I sometimes feel challenged about, but more often get excited by.
I am repulsed by the idea of getting to know what 'goes on in the head' of a fag or a dyke.
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 12:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I don't see why we have to be accepting of someone who is openly living a sinful life. Would you feel that way about a pedophile or a rapist living next door?I am repulsed by the idea of getting to know what 'goes on in the head' of a fag or a dyke.
Wow, where to begin? First off, calling them "fags" or "dykes" isn't really very Islamic of you. Actually, nothing you've said here seems particularly Islamic, and I suggest you spend some time trying to better yourself (according to the Prophet's (pbuh) example perhaps?) instead of running your mouth here. Realize that you, and everyone else, is technically living a sinful life, and if you don't think you are then you're lying to yourself. Treating someone like a human being does not mean you have to compromise your beliefs. Nobody wants you to say that it's okay in Islam for someone to engage in homosexual behavior. We all know it's a sin. But you don't have a right to be such a prick.

For all you know, those "fags" and "dykes" are in better standing with God then you are.
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-21-2011, 01:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


There is no such thing as gay and Muslim.. They have to choose one or the other.. and they're certainly more than welcome to leave a religion that under no circumstance will make this abomination an allowance!

:w:
Disagree and Islamically i would have thought you are wrong. Its a sin, albeit a major one but it does not take anyone out of the fold of Islam if committed.
May Allah Azzawajal keep us away from such evil
Ameen
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
There is no such thing as gay and Muslim.. They have to choose one or the other.. and they're certainly more than welcome to leave a religion that under no circumstance will make this abomination an allowance!

there are no reformations! If you desire to practice homosexuality then you can't be a Muslim!
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:sl:

I disagree there. There are Muslims that commit serious sins such as rape and murder. These Muslims, however, are still Muslim but not very good ones.
format_quote Originally Posted by Lost Identity
Disagree and Islamically i would have thought you are wrong. Its a sin, albeit a major one but it does not take anyone out of the fold of Islam if committed.
May Allah Azzawajal keep us away from such evil
Ameen
I wanted to post something similar earlier, but you two (Guestfellow & Lost Identity) beat me to it... Here's a video that I was reminded of that might help clarify some things:

Reply

Perseveranze
02-21-2011, 01:06 AM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Ah... This topic for some reason reminds me of Iran's president... When he said to Americans, "atleast we don't have gays" lol.

Anyways, I'm just curious, is there such a thing as Gay Animals?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I don't see why we have to be accepting of someone who is openly living a sinful life. Would you feel that way about a pedophile or a rapist living next door?I am repulsed by the idea of getting to know what 'goes on in the head' of a fag or a dyke.
:sl:

There is no need to use offensive terms.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
But you don't have a right to be such a prick.
There is no need to call anyone a "prick."

You, however, did raise good points. All of us committed sins. I personally have committed terrible sins (e.g. leaving Islam), so I am in no position to judge anyone. I doubt anyone here is perfect, so the same applies to you all. Yes homosexuality is a sin but we have to treat them like human beings and there is no need to use offensive terms to portray the seriousness of the sin. The punishment of this sin should be sufficient to show others how serious this sin is.

We do not have to accept homosexuality but we have to tolerate it, like how we tolerate other sins.

format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Ah... This topic for some reason reminds me of Iran's president... When he said to Americans, "atleast we don't have gays" lol.
I really did not expect him to say that when I listened to his speech at the University.

Anyways, I'm just curious, is there such a thing as Gay Animals?
From what I have heard, homosexuality has been documented in the animal kingdom but I remember my science teacher telling the class that animals have no control over their sexual urges (not sure if it is true). In addition, what occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is healthy for humans...the black widow spider is one example. :skeleton:
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 01:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
There is no need to call anyone a "prick."
Prick is just another way of saying "obnoxious"... Would you rather I used that instead? I thought it was fairly appropriate.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

Wow, where to begin? First off, calling them "fags" or "dykes" isn't really very Islamic of you. Actually, nothing you've said here seems particularly Islamic, and I suggest you spend some time trying to better yourself (according to the Prophet's (pbuh) example perhaps?) instead of running your mouth here. Realize that you, and everyone else, is technically living a sinful life, and if you don't think you are then you're lying to yourself. Treating someone like a human being does not mean you have to compromise your beliefs. Nobody wants you to say that it's okay in Islam for someone to engage in homosexual behavior. We all know it's a sin. But you don't have a right to be such a prick.

For all you know, those "fags" and "dykes" are in better standing with God then you are.
For those unfamiliar with American slang, a few definitions:

Fag - short for faggot - is a pejorative term and common homophobic slur used chiefly in North America against homosexual males. Its pejorative use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including movies, music, and the Internet.

Pejoratives are words or grammatical forms that denote a negative effect; that is, they express the contempt or distaste of the speaker.

Dyke - slang terminology referring to a lesbian or lesbianism. It originated as a derogatory label for a masculine or butch woman, and this usage still exists. However, some attempt to use it in a manner they see as positive, or simply as a neutral synonym for lesbian.To some extent the word has been reappropriated.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

Prick just means obnoxious. I think it was rather appropriate...
:sl:

You'd be surprised...

format_quote Originally Posted by prick

3. taboo term: a highly offensive term for a penis (taboo)

4. taboo term: a highly offensive term for a man regarded as inadequate or unpleasant (taboo)
^ Microsoft Dictionary....there were other definitions but not necessarily relevant...
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:sl:

You'd be surprised...



^ Microsoft Dictionary....there were other definitions but not necessarily relevant...
Lol, yes, I know that the word has multiple definitions. Lots of words have multiple definitions. I was using it as a synonym for obnoxious, which I thought would be obvious... It should have at least been obvious that I wasn't referring to him as a penis.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
For those unfamiliar with American slang, a few definitions:

Fag - short for faggot - is a pejorative term and common homophobic slur used chiefly in North America against homosexual males. Its pejorative use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including movies, music, and the Internet.

Pejoratives are words or grammatical forms that denote a negative effect; that is, they express the contempt or distaste of the speaker.

Dyke - slang terminology referring to a lesbian or lesbianism. It originated as a derogatory label for a masculine or butch woman, and this usage still exists. However, some attempt to use it in a manner they see as positive, or simply as a neutral synonym for lesbian.To some extent the word has been reappropriated.
Umm... What are you trying to show with this post? Are you just making sure everyone else understands the hatefulness of your last post?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
For those unfamiliar with American slang, a few definitions:

Fag - short for faggot - is a pejorative term and common homophobic slur used chiefly in North America against homosexual males. Its pejorative use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including movies, music, and the Internet.

Dyke - slang terminology referring to a lesbian or lesbianism. It originated as a derogatory label for a masculine or butch woman, and this usage still exists. However, some attempt to use it in a manner they see as positive, or simply as a neutral synonym for lesbian.To some extent the word has been reappropriated.
But these terms are offensive...

format_quote Originally Posted by Fag
North America an offensive term for a gay man (slang)
format_quote Originally Posted by Dyke
An offensive term for a lesbian (slang)
^ Definitions from Microsoft Dictionary, there were other definitions but not relevant to the topic.

What do we actually achieve from using these terms?
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 01:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I disagree there. There are Muslims that commit serious sins such as rape and murder. These Muslims, however, are still Muslim but not very good ones.

You're entitled to disagree, however homosexuality isn't recognized in Islam as such you can't be both homosexual and a practicing Muslim.. you'd be a fasiq/fasid.. there is always room for repentance but until repentance is sincere and accepted by Allah swt you're pretty much living on the outside of what Islamic tenets. Again, one can't be a practicing homosexual and a practicing Muslim.
It is like being an honest and a cheat at the same time.. how can you be two contradictions at once?

and Allah swt knows best

:w:
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 01:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You're entitled to disagree, however homosexuality isn't recognized in Islam as such you can't be both homosexual and a practicing Muslim.. you'd be a fasiq/fasid.. there is always room for repentance but until repentance is sincere and accepted by Allah swt you're pretty much living on the outside of what Islamic tenets. Again, one can't be a practicing homosexual and a practicing Muslim.
It is like being an honest and a cheat at the same time.. how can you be two contradictions at once?

and Allah swt knows best
But wouldn't that take all sinners (like you and me) out of the fold of Islam? Or are you saying that they'd still (technically) be Muslims, just really bad non practicing ones? I'm a bit confused as to what you're really saying, since earlier you said homosexuals can't be Muslims (at all), and now you're saying they can't be practicing Muslims...

Did you by any chance take a look at the video I posted? It's fairly short, and I'd be interested to see your response to it.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 01:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
What do we actually achieve from using these terms?
What we achieve is a sense of distaste and disapproval that is lost in the use of non-offensive terms like 'gay'. This is meant to counteract the sense of acceptance and approval I detected in the post that I had replied to. The intention is to not use watered down terms for what is sinful much like using 'committing adultery' instead of 'having an affair' or to call someone an 'adulterer' instead of a 'cheater'.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

You're entitled to disagree, however homosexuality isn't recognized in Islam as such you can't be both homosexual and a practicing Muslim.. you'd be a fasiq/fasid.. there is always room for repentance but until repentance is sincere and accepted by Allah swt you're pretty much living on the outside of what Islamic tenets. Again, one can't be a practicing homosexual and a practicing Muslim.
It is like being an honest and a cheat at the same time.. how can you be two contradictions at once?

and Allah swt knows best

:w:
I agree, you cannot be a practicing Muslim if your practicing homosexuality. I understand what you meant now.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 01:58 AM
Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah observed: The fornicator who fornicates is not a believer so long as he commits it and no thief who steals is a believer as long as he commits theft, and no drunkard who drinks wine is a believer as long as he drinks it.

Is there any question but that a person in a homosexual relationship is also a fornicator and that he commits a sexual act that is forbidden even between a man and his wife? As has been said by others it is an oxymoron for one to be a "Gay Muslim".

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 02:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah observed: The fornicator who fornicates is not a believer so long as he commits it and no thief who steals is a believer as long as he commits theft, and no drunkard who drinks wine is a believer as long as he drinks it.

Is there any question but that a person in a homosexual relationship is also a fornicator and that he commits a sexual act that is forbidden even between a man and his wife? As has been said by others it is an oxymoron for one to be a "Gay Muslim".

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.
Did you watch the video I posted? The speaker mentions another Hadith that seems to suggest something else...
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 02:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
But wouldn't that take all sinners (like you and me) out of the fold of Islam? Or are you saying that they'd still (technically) be Muslims, just really bad non practicing ones? I'm a bit confused as to what you're really saying, since earlier you said homosexuals can't be Muslims (at all), and now you're saying they can't be practicing Muslims... Did you by any chance take a look at the video I posted? It's fairly short, and I'd be interested to see your response to it.

I didn't watch the video no.. and there are gradations of sins (so even if you consider them Muslims or they consider themselves Muslims, they aren't Muslims anymore than a7madis are, it is in the definition of the word (submitting ones will to God) can you still be a Muslim by the very meaning of the word if you're living outside the folds of Islam? not Muslim at all = non practicing Muslim it is just semantics since what differentiates a Muslim from a kaffr is salaat (and also by its definition means relation to God) can you have a relation with God if you're living outside of the folds of his religion?
I don't really need to watch a video for that.. I don't need to rearrange the words to make this abomination by all Abrahamic religions into something less abominable!
and I don't really care to ride on the political correctness band wagon..
if one thing you should really watch is the story of barsisa



the devil won't dress in red and come to you with something that you'll find frankly wrong.. it will try every portal including appealing to your emotionality and humanness.. little by little until it completely possesses your soul.. but as we know that , "What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognise. He who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and his honour blameless, but he who falls into doubtful things falls into what is unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a national reserve will soon pasture them in it. Every king has a reserve and God's reserve is the things He has declared unlawful." (Bukhari and Muslim).


:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 03:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Did you watch the video I posted?
Yes I did. I mostly agreed with what he said in principle, but I disagree with him in his direct contradiction of the hadith that I quoted above. Yet I agree with him when he says that he does not see a place in Islam for homosexual acts or behavior as being permissible and acceptable and that we should not make a place for homosexuality any more than we should for adultery. He makes a point of accepting a believer with homosexual tendencies as making a place for someone with a ‘problem’, but that we should not accept those who want to redefine what is acceptable behavior in Islam.


From my perspective the modern tendency to handle homosexuality lightly is a general reflection on the general moral decay in society. If someone has these tendencies and occasionally "falls off the wagon" then he should keep both to himself and repent to Allah (swt). He should not broadcast his sin nor demand that he has the right to 'marry' his 'partner' and practice this deviant lifestyle openly.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 03:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I think the overriding issue for me in this thread is that - whatever our views on homosexuality may be - the gay community is here to stay! The times when gay people were afraid to come out and be honest about their sexuality and themselves are over, and in my view that is a positive thing.

Does this mean you don't think anyone practicing homosexual acts living sinful life?


format_quote Originally Posted by
Gay people coming out in religious communities, even strict religious communities, just shows that they are gathering strength and confidence and self-respect.
This is an oxymoron.
How can they be religiously strict AND practicing homosexuals?

Unless, homosexual acts is not considered sinful.

Hence, we go back to asking you:

Do YOU think homosexual acts is sinful?

I need to get clarification because you have been very vague, because in another thread about salvation in christianity, you wrote:
format_quote Originally Posted by
but I have yet to meet a Christian who thinks that all you have to say is 'I believe' ... and then you can continue in your sinful ways as before ...
So it's either you lied or are disingenous, or you think that homosexual acts are absolutely not sinful.


format_quote Originally Posted by
So, whatever the outcome and whatever out personal stance, we as religious communities have to get our heads around this, and learn to deal with our homosexual friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way.
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your thieving friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your rapists friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your paedophile friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your serial murderer friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your serial corruptor-dictator (like mubarak) friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 03:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I didn't watch the video no.. and there are gradations of sins (so even if you consider them Muslims or they consider themselves Muslims, they aren't Muslims anymore than a7madis are, it is in the definition of the word (submitting ones will to God) can you still be a Muslim by the very meaning of the word if you're living outside the folds of Islam? not Muslim at all = non practicing Muslim it is just semantics since what differentiates a Muslim from a kaffr is salaat (and also by its definition means relation to God) can you have a relation with God if you're living outside of the folds of his religion?
I don't really need to watch a video for that.. I don't need to rearrange the words to make this abomination by all Abrahamic religions into something less abominable!
and I don't really care to ride on the political correctness band wagon..
if one thing you should really watch is the story of barsisa

the devil won't dress in red and come to you with something that you'll find frankly wrong.. it will try every portal including appealing to your emotionality and humanness.. little by little until it completely possesses your soul.. but as we know that , "What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognise. He who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and his honour blameless, but he who falls into doubtful things falls into what is unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a national reserve will soon pasture them in it. Every king has a reserve and God's reserve is the things He has declared unlawful." (Bukhari and Muslim).


:w:
I suppose I see what you're saying, but I still think its a tad bit too strict. It seems like from what you're saying, anyone who sins cannot be a Muslim. (if we just go by definitions...) I'm in no way saying homosexual acts are any less reprehensible in Islam, but I just think we need to be careful when we take away the title of "Muslim" from a person... We can just agree to disagree I guess. :p

Oh, I enjoyed the video though. Very interesting and beneficial story.
Reply

Aprender
02-21-2011, 04:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I didn't watch the video no.. and there are gradations of sins (so even if you consider them Muslims or they consider themselves Muslims, they aren't Muslims anymore than a7madis are, it is in the definition of the word (submitting ones will to God) can you still be a Muslim by the very meaning of the word if you're living outside the folds of Islam? not Muslim at all = non practicing Muslim it is just semantics since what differentiates a Muslim from a kaffr is salaat (and also by its definition means relation to God) can you have a relation with God if you're living outside of the folds of his religion?
I don't really need to watch a video for that.. I don't need to rearrange the words to make this abomination by all Abrahamic religions into something less abominable!
and I don't really care to ride on the political correctness band wagon..
if one thing you should really watch is the story of barsisa



the devil won't dress in red and come to you with something that you'll find frankly wrong.. it will try every portal including appealing to your emotionality and humanness.. little by little until it completely possesses your soul.. but as we know that , "What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognise. He who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and his honour blameless, but he who falls into doubtful things falls into what is unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a national reserve will soon pasture them in it. Every king has a reserve and God's reserve is the things He has declared unlawful." (Bukhari and Muslim).


:w:
Thanks for the video. It was very enlightening
Reply

Lynx
02-21-2011, 04:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

1- Lower life expectancy than the rest of the population independent of HIV although not excluding it. (depression, substance abuse, suicide)
2- higher rate of anal fissures than the rest of the population (although I did say I'd not make this an object of comparison)
3- higher rate of anal cancer http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200...er-experts-say
4-non-epidemic Kaposi' sarcoma independent of HIV exclusively in gay/bisexual men http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6116083
5-Polyamory in a same-sex setting Polyamory is "a well-accepted part of gay subculture", although "often viewed by some therapists as problematic";[37] somewhere between 30%[38] and 67%[39] of men in male couples report being in a sexually non-monogamous relationship. According to Coleman & Rosser (1996), "although a majority of male couples are not sexually exclusive, they are in fact emotionally monogamous."[40] Shernoff states that:
One of the biggest differences between male couples and mixed sex couples is that many, but by no means all within the gay community have an easier acceptance of sexual nonexclusivity than does heterosexual society in general [....] Research confirms that nonmonogamy in and of itself does not create a problem for male couples when it has been openly negotiated.[41] Source
6-Pneumocystis carinii, Cryptococcus neoformans http://www.annals.org/content/96/6/700.full.pdf
7-Giardia lamblia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045343/
8-"Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals: http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=7907017

We could be here all day but I think the most important disappointment of all living outside of God's grace and laws.

all the best
either you don't realize that if most A's result in B's it does not prove that all A's result in B's in which case you are logically challenged

OR

you find nothing wrong with any of the homosexual relationships that have not resulted in any of the consequences you've mentioned.

Which is it?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 04:54 AM
The one thing that sets apart "gay muslims" from other sinful muslims (as we all are) is that "gay muslims" (who are proud of their homosexuality and continue to engage in homosexual acts) do not believe that their acts are sinful.
(please note that I differentiated between muslims that have homosexual tendencies but chose not to submit to their lust, and homosexual muslims who do - hence the term "gay muslim")

You may get muslims who are thieves, liars, backbiters, drinkers, adulterers, but do they truly believe that their acts are not sinful?
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
either you don't realize that if most A's result in B's it does not prove that all A's result in B's in which case you are logically challenged

OR

you find nothing wrong with any of the homosexual relationships that have not resulted in any of the consequences you've mentioned.

Which is it?
Any consummated homosexual relationship would result in at least one thing I have mentioned or numerous that I haven't!

all the best
Reply

glo
02-21-2011, 07:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I don't see why we have to be accepting of someone who is openly living a sinful life. Would you feel that way about a pedophile or a rapist living next door?
Hi Mustafa

I didn't say we have to accept people's sinful lifestyles. But we have to accept that gay people exist and are part of our communities - and as faith communities we are called to find ways of living with others peacefully and in friendship.

I cannot equate homosexuals with paedophiles and rapists. The latter pose a risk to children and women, the first simply want to live a peaceful life with the partner of their choice.

I am repulsed by the idea of getting to know what 'goes on in the head' of a fag or a dyke.
I know. I can tell your strength of feeling by the wording you have chosen.

I used to be pretty strongly against homosexuality - until I read some heart-breaking accounts of the treatment gay people receive from the rest of society (especially religious groups!), how some have tried desperately to rid themselves of this 'sinful disease' and ruined their lives and those of others along the way, and how some live with the guilt and shame forever.
Some of my best friends left their husbands and entered into lesbian relationships, and I was able to observe how it changed them and affected them.
That's what I mean by learning to see life from the perspective of others. When you hear people's stories and understand their journey and their hardships, then it becomes much harder to judge them harshly and to feel hateful towards them ...

I know these are emotive topics, Mustafa.
I don't expect you or anybody else to agree with me.
I am saddened by how hateful threads about homosexuality often turn out, and I wonder why they do - given that our religions call us to be kind and caring and forgiving towards each other.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 09:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
didn't say we have to accept people's sinful lifestyles.

Hi Glo,

can you please answer my question at post #170?
thanks.
Reply

Lynx
02-21-2011, 09:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Any consummated homosexual relationship would result in at least one thing I have mentioned or numerous that I haven't!

all the best
and none of your links prove that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-21-2011, 10:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
They have to choose one or the other
And here is yet another common misconception about homosexuals; that sexual orientation is a choice. Do you really think that homosexuals CHOOSE to be attracted to the same gender? And do you think that a man who is attracted only to other men but doesn't act on it and takes a wife to try to hide it or deny it, isn't homosexual?

If you think that homosexuality is a choice then I have to ask, did you choose to be heterosexual? Were you capable of being homosexual? If so, you have latent bisexual tendencies. Not all of us do.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-21-2011, 10:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
From what I have heard, homosexuality has been documented in the animal kingdom
Correct

but I remember my science teacher telling the class that animals have no control over their sexual urges (not sure if it is true)
You are right to doubt such a baseless claim. How could your science teacher possibly know that? Given that its a science teacher, I'd immediately call them on that. Too often people try to claim "only humans do this" and "only humans feel that". Sometimes we have data to back it up, but more often it is just human arrogance.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-21-2011, 10:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am repulsed by the idea of getting to know what 'goes on in the head' of a fag or a dyke.
The irony is muslims saying hateful things like this and then complaining about the west hating on muslims.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-21-2011, 10:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your thieving friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your rapists friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your paedophile friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your serial murderer friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
Does this mean you will also learn to deal with your serial corruptor-dictator (like mubarak) friends/neighbours/brothers and sisters in a loving, caring and respectful way?
You forgot to mention bigots. Oh wait... nevermind.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 10:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
The irony is muslims saying hateful things like this and then complaining about the west hating on muslims.

The term faq and dyke have been reapproriated by the gays themselves and cease to be derogatory terms, and worn proudly by the homosexuals.

I dont see how mustafamc's can be hateful.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 10:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
You forgot to mention bigots. Oh wait... nevermind.

Is your reading comprehension really that bad?

The discussion between glo and I was about sinful acts. I don't expect you as an atheist to understand what sins are, but on the other hand I also did not expect you to jump into discussion involving sins.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-21-2011, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I didn't say we have to accept people's sinful lifestyles. But we have to accept that gay people exist and are part of our communities - and as faith communities we are called to find ways of living with others peacefully and in friendship.
I acknowledge that there are homosexuals in society, but I don't see that I should be accepting of them as my friends. Likewise if I know someone is an adulterer, then I do not take him as my friend.
I cannot equate homosexuals with paedophiles and rapists. The latter pose a risk to children and women, the first simply want to live a peaceful life with the partner of their choice.
...and they can do so quietly.
I know. I can tell your strength of feeling by the wording you have chosen.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? If so, please point out where you disagree with me.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You are right to doubt such a baseless claim. How could your science teacher possibly know that? Given that its a science teacher, I'd immediately call them on that. Too often people try to claim "only humans do this" and "only humans feel that". Sometimes we have data to back it up, but more often it is just human arrogance.
Oh that was a long time ago, I was in Year 10 (15 years old). I'm not sure what happened to him. :skeleton:

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The term faq and dyke have been reapproriated by the gays themselves and cease to be derogatory terms, and worn proudly by the homosexuals.
:sl:

Yes, some use it but others don't.

It is like the term ****** (sorry for using this term). Many people from all backgrounds find it offensive but some Black people use it...it does not mean it ceases to be derogatory.
Reply

yas2010
02-21-2011, 01:30 PM
Salaam
Having orginally began this thread.

One of my main concerns is that Would the UK govt under the guise of Equality Bill/s 'force' mosques to follow suit, so allow homosexuals to marry in mosques....
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 01:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Would the UK govt under the guise of Equality Bill/s 'force' mosques to follow suit, so allow homosexuals to marry in mosques....
:sl:

It will not work, even if the government tried. Muslims will not attend that mosque.
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 02:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
and none of your links prove that.
Then who is logically challenged?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And here is yet another common misconception about homosexuals; that sexual orientation is a choice. Do you really think that homosexuals CHOOSE to be attracted to the same gender? And do you think that a man who is attracted only to other men but doesn't act on it and takes a wife to try to hide it or deny it, isn't homosexual?
If you've been following any of my posts on the matter you'd have well come across my numerous posts stating that homosexuality is a psychological inclination and not a biological one, like any other condition the feelings can be had but not acted upon!
please read before you write as it gets tedious to repeat oneself!

If you think that homosexuality is a choice then I have to ask, did you choose to be heterosexual? Were you capable of being homosexual? If so, you have latent bisexual tendencies. Not all of us do.
See above reply.. heterosexuals don't jump the first person they're deeply attracted to simply because they've the inclination we'd call that rape.. I hazard say a large percentage of the population aren't mated at all 19 million women in the U.S alone over thirty haven't found a suitable partner and many settle for something they didn't want..
feelings and sex are separate issues.. the latter is always a choice!

all the best
Reply

glo
02-21-2011, 05:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I acknowledge that there are homosexuals in society, but I don't see that I should be accepting of them as my friends. Likewise if I know someone is an adulterer, then I do not take him as my friend.
...and they can do so quietly.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? If so, please point out where you disagree with me.
Hi Mustafa

I don't think I am disagreeing with you, more that we are disagreeing with each other - namely on whether we associate ourselves with homosexuals or not.

What I meant to say is that we can disagree on that point and still be friends. Do you agree? :)
Reply

glo
02-21-2011, 05:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Hi Glo,

can you please answer my question at post #170?
thanks.
Which question, naidamar? I count a total of 8 separate questions in the post you refer to.
Reply

glo
02-21-2011, 05:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Salaam
Having orginally began this thread.

One of my main concerns is that Would the UK govt under the guise of Equality Bill/s 'force' mosques to follow suit, so allow homosexuals to marry in mosques....
The stance at the moment is very clear in that places of worship/mosques/churches etc will be able to conduct marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but don't have to if they choose not to.

So it increases the freedom of choice for the couple as well as the places of worship, rather than reducing it.


Mosques and churches are not forced to perform marriages for homosexuals, if it goes against their principles and beliefs!
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The irony is muslims saying hateful things like this and then complaining about the west hating on muslims.
Don't make it sound like he represents the rest of us.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The term faq and dyke have been reapproriated by the gays themselves and cease to be derogatory terms, and worn proudly by the homosexuals.

I dont see how mustafamc's can be hateful.
Are you blind? He wrote himself that he used those words precisely because they're hateful:

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
What we achieve is a sense of distaste and disapproval that is lost in the use of non-offensive terms like 'gay'. This is meant to counteract the sense of acceptance and approval I detected in the post that I had replied to. The intention is to not use watered down terms for what is sinful much like using 'committing adultery' instead of 'having an affair' or to call someone an 'adulterer' instead of a 'cheater'.
See? He wants to avoid using non-offensive terms... stop defending him.
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 06:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Don't make it sound like he represents the rest of us.

I frankly couldn't careless what westerners think about Muslims or say.. in fact they offend us daily in every possible form and then scream about their rights to free speech. People are entitled to express themselves as they please.
If something is abhorrent it should be found abhorrent not watered down to suit the political climate!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Which question, naidamar? I count a total of 8 separate questions in the post you refer to.


Well, if you can answer all those questions if possible :)

But more importantly:

Do you believe homosexual act is sinful?

and we go from there :)
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 06:49 PM
I never understood this before, but why do the Judeo-Christian religions frown upon homosexuality exactly? It seems so petty?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Are you blind? He wrote himself that he used those words precisely because they're hateful: See? He wants to avoid using non-offensive terms... stop defending him.

Actually, I defend him precisely because of that. He speaks his distaste for a group of people who continue to be PROUD of their sinful acts and see nothing wrong in their sinful acts and in fact force everyone to approve their sinful acts.

It's no more distaste and no more hateful than saying that "Mubarak is evil" or "Bernie Madoff is a thief"

call a spade a spade.
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 06:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
I never understood this before, but why do the Judeo-Christian religions frown upon homosexuality exactly? It seems so petty?
isn't it?



look at all the pretty colors!
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

I suppose I see what you're saying, but I still think its a tad bit too strict. It seems like from what you're saying, anyone who sins cannot be a Muslim. (if we just go by definitions...) I'm in no way saying homosexual acts are any less reprehensible in Islam, but I just think we need to be careful when we take away the title of "Muslim" from a person... We can just agree to disagree I guess. :p

Oh, I enjoyed the video though. Very interesting and beneficial story.
:sl:

A Muslim that is not practicing (e.g. not praying, not fasting, etc) should be encouraged to do so. Nothing good is going to be achieved if we were to accuse them of being a non-Muslim.

We should correct Muslims if promoting views that are not in accordance with Islam but of course, take a calm and sensitive approach. There is no need to get aggressive or hostile.

From my experience, usually young Muslim men, take a hostile and aggressive approach towards homosexuality, as though, this is the only way to show that they disapprove of this sin. I'm not sure where this attitude comes from. I rarely see these Muslims get aggressive and hostile towards other sins like rape (the victim is sometimes blamed), adultery and fornication. There is some inconsistency towards how some Muslims feels towards sins. In fact, most of these Muslims did not know that sodomy can occur between a man and a women. I'm purely speaking from experience.

Tariq Ramadan

^ Anyway, I think his views should be taken into consideration.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 06:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I never understood this before, but why do the Judeo-Christian religions frown upon homosexuality exactly? It seems so petty?

every religion frown upon homosexuality.
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 07:00 PM
With all due respect, no one has answered the question..
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 07:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
I never understood this before, but why do the Judeo-Christian religions frown upon homosexuality exactly? It seems so petty?
:sl:

Petty? What do you mean? O_o
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
The stance at the moment is very clear in that places of worship/mosques/churches etc will be able to conduct marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but don't have to if they choose not to. So it increases the freedom of choice for the couple as well as the places of worship, rather than reducing it. Mosques and churches are not forced to perform marriages for homosexuals, if it goes against their principles and beliefs!

Let me ask you:
Did any of previous laws specifically state that places of worship CANNOT conduct homosexual marriages?

If no, then why all this new legislation necessary?
as it will open the door for gays to sue churches and other places of worships who refuse to conduct homosexual marriages.
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
With all due respect, no one has answered the question..
Basically because in most of these religions God has laid down a set of rules for how we should conduct ourselves and live our lives. This includes rules of marriage, and homosexual unions do not fall under what is permissible in the eyes of God. In Islam too, I think it's stressed that Man was created for Woman, and vice versa... So we should stick to God's plan and rules.

All this hate that pours from these rulings however doesn't really have a lot of religious backing, and usually it's just people using the fact that it's a sin in their religion to be rude and malicious.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
With all due respect, no one has answered the question..

with all due respect, you have to show us that only judeo-christian religion frown homosexuality.
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
With all due respect, no one has answered the question..

Do you consider
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
It seems so petty?
a question?
you've 14 pages to go through otherwise, knock yourself out!
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 07:09 PM
Ahhh.. Typical.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Basically because in most of these religions God has laid down a set of rules for how we should conduct ourselves and live our lives. This includes rules of marriage, and homosexual unions do not fall under what is permissible in the eyes of God. In Islam too, I think it's stressed that Man was created for Woman, and vice versa... So we should stick to God's plan and rules.

Not only that.
If you read the Qur'an, you will understand how serious the sin is, and how terrible the punishments are. It's all clear and repeated in many ayahs.

format_quote Originally Posted by
All this hate that pours from these rulings however doesn't really have a lot of religious backing, and usually it's just people using the fact that it's a sin in their religion to be rude and malicious.
The hate may not have religious backing, but for certain, acceptance of practicing homosexuals does not have religious backing.

The thing with gay activists is that they force society to be acceptance of their sinful acts. That would be akin of a group of adulterers asking society to accept their lifestyles, respect their choice and to make it a norm.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

isn't it?



look at all the pretty colors!
:sl:

I never really understood the connection between rainbows and homosexuality...then again, I don't see the point in gay pride parade.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Ahhh.. Typical.

I find what is petty is your attitude.

as sis Lily pointed out, you have 14 pages to read from the beginning, and in a previous post many pages ago I even provided links to several previous discussions threads about homosexuality and Islam.

Read again.
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 07:15 PM
Maybe the rainbows came from Wizard of Oz? It is after all the gayest movie of all time :p
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Ahhh.. Typical.
I find what is petty is your attitude.

as sis Lily pointed out, you have 14 pages to read from the beginning, and in a previous post many pages ago I even provided links to several previous discussions threads about homosexuality and Islam.

Read again.


^and I tried to answer your (aemish's) query as well, but you seem to have skipped over that part. :p
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 07:17 PM
lol charrrrrming...
Reply

yas2010
02-21-2011, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
Ahhh.. Typical.
Its an abomination. It goes against the laws that Allah (Swt) has laid down for mankind. Simples!
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
^and I tried to answer your query as well, but you seem to have skipped over that part.

what query?
Did I ask anything from you?
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 07:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
Ahhh.. Typical.

Do you have questions/comments/complaints/backtalk that you can put into proper syntax? I fear no one understands what you want, and outside of spamming or perhaps increasing your post count or getting a rise out of people with your oh so avant-garde that we only see everyday I don't think anything you've posted here merits a reply!

all the best
Reply

aemish
02-21-2011, 07:25 PM
I'm pretty sure the consensus in the West now is that the root of homophobia betrays latent homosexuality within the homophobe.
Reply

Tyrion
02-21-2011, 07:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
what query?
Did I ask anything from you?
I wasn't talking to you... I was responding to the same poster you were responding to.
Reply

Trumble
02-21-2011, 07:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Let me ask you:
Did any of previous laws specifically state that places of worship CANNOT conduct homosexual marriages?
No, but only because the law currently defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman; there is therefore no such thing as a 'homosexual marriage' to forbid. The closest that currently exists is what's called a 'civil partrnership', which shares much of the same formalities in civil law. Unlike marriage, though (obviously), civil partnership ceremonies currently may not be held in places of worship. Such unions may well receive a subsequent blessing in a church if the clerics are agreeable, but legally they can hold blessings for whatever they like.


format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
I'm pretty sure the consensus in the West now is that the root of homophobia betrays latent homosexuality within the homophobe.
LOL.. that will raise a few a few hackles around here! I don't think that's any sort of scientific consensus, though, although there is probably more of an element of truth in it.

What there is a consensus on, though, is that sexuality is not so much the convenient black and white picture painted by the homophobes as shades of grey, or a sliding scale. We are all both heterosexual and homosexual to some degree; we just fall on different points of the line, strongly heterosexual ----- bisexual ----- strongly homosexual.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
I'm pretty sure the consensus in the West now is that the root of homophobia betrays latent homosexuality within the homophobe.

terrible pop-psychology forced-fed by political correctness that amounts to nothing
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aemish
I'm pretty sure the consensus in the West now is that the root of homophobia betrays latent homosexuality within the homophobe.

I am pretty sure the thesaurus you're using is failing is to enable you make a coherent statement!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-21-2011, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
No, but only because the law currently defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman; there is therefore no such thing as a 'homosexual marriage' to forbid. The closest that currently exists is what's called a 'civil partrnership', which shares much of the same formalities in civil law. Unlike marriage, though (obviously), civil partnership ceremonies currently may not be held in places of worship. Such unions may well receive a subequent blessing in a church if the clerics are agreeable, but legally they can hold blessings for whatever they like.

Exactly. So, the gays presently can have their unions with full perks from the government and can also still have blessings from agreeable church.
Why the need to create extra legislation that open the door for litigations against non-agreeable church?
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
terrible pop-psychology forced-fed by political correctness that amounts to nothing

I'd have to say you're giving it more than its worth here.. it is just another ill-equipped kid parroting everyone's popular views in incoherent terms..

:w:
Reply

yas2010
02-21-2011, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE What there is a consensus on, though, is that sexuality is not so much the convenient black and white picture painted by the homophobes as shades of grey, or a sliding scale. We are all both heterosexual and homosexual to some degree; we just fall on different points of the line, strongly heterosexual ----- bisexual ----- strongly homosexual.[/QUOTE]

Consensus? with whom?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

LOL.. that will raise a few a few hackles around here! I don't think that's any sort of scientific consensus, though, although there is probably more of an element of truth in it.

What there is a consensus on, though, is that sexuality is not so much the convenient black and white picture painted by the homophobes as shades of grey, or a sliding scale. We are all both heterosexual and homosexual to some degree; we just fall on different points of the line, strongly heterosexual ----- bisexual ----- strongly homosexual.
Can I call you egg? :p:

Anyway, I have heard of a theory that everyone is bisexual but some are more heterosexual while others are more homosexual and some are in between.

I'm not sure how this will take into account asexuality. It is the opposite of bisexuality...
Reply

glo
02-21-2011, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
But more importantly:

Do you believe homosexual act is sinful?

and we go from there :)
I had a feeling that was the question you meant, naidamar. I guess I was feeling a little facetious. :D

Look, it is getting late here and I should be heading for bed.
I will try to answer your question, hoping that you can just accept it as my own view, without the need to pass judgment or criticize it ...

There could be two ways in which I can understand your question, and depending on how you mean it, my answer will be different:

If you mean by it whether I think that God considers homosexual acts to be sinful, then I have to truthfully tell you that I don't know.
Like I said before, there was a time when I did consider homosexual acts to be sinful, but I have done a lot of reading and studying since then, as well as listening to the stories and arguments of gay people.
I know the Bible verses referring to homosexuality quite well (well, there aren't that many, given the size of the Bible), and I understand the different arguments people make with regards to how to read and interpret those verses. (I am not going into those here at any length. I am sure you could google it, if you really wanted to know.)

So my honest and truthful answer is that I don't know. I leave it to God to judge, since he knows us better and sees into our hearts.
And I leave it to gay people themselves to seek God's guidance in prayer in their situation.


If, however, you mean by your question whether I personally find homosexual people disgusting or abhorrent, then - according to homosexual people I know and assuming we are talking about consenting adults in committed relationships - my answer is no.
I cannot relate to or understand the concept of being attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't bother me.
As to the actual sexual activity, I am not in the habit of pondering or wondering what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

As I said before, the gay people I know live in loving, faithful and long-standing relationships. I cannot find it in my heart to call them anything other than my friends.


I don't know if that answers your question, naidamar, but this is my personal opinion as best as I can express it in the middle of the night. I hope you can respect it as such - even in the event you should not agree with me.

Now I am off to join my husband. Good night! :)
Reply

sabr*
02-21-2011, 10:48 PM
As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم):

What is the obsession with the homosexuality threads? More like obsession.





Reply

Mike3449
02-21-2011, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sabr*
As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم):

What is the obsession with the homosexuality threads? More like obsession.







Well, Christian Churches are probably following that... whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. They don't understand that the Jesus that Muhammad created would kill them and the Homosexual. Unless they changed their ways.

It's a confusing World...
Reply

جوري
02-21-2011, 11:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449
whoever is without sin should cast the first stone

and who created that quote? certainly wasn't uttered by the Jesus the pagan council created-- nice to create gods of men and nice 'pious' forgeries along the way.. enables you to write with that sanctimonious bravado I suppose, so it has merit if the audience is as equally under-educated..
For example, the story in which Mary Magdalene is about to be stoned by the crowd until Jesus intervenes and says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
It's an interesting story. Later tradition identified her as Mary Magdalene, but actually the story doesn't. This is a mistake people make because in all the Jesus movies, she's Mary Magdalene. But she's an unnamed woman who gets caught in the act of adultery. So yeah, "Let the one who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her." This entire story, a beautiful story that in some ways you could argue is the favorite story of people who read the Gospels, wasn't in the Gospels. It's only found in the Gospel of John, and it's not found in the earliest and best manuscripts of John. So scholars for hundreds of years have known that it wasn't part of John, it was a story that was added later by scribes because it's found only in our later manuscripts.
-bart-ehrman

nice non-religion..
nice man/god
nice lecherous acts..
Reply

Ramadhan
02-22-2011, 04:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
If you mean by it whether I think that God considers homosexual acts to be sinful, then I have to truthfully tell you that I don't know.

OK. I just find it interesting that your views can be against the views and laws God laid for you in bible.


format_quote Originally Posted by
Like I said before, there was a time when I did consider homosexual acts to be sinful, but I have done a lot of reading and studying since then, as well as listening to the stories and arguments of gay people.
This is an aspect of christianity that I find interesting: you can change your views about sins based on your conversations with the sinners.
I would expect you gain more understanding about God's commands and scriptures from the learned (in this case, your christian scholars) instead from the lay people or even those whose actions considered sinful by your scripture.
I am intrigued to know if you would also listen to the stories and arguments of adulterers? and then changed your views on adultery based on those conversation?


format_quote Originally Posted by
If, however, you mean by your question whether I personally find homosexual people disgusting or abhorrent, then - according to homosexual people I know and assuming we are talking about consenting adults in committed relationships - my answer is no.
First off, no one accused you of finding homosexuals disgusting and abhorrent.
In fact, we all know you are very fond of them. So, relax.


format_quote Originally Posted by
As to the actual sexual activity, I am not in the habit of pondering or wondering what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I agree with the principle.
However, do you find it reasonable that a group of people who openly advertise their sexuality, parading whom they choose to be in bed with, and forcing governments and church to be acceptance of who they choose tho have sex with and then NOT have the actual sex?

Wouldnt that be like an adulterer who proudly display their preference for adulteries, forcing everyone to be acceptance of their adulteries, and then NOT having adultery affairs?


format_quote Originally Posted by
As I said before, the gay people I know live in loving, faithful and long-standing relationships. I cannot find it in my heart to call them anything other than my friends
No one has ever said that gay people are incapable of living in loving, faithful and long-standing relationships. No one has also said that all homosexuals are horrible people.
As a matter of fact, the homosexuals that I know are among the most kind, nicest people around, but that is not what we are talking about, is it?

I also happen to know a few elites in Indonesia who have been stealing money from government/public (ie. big corruptors), and they are among the most generous people around, giving money to the poor, etc.
Based on your criteria, shouldn't theft (and corruption) be made ceased as sinful acts?
Reply

glo
02-22-2011, 07:12 AM
Naidamar, I know you weren't accusing me of anything. I didn't feel like I was being accused.
I was simply sharing with you - as honestly as possible - what my thoughts and feelings are on the matter.

I never claim to know the truth, I only ever claim to have opinions. :)
As I walk with God and seek his guidance, he will hopefully bring me closer and closer to His truth.

I want to thank you for reading what I wrote and for treating my thoughts and comment with respect.
Please forgive me if I don't reply to any of your questions. You have given me food for thought and much to ponder about, but there isn't much else I can say at this moment on the matter.
Ask me in a year's time again! :D


May I ask you a question instead?
You make references to gay people openly advertising their sexuality and forcing the wider world to accept them.
Do you think that is the main issue?
If homosexuals stayed quietly in the background and, unnoticed by society, lived their own lifestyle, would that be (more) acceptable?

I guess I am asking because the homosexual people I know don't jump up and down, making demands or displaying their sexuality to the wider community. They just want to live their lives in peace and safety and without discrimination.
Do you think those people are acceptable in our communities?

(When I ask those questions, I am not accusing you of anything either. I am interested in your personal opinion, no more and no less. There is no right or wrong response. Thank you, naidamar. :peace:)
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2011, 08:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


The term faq and dyke have been reapproriated by the gays themselves and cease to be derogatory terms, and worn proudly by the homosexuals.

I dont see how mustafamc's can be hateful.
They have tried to take the terms and disarm them by adopting them. Black people have done the same thing with the N word. They will call each other that, just as gays will use those words for each other. That doesn't make it not rude or hateful for others to call them these things, especially in the context mustafamc used the words.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2011, 08:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Salaam
Having orginally began this thread.

One of my main concerns is that Would the UK govt under the guise of Equality Bill/s 'force' mosques to follow suit, so allow homosexuals to marry in mosques....
It may reassure you to hear that I, as one of the sole pro-homosexual marriage people here, would very much oppose such a thing. Keeping the separation of church and state strong actually protects the churches/mosques as much as it does the state. No government should be able to force your mosque to approve of anything. I'd march right alongside you against that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2011, 08:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Exactly. So, the gays presently can have their unions with full perks from the government and can also still have blessings from agreeable church.
Why the need to create extra legislation that open the door for litigations against non-agreeable church?
Civil Union actually does not always carry all the same civil rights. It varies from state to state and nation to nation.

I am aware of no laws anywhere though that would open the door for people to sue non-agreeable churches. That would be a complete disregard for the separation of church and state. Something the secularists and pro-homosexual rights people would deplore and would not want to open that door.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-22-2011, 11:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
As I walk with God and seek his guidance, he will hopefully bring me closer and closer to His truth.
I don't know how you walk with God, but just a thought: wouldnt you think that obeying and upholding God's laws and commandments bring you closer and closer to Him?
And to do things that anger Him would bring you away from Him?

a normal person would definitely think that a sinful act that brought God's wrath that destroyed the whole city (ie. Sodom) and that God has explicitly said it's a sin is enough reason to avoid that sin.

format_quote Originally Posted by
You make references to gay people openly advertising their sexuality and forcing the wider world to accept them.
Have you ever heard of a thief who openly advertise their theft and forcing the wider world to accept their lifestyle as a thief?
I like this quote from one of your ministers:
The Bible is not homophobic anymore than it is incest-phobic, adultery-phobic or necrophilia-phobic.

format_quote Originally Posted by
Do you think that is the main issue?
no. The main issue is treating a serious sin as a non-sin.

format_quote Originally Posted by
If homosexuals stayed quietly in the background and, unnoticed by society, lived their own lifestyle, would that be (more) acceptable?
If that's the case, then that's the sin that they have to deal between themselves and God. and who knows if God forgives them.

I guess God (in your bible) telling you that homosexual act is extremely sinful mean nothing you.

format_quote Originally Posted by
I guess I am asking because the homosexual people I know don't jump up and down, making demands or displaying their sexuality to the wider community.
Then you must know extremely little people. How about the gays who paraded on the streets displaying and advertising who they want to have sex with on the streets in many western countries every year as part of their "pride" parade. The gays also demand that children books should also display gay parents and to include gays in children sex education. How about gays who demand to get married in church. How about gays who demand to have equal rights as married couple?
If you don't think all those things as making demand and displaying their sinful act, then maybe you need to check your dictionary.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-22-2011, 11:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Civil Union actually does not always carry all the same civil rights. It varies from state to state and nation to nation.
we are talking UK here, as the OP suggested.


format_quote Originally Posted by
I am aware of no laws anywhere though that would open the door for people to sue non-agreeable churches. That would be a complete disregard for the separation of church and state. Something the secularists and pro-homosexual rights people would deplore and would not want to open that door.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...s-in-church.do
The Church of England today came under pressure to allow "gay weddings" after the law was changed to lift a ban on civil partnerships in places of worship.
Today's proposal leaves faith groups to decide if they want to host such ceremonies and also allows religious music and hymns at them for the first time.
Shadow constitutional reform minister and former clergyman Chris Bryant said: "I urge churches not to turn away civil partnerships. I'd have thought they would want to celebrate commitment and love. Sadly, some churches do not see it that way."
Christian groups protested that lifting the ban could rapidly lead to churches being forced into acceptance or become the target for protests. "When it comes to equality legislation, permission often turns rapidly into coercion," they said.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2011, 02:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...s-in-church.do
The Church of England today came under pressure to allow "gay weddings" after the law was changed to lift a ban on civil partnerships in places of worship.
Today's proposal leaves faith groups to decide if they want to host such ceremonies and also allows religious music and hymns at them for the first time.
Shadow constitutional reform minister and former clergyman Chris Bryant said: "I urge churches not to turn away civil partnerships. I'd have thought they would want to celebrate commitment and love. Sadly, some churches do not see it that way."
Christian groups protested that lifting the ban could rapidly lead to churches being forced into acceptance or become the target for protests. "When it comes to equality legislation, permission often turns rapidly into coercion," they said.
Social pressure is one thing. Legal pressure is quite another. I applaud those who call people on their bigotry. I do it for those bigoted against black people, women, muslims (believe it or not), and also those bigotted against homosexuality. Saying it is your religion that tells you to be bigoted is no excuse in my book.
Reply

Zafran
02-22-2011, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
It seems to be comedy night on the forums, folks!



It is estimated some 3,000 lost their lives in Pompeii and Herculanium, including those killed in the associated tsunami.

250,000+ were killed across SE Asia in 2004/5 (tsunami)
50,000+ were killed in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan in 2005. (quake)
26,000+ were killed in Iran in 2003 (quake)
50,000+ were killed in Iran in 1990 (quake)
500,000+ were killed in (what is now) Bangladesh in 1970 (cyclone, floods)
110,000+ were killed in Turkmenistan in 1948 (quake)
32,000+ were killed in Turkey in 1939 (quake)
30,000+ were killed in (what is now) Pakistan in 1935

etc, etc, etc.

Were those people all homosexuals and pedophiles, too? :hiding:








Are you for real?! All that casual sex, feminism and homosexuality has resulted in;



Or is that just the most spectacular failed conspiracy in history? :hiding:
I think this answers the question

Narrated AbuMusa:

"The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: This people of mine is one to which mercy is shown. It will have no punishment in the next world, but its punishment in this world will be trials, earthquakes and being killed."
(Sunan Abu-Dawud)
Reply

Zafran
02-22-2011, 03:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Social pressure is one thing. Legal pressure is quite another. I applaud those who call people on their bigotry. I do it for those bigoted against black people, women, muslims (believe it or not), and also those bigotted against homosexuality. Saying it is your religion that tells you to be bigoted is no excuse in my book.
The way I see Homosexuality is the same way I see pre marriage relationship/sex, - they both are wrong in Islam - I dont think Muslims should hate these people and de humanize them (if they still believe in God and the prophet pbuh they are still muslims) but if somebody wants to follow Islam they need to know that the path is a hard one and struggle with the nafs (ego/self) is part of the deen.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-22-2011, 03:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Social pressure is one thing. Legal pressure is quite another.
The gays have been continuously putting legal pressure on government.


format_quote Originally Posted by
I applaud those who call people on their bigotry. I do it for those bigoted against black people, women, muslims (believe it or not), and also those bigotted against homosexuality. Saying it is your religion that tells you to be bigoted is no excuse in my book.
When the homosexuals themselves take lightly of God and the scripture and then forced to be allowed to get married in places of worship, that's what I call bigotry.
And I think you will be glad to know that "your book" means nothing to all religious folks
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-22-2011, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
forced to be allowed to get married in places of worship, that's what I call bigotry.
In same way that stopping a KKK rally in the public square would be "bigotry" (it wouldn't). I would oppose both, as both are violations of civil liberties that should be respected, but both would also be deeply ironic.
Reply

Wyatt
02-22-2011, 07:29 PM
What a good friend of mine has said, "If there's any certain group of people you hate, chances are, they might end up in your family. Don't like gays? Guess what, your daughter is gay. Don't like black people? Guess what, your son is marrying a black woman." (He's "a gay" and he had a point. Anyone's child can be gay. It's really whoever pulls the 'short straw'.)

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), but I do not think they should marry in a religious setting that frowns upon their way of life.

That's just like a religious person handing out religious pamphlets in a gay club... or an atheistic place? I'm not sure if Atheists gather at all.
Reply

glo
02-22-2011, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wyatt
What a good friend of mine has said, "If there's any certain group of people you hate, chances are, they might end up in your family. Don't like gays? Guess what, your daughter is gay. Don't like black people? Guess what, your son is marrying a black woman." (He's "a gay" and he had a point. Anyone's child can be gay. It's really whoever pulls the 'short straw'.)
To explore what people would do if their own children were gay, would make in interesting thread.

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), but I do not think they should marry in a religious setting that frowns upon their way of life.
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.
Reply

جوري
02-22-2011, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wyatt
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), but I do not think they should marry in a religious setting that frowns upon their way of life.

Wyatt, if you've been keeping up with the thread or any of the other numerous threads, you'd have learned that homosexuality is a psychological deviation not different from others that still remain in the DSM as such.. perhaps in the future they too will be taken out under similar lobbying after all it is about feelings and inclinations.

I find it rather insulting that a person would compare a skin color or religion to a lewd sexual act and it is really the last I want to hear of it.. it is a disgusting and out of place similitude. 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, what is immoral is immoral. You might have feelings for your brother's wife and you can't help it, but you can do the noble thing and walk away from acting on such feelings!

all the best
Reply

Wyatt
02-22-2011, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I find it rather insulting that a person would compare a skin color or religion to a lewd sexual act and it is really the last I want to hear of it.. it is a disgusting and out of place similitude.
Is that about my quote? He was just talking about different groups against whom there's been discrimination.
Reply

جوري
02-22-2011, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wyatt
Is that about my quote? He was just talking about different groups against whom there's been discrimination.

I don't see how disapproving of a certain lifestyle = discrimination or even 'homophobia' which seems a fan favorite.. to discriminate is to set apart and no one would be able to do so unless a homo advertised that he is a homo for the purpose of just that setting himself/ herself apart and getting a rise out of people as they do for instance in their disgusting parades. And a homophobia is characterized by irrational fear, neither fits the religious views of what homosexuality is to us as an estrangement from God and transgression against his commandments for base desires.
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..

all the best
Reply

M.I.A.
02-22-2011, 08:59 PM
there are a lot of people who give in to base desires, it drives people to do all sorts of things.. trying to keep them in check and recieving support for doing such is the way forward.
hate of the action and not the person.

you cant keep somebody in sadness all there lives, unless you have some sort of reward at the end.

nobody is perfect though.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-22-2011, 09:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wyatt
Is that about my quote? He was just talking about different groups against whom there's been discrimination.
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.
Reply

Wyatt
02-22-2011, 09:15 PM
I'm not saying there's any discrimination right here, but in general, homosexual people are killed or bullied for being that way, be it religiously backed up or not. Just like how people of certain skin colours have been killed or bullied. They don't necessarily have to sleep with someone for that to happen, children in schools are beat up just for putting off the impression of being gay. There's been light shed upon that issue lately here in the US.

I also think the lying with whomever one does should be kept private. That would be for ones god to judge rather than another person (unless it's directly affecting another, like if it's a family member). Otherwise, it's not really anyone's business to give hassle. At least, those are my opinions. I shake a stick at no one who doesn't shake one first.

The attraction to the same gender can't be helped, and it's discouraged under certain doctrines to embrace those feelings and accept them, but most do. I think homosexuality's been around, will always be around, and there's nothing that can stop it from occurring. One has to manage to live alongside it.

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.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-22-2011, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wyatt
I'm not saying there's any discrimination right here, but in general, homosexual people are killed or bullied for being that way, be it religiously backed up or not. Just like how people of certain skin colours have been killed or bullied. They don't necessarily have to sleep with someone for that to happen, children in schools are beat up just for putting off the impression of being gay. There's been light shed upon that issue lately here in the US.
I understand some homosexual people are bulled and killed. The victims of these attacks are targeted because they act or look like the opposite gender. This does not mean that they are homosexual. Some people that act straight can be homosexual.

This is the issue I have with discrimination laws. Sexuality is a private issue and people can keep this to themselves, unlike someone's skin colour. There is no need to boast about it or have a parade, even when the rights are fully given.

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'm not going to dislike you because there is a disagreement. o_o
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!