US to promote gay rights abroad

[Insaanah]

Not only does the US try to force it's system of leadership on other countries, but now it is also going to ration/withold aid to other countries according to how well the said countries promote and support gay rights. Perhaps that's the first step before bombing them as well for not conforming with "their" values. "Liberty" but only as long as you follow our way...

7 December 2011 Last updated at 10:53

Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

The US has publicly declared it will fight discrimination against gays and lesbians abroad by using foreign aid and diplomacy to encourage reform.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of diplomats in Geneva: "Gay rights are human rights".

A memo from the Obama administration directs US government agencies to consider gay rights when making aid and asylum decisions.

Similar policies already exist for gender equality and ethnic violence.

"It should never be a crime to be gay," Mrs Clinton said at the United Nations in Geneva, adding that a country's cultural or religious traditions was no excuse for discrimination.

Her audience included representatives from countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence.

Many ambassadors rushed out of the room as soon as Mrs Clinton finished speaking, the Associated Press news agency reported.

In October, UK Prime Minister David Cameron's suggestion that aid could be cut to countries that did not recognise gay rights was condemned by several African countries where homosexual acts are banned, including Ghana, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Last week Nigeria became the latest African country attempting to tighten homosexuality laws, with the Senate passing a bill banning same-sex marriages. Before it becomes law, it must be passed by the lower chamber and then signed by the president.

'Human reality'

The announcement, described by the White House as the "first US government strategy to combat human rights abuses against gays and lesbians abroad", is also being seen as part of the Obama administration's outreach to gays and lesbians ahead of the 2012 election.

The official memorandum does not outline consequences for countries with poor records on gay rights. But it allows US agencies working abroad to consult with international organisations on discrimination.

"Gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world," Mrs Clinton said in Geneva. "Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality."

Correspondents say the new policy could pose awkward questions for US officials formulating policy towards some regular allies and regional powers.

In 2011, the state department's annual human rights report cited abuses against gay people in Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US that bans homosexuality outright.

Afghanistan also prohibits homosexual activity, and the same report found that authorities "sporadically" enforced the prohibition.

In the US, Republican presidential candidates criticised the administration's decision, with Texas Governor Rick Perry saying in a statement that "promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money".

Mrs Clinton acknowledged the US had its own mixed record on gay rights. As late as 2003, some states had laws that made gay sex a crime.

Earlier this year President Barack Obama signed into law a bill repealing the "don't ask don't tell" law and allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937

[Abz2000]

now i really do believe she decorated the white house christmas tree with [edited]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...0/posts?page=1

'tis of the "lord"

[جوري]

This so-called 'aid' is never seen by the people who actually need it rather goes directly into the pockets of despots. The same despots either put is in Swiss banks, use it for lawyers who justify their orders to kill their own people and when they die or are exiled those same banks freeze their assets and reclaims their money. It just counts as beggary with which the big pawn of Satan uses to enforce its satanic tenets far and wide.
It is time to say no to this aid at the price of the very mortal souls of these people. Those who wish to humiliate themselves and transgress the laws of God by practicing buggery can do so in the privacy of their home, we don't go advertising our heterosexuality and by the same token I wish they'd shut the bloody hell up about their lewd preferences.

:w:

[crimsontide06]

gay rights? whats next? Killers have rights and go free?? (little bird whispers into my ear **O.J Simpson...Casey Anthony**) oh wait....nvm >.>

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

[Aprender]

I saw this in the morning and I thought what a waste of money. They can declare homosexuality a human right if they want to but I should also have a human right not to have to listen to people complain about how they are treated for letting the world know about what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Especially when there are children starving to death or being senselessly murdered abroad. Or how about in the US where people aren't employed, the price of education continues to skyrocket, and even homosexuals in the U.S. don't have this full so-called human right to broadcast their homosexuality to the world and force everyone else to accept it? What is this?

Seems the priorities are way out of place on this one.

[Abz2000]

that would make a good article:

while the 99 % protest outside wall street for bread and circuses, the u.s government borrows more money from banks in the 99%'s name - with the noble aim of promoting sodomy across the world......................

i thought they were fighting aids, why are they now promoting it?
talk about "helping africa"

[Ramadhan]

This so-called 'aid' is never seen by the people who actually need it rather goes directly into the pockets of despots. The same despots either put is in Swiss banks, use it for lawyers who justify their orders to kill their own people and when they die or are exiled those same banks freeze their assets and reclaims their money. It just counts as beggary with which the big pawn of Satan uses to enforce its satanic tenets far and wide.
It is time to say no to this aid at the price of the very mortal souls of these people. Those who wish to humiliate themselves and transgress the laws of God by practicing buggery can do so in the privacy of their home, we don't go advertising our heterosexuality and by the same token I wish they'd shut the bloody hell up about their lewd preferences.

Also, don't forget that much of the so called "foreign grants" or "foreign aid" actually goes back to the US through management fees, contracting costs, consultant costs, etc.
Only few percentages of the money actually spent on the programs.

The impact of aid money is very miniscule on beneficiaries countries' economy. especially if such countries are large ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.

So it is just not worth it to bend your principles just to get the aid money. Well, unless you are corrupt government officials who take opportunities for kickbacks or other means.
And unfortunately, we still do have many of those and there are also many liberal sell-outs :(

[Pygoscelis]

I'm with Skye on this (Why DO you keep changing your name? lol)

This "aid" has nothing to do with spreading freedom or liberty. It has to do with spreading US influence and control. I agree that people may want to consider declining it and standing on their own.

That said, it IS the US's money, so I see no reason why they shouldn't only offer it to those they please.

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?), and demanding mosques marry homosexual couples on the other (which I as a liberal atheist who is fine with homosexuality wouldn't agree).

[Ramadhan]

I'm with Skye on this (Why DO you keep changing your name? lol)

This "aid" has nothing to do with spreading freedom or liberty. It has to do with spreading US influence and control. I agree that people may want to consider declining it and standing on their own.

That said, it IS the US's money, so I see no reason why they shouldn't only offer it to those they please.

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?), and demanding mosques marry homosexual couples on the other (which I as a liberal atheist who is fine with homosexuality wouldn't agree).

A while ago I was involved in a debate with an atheist in this forum, I can't remember who.
In the debate, I explained that western governments had been trying to promote gay lifestyles and gay rights etc to developing countries, through direct and indirect aid.
That atheist mocked me, although I gave him links to evidence.

And now we have Clinton herself and David Cameron clearly stated that their government foreign aid is tied to the gay rights in would be beneficiaries countries.

This is like how missionaries work in developing countries: we give you rice and instant noodles if you change your belief and believe in what we believe in.

[Aprender]

And I'm curious what is meant by "gay rights" here. That term is so wide that it could include everything from demanding people not murder people for being attracted to their own gender on the one extreme (which I hope all of you would agree?)

Of course. I think anyone who sincerely practices the deen would agree. Why would I condone the killing of a group of people based on their intimate preferences? That's just wicked. I might not agree with it but it doesn't mean I support genocide against homosexuals simply for existing. A'udhu billah! Are you referring to the Political Christian policies in Nigeria? It was disheartening to see legislation wasted on something like that when there are so many other real issues in that nation that need to be addressed.

Either way, in Islam we have a verse in the Quran that says "to you be your way and to me mine." If someone wants to live a life with someone of the same gender, then OK. That's what they'll do. If they want to reject the religion and love the life of this world more. Then OK. That's what they'll do. Not everyone sees it all the same way. But the issue that I have with it is I don't want to feel forced that I have to accept that as normal. As if something is wrong with me because I disagree with it. And not all or only religious people feel this way either. I know some people who follow no faith at all who don't like it but what happened to having an opinion? I personally don't care what people do in their privacy. That is their own business. But please don't broadcast it to me whether in a heterosexual relationship or not.

I see a similarity to this the same way people in America and other Western countries don't want to accept Islam as a normal religion. They would be upset if some legislation were passed and Islam was somehow taught in school to their children as a part of a "diversity" component and it had to accepted as "normal" or a valid religion. Or if instead of "I'm a Mormon" commercials plastered all over the TV and Internet there were "I'm a Muslim" commercials. They would just as soon face backlash and people would want them off the air.
I would be equally in disagreement with this choice if it was 'US to give aid to promote Muslim rights abroad' :skeleton: How hypocritical would that be once again?

[Pygoscelis]

I agree with that wholeheartedly. And that says somthing, given that we come from opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue (both religion and homosexuallity being normal). I would never want to see you or anybody else be forced to accept homosexuality as normal or positive anymore than I would not want to be forced to accept religion as rational and positive. And I would not want to see you harassed or force fed "homosexuality is ok" literature any more than I'd want to be force fed the Quran.

And conversely I do not want to see muslims persecuted or attacked for being muslim just as I do not want to see (and from you wrote assume you wouldn't want to see) homosexuals persecuted or attacked for being homosexual.

Glad we see eye to eye on this one :)

[جوري]

(both religion and homosexuallity being normal).

Not sure how you figure theology and sexual deviance in the same category? I find them in completely different sections at Barnes & Noble.. don't you?
Although there's no compulsion in religion, and you're certainly free to practice the religion or non-religion of your choice in the Islamic part of the world, the Quran isn't a mere book of guidance to be reached to on a Friday or a Sunday akin to its failed counterparts. It is the book upon which jurisprudence and the law are established. So NO it will not be something that will be considered abnormal or kept to self. Wherever you go you have to follow the law of the land. Homosexuality isn't the law, it isn't a normal variant of everyday life. It is a futile cycle that has no room in theology or nature if you're a strict naturalist and buggery is a crime if done in an open lewd fashion as is the case with any sexual act that isn't taking place within the confines that it is created for. Much as atheists and their supporters hammer in that we're animals, we're not, I dare you to show up to work naked or hump your significant other in an open fashion if you believe otherwise. There's no contrast whatsoever between buggery & theology and where you see parallels is a conundrum to me!

best,

[GuestFellow]

It should never be a crime to be gay," Mrs Clinton.

I agree. Sexual attraction is not a sin. It only becomes a sin when you act upon those urges outside of marriage, which can only occur between married men and women, according to Islam.

I have heard of cases where violence is committed against gay people or people that are perceived to be gay. This is not acceptable.

Of course, very unlikely US government wants to promote gay rights. It probably has another agenda.

[جوري]

Sexual attraction is not a sin

If it were kept at an attraction then the rest of us wouldn't be so cognizant of it no?
rather the intent is to make this a normal part of our societies!

[User29123]

Well this will not be coming to the Muslim countries cause we have our own rights. If someone wants to be gay and they live in the M.E they should go to the West. I hope the Iran war does not start cause of gay rights!

[User29123]

oh to add to this if they allow gay rights then allow polygamy in your country to!

That is our rights to then :P

[Pygoscelis]

f cases where violence is committed against gay people or people that are perceived to be gay. This is not acceptable.

Of course, very unlikely US government wants to promote gay rights. It probably has another agenda.

I agree with that. I think they do things like this because they think they will score points for "human rights" with liberal voters like myself (not that I'm American). Only it won't work because it is transparent.

[Pygoscelis]

Well this will not be coming to the Muslim countries cause we have our own rights. If someone wants to be gay and they live in the M.E they should go to the West. I hope the Iran war does not start cause of gay rights!

I think you're pretty safe on that one. It may happen. It won't happen because of Gay rights. If it happens it'll happen becasue of American imperialism and the military industrial complex, or because of Israel's influence.

[Pygoscelis]

oh to add to this if they allow gay rights then allow polygamy in your country to!

That is our rights to then :P

I really don't see why not allow poligamy. The only sensible argument against allowing it I know of is the issue of non-consent that keeps coming up in conjunction with it. But if 1 man and 3 women all of them of sound mind want to consent to entering a 4 way marriage, I see no reason why I should stand in their way. Same for 3 men and 1 woman. It may get more complicated if they have children involved, but even then I'd take a more liberal approach and I think many others would.

Poligamy, homosexuality, nudism, wearing a burka, I have no real issue with any of these things if they are done with consent. But I may be too liberal for others here to agree.

[User29123]

I really don't see why not allow poligamy. The only sensible argument against allowing it I know of is the issue of non-consent that keeps coming up in conjunction with it. But if 1 man and 3 women all of them of sound mind want to consent to entering a 4 way marriage, I see no reason why I should stand in their way. Same for 3 men and 1 woman. It may get more complicated if they have children involved, but even then I'd take a more liberal approach and I think many others would.

Poligamy, homosexuality, nudism, wearing a burka, I have no real issue with any of these things if they are done with consent. But I may be too liberal for others here to agree.

The three men and 1 women probably won't work, some men get me aggressive :P

Plus I am sure men get ill much quicker, wouldn't it spread disease and such?

[GuestFellow]

If it were kept at an attraction then the rest of us wouldn't be so cognizant of it no?
rather the intent is to make this a normal part of our societies!

Salaam,

They should keep their sexual preference to themselves and not force people to accept it.

[جوري]

Salaam,

They should keep their sexual preference to themselves and not force people to accept them sexual preference.

I agree with that... Also Islam was built upon 7aya'a (chastity) if it isn't appropriate for heteros it is alot less appropriate for homos when they're so openly advocating a known sin.
If I 'suffered' Kleptomania I'd not be shoving it in everyone's face and committing theft so openly.
Everything can be justified. Everything!
Religion defines our morality not Hillary Clinton and Co. She's be better focusing on her own husband's sexual indiscretions than preaching to us what she defines as normal!

[Pygoscelis]

Salaam,

They should keep their sexual preference to themselves and not force people to accept it.

That's exactly how I feel about religion ;D

[Abz2000]

That's exactly how I feel about religion

religion in Islam is not what you perceive the word "religion" to be in the west,
it is a complete way of life.
that includes politics, personal life, and collective public life, .
you can't keep it to yourself.

and if they (hillary and obama say that sodomy is their way of life....................kudos to them, but it's not ours,

for you is your way and for me mine

[Aprender]

That's exactly how I feel about religion

I can understand how in Christianity it's difficult for the religion to be kept to oneself as it is a tenant of the faith to try and get others to follow it by whatever means necessary for certain conditions. I myself have been forcibly handed Christian pamphlets while walking around in school or told by Christians I'll burn in Hell with other students of different faiths or none at all as we walk to our classes on campus. But with Islam I'm not sure what you mean by this? With Judaism I'm not sure what you mean by this? Even with Hinduism and other religions of the world I'm not sure what you mean by this? You either believe or you don't.

If you're talking about a political stand point that religious laws shouldn't be forced in a mostly secular country, I get your point here completely then.

[Pygoscelis]

religion in Islam is not what you perceive the word "religion" to be in the west,
it is a complete way of life.
that includes politics, personal life, and collective public life, .
you can't keep it to yourself.

As Aprender said, you can't really HIDE that you are a muslim, but you can refrain from pushing it on everybody around you (and many do as Aprender observed - Christians not so much perhaps). Same with a homosexual. Sure, a muslim will do his prayers, will go to mosque, will live according to the tenets of Islam, etc. A homosexual may live with another man instead of with a wife and they may function as a married couple would. Both are central to who the person is (though yes, Islam encompasses more), and both wouldn't really be possible to hide while being true to yourself, but neither has to be rammed down anybody else's throat.

for you is your way and for me mine

This, pretty much.

[Ramadhan]

Well this will not be coming to the Muslim countries cause we have our own rights. If someone wants to be gay and they live in the M.E they should go to the West. I hope the Iran war does not start cause of gay rights!

Unfortunately, your fears are coming to get real.

In Indonesia, world's largest muslims country, gay activists (funded by foreign donors) are pushing to get homosexual relations officially recognized. They also get the support from so-called "liberal muslims" who believe that people living in homosexual relations are ok.

These things are truly some of the signs of the end of things.

[Abz2000]

Psycho, I'm not sure if you've had a bad experience with a sodomite "ramming his thing down your throat" but faith is not something you "ram down ones throat", it is not a physical item, I really find it offensive that you even make the comparison and call the concepts the "same thing",
Too much fluoride in the water can dull the contrasts, I know, but we must try.

[ariginality]

Of course, very unlikely US government wants to promote gay rights. It probably has another agenda.

What's so unlikely about it? Obviously, if your crossing foreign aid with gay rights it's a bit fishy. But realistically, this goes along the lines of other absurdities we have become accustomed to with America. Think about foreign aid to Israel vs any other country, the war in Iraq vs a more relevant country, or turn nationally to see the policies which aid haram rather than feed the hungry, marriage in this country is being mocked. Since when has it become a legal status rather than a religious union? They want to defend a gay couples right to adopt? What about a child's right to grow up in a stable home with a mother and a father.

In a country where the divorce rate is 50%, its funny to see "Mrs. Hillary Clinton" present the policy, of all people, who is married for political and business purposes after her husband publicly humiliated her in front of the world. She wants to push America' lack of understanding of what marriage is on the rest of the world. Freedom and ignorance for all!

The funny part is look who presented the policy

[Abz2000]

yes, let's look at who presented the policy:

[Pygoscelis]

Psycho

Really? Everyone was being civil until you now, so I'll just leave it at that.

I really find it offensive that you even make the comparison and call the concepts the "same thing"

I didn't say homosexuality and Islam were the "same thing". I said both are central to who people are and neither has to be pushed on others nor hidden away to accommodate others. To each their own as you said above.

[جوري]

I didn't say homosexuality and Islam were the "same thing". I said both are central to who people are and neither has to be pushed on others nor hidden away to accommodate others. To each their own as you said above.

Not at all, except perhaps in your own psyche. One is a base and perverse animal behavior that needs to remain in the privacy of ones home if at all (with all its shades) and the other is a meta need and a higher philosophy that is attained after much cerebration, reflection and reason.
When you're in a so-called Islamic country, such philosophy is the law of the land, and the law of the land per all philosophies, ideologies and even natural laws dictates that base perverse behavior is a criminal act and will not be tolerated or accommodated openly. So folks like Hillary and other spawn of Satan should focus on their own internal affairs and shove this so-called aid they use to cripple others into becoming little satanists up theirs..

best,

[GuestFellow]

What's so unlikely about it?

Salaam,

I could be wrong. I'm not sure what is really going on, so I prefer to keep my options open. Like the current administration is facing significant pressure from gay right activists.

[CosmicPathos]

When would US promote sibling marriage, cousin marriage and incest? They are as natural, if not more, than homosexuality. Why is US such a hypocritical god?

and I despise this Hillary, she runs to everywhere to show her hideous face with hideous policies.

[Muezzin]

This so-called 'aid' is never seen by the people who actually need it rather goes directly into the pockets of despots. The same despots either put is in Swiss banks, use it for lawyers who justify their orders to kill their own people and when they die or are exiled those same banks freeze their assets and reclaims their money. It just counts as beggary with which the big pawn of Satan uses to enforce its satanic tenets far and wide.

This is true. I'd rather the US and UK deny aid to countries because those countries are led by tyrants who would pocket the money themselves, rather than randomly bringing homosexuality into it. That would at least be more honest.

Although then the US and UK would open themselves up to criticism as to why they have not attempted to depose such tyrants. Which is probably why they played the gay card.

[Pygoscelis]

When would US promote sibling marriage, cousin marriage and incest?

And add poligamy to that list. I don't see it making any sense for them to promote any sort of marriage. As one of my country's prime ministers, Pierre Turdeau is famous for saying "The government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation" and it certainly doesn't belong in the bedrooms of OTHER nations.

Why is US such a hypocritical god?

You view the US as a god?

[Aprender]

cousin marriage

One of the American presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was married to his distant cousin.

[جوري]

One of the American presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was married to his distant cousin.

Queen victoria was married to her first cousin Albert.. and a host of others too including actual sibling marriage in Germany and potentially more than we can even stratify given sperm donations..

:w:

[GuestFellow]

You view the US as a god?

Hi,

I think he meant the US behaves like a God. You know, telling other countries how to behave and threatening to bring democracy to their countries...

[ariginality]

As Aprender said, you can't really HIDE that you are a muslim, but you can refrain from pushing it on everybody around you (and many do as Aprender observed - Christians not so much perhaps). Same with a homosexual. Sure, a muslim will do his prayers, will go to mosque, will live according to the tenets of Islam, etc. A homosexual may live with another man instead of with a wife and they may function as a married couple would. Both are central to who the person is (though yes, Islam encompasses more), and both wouldn't really be possible to hide while being true to yourself, but neither has to be rammed down anybody else's throat.

It's pathetic to compare a religion to a, call it what you will, "alternative lifestyle." But both are choices. One is not "born gay," they make a choice as does a criminal. America can tell me that I can't go over a certain speed limit without going to jail, consume drugs that are not federally approved, broadcast the Athen in certain areas, or even far more laws that would be seen as ridiculous if you google search "absurd laws" or the like. But if a nation doesn't want to allow men to sodomize each other based upon their deep-rooted religious beliefs, your here to claim their rights? There are for nobler causes... get serious. The world would be self-sufficient just the same without America's grand existence, if not far more so.

[Abz2000]

I didn't say homosexuality and Islam were the "same thing". I said both are central to who people are and neither has to be pushed on others nor hidden away to accommodate others.

if sodomy is central to what america is, good luck to them.
if that's what they aspire to, hold to be sacred and in high esteem, worthy of dying for, then wow, it can't be such a bad thing after all,
and since it's not such a bad thing, i'm sure obama and cameron would be offended if i suggested they both practised it 5 times a day.

actually, i feel it's sad that they make all americans out to be promoting such an indecent deed by pretending to be representative of them.
funny how they like to pretend they do everything for votes - as i don't believe the majority of americans or british demanded that they promote sodomy abroad as a condition for getting elected.
but the actual campaign promises they solemnly swear to uphold, and even the laws of the constitution seem to be ok to ignore.

isn't it a fact that they are a far cry from being representatives of the people?

....o yeah, the wars are for democracy...........

[Pygoscelis]

if sodomy is central to what america is

It isn't. It isn't even central to what homosexuals are. Note, I didn't mention sodomy. I mentioned homosexuality. Some people are attracted to others of the same gender. That is as central to who they are as a muslims love for his wife is to who the muslim is. If some muslims hate homosexuals for who homosexuals are then that says more about those muslims (which isn't all muslims) than it does about the homosexuals.

I'll leave the rest of this thread alone, as it started with promise but has now devolved into bigotry.

[GuestFellow]

We need to make a distinction between sexuality and the act itself. Both are different.

[جوري]

. That is as central to who they are as a muslims love for his wife is to who the muslim is

ha?
The thread isn't about homosexuals that keep to the closet is it? rather the export of some kind of societal accommodation to folks openly so. If it were about a mere attraction then it wouldn't make the news would it? tons of people are attracted to tons of other people whom they can't get with, what rights do you propose we have for them?

[User29123]

USA thinks it can run every country in the world, they send out threats and such. Seriously this will take a long time before it happens in countries like Iran/Saudi It won't happen soon. They may target poor countries like African/Pakistan but these rich oil countries they won't touch, not yet anyway. ^o)

[ariginality]

Note, I didn't mention sodomy. I mentioned homosexuality. Some people are attracted to others of the same gender. That is as central to who they are as a muslims love for his wife is to who the muslim is. If some muslims hate homosexuals for who homosexuals are then that says more about those muslims (which isn't all muslims) than it does about the homosexuals.

I'll leave the rest of this thread alone, as it started with promise but has now devolved into bigotry.

You don't have to mention sodomy, it's implied! lol seriously? If you want to talk about homosexuality, no one can control what another human thinks. Hence, a lie detector's results are inadmissible in court. You're leaving this thread alone because you have nothing intellectual to respond with to what I presented. The actual thread started on the note of "gay" not homosexuality nor sodomy. But realistically, none of these exist in reference to males without sodomy. No one ever said to males can't live together. Sex is a part of marriage and in Islam it is quite explicitly a part of marriage. So when you are here defending gay marriage, you're implicitly defending sodomy. "oh i wasn't supporting gay marriage just gay rights"... save the b.s., marriage or not, sodomy is implied, among other sins, and Muslims don't want it in their society (sodomy is just an easy, key reference point, so don't get hung up on the word). This thread started with promise until I came and shut it down! Because people who defend gay rights have no fundamental basis in history, they have nothing to compare their fight to, and if the west wants to allow it, they shouldn't push their beliefs on the rest... hypocrite

[ariginality]

as it started with promise but has now devolved into bigotry.

Plus, this is an Islamic site! lol, if you're interested in a religion that evolves go argue w the Christians or the atheistic evolutionists... maybe men will be able to have babies in another thousand years, just ask Darwin

[Crystal]

Lol thats funny, didn't they also just legalise homosexuality in the military ? Even though women can't fight in combat!

I don't really care if a person is gay as long as they are behind closed doors but this whole notion of celebrating being gay is confusing young people thats why society is messed up!

[Wyatt]

Gays feel the right to be able to marry in a country that claims to have a freedom of religion implying freedom from religion.

I think that makes sense. It has nothing to do with "what happens behind closed doors" implying homosexuality is merely sexual deviancy as some might like to make it. People will call it a "chosen lifestyle" but how is it really? At what age did you choose to be straight?

As one of these despicable gays myself, I would really appreciate the chance to marry whom I love and receive the benefits of it being recognized by the government, and that's not necessarily a financial concern. I would like for my partner to be able to make medical decisions on my behalf and visit me in the hospital. My partner is in the military and if anything happens to him, I am homeless because I have no family to go to and I am on the other side of the country from my friends. The only real reason why it should be unrecognized is because of religion.

Religion is perfectly fine to say what they think is or is not right, so I am 100% against people fighting to be able to have gay marriage in churches, mosques, etc. I am also 100% against the gay parades where men and women flaunt around in rainbow underwear. It really paints a disgusting image that does not gain any appreciation for these people.

To someone scrutinized and told they're disgusting for being who they are, they know no sympathy when the offensive group feels disrespected for not being able to oppress them anymore. In other words, this image can be applied to this situation to make my point:

Attachment 4480

In other countries, this is a different deal. For the theocracies in the Middle East, if they want to murder gays, that's none of anyone else's business. It will just make them look bad for when other countries modernize and learn to accept realities that might make them feel uncomfortable.

In another point, I obviously don't think the USA should partake in most of its dealings across seas because we have enough on our own plates to worry about others. Human rights is important, but we have had so many issues with that since the beginning of our own formation, who are we to tell others what to do?

There are Christian radio personalities that are against anti-bullying laws because they claim it "indoctrinates" their children into accepting differences and won't be allowed to become violent against someone else for such reasons. I think this crosses the line when children have had a trend of suicide and others are enjoying such misery taking place on the children and families.

More pain and anguish comes from oppressing others than treating them like equals and assuring them the chance to pursue their own happiness. To those who equate loving someone to such a thing as murder, I'm really sort of sad someone could be made to think like that. I saw a gay Vietnam veteran's gravestone that had the words "WHEN I WAS IN THE MILITARY I WAS GIVEN A MEDAL FOR KILLING TWO MEN AND A DISCHARGE FOR LOVING ONE."

[جوري]

Gays feel the right to be able to marry in a country that claims to have a freedom of religion implying freedom from religion

Marriage is a religious ceremony before the eyes of God. God has decreed that the only marriages recognizable are between man and woman and there are limits set on that even. If you desire a marriage outside of that it wouldn't be recognized, unless you've a civil union and in a secular govt. I wouldn't see a problem with that. But we don't want to live under secular laws of moral decay and bankruptcy. We're not dehumanizing gays, I believe they do that to themselves when they choose to identify themselves by their sexual acts rather than who they are as people and if they can't be people outside of homosexuality then I pity them indeed. If you didn't advertise your homosexuality we'd have no way of knowing and that's usually the case with all human beings. We don't know who is in love, who is stood up at the alter, who is widowed, who is separated unless it is something they advertised. Some things should be held sacred. And disapproving of homosexuality doesn't equate with hate crimes, or bullying or a dishonorable discharge. One should hate the sin not the sinner and every sinner has a chance to repent. Everyone choose who they bed. Everyone does!
There are many who desire to be married and can't be, those who love certain individuals and end up choosing differently for whatever reason, choosing to love is one thing, choosing to act on an impulse is another.
Someone might have very strong feelings for a woman who can't stand him, should he rape her because that's just how he feels? We've instincts all of us do, it doesn't mean we should act on them. I don't despise you for being gay, I certainly don't approve of your lifestyle. I am not going to wake up and think it is alternative to get with the time. It was a sin then and it is a sin now, but it is also your choice.. I might wish that you'd make the right choice but I can't force you to, I also don't want it to be forced on me as a social norm..

best,

[ariginality]

People will call it a "chosen lifestyle" but how is it really? At what age did you choose to be straight?

As one of these despicable gays myself, I would really appreciate the chance to marry whom I love and receive the benefits of it being recognized by the government, and that's not necessarily a financial concern. I would like for my partner to be able to make medical decisions on my behalf and visit me in the hospital. My partner is in the military and if anything happens to him, I am homeless because I have no family to go to and I am on the other side of the country from my friends. The only real reason why it should be unrecognized is because of religion.

You are making the bold assumption that just because someone chooses not to have sex with another of the same sex that they are straight. But reality is that the being straight is not the only alternative. So you do choose who you have sex with don't you? You choose to have sex and be in a relationship with your partner. You were not born in that circumstance. Just as a person chooses to practice heterosexual activities when they engage. They are not born that way either. Is a nun straight? (I would say priest but most of them are pedophiles).

As for your rights. Inheritance is determined by a living will not a marriage certificate. I recall being asked many time for "Emergency contact information" and I'm not married. But if your real stance is that you want to get married for possible medical concerns, then you should take up your battle with medical community, not the government

[Ramadhan]

This stance by USA to promote gay rights abroad is so random.

Why not promoting people who have incestuous feelings? Do they not have rights to get married as well?
They were "born that way" too, no?

Why not promoting people who want to get married to multiple partners?

Why not promoting the rights of people who want to get married to their pets?

[Abz2000]

they already do in some parts:

Man 'marries' dog to beat curse

The "bride" wore a sari and a garland. An Indian man has "married" a female dog, hoping the move will help atone for stoning two other dogs to death. P Selvakumar, 33, said he had been cursed since the killings, suffering paralysis and a loss of hearing. The wedding took place at a Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu state. The "bride" wore an orange sari with a flower garland and was fed a bun to celebrate.

"On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a bi*ch to get cured.
Then we arranged Selvakumar's marriage with a bi*ch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7093422.stm

[Abz2000]

then they went in.......................................

[Riana17]

Asalam

We are all equal and I feel really sad for gay for they are weak.
Till today no one can fully explain why there are gays or gays really exist and why?

Promoting gay rights? I didnt get it, if that means allowing them to marry each other or the like, I would say no. Because Quran says no. as simple as that.

[GuestFellow]

Because Quran says no. as simple as that.

Salaam,

It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Some people don't believe in Islam. There needs to be an argument that can persuade non-Muslims that gay marriage will cause problems. Like members have raised issues concerning people marrying their immediate family members, animals, objects and so on...

[Aprender]

There needs to be an argument that can persuade non-Muslims that gay marriage will cause problems.

Outside of religion the psychology used to condemn this behavior but now the tune has changed to declaring this as something normal.

It also isn't helping to discourage the behavior when we get articles like this one: Gay marriage 'improves health'. :hmm: I feel like people will pay anyone these days to do research that will say anything.

May Allah guide us all. Ameeeen

[GuestFellow]

Outside of religion the psychology used to condemn this behavior but now the tune has changed to declaring this as something normal.

Salaam,

Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental illness? I don't believe that unless you can present evidence. I have a relative who is gay but does not engage in such acts. He is perfectly normal, very hardworking and successful. Nothing mentally wrong with him.

The only reason why some homosexuals suffer from mentally illnesses is because some members of the society are very judgemental towards homosexuals. They are human beings with emotions and feelings but are treated worse than rapists.

[Riana17]

Salaam,

It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Some people don't believe in Islam. There needs to be an argument that can persuade non-Muslims that gay marriage will cause problems. Like members have raised issues concerning people marrying their immediate family members, animals, objects and so on...

Salam Ukoi, I was talking about my personal support. I wouldnt support any of that because its against the Book of Allah, if Allah allows it, why not, Im just a follower

But I wouldnt involve myself in this issue, there is no votation anyway, i have to mind my own business

[Abz2000]

anyone who's worked in mental health can tell you that it is possible to create and un-create imaginary diagnosis according to requirement or whim,
even your suspicion of a liar can be constructed to label you paranoid, or your murderous acts can be justified as a normal reaction to the circumstances.
anything that is not the social norm can be classed as an abnormality if one pleases, since they have no fixed standard of evaluation,
it was considered a mental illness until politicians began decriminalizing it. now questioning government lies can even be labelled as a mental illness.
to hell with them.

Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As a result of such accumulated research, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.[1]
Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions has moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

[ariginality]

"On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a bi*ch to get cured.
Then we arranged Selvakumar's marriage with a bi*ch.

lol why are you censoring the word *****? it's a harmless, proper, English word when used it proper context. :omg:;D

[ariginality]

It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Some people don't believe in Islam. There needs to be an argument that can persuade non-Muslims that gay marriage will cause problems. Like members have raised issues concerning people marrying their immediate family members, animals, objects and so on...

In some cases it's not as simple as that. But in an Islamic state (which this forum is ultimately about), it is! We don't owe America the Great an explanation tyvm. On-the-other-hand there are many persuasive arguments, hence, even most of America doesn't accept gay marriage.
"Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide." None of which are the hypocritical United states.

[Abz2000]

the U.S government is becoming a real pain in the a*** for other nations

[ariginality]

the U.S government is becoming a real pain in the a*** for other nations

literally :omg:;D

[User29123]

the U.S government is becoming a real pain in the a*** for other nations

It all ready is...

[GuestFellow]

But in an Islamic state (which this forum is ultimately about), it is!

Salaam,

Unfortunately, it is still complicated. There are Muslims that are attracted to people of the same sex. Now there is massive support for homosexuals to get married, adopt children and so on. Some gay Muslims also support these ideas. Muslims must be able to develop arguments that can show others why homosexual sex is forbidden. If we fail to do this, people will not take Islam seriously and some Muslims may even leave their faith as a result.

You can have an Islamic state but that does not mean it will survive if we continue to treat controversial topics in a simplistic manner. They must be addressed and discussed.

[Pygoscelis]

Salaam,

It is not as simple as that unfortunately. Some people don't believe in Islam. There needs to be an argument that can persuade non-Muslims that gay marriage will cause problems. Like members have raised issues concerning people marrying their immediate family members, animals, objects and so on...

Indeed. And as a heterosexual non-muslim, arguments that "Allah forbids it" will obviously hold no sway whatsoever over me. However, I would be open to rational secular arguments like you're suggesting, if there are any. I have yet to encounter any good ones.

The best argument I have against gay marriage would be against marriage itself. One may argue that people should not get special rights just because they find a spouse (of the opposite sex or otherwise) and that this discriminates against single people. One could also put forth a feminist argument, that marriage started as the ownership of women by men, etc.

But I'm aware of no good arguments that would support heterosexual marriage but oppose homosexual marriage. The only arguments I've seen for that boil down to tradition and/or bigotry dressed up as religion.

[GuestFellow]

However, I would be open to rational secular arguments like you're suggesting, if there are any.

Hi,

Well I'm glad you keep an open mind. I rarely meet people like that.

[Ramadhan]

There are plenty of good rational secular arguments against homosexual relations itself, and by extension, homosexual marriage.

Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean there isn't any.

The same with religions:
By all accounts, Islam theology is foolproof and much superior than christianity, and yet christians reject rational arguments of Islam while preferring their own irrational illogical theology.

[GuestFellow]

There are plenty of good rational secular arguments against homosexual relations itself, and by extension, homosexual marriage.

Salaam,

Can you please list these arguments? I would like to know them as well.

[Pygoscelis]

As would I.

I strongly suspect he doesn't actually have any though.

One I sometimes hear is that "homosexual couples don't procreate".... well neither do infertile couples and we don't push to ban them from marrying.

Another I sometimes hear is that homosexuality is "unatural", but in fact many non-human animal species have homosexuals.

Another I sometimes hear is that it will lead to a myriad of crime and abuse and disease. But if you look at the countries that have legalized homosexual marriage you don't see any such increases.

The only remaining argument I've heard is that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and that homosexual marriage makes a mockery of the "institution of marriage" (whatever that is supposed to mean). But we don't see the same people pushing to outlaw short term marriages or celebrity attention seeking marriages or political marriages or any other kind of marriage that makes a mockery of it.

So what's left? I can think of nothing but "It should be banned because its wrong, and its wrong because my God says so".

At the end of the day I see no rational reason to stop homosexuals from marrying the people they love, like everybody else. And I don't think their relationships are anybody's business but theirs. I do agree that they shouldn't flaunt it or push it at people, but I feel the same way about heterosexuals, and for that matter, about religion.

Also, I wish people would stop letting their religions motivate them to exclaim that homosexuality is a "choice", when the fact is that their subscribing to their religion is far more a choice than the homosexual's sexual orientation is.

[Ramadhan]

Salaam,

Can you please list these arguments? I would like to know them as well.

:wa:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...sexuality.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...sexuality.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...iscussion.html

Also, I wish people would stop letting their religions motivate them to exclaim that homosexuality is a "choice", when the fact is that their subscribing to their religion is far more a choice than the homosexual's sexual orientation is.

Yes, subscription to religion is a choice, and so is homosexual relations (notice I didn't use the word homosexuality).
So, what's your point?

[CosmicPathos]

Indeed. And as a heterosexual non-muslim, arguments that "Allah forbids it" will obviously hold no sway whatsoever over me. However, I would be open to rational secular arguments like you're suggesting, if there are any. I have yet to encounter any good ones.

The best argument I have against gay marriage would be against marriage itself. One may argue that people should not get special rights just because they find a spouse (of the opposite sex or otherwise) and that this discriminates against single people. One could also put forth a feminist argument, that marriage started as the ownership of women by men, etc.

But I'm aware of no good arguments that would support heterosexual marriage but oppose homosexual marriage. The only arguments I've seen for that boil down to tradition and/or bigotry dressed up as religion.

actually its the women who want to get married and get to "be the bride." I am sure most, if not all, kaafir men would be happy in sleeping around with that woman without all that marriage event thing if it socially acceptable and if the woman was not putting pressure.

[Wyatt]

Homosexual relations is very much so a choice, but homosexuality is not. When someone is homosexual, it's not easy to force themselves to act or do heterosexual things. It's not who they are. So, they feel very uncomfortable and end up rejecting the oppressors who do not accept them for how they were born. It diminishes their faith in any god when they have to struggle with a situation like this making them very unhappy and insecure. That's just what happens.

I honestly think people are simply grossed out by it and have to utilise their religion to come up with excuses as to why it's wrong, which obviously does not hold up in any fair debate. That's why anti-gay marriage people always refer to it as "sexual relations" and "what happens in the bedroom" as if that's what it's about. Homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. The gender may be different, but the love is very real and very much so the same. If anything, gay couples can be stronger because they're forced to go through the hardships it is to be oppressed by a society for even existing.

If anyone says homosexuality is a choice, then say that your religion said heterosexuality was wrong and homosexuality was right. How easy would it be to change that part of yourself to fit your religion? You wouldn't want anything to do with it, would you?

[syilla]

i would like if someone can open new thread that homosexual will wrecked a country either economically or socially. :hmm:

[GuestFellow]

Another I sometimes hear is that homosexuality is "unatural", but in fact many non-human animal species have homosexuals.

I think we all can agree that we do not use animals as a standard to judge human behaviour...

[جوري]

polygamy is also 'natural' amongst animals.. so why pick and choose the model animal behavior you desire to subscribe to and ban the other?

[Ramadhan]

polygamy is also 'natural' amongst animals.. so why pick and choose the model animal behavior you desire to subscribe to and ban the other?

as well as incestuous. Just google "bonobos".

Some animals also marry themselves, so why don't we allow people to get married to themselves.

[Pygoscelis]

polygamy is also 'natural' amongst animals.. so why pick and choose the model animal behavior you desire to subscribe to and ban the other?

Exactly. This shows the weakness of the "its not natural!" argument you sometimes hear. Neither are a lot of other things. Its not "natural" for humans to fly, but we do build airplanes and nobody says that's wrong.

[جوري]

Exactly. This shows the weakness of the "its not natural!" argument you sometimes hear. Neither are a lot of other things. Its not "natural" for humans to fly, but we do build airplanes and nobody says that's wrong.

Natural is what is in conformity with the majority.. there are indeed things skewed to the left and skewed to the right, they're excluded from the bell curve for a number of reason, not merely because they're not representative with the corpus but because of their futility. It goes under a different heading.. If you view sexuality as mere gratification and decadence then sure this can be 'natural' and so is any other act forbidden or not.. if you view it as a tool for progress, growth, improvement and betterment for the human race then it is indeed an aberration and a dead end one at that..both in 'nature' and by the moral code of religion. It is 'natural' for weed to grow amongst cultivated plants..
Decadence is viewed as a degeneration of morality...

best,

[Muezzin]

This thread is no longer about the topic in the first post. It has become a debate about homosexuality, of which there are countless on this site alone.

Thread closed.