BBC news website asks users: 'Should homosexuals face execution?'

[Skavau]

You need witnesses to an act for it to be a crime!

That's not what I asked.

I asked: If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

Yes, and one group makes up 1.86 billion, while the other 2 billions, I assure you Jews frown upon it too and I am almost certain that Hindus (the other quite large group) isn't particularly allowing either.. so you are actually looking at homos themselves and lawless secularists who want to push an agenda to no end, until folks are copulating like donkeys on the street while using every hilarious term under the sun to describe how the rest of the people are in error!

I am sure that most Muslims frown on homosexuality. I am sure that many Christians and Jews also frown on it, as well as Hindus.

However far less of these groups actually believe homosexuality ought to be punishable by death. You forget about the large numbers of cultural muslims and cultural Christians that live in the western world. You forget about the fact that in many European nations, irreligion is by many statistics considered the majority position. I guess I should qualify my claims by stating that most people in secular nations believe there is no legal issue with homosexuality and that it ought not be punishable.

 

[GuestFellow]

Why shouldn't they feel proud about their sexuality?

Ah is it not liberals who claim people have no control over their sexuality? Last time I checked, I heard people say homosexuals are born like that, they had no control over it. So why be proud of something when you have no control over it? I assume your referring to acceptance, not pride.

Let me use myself as an example. It is no secret to the people I know that I am attracted to black women, contrary to myself being white. I don't 'boast' about (although it's actually rather obvious), but I certainly don't go out my way to hide it. Also, why are you bringing one's sexual life into it? Sexuality and sexual life aren't the same- just because you see a man and a woman together, it doesn't mean that they're not keeping their sexual life private.

Indeed, sexual like and sexuality are not the same. When people begin to act upon their sexual desires in public (e.g kissing), then I personally consider it to be inappropriate.

 

[جوري]

That's not what I asked.

I asked: If a homosexual simply has others know he is homosexual, is he acting inappropriately?

I don't care for what you asked, this isn't a matter left to personal judgment, cases of execution are taken to court with folks deliberating over facts! For facts you need witnesses. I really can't be bothered to take a joy ride into the atheist agenda and their endless psychobabble!
There is the law, and then there is your personal opinion. Everyone has an opinion, if we are talking about a matter of said seriousness, then what I have written above is sufficient!

I am sure that most Muslims frown on homosexuality. I am sure that many Christians and Jews also frown on it, as well as Hindus.

Good!

However far less of these groups actually believe homosexuality ought to be punishable by death. You forget about the large numbers of cultural muslims and cultural Christians that live in the western world. You forget about the fact that in many European nations, irreligion is by many statistics considered the majority position. I guess I should qualify my claims by stating that most people in secular nations believe there is no legal issue with homosexuality and that it ought not be punishable.

Matters of punishment are left to courts not to public opinion as stated previously!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

 

[Supreme]

Ah is it not liberals who claim people have no control over their sexuality? Last time I checked, I heard people say homosexuals are born like that, they had no control over it. So why be proud of something when you have no control over it? I assume your referring to acceptance, not pride.

People have no control over their intelligence, looks, race, nationality and gender, and yet people still are proud of these things too. The point is, people are proud of who they are, sometimes moreso than what they've done or achieved.

Indeed, sexual like and sexuality are not the same. When people begin to act upon their sexual desires in public (e.g kissing), then I personally consider it to be inappropriate.

And this is where we differ. Kissing is an act of love. Love is a good thing, if not the greatest thing according to Paul. It is not an act of sex. Sex generally involves the genitals. Kissing involves the lips. Sure, kissing is a sign of affection, but if people showed more affection and love to one another, there would be far less wars in the world. I also believe people should be able to do what they like in public, so long as it does not harm anyone or offend the majority. I believe individuals should be able to do what they like within the law.

 

[جوري]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

That is fantastic as to why you hadn't arrived to that conclusion earlier is fully beyond me..

good day to you!

 

[GuestFellow]

This discussion is terminated, Skye. If you can't answer simple questions for clarification then I will not interact with you. I am not going to be playing semantic riddles with you. If you are going to pick and choose what questions to answer, persistently act passively aggressive towards me then I will simply wish you good day.

Well I'll clarify. In an Islamic State, what people do in their private lives is none of judiciary business; they will be dealt with by Allah. Now if someone questioned another individual about their sexuality, of course they will not be punished. In order for the death penalty to be carried out, you would require 4 witness.

People have no control over their intelligence, looks, race, nationality and gender, and yet people still are proud of these things too. The point is, people are proud of who they are, sometimes moreso than what they've done or achieved.

People do have a control over their intelligence, by studying and educating yourself, you can become more intelligent.

Pride itself can be a problem where once it is excessive, one can assume they are superior than the other. This can be applied to race, nationality, gender and the colour of your skin. What your referring to is acceptance, no one has control over these factors, so I feel there is not need to announce how proud you are. It is acceptance, not pride. Being proud of such factors goes to show, you seeking something to be proud of since you have not achieved anything or seeking to feel superior than other based on factors you have no control over.

 

[Uthman]

I must clarify something that I don't think has been made crystal clear on this thread. The Islamic state does not have a problem with homosexual feelings. However, it does have a problem with homosexual acts.

 

[Skavau]

I must clarify something that I don't think has been made crystal clear on this thread. The Islamic state does not have a problem with homosexual feelings. However, it does have a problem with homosexual acts.

Yes this is often specified, and I should like to add something based on this. It is often claimed that the Islamic state (it is with both homosexuality and apostasy) that both are wholly acceptable as long as they are private, or in other words as long as no-one finds out. This is an apologetic response to criticisms of Islamic Law I have seen on many occasions and I believe it is flawed because it doesn't really justify it. The UK government could go ahead and appease would-be murderers and say, "Well murdering is now legal providing you don't get caught." It is identical to saying that it is legal. How does it make sense to encourage crime like that?

Something is illegal if it is outlawed. Both homosexuality and apostasy appear to be, by the voice of most muslims and apologists - under Islamic Law, forbidden - therefore illegal. Encouraging critics of this that "well, just don't tell anyone" is encouraging hypocrisy and still a concession that it is illegal.

Apologies for bringing the thread slightly off-track.

 

[جوري]

There is no apologetic response for Homosexuality it is never legal, it isn't condoned and shouldn't be, however if you are dumb enough to commit a sin don't be caught or suffer the consequences come what may!

having homosexual feelings, or getting the urge to kill your mother or kick someone's a$$ all fall within the confines of normal, acting upon them isn't.. and acting upon them in a foolish fashion can only get you your just desert!

if you don't get justice in this life, then there is assuredly divine justice from which there is no escape!

all the best

 

[titus]

Why not? This is democracy, people are allowed to express their views whether you like it or not. If one day the majority voted for a religious state, I wonder how some secularists would react.

Negatively I am sure. After all, in any religious state you automatically create a class system based on religion. Followers of the state religion are first class citizens, all others are, at minimum, second class. At this point you now have tyranny.

I don't know of any examples of religious states in which those that were not the main religion were not eventually persecuted and driven out.

 

[GuestFellow]

Negatively I am sure. After all, in any religious state you automatically create a class system based on religion. Followers of the state religion are first class citizens, all others are, at minimum, second class. At this point you now have tyranny.

I don't know of any examples of religious states in which those that were not the main religion were not eventually persecuted and driven out.

I doubt you have knowledge upon the political structure that Islam offers. Most religions do not have a political or economic structure.

In Western countries through democracy the majority imposes upon the minority, a possibility that could take place. Looking at the state of western countries and living in one, I personally can't wait to leave.

 

[Skavau]

In Western countries through democracy the majority imposes upon the minority, a possibility that could take place. Looking at the state of western countries and living in one, I personally can't wait to leave.

?

Huh? You realise democracy is all about preventing the power of mob rule from imposing itself on others? You realise democracy is all about empowering people to be free from tyranny? This is very true in the independence of America if you want a good example.

 

[Grofica]

We're not talking about a Muslim society, we're talking about a Christian one, because Uganda is a Christian country. Therefore I am ashamed such laws are being considered by my fellow Christians. I suppose 'thou shalt not kill' bears no weight in Uganda.

First off from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary for an accurate reference:

The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, or "sin of Sodom."
Copulation with a member of the same gender or with an animal.

Non-coital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the same gender.

Old testimate:

Genesis 1-2 says the male was incomplete without the female: "It was not good for man to be alone." The woman was created to be a suitable companion for the man.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. " (Leviticus 18:22-23)

"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)

new testimate:

"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 recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:26-28)

Referance wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

The association of the ancient city of Sodom with sexual depravity is of biblical origin. In the Book of Genesis (chapters 18-20), the Lord perceives Sodom and Gomorrah as places of grave sinfulness and seeks to discover whether this perception is really true before He destroys the inhabitants. Two angels (who have the appearance of humans) are sent to find out the reality of life in Sodom. After arriving in the city in the evening, the angels are invited - then urged strongly - by Lot (an upright man) to take refuge with his family for the night.

The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may "know them," which has been interpreted either to mean "interrogate" or "to engage in sexual intercourse." Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.

Sodom is subsequently destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire. From this biblical narrative, the word 'Sodomy' is derived.

In current usage, the term is particularly used in law.[2] Sodomy laws prohibiting such s*xual activity have been a standard feature of codes of s*xual morality in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilisations (see below) as well as many other cultures[citation needed]. In the various criminal codes of United States of America, the term "sodomy" has generally been replaced by "Deviant s*xual intercourse", which is precisely defined by statute.[3]

 

[GuestFellow]

?
Huh? You realise democracy is all about preventing the power of mob rule from imposing itself on others? You realise democracy is all about empowering people to be free from tyranny? This is very true in the independence of America if you want a good example.

Democracy can be used to elect a fascist government? People vote for political parties, the majority imposes on the minority though to be fair, minorities rights can be represented, however democracy does not ensure peace. Bad people can be elected through democracy.

Have you heard of the USA Patriot Act? I guess not, if you assume America is a good example. People in the West only think they free, they cannot even challenge their own government. British people could not stop the government from going to war with Iraq nor could the Americans stop their own government. The government in the West does what it pleases and gets away with it, the public cannot do anything since they believe they are ''free.'' The public are free to indulge in sexual activities, get drunk and degrade themselves. When it comes down to challenging the government, their voices are not heard. If you believe your ''free'' then your definitely are in your own world. The only thing your free to do is embarrass yourself.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why should people display their sexuality preferences in public? Whether homosexuality or heterosexuality, people should keep their their sexual life in private. Why do people feel the need to boast about their sexuality?

Backlash. Homosexuals didn't make homosexuality a big deal, they just run with the idea. When people declare you as "evil" and deserving of death, you'd probably want to find a way to speak out and tell the world you're not ashamed too. I don't find this at all surprising or unusual.

For centuries they have been told to be ashamed of being gay. Gay Pride is the opposite of Gay Shame, so naturally the pendulum swings in the other direction, sometimes too far. The same happens with "Black Pride" and those crazy aggressive feminists (as opposed to egalitarians). So long as there are people declaring that homosexuality is evil and that homosexuals should be KILLED for it... a little parade really isn't comparatively as bad though. As homosexuality becomes more commonly accepted, as inter racial marriage has been, I think you'll see a decline in gay pride. It'll be no big deal.

 

[Skavau]

Democracy can be used to elect a fascist government? People vote for political parties, the majority imposes on the minority though to be fair, minorities rights can be represented, however democracy does not ensure peace. Bad people can be elected through democracy.

Democracies indeed can malform into anything. But we are talking about the intended objectives of democracy. I don't even know what you mean when you claimed that minorities are being imposed upon by the majority. Do you mean it is a passive consequence of decisions through referendum, or petition or do you mean governments in these democracies deliberately choose to stomp over the rights of the minority? It is interesting how you show a contradiction in thought. On one hand you complain that democracy is mob rule and about the imposition on the minority, and yet on the other hand you point out (as you do below) the fact that these are representative democracies (not direct) and that people have much less power than you claimed.

Which is it?

Have you heard of the USA Patriot Act? I guess not, if you assume America is a good example. People in the West only think they free, they cannot even challenge their own government.

I have heard of the patriot act, and I am not referring to that. Go and look up about the forefathers of the US State and what they intended, and why they intended. I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.

Also, what do you mean by cannot even challenge their own government?

British people could not stop the government from going to war with Iraq nor could the Americans stop their own government. The government in the West does what it pleases and gets away with it, the public cannot do anything since they believe they are ''free.'' The public are free to indulge in sexual activities, get drunk and degrade themselves. When it comes down to challenging the government, their voices are not heard. If you believe your ''free'' then your definitely are in your own world. The only thing your free to do is embarrass yourself.

You would do well to understand that apathy is the root cause of government freedom, both in the USA and in the Uk. Many incidents where there has been a backlash, there has been capitulation.

 

[جوري]

I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.
.

That was very well illustrated by slavery as a legal institution!

 

[GuestFellow]

Democracies indeed can malform into anything. But we are talking about the intended objectives of democracy.

Well lets define democracy.

1. representation of people: the right to a form of government in which power is invested in the people as a whole, usually exercised on their behalf by elected representatives

2. democratic nation: a country with a democratically elected government

3. democratic system of government: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making

4. control of organization by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a right to participate in decision-making processes

The public are meant to be in power. Define what you mean by intended objectives.

I don't even know what you mean when you claimed that minorities are being imposed upon by the majority.

It is a possibility.

Do you mean it is a passive consequence of decisions through referendum, or petition or do you mean governments in these democracies deliberately choose to stomp over the rights of the minority?

Both can take place. The public may vote to pass a legislation to scrutinize a minority or decide to vote for a political party who will themselves pass laws to favour the majority and not represent the rights of a minorities. These are possibilities.

It is interesting how you show a contradiction in thought. On one hand you complain that democracy is mob rule and about the imposition on the minority, and yet on the other hand you point out (as you do below) the fact that these are representative democracies (not direct) and that people have much less power than you claimed.

Which is it?

You failed to realise both can occur. There is a possibility of both occurring in any democratic society.

I have heard of the patriot act, and I am not referring to that.

Well I'm referring to that. That is the case where people believe they are free when these legislations are passed without even realising their freedoms and privacy is affected.

Go and look up about the forefathers of the US State and what they intended, and why they intended.

I can assure you that the interests of the minority and contempt for monopoly on power was one of them.

I'm aware of the principles, I'm exploring the possibilities that can take place in a democratic society.

Also, what do you mean by cannot even challenge their own government?

You can protest, complain and critique the government. It does not mean these complaints shall be addressed. I gave an example of the Iraq war.

You would do well to understand that apathy is the root cause of government freedom, both in the USA and in the Uk. Many incidents where there has been a backlash, there has been capitulation.

Democracy ensures the public decide which political party is in power. Democracy through freedom of expression ensures everyone has equal say in matters, however this is not the case at times.

As an overview, I'm stating the principles of democracy cannot be enforced all the time. As society changes so does the law to reflect this, it does not provide certainty. There is a possibility of the majority imposing upon the minority by electing a political party to pass laws to achieve this. People think they are ''free'' in democratic society when they are not, example of the Patriot Act and there is difficulty challenging the government, most people are not aware what laws are passed. You can also elect a incompetent individual to govern a country. These are the problems with democracy I stated above, these factors can become a reality.

 

[greenshirt]

6 pages of debating and arguing! wow!

firstly i dont think the USA was founded upon christian values. thomas jefferson was certainly not a christian by our definition. in fact, he seems to have been a unitarian. also, many founding fathers were profoundly inspired by the writings of john locke, a deist. also anyone who studies the reasons why the first european settlers came to america, it was because they wanted to practice their religion freely, without persecution. america to this day continues to be a secular nation. i feel much more comfortable about the fact that i am in the USA than in europe, because in europe muslims arent as integrated as here. also, we can have mosques here with big minarets. no one is voting to ban minarets. no one is working to close down islamic schools. we have freedom to worship here and even if people dont like us because we are muslim, they arent going to express it publicly.

secondly i see that there is debating going on concerning whether or not homosexuality is acceptable or not.

in islam we value privacy. we are not allowed to invade privacy and we are not supposed to speculate what goes on behind closed doors, even if we have a feeling it is something sinful. if gays want to commit intercourse in closed doors, then that is their business and i have no reason to condemn them for something if i dont know. i think islams perspective on privacy is a lot like "dont ask, dont tell."

when homosexuality becomes a problem is when people come out and tell the whole world what they are doing. in fact, this is a problem when anyone shares their sex life, even if they are married. intercourse is purely a private matter and the whole world doesnt need to know your private business. and when shared, sin is being committed. in islam we dont want people to share the fact that they sin, because this can cause mischief.

homosexual acts are sinful in islam, no doubt. but in this world, in a true islamic society, if you were gay but didnt flaunt it or tell others, we would be obligated to leave you alone and let you do what you wish in your privacy. we would only see a problem if you did these things in public. otherwise, we would let allah(swt) deal with you, not us. in islam, punishing someone for a sexual sin(whether it be fornication, adultery, or sodomy) is really hard. there must be at least 4 witnesses and they shouldnt invade your privacy.there was a time when uthman ibn affan saw someone getting drunk and engaging with prostitutes: two very sinful acts in islam. however the sinner was on his own property behind closed doors so he couldnt do anything about it.

so if it is so hard to prosecute homosexuals why do we have these laws in the first place? as a deterrent. it may be hard to be put to death but it could still happen so we hope that people will think twice before engaging in sin.

and also keep in note that it's not homosexual desires that are sinful, it is the acts.