Gay Couples are to be Allowed to Marry in Churches.

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[Trumble]

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'.

 

[Ramadhan]

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.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

: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.

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).

 

[Trumble]

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.

 

[Ramadhan]

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 Stories
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-qGoFlGngC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://unilife.curtin.edu.au/sexualdiversity/documents/Trans_sexual_health_access.pdf

 

[جوري]

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/20000531/gay-men-should-be-checked-for-anal-cancer-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/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&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

 

[Pygoscelis]

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?

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?

 

[Pygoscelis]

(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:

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).​

 

[glo]

British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

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

 

[glo]

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.

 

[جوري]

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

 

[Ramadhan]

Re: British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12486003

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?

 

[glo]

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" ...

 

[Ramadhan]

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?

 

[جوري]

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

 

[glo]

Re: British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

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.

 

[glo]

Please share the research you have done, Vale's Lily. I would be interested to understand the nature of homosexual relationships better.

 

[جوري]

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

 

[CosmicPathos]

Re: British gay Muslims seek Islamic weddings

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.