Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Abu Lulu

Benefit For Punishing Homosexuals

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

According to a fatwa of Al-Khoei, it says:

2747. If an adult and sane person commits sodomy with another adult and sane person, both of them should be killed. And the religious Head can kill the person guilty of sodomy with a sword, or burn him alive, or tie his hands and feet and hurl him down from a high place, and under the conditions mentioned in Article 2795 can lapidate him.

lol there go the Gay Rights .............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this isn't always the case....but I have heard that extreme cases of homophobia are actually due to a persons fear and shame of their secret homosexual tendencies.

An interesting hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have fun trying to stop it, you have more hope that me....the legalization of gay marriage state by state in the U.S. is having a domino effect, soon it will reach Europe then who knows where else.

To tell you the truth sis, I really don't have any hope. But lack of hope doesn't mean we sit back and let it happen. The media is too strong. Too many people are uneducated. It's difficult to explain why such things are wrong, and doing it on a mass-scale is even harder. The dark-cloud of social ignorance has descended upon man again. The sanctity of marriage and correct human conduct has been tossed aside. The barriers of ethics and morality have been broken. Reversing the trend now is almost impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your version of equality and the Jewish/Christian/Islamic versions of equality differ. You say Sodom is fine, we Say God destroyed Sodom for a really good reason.

China and the US interpretation on Human Rights differ.

I am merely presenting the Islamic perspective of Human Rights, as Islam (as shown in the opening post) abhors homosexuality, it's that simple.

If Liberalism was permitted to have its way, the world will turn into Sodom. This must be stopped at all costs.

I think we all agree its wrong where we all differ is how to handle the problem, I say we use the quaran to help these people others here say we use a sword to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Don't use religion to justify your hate, since it's really disgusting.

Homosexuality is a sin, indeed, and there is a hadd for it. However, you can't say "let them all burn". Because I could also say "let everybody here burn". Probably all of us are sinners, and common sinners that deserve no mercy. Don't look at how awful the homosexual act is, just look at how big God's mercy is. Probably many muslim people are facing homosexuality in their lives (not only people who have homosexual feelings, but people who are related to homosexual people). You can't, as a human being, kill all those people (unless the hadd has to be applied). In the first place, you will try to help them, to guide them. Certainly, a gender op isn't the real solution. This is ridiculous when we are talking about HOMOSEXUALS (people who have certain desires that everybody can have). Allah is our rabb, so why not ask Him with sincerity? I'm sure Allah will help us in this test, and we will get rid of any inappropriate desire inshaAllah.

What if your son was a homosexual? Respect and accept him or abandon him? OR: Guide him, even though you might face the possibility that he will stay queer forever?

What are we supposed to do in such a situation?

Although your question is really good, nobody blinded with hate can understand it, imho. We are definitely supposed to help him, to guide him.

(wasalam)

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree its wrong where we all differ is how to handle the problem, I say we use the quaran to help these people others here say we use a sword to fix it.

The Imams (as) and Sayyid Al-Khoe'i (qas) know more about the Qur'an than any of you defenders of sodomy participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Imams (as) and Sayyid Al-Khoe'i (qas) know more about the Qur'an than any of you defenders of sodomy participants.

I completely agree with you that we can not defend the act of sodomy. However I think we have to feel obliged to defend the people who are struggling with this "decease." We cant just put everysingle one in a cage just because the act is the same. Because one loves the act and the other hates the act, despite committing the same act. Not every homosexual is proud of the way he is.

Its like a teenager who has a high libido. He's masturbating all day, but after every single session he feels like a loser. Are we supposed to help him out or are we supposed to cast him out and label him a lost soul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with you that we can not defend the act of sodomy. However I think we have to feel obliged to defend the people who are struggling with this "decease." We cant just put everysingle one in a cage just because the act is the same. Because one loves the act and the other hates the act, despite committing the same act. Not every homosexual is proud of the way he is.

Its like a teenager who has a high libido. He's masturbating all day, but after every single session he feels like a loser. Are we supposed to help him out or are we supposed to cast him out and label him a lost soul?

Absolutely agree with you.

@Ya Aba 3abdillah, I had some problems related to homosexual desires in the past and I have got rid of them with pure faith. Nothing else is needed, absolutely nothing else except sincere duaa. Considering God helped me, I highly doubt we should kill people like me who could, fortunately, overcome themselves. However, if you can't see the difference between the people who accept and follow their homosexual desires proudly and the people who struggle to overcome themselves, you shouldn't talk about this matter.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Imams (as) and Sayyid Al-Khoe'i (qas) know more about the Qur'an than any of you defenders of sodomy participants.

not defending them just think there is still a chance to help then rid themselves of this thought process rather then just chop all there heads off or throw them off a cliff.

are you saying anyone who has had these thoughys or even acted on them cannot be forgivin by Allah.

im pretty sure allahs mercy is greater then any sin or do u belive some sin trumps his mercy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt we should kill people like me who could, fortunately, overcome themselves.

You went about it the right way. Getting caught by 4 witnesses with another guy whilst both living in an Islamic society, know the wrongs the act, had the chance to undergo a gender-change operation, have sanity and have reached maturity, is another story though.

And if it really is true that you couldn't avoid getting it on with another man, then you're better off dead anyway than live a torturous life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You went about it the right way. Getting caught by 4 witnesses with another guy whilst both living in an Islamic society, know the wrongs the act, had the chance to undergo a gender-change operation, have sanity and have reached maturity, is another story though.

And if it really is true that you couldn't avoid getting it on with another man, then you're better off dead anyway than live a torturous life.

Euthanasia? :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I believe most people with homosexual desires don't need a gender change op.

You went about it the right way. Getting caught by 4 witnesses with another guy whilst both living in an Islamic society, know the wrongs the act, had the chance to undergo a gender-change operation, have sanity and have reached maturity, is another story though.

In that case, we have to apply the hadd. But we can't use this to justify our hate to homosexual people, because that is absolutely wrong. There is a difference between a person with homosexual feelings, and a person who commits the act in the conditions you mentioned. You can kill the second person (and not out of hate, but because our religion commands it), but you can't see the first person the same way you see the second person.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apart from gender identity not being related to sexuality...how is a gender change op allowed?

It is permitted in Iran if the individual is deemed to have a female mind in a male body, or vice versa http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm

This includes hormone treatment.

Gender identity is irrelevant when discussing capital punishment. As already described, capital punishment is only carried out under the conditions if 1. two men are caught by 4 witnesses, 2. the men are sane and know the wrong of the act 3. the men are mature 4. they live in an Islamic State. If those conditions are met and they don't want to risk capital punishment, the solution is simple, don't pull down another man's pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That opinion is changing quite rapidly. ;)

And someone will say the same thing about beastiality and pedophilia in 50 years. ^_^

I meant bestiality and paedophilia are not comparable on moral grounds with homosexuality.

It is comparable. The only reason that you don't feel it isn't because homosexuality has been pushing for acceptance for a while, and succeeding in certain places. In your mind, this sexual behavior has become a norm. You are used to seeing gays here and there (tv, movies, real life places, or a friend/relative). You have drawn accustomed to this behavior, it's human nature. Believe me, if I meet a gay guy tomorrow I wouldn't be shocked at all, but if I met him 20 years ago I'd be WTF?!?!

This is the exact process beastiality will have. There are beastiality pornos out there now, and there is a demand for such videos (you can read articles on this). So there are 'humans' involved in this behavior already. It'll be the same process as homosexuality. First, majority will reject it and will be shocked, second some people will justify it "Well, the animal is enjoying it" or "what he does with his dog in his house is his private business", thirdly, you meet a friend/relative involved in this act (personal effect), fourthly, you'll consider it a norm and accept many people are doing it, fifthly, certain places around the world will legally accept it, and finally a thread regarding beastiality will be made on Shiachat and someone like you will support it and justify it.

I'm not saying homosexuals are bad people. They fall prey to their tendencies or are influenced by their environment. Even good people do bad things sometimes.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And someone will say the same thing about beastiality and pedophilia in 50 years. ^_^

Maybe, or maybe not. That is, however, not really relevant.

It is comparable. The only reason that you don't feel it isn't because homosexuality has been pushing for acceptance for a while, and succeeding in certain places. In your mind, this sexual behavior has become a norm. You are used to seeing gays here and there (tv, movies, real life places, or a friend/relative). You have drawn accustomed to this behavior, it's human nature. Believe me, if I meet a gay guy tomorrow I wouldn't be shocked at all, but if I met him 20 years ago I'd be WTF?!?!

This is the exact process beastiality will have. There are beastiality pornos out there now, and there is a demand for such videos (you can read articles on this). So there are 'humans' involved in this behavior already. It'll be the same process as homosexuality. First, majority will reject it and will be shocked, second some people will justify it "Well, the animal is enjoying it" or "what he does with his dog in his house is his private business", thirdly, you meet a friend/relative involved in this act (personal effect), fourthly, you'll consider it a norm and accept many people are doing it, fifthly, certain places around the world will legally accept it, and finally a thread regarding beastiality will be made on Shiachat and someone like you will support it and justify it.

I'm not saying homosexuals are bad people. They fall prey to their tendencies or are influenced by their environment. Even good people do bad things sometimes.

Yeah - it probably isn't a good idea to tell me why I feel something is acceptable or not. I'm in a better position to know that. Thanks, though! It also has little do with shock. Maybe bestiality will become acceptable in the future, but again, that has absolutely no bearing on whether it is anything like homosexuality. All it means, if there is any truth to it, is that there are certain patterns to be observed in any given social paradigm shift. You're going off on a tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are key differences between homosexuality, beastiality and paedophilia. The 1st is practiced by consenting adults, the latter 2 arent. I assume the latter two are automatically classed as rape because a child or animal by default do not have the awareness required to give consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are key differences between homosexuality, beastiality and paedophilia. The 1st is practiced by consenting adults, the latter 2 arent. I assume the latter two are automatically classed as rape because a child or animal by default do not have the awareness required to give consent.

Ok, take incest then. That is between two consenting adults. As for beastiality, it's not clear why consent should all of a sudden be required, when nobody asks the animals consent before making them breed, taking their offspring away, locking them up, force-feeding them, or slaughtering them.

If the secular world wants to apply this consenting adults criteria consistently, then it should immediately legalise polygyny, polyandry, group marriages, incest, and anything ese consenting adults might choose to do. Will they do that? Well, not with polygamy, which is at least moral and has a long tradition, but incest cases are going through the courts in some places. It's probably only a matter of time before it becomes legal too.

This consent business is just a red herring, and once again I will repeat that Muslims should not be copying the moral arguments of non-Muslims, and instead should rely on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The by-product side effects of incest are far too severe, more so in fact than homosexual acts, which would be disastrous for the future generations - genetically. For this reason, I doubt incest will ever become universally (or at least to an extent, and legally) tolerated - as shown by all countries of the developed world today. It is ever more blurry a comparison than those made with bestiality and paedophilia.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The by-product side effects of incest are far too severe, more so in fact than homosexual acts, which would be disastrous for the future generations - genetically. For this reason, I doubt incest will ever become universally (or at least to an extent, and legally) tolerated - as shown by all countries of the developed world today. It is ever more blurry a comparison than those made with bestiality and paedophilia.

Two arguments against that:

1)Two people engaged in incest do not have to have reproduce. Why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to have sex, get married, or even just have a non-sexual marriage?

2)Nobody stops people wth severe genetic disorders from having sex or getting married.

As for you thinking it will never become legal, I wouldn't be so sure. Many pro-gay marriage advocates realise that in order to be consistent incest should be legal, and there are no strong legal arguments against it. It is only public outrage that is really holding up to legalisation.

Also, incest in itself is actually legal in many European countries (unlike in say the United States), even if incest marriage isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two arguments against that:

1)Two people engaged in incest do not have to have reproduce. Why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to have sex, get married, or even just have a non-sexual marriage?

2)Nobody stops people wth severe genetic disorders from having sex or getting married.

As for you thinking it will never become legal, I wouldn't be so sure. Many pro-gay marriage advocates realise that in order to be consistent incest should be legal, and there are no strong legal arguments against it. It is only public outrage that is really holding up to legalisation.

Also, incest in itself is actually legal in many European countries (unlike in say the United States), even if incest marriage isn't.

:huh:

You need to do some reading, buddy. You seem to have been thoroughly misinformed in thinking that it is legal in many European countries. In the developed world, it is only a handful of countries which permit it (Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland) and even there, things look like they may be changing soon. It is a big issue of debate in Switzerland.

1)Two people engaged in incest do not have to have reproduce. Why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to have sex, get married

Why do you still find people with kids they never wanted? Accidents. All the time.

or even just have a non-sexual marriage?

Surprisingly enough, those don't seem attractive to many people.

2)Nobody stops people wth severe genetic disorders from having sex or getting married.

Wrong. I recommend you read this brief summary that I have picked out, it explains quite well the grave issues around incest; how recessive genes serve as predisposing factors for many diseases (http://www.consang.n...d/01AHBWeb3.pdf). The philosophy in developed countries in prohibiting incest are not exactly the same which homosexuality faced - and to an extent, faces. Not merely cultural or religious influences or taboos - though they do play a role; rather they embed the scientific logic underlying it. Legality would allow these biological disasters a ripple effect which would gradually begin to reach regional levels. It is not an everyday, mediocre ethical dilemma about why the liberal world dismisses the previous dogmas which they claim are plagued by religious and cultural traditions which create a 'taboo' effect unnecessarily. It is an issue about the species itself - not about discrimination.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the media did a pretty good job on people against the punishment of homosexuality.

Lets say, for example, I want to change a communities view on a certain topic that is against islam. I can pick up a topic like incest. Now to make it sound not too awful, why not tell people that i had no option i was abused when i was young, had a bad upbringing, so mentally i got disturbed and now i find this act not disgusting since i am mentally not normal like others. I need to find support of people who feel similar about incest and start propagating this act on the pretext that we have no other option, we were raised like this, we want nothing else but just acceptance in society. We want equality, justice and freedom like most other peoples. Finally, bring in the medical or scientific aspect so people believe it as a fact that there really is something medical wrong with us. We will get "moderate" Muslims sympathy, media will obviously help anything anti-islam, and they will let us do this act in a society. The later generations will grow into it and wont even see anything wrong with it.

Now remove incest and add homosexuality in the above scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh:

You need to do some reading, buddy. You seem to have been thoroughly misinformed in thinking that it is legal in many European countries. In the developed world, it is only a handful of countries which permit it (Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland) and even there, things look like they may be changing soon. It is a big issue of debate in Switzerland.

What are you talking about? Incest is also legal in France, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. As I understand it, incest is illegal in Switzerland, but that may change. Also, Romania, among possibly some other countries, is thinking of decriminalising it (http://www.huffingto...l_n_177661.html).

That is the main reason why many European societies decriminalised it - France in 1810, then Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Portugal. It is also legal in Turkey, Brazil and Japan. In Britain, by contrast, the law banning incest was extended to cover step-siblings in 2002. It remains illegal elsewhere, including Germany.

http://www.independe...boo-438707.html

You can also check http://en.wikipedia....garding_incest.

Why do you still find people with kids they never wanted? Accidents. All the time.

So? Just because there is a potential for an accident, it doesn't mean something should be illegal.

Surprisingly enough, those don't seem attractive to many people.

The point is if consenting adults can do what they want, then so can these people.

Wrong. I recommend you read this brief summary that I have picked out, it explains quite well the grave issues around incest; how recessive genes serve as predisposing factors for many diseases (http://www.consang.n...d/01AHBWeb3.pdf).

What does this have to do with my statement? Are you claiming there are laws preventing people with hereditary genetic disorders, with high probability of having children with genetic problems, from having sex, getting married, or having children? If there aren't, then this argument is inconsistent.

The philosophy in developed countries in prohibiting incest are not exactly the same which homosexuality faced - and to an extent, faces. Not merely cultural or religious influences or taboos - though they do play a role; rather they embed the scientific logic underlying it. Legality would allow these biological disasters a ripple effect which would gradually begin to reach regional levels. It is not an everyday, mediocre ethical dilemma about why the liberal world dismisses the previous dogmas which they claim are plagued by religious and cultural traditions which create a 'taboo' effect unnecessarily. It is an issue about the species itself - not about discrimination.

Nonsense. This is just the justification the pro-homosexuals use to avoid the obvious consequences of their 'consenting adults' argument. The species is hardly going to be threatened by a handful of people committing incest. It's not like much can be done to stop them now anyway. They just can't be open about it.

Also, if biological health is so important, then maybe they should get to work on banning cousin marriages, and marriages from within closed communities.

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the media did a pretty good job on people against the punishment of homosexuality.

Lets say, for example, I want to change a communities view on a certain topic that is against islam. I can pick up a topic like incest. Now to make it sound not too awful, why not tell people that i had no option i was abused when i was young, had a bad upbringing, so mentally i got disturbed and now i find this act not disgusting since i am mentally not normal like others. I need to find support of people who feel similar about incest and start propagating this act on the pretext that we have no other option, we were raised like this, we want nothing else but just acceptance in society. We want equality, justice and freedom like most other peoples. Finally, bring in the medical or scientific aspect so people believe it as a fact that there really is something medical wrong with us. We will get "moderate" Muslims sympathy, media will obviously help anything anti-islam, and they will let us do this act in a society. The later generations will grow into it and wont even see anything wrong with it.

Now remove incest and add homosexuality in the above scenario.

All you have done here is you've provided a (dubious) account on how homosexuality may have entered (or had some role in entering) the social conscience of the western world. It's also reeks of paranoia. This is not the issue being discussed, this is the good-evil or to be less corny, the reasoning provided for the acceptable or unacceptable nature of the features being discussed (homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality and incest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Incest is legal in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal. As I understand it, incest is illegal in Switzerland, but that may change.

http://www.independe...boo-438707.html

You can also check http://en.wikipedia....garding_incest.

Not that I am at all a huge proponent of the (over)use of wikipedia, but it seems you haven't even read the very article you are quoting:

"When incest involves an adult and a child it is considered to be a form of child sexual abuse, and is illegal in every developed country."

Right at the top of that wikipedia page. Strikingly similar to what I pointed out in my post - twice.

(It also states that Belgium prohibits incest; what remains, as I said earlier, a handful)

I don't deny that loopholes exists and the practice is prevalent (but not hugely so in the western world - which is why you find such isolated anecdotes being published in news websites.)

So? Just because there is a potential for an accident, it doesn't mean something should be illegal.

The point is if consenting adults can do what they want, then so can these people.

READ: It is not an everyday, mediocre ethical dilemma about why the liberal world dismisses the previous dogmas which they claim are plagued by religious and cultural traditions which create a 'taboo' effect unnecessarily. It is an issue about the species itself - not about discrimination. (Post #91)*

Don't bother replying to my posts if you aren't actually going to read them and respond accordingly. It is very irritating.

What does this have to do with my statement? Are you claiming there are laws preventing people with hereditary genetic disorders, with high probability of having children with genetic problems, from having sex, getting married, or having children? If there aren't, then this argument is inconsistent.

Again, you didn't bother reading even a little of it but of course, you will still insisting on rambling on a issue about which you seem to be misinformed. If you had read it, perhaps you would have realised that this is reason provided for prohibition. Just because it is not universally applied to other areas does not make it any less important. The ramifications can be very severe.

Nonsense. This is just the justification the pro-homosexuals use to avoid the obvious consequences of their 'consenting adults' argument. The species is hardly going to be threatened by a handful of people committing incest. It's not like much can be done to stop them now anyway. They just can't be open about it.

Also, if biological health is so important, then maybe they should get to work on banning cousin marriages, and marriages from within closed communities.

The species may not be threatened, but the effects would be very detrimental to gene progress. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. Actually, you probably don't believe in it which almost makes this discussion moot. You can call it a 'consequence' of the consenting adults argument, but these particular issues don't really apply to homosexuals, since they don't breed. You must have known that!

*It is very unbecoming of you, not only to brush aside issues on which you haven't been educated, but also to respond so crassly, demonstrating that not only have you failed to read my post and respond to it adequately, but you haven't even fully read the sources that you, yourself have cited.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I am at all a huge proponent of the (over)use of wikipedia, but it seems you haven't even read the very article you are quoting.

"When incest involves an adult and a child it is considered to be a form of child sexual abuse, and is illegal in every developed country."

Right at the top of that wikipedia page. Strikingly similar to what I pointed out in my post - twice.

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I am talking about incest between two consenting adults, and you are quoting me something about incest between an adult and a child. And where did you talk about an adult and a child in your posts?

I also notice that you didn't admit you were wrong about the countries that allow incest.

(It also states that Belgium prohibits incest; what remains, as I said earlier, a handful)
Incest between consenting adults is not prohibited[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Belgium

:huh:

READ: It is not an everyday, mediocre ethical dilemma about why the liberal world dismisses the previous dogmas which they claim are plagued by religious and cultural traditions which create a 'taboo' effect unnecessarily. It is an issue about the species itself - not about discrimination. (Post #91)*

Don't bother replying to my posts if you aren't actually going to read them and respond accordingly. It is very irritating.

I did read it, it just wasn't relevant.

Again, you didn't bother reading even a little of it but of course, you will still insisting on rambling on a issue about which you seem to be misinformed. If you had read it, perhaps you would have realised that this is reason provided for prohibition. Just because it is not universally applied to other areas does not make it any less important. The ramifications can be very severe.

This is my whole point. Principles need to be applied universally. You can't use the 'consenting adults' argument as the reason for allowing gay marriage, but not for allowing incest, and then say incest isn't allowed because of genetic disorders when that isn't applied to people who have hereditary diseases. The law needs to be consistent.

The species may not be threatened, but the effects would be very detrimental to gene progress. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. Actually, you probably don't believe in it which almost makes this discussion moot. You can call it a 'consequence' of the consenting adults argument, but this particular issues don't really apply to homosexuals, since they don't breed. You must have known that!

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, you certainly write a lot of nonsense. First of all, the number of people likely to want to engage in incest is minimal, so there is no real threat to the population as a whole. Secondly, if this was a real concern, then laws would be enacted against repeated cousin marriages and marriages with small closed communities. Look at the number of genetic problems in the Ashkenazi Jewish community, the Roma (gypsy) community, and increasingly in the British Pakistani community. That has far more consequences on society than incest ever will.

*It is very unbecoming of you, not only to brush aside issues on which you haven't been educated, but also to respond so crassly, demonstrating that not only have you failed to read my post and respond to it adequately, but you haven't even read the sources that you, yourself have cited.

Try being less generally condescending then. You might also want to double check what is being discussed, and what the sources say, before attempting to point out any misreading of those sources.

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have reading comprehension issues? I am talking about incest between two consenting adults, and you are quoting me something about incest between an adult and a child. And where did you talk about an adult and a child in your posts?

I also notice that you didn't admit you were wrong about the countries that allow incest.

I misread the Belgium category. Apologies. Most countries still prohibit, even if to a lesser extent i.e. only between pure siblings, rather than full siblings and so forth.

I did read it, it just wasn't relevant.

It wasn't relevant? You accuse me of reading comprehension issues, but 1+1=2, bro. You keep going on about the weaknesses consenting adults arguments, or compare homosexuality with incest when the issue is in fact different. It embraces issues more complex than the questions homosexuality poses, ethically. The argument is that they are not analogous! It really isn't that complicated.

This is my whole point. Principles need to be applied universally. You can't use the 'consenting adults' argument as the reason for allowing gay marriage, but not for allowing incest, and then say incest isn't allowed because of genetic disorders when that isn't applied to people who have hereditary diseases. The law needs to be consistent.

The law does need to be more consistent, but that is not relevant because it does not make it any less true that there are significant harms attached to incest. If anything, you seem to have missed the point simply because you are agitated by my tone. You may be justified in being agitated at me, but that in turn does not justify your red herrings.

For someone who seems to think they are so intelligent, you certainly write a lot of nonsense. First of all, the number of people likely to want to engage in incest is minimal, so there is no real threat to the population as a whole. Secondly, if this was a real concern, then laws would be enacted against repeated cousin marriages and marriages with small closed communities. Look at the number of genetic problems in the Ashkenazi Jewish community, the Roma (gypsy) community, and increasingly in the British Pakistani community. That has far more consequences on society than incest ever will.

The same anti-homosexuality people keep talking about how it was less prevalent until it became acceptable. What is there to suggest that the same wouldn't apply with incest? Is it not at all possible that just as people didn't realise that the figures showed less homosexuals in the past because it was punishable? You are using double standards.

*Again*, if you had read that 'irrelevant' article, you would have seen the difference in probability of genetic deficiency as the blood is further diluted. Direct siblings is a more serious issue than cousin marriages. Ironically, you are not helping yourself by highlighting the problems in the Jewish and Pakistani communities even though you make out as though it's a non-issue just to score a point over people arguing for pro-homosexual (or indifference) camp.

Try being less generally condescending then. You might also want to double check what is being discussed, and what the sources say, before attempting to point out any misreading of those sources.

You do not even bother fully reading a post, and when you are called out for it, you obnoxiously claim its irrelevance. I made the transgression of misreading. That would be far less callous.

Edit: If you are against homosexuality, by all means, make a case for it and you would be entitled to your belief. I am opposing the false comparisons.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so confused :(

We have famous Gay and Lesbian people.

Take 'Ellen' for example, I'm sure you all know her. She's a wonderful person and has a good heart. She's married to a woman, but it isn't out of desire or lust ... She genuinely 'loves' her partner, in the pure form of love. Now, sure, we may disagree with it but she lives in America, 'the free, liberating country' and, as we all know, homosexuality is rampant over there. I would like to know, has homosexuality in the USA practically corrupted society in anyway? Think about it ...

Would it really make a heck of a difference whether gays exist in the 21st century or not? Remember, we shouldn't be comparing Gays of the 21st century to the ancient immoral, rapist, perverted homosexual people of Sodom whos moral bounds had no limits. Today, gay people in the USA are law abiding citizens, have the same universal moral code as we straight people do, and whatever relationship they have have between each other is not done in public but behind closed doors in private.

Furthermore, majority of the world population can never really be influenced by gays as most people are going to be attracted to the opposite gender. It's only a rare minority who are actually gay, when you compare it to the rest of the world population.

So taking all this into account, is it really fair to punish a homosexual? Let God be the judge, I say, not us. There are so many factors to consider that we can never make a sound and just judgement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misread the Belgium category. Apologies. Most countries still prohibit, even if to a lesser extent i.e. only between pure siblings, rather than full siblings and so forth.

Ok, you misread that. And what about the adult and child thing? Was that a misreading or a misunderstanding?

As for 'most countries' prohibiting, that might be true, but France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal are still several major European countries. The trend is also towards decriminalisation rather than prohibition.

It wasn't relevant? You accuse me of reading comprehension issues, but 1+1=2, bro. You keep going on about the weaknesses consenting adults arguments, or compare homosexuality with incest when the issue is in fact different. It embraces issues more complex than the questions homosexuality poses, ethically. The argument is that they are not analogous! It really isn't that complicated.

Obviously homosexuality and incest are different. However, the argument only real argument that is used, without any caveats, is that homosexuality is fine because it is between two consenting adults. Well, if that is the only thing that matters, then incest should be legal. It's not my fault the pro-homosexuality advocates aren't more nuanced in their argumentation. They then retort with the genetic argument, but they don't apply that to other high-risk couples either. This has inconsistency written all over it, and you just can't have laws like that. This is why contrary to what you think, more and more countries will decriminalise incest. I already gave you the examples of Switzerland and Romania that are considering it, and more are coming. On the other hand, there are no plans in any of the European countries I listed to criminalise incest, and any such move would be highly controversial.

The law does need to be more consistent, but that is not relevant because it does not make it any less true that there are significant harms attached to incest. If anything, you seem to have missed the point simply because you are agitated by my tone. You may be justified in being agitated at me, but that in turn does not justify your red herrings.

I never denied that there are significant harms attached to incest, just as there are to homosexuality. Do you think I am in favour of incest or something? I am simply pointing out the inconsistency and the consequences or the arguments put forward in order to justify homosexuality.

The same anti-homosexuality people keep talking about how it was less prevalent until it became acceptable. What is there to suggest that the same wouldn't apply with incest? Is it not at all possible that just as people didn't realise that the figures showed less homosexuals in the past because it was punishable? You are using double standards.

How can I be using double standards if I never made the argument you are attempting to attribute to me?

*Again*, if you had read that 'irrelevant' article, you would have seen the difference in probability of genetic deficiency as the blood is further diluted. Direct siblings is more serious issue than cousin marriages. Ironically, you are not helping yourself by highlighting the problems in the Jewish and Pakistani communities even though you make out as though it's a non-issue just to score a point over people arguing for pro-homosexual (or indifference) camp.

You have completely misunderstood my position. I know that children born from incestuous relationships will have a much higher chance of genetic problems. What I am saying is that the same is true in marriages between members of the other groups I listed, yet no laws are enacted to curb that problem. Yet again, this is inconsistent.

You do not even bother fully reading a post, and when you are called out for it, you obnoxiously claim its irrelevance. I made the transgression of misreading. That would be far less callous.

Contrary to what you think, I did fully read your post. The problem was you didn't properly understand mine, and therefore you responded to arguments I wasn't making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so confused :(

We have famous Gay and Lesbian people.

Take 'Ellen' for example, I'm sure you all know her. She's a wonderful person and has a good heart. She's married to a woman, but it isn't out of desire or lust ... She genuinely 'loves' her partner, in the pure form of love. Now, sure, we may disagree with it but she lives in America, 'the free, liberating country' and, as we all know, homosexuality is rampant over there. I would like to know, has homosexuality in the USA practically corrupted society in anyway? Think about it ...

Would it really make a heck of a difference whether gays exist in the 21st century or not? Remember, we shouldn't be comparing Gays of the 21st century to the ancient immoral, rapist, perverted homosexual people of Sodom whos moral bounds had no limits. Today, gay people in the USA are law abiding citizens, have the same universal moral code as we straight people do, and whatever relationship they have have between each other is not done in public but behind closed doors in private.

Furthermore, majority of the world population can never really be influenced by gays as most people are going to be attracted to the opposite gender. It's only a rare minority who are actually gay, when you compare it to the rest of the world population.

So taking all this into account, is it really fair to punish a homosexual? Let God be the judge, I say, not us. There are so many factors to consider that we can never make a sound and just judgement!

you have got to be kidding me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you misread that. And what about the adult and child thing? Was that a misreading or a misunderstanding?

As for 'most countries' prohibiting, that might be true, but France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal are still several major European countries. The trend is also towards decriminalisation rather than prohibition.

It was a misreading, of course. They are; but they are only a handful. The trends tend to fluctuate - it is undoubtedly a very controversial topic. Some countries lean toward decriminalising it, others will be looking to lengthen sentences of incestuous couples. If the scientific enlightenment in the west is worth anything, the tide should be shifting more toward criminalisation. The bases of it should not be cultural or religious, or reflect on the taboos brought out by them when it comes to deciding all of these issues and for what it's worth, I think arguments which are against incest on such a basis are prejudiced and weak.

Obviously homosexuality and incest are different. However, the argument only real argument that is used, without any caveats, is that homosexuality is fine because it is between two consenting adults. Well, if that is the only thing that matters, then incest should be legal. It's not my fault the pro-homosexuality advocates aren't more nuanced in their argumentation. They then retort with the genetic argument, but they don't apply that to other high-risk couples either. This has inconsistency written all over it, and you just can't have laws like that. This is why contrary to what you think, more and more countries will decriminalise incest. I already gave you the examples of Switzerland and Romania that are considering it, and more are coming. On the other hand, there are no plans in any of the European countries I listed to criminalise incest, and any such move would be highly controversial.

:huh: Here I am, talking to you about the severely detrimental biological impact of incest (the same is not even comparable with homosexuality) and you are telling me that the only debatable issue is that of consent.

I never denied that there are significant harms attached to incest, just as there are to homosexuality. Do you think I am in favour of incest or something? I am simply pointing out the inconsistency and the consequences or the arguments put forward in order to justify homosexuality.

The harms are not comparable, and I think you know that. I think you are comparing incest with homosexuality, and I think that you do so on unsustainable grounds.

How can I be using double standards if I never made the argument you are attempting to attribute to me?

I was referring to a post by a person who made that claim - the double standards are more towards people on the opposite camp in general rather than toward you specifically. I apologise for blurring those lines.

You have completely misunderstood my position. I know that children born from incestuous relationships will have a much higher chance of genetic problems. What I am saying is that the same is true in marriages between members of the other groups I listed, yet no laws are enacted to curb that problem. Yet again, this is inconsistent. Contrary to what you think, I did fully read your post. The problem was you didn't properly understand mine, and therefore you responded to arguments I wasn't making.

I have not misunderstood your position at all; you have misunderstood mine. Read this once more:

The law does need to be more consistent, but that is not relevant because it does not make it any less true that there are significant harms attached to incest. (Post #98)

I don't disagree that more consistency is required. I am saying that it does not diminish the truth of the harms of incest, which is why it is seemingly dishonest to suggest that simply because it is not universally applied, it should not be applied to incest - and by that token, it is somehow comparable to homosexuality (which is the actual issue).

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so confused :(

I agree.

We have famous Gay and Lesbian people.

Take 'Ellen' for example, I'm sure you all know her. She's a wonderful person and has a good heart. She's married to a woman, but it isn't out of desire or lust ... She genuinely 'loves' her partner, in the pure form of love. Now, sure, we may disagree with it but she lives in America, 'the free, liberating country' and, as we all know, homosexuality is rampant over there. I would like to know, has homosexuality in the USA practically corrupted society in anyway? Think about it ...

You can't be serious. I think I'm going to agree with Hamza Yusuf here. Muslims should not watch TV.

And yes, homosexuality is a corrupting influence on society, but experience has show there is no point trying to convince someone who insists on the opposite, especially when they have been brainwashed to the extent you have. It's not your fault you have been brainwashed, and you are far from being alone, but if you have any fear of Allah in you, then I would urge you to immediately reevaluate your life in comparison to the teachings of Islam. Nobody in your condition can remain a sincere Muslim, and I think the strain of reconciling two such radically different world views is having an effect on you, judging from some of your other posts. Insha Allah you will choose the side of haqq.

Would it really make a heck of a difference whether gays exist in the 21st century or not? Remember, we shouldn't be comparing Gays of the 21st century to the ancient immoral, rapist, perverted homosexual people of Sodom whos moral bounds had no limits. Today, gay people in the USA are law abiding citizens, have the same universal moral code as we straight people do, and whatever relationship they have have between each other is not done in public but behind closed doors in private.

If you are a Muslim, 'gay people' absolutely do not have the same moral code as you do. Hell, the vast majority of straight non-Muslims don't either.

Furthermore, majority of the world population can never really be influenced by gays as most people are going to be attracted to the opposite gender. It's only a rare minority who are actually gay, when you compare it to the rest of the world population.

That is not at all how it works. If we are to believe the Western secular theories on sexuality (and I'm not necessarily saying we should, but I get the feeling you do), it is something that exists on a spectrum. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale. Therefore many people who could have lived in heterosexual relationships in a society where homosexuality was illegal could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. This would cover groups 3, 4, 5 on the Kinsey scale, and would prevent groups 1 and 2 falling into deviancy.

So taking all this into account, is it really fair to punish a homosexual? Let God be the judge, I say, not us. There are so many factors to consider that we can never make a sound and just judgement!

God will judge, but in the meantime he has given us a law. Brother Ya Aba has reminded people of a key aspect of that law which many seem to be overlooking:

capital punishment is only carried out under the conditions if 1. two men are caught by 4 witnesses, 2. the men are sane and know the wrong of the act 3. the men are mature 4. they live in an Islamic State.

Now tell me, who in their right mind would allow themselves to meet all 4 of those conditions? As such, the death penalty is almost completely hypothetical. However, it sends out a very important and clear message to the public.

Ok, I think we have both made our positions clear, and I doubt further discussion will lead to any progress. All I can say is I appreciated the tone of your last couple of posts more than I did the first two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think we have both made our positions clear, and I doubt further discussion will lead to any progress. All I can say is I appreciated the tone of your last couple of posts more than I did the first two.

I agree that the dialogue has run its course. I would propose that despite the fact that your frustration at my tone is very well justified, you should not let the frustration lead you to making off-rail comments. Insisting that I acknowledge misreadings of a wikipedia page which didn't even really significantly distort my argument, or arbitrarily deeming responses as irrelevant suggested to me that at times, you were trying to score a point over me rather than the actual issue at hand. I do, however, recognise that I aggravated you into doing so.

Edited by Psychopath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the dialogue has run its course. I would suggest that despite the fact that your frustration at my tone is very well justified, you should not let the frustration lead you to making off-rail comments. Insisting that I acknowledge misreadings of a wikipedia page which didn't even really significantly distort my argument, or arbitrarily deeming responses as irrelevant suggested to me that at times, you were trying to score a point over me rather than the actual issue at hand. I do, however, recognise that I aggravated you into doing so.

Ok, fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that if you are a Muslim, you can't justify homosexuality. There's really no way around it. Those Muslims who are trying to justify homosexuality, it's not gonna happen. This 'act' has been clearly mentioned in the Quran and many Hadiths.

The only aspect that can be debatable are the consequences.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...