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

My Position on LGBT Muslims

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HusseinAbbas said:

So using that logic, pedophiles and people who commit insest can't control who they fall in love with? Except in this case it isn't the same sex it is their familly memeber or a small chidren.

 

So is cannibalising your own children, throwing off a woman from a tree trunk because she isnt beautifull, killing ones brother , raping of females,polygamy of hundreds of females, etc. these also aren't a social construct either.

Now I dont say you are arguing it is good because it is in the animal kingdom but that is never a good argument to put forward.

I think that the above logic implies that two men or two women being in love, is as detrimental to society as canibalism or pedophilia. Which I would disagree with.

Raping of females, killing people, these are all arguably worse.

And to be fair, don't Muslims believe that polygamy is alright? I thought there were men with multiple wives and that this was acceptable in Islam. And incest is actually, I think more common in some Islamic cultures as well with cousin marriages than people like to recognize. Though I would agree that incest could be more detrimental, given its increase in probability of genetic disorders.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would also like to add that the LGBT/Gender identity agenda is also (subtly) pushing the notion that 'non-LGBT' people should be comfortable (and accepting) to "experiment" in other "sexual ventures

Way to take the whole post out of context. He said that not condemning sins is destructive. He said the people of Lot [who engaged in sodomy in public] were aggressors, not people "being gay" as aggre

In regards to transgenderism it is very clear that transitioning from one gender to another is only applicable to those who are medically deemed to be hermaphrodites as per the ruling(s) of Ayt. Khame

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

well usually being gay entails falling in love with someone of the same sex. The cause being something that the individual of course isn't in control of. Nobody decides who to fall in love with, it simply happens.

Regardless of who a person falls in “love” with if they are able to maintain the boundaries prescribed to them by Islam there is no problem, again the point of the discussion is not to address members of the LGBT community in general, but Muslims in particular.

2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Personally, I think that if a woman can be born with male organs and a male born with female organs, and if people can be born biologically in between, then it follows that their psychology can fall in between by natural means as well, given that our psychology and sexual selection is in large part driven by our biology.

Biology can influence or decisions, but it should never dictate them.

2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Also, homosexuality is commonly observed in the animal kingdom as well, so it isn't necessarily a social or cultural construct.

I’m not arguing that it is, but unlike animals we are also endowed with the intellect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

 

And to be fair, don't Muslims believe that polygamy is alright? I thought there were men with multiple wives and that this was acceptable in Islam. And incest is actually, I think more common in some Islamic cultures as well with cousin marriages than people like to recognize.

Poligamy of a 100 women is defently unislamic, the max is 4, also by inscest I mean brother and sister, mother and son, daugther and father, this is not in anyway comparable to cousins marrying eachother, to the west it is inscest but in islam cousins marrying is not insesct but it is not recommended because marriage with other cultures is encouraged but a lot of muslims have this nasty mentality of "only from your cousins, the blood cant be tainted!" 

 

Also I never said being gay or doing homosexual acts is as detremental as cannibalism, I just said many things are done by animals it doesn not make them right, this argument of "it's natural in the animal kingdom" is not a good one.

 

Now the normalisation of this act in public , basically the act of anal cocpulation in public or when you do homosexual intimacy in public is extreemly bad for a society as that just destroys the morality of a society as they get disesnsitised to such immoral behaviour according to islamic principal when it comes to islamic societies more specifically.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I think that the above logic implies that two men or two women being in love, is as detrimental to society as canibalism or pedophilia. Which I would disagree with.

The issue isn’t two men or two women engaging in same sex behavior, the issue is the normalization of this behavior and even the glamorization of this wretched sin.

What people do behind closed doors is none of our business, however, if they seek to maintain a greater relationship with their creator then it is in their interest to desist from this detestable behavior. 

6 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Raping of females, killing people, these are all arguably worse.

Of course they are, God forbid these become normalized as well. 

6 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And to be fair, don't Muslims believe that polygamy is alright?

Females outnumber Males, Islam is the only religion that gives an answer to this social dilemma by allowing men to marry more then one wife through the just institution of marriage, the concept of polygamy is very lengthy, if you would like to discuss perhaps we can open a separate thread?

8 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

And incest is actually, I think more common in some Islamic cultures as well with cousin marriages than people like to recognize.

Islam does not define cousin marriage as incestuous.

9 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Though I would agree that incest could be more detrimental, given its increase in probability of genetic disorders.

Before marriage near kin would take a blood test to see if they’re compatible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Poligamy of a 100 women is defently unislamic, the max is 4, also by inscest I mean brother and sister, mother and son, daugther and father, this is not in anyway comparable to cousins marrying eachother, to the west it is inscest but in islam cousins marrying is not insesct but it is not recommended because marriage with other cultures is encouraged but a lot of muslims have this nasty mentality of "only from your cousins, the blood cant be tainted!" 

 

Also I never said being gay or doing homosexual acts is as detremental as cannibalism, I just said many things are done by animals it doesn not make them right, this argument of "it's natural in the animal kingdom" is not a good one.

 

Now the normalisation of this act in public , basically the act of anal cocpulation in public or when you do homosexual intimacy in public is extreemly bad for a society as that just destroys the morality of a society as they get disesnsitised to such immoral behaviour according to islamic principal when it comes to islamic societies more specifically.

Well, I never said that just because an animal does it, that it is therefore ok. My pet cat might torture a mouse before it kills it, but obviously this isn't morally correct.

I was just pointing out that its not necessarily a social construct, but rather is something that can be inherently biological. A product of creation.

Someone said "Also, by your logic if you want to 'love' without sexual intimacy what then causes you to not love a women?"

And the answer, in some cases, is a biological disposition. 

And your ideas around polygamy and incest sometimes being ok and sometimes not isn't particularly compelling for your case.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

 

And your ideas around polygamy and incest sometimes being ok and sometimes not isn't particularly compelling for your case.

The reason why I mentionned these in the first place was because western people such as you see polygamy and insest as a bad thing.

Now you started telling me that we muslims support polygamy and insest and tried to make it as if its black and white.

I said no, in islam(not my opinion) polygamy is limited to 4 females, I am obviously opposed to more then 4 females ie the polygamy of 100 females.

As for inscest , cousin marriages are not veiwed as insest in islam, only brother, mother, father, sister, aunt, uncle, things like this are considered insest but cousin marriage is not considered insest and I am not opposed to that, it is just not recommended.

You are trying to paint this as if its white and black when the reality is gray.

For example in western society like Canada you are not allowed to drink more then a certain amount and drive, does that mean drinking is not allowed at all? no a certain amount isn't allowed, they sometimes agree with it(under the limit) and they sometimes disagree with it(over the limit), as is the case with polygamy, my case adds up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

The reason why I mentionned these in the first place was because western people such as you see polygamy and insest as a bad thing.

Now you started telling me that we muslims support polygamy and insest and tried to make it as if its black and white.

I said no, in islam(not my opinion) polygamy is limited to 4 females, I am obviously opposed to more then 4 females ie the polygamy of 100 females.

As for inscest , cousin marriages are not veiwed as insest in islam, only brother, mother, father, sister, aunt, uncle, things like this are considered insest but cousin marriage is not considered insest and I am not opposed to that, it is just not recommended.

You are trying to paint this as if its white and black when the reality is gray.

For example in western society like Canada you are not allowed to drink more then a certain amount and drive, does that mean drinking is not allowed at all? no a certain amount isn't allowed, they sometimes agree with it(under the limit) and they sometimes disagree with it(over the limit), as is the case with polygamy, my case adds up.

I agree that these topics are gray, polygamy and incest. I would go a step further and I would say that homosexuality also falls in a morally gray area, where in some cases it may be detrimental to society but in other cases it is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
34 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

 

And to be fair, don't Muslims believe that polygamy is alright?

اذا تحققت الشروط

if the criteria are met. it’s not as simple as “hey i want to marry a second one”. Just because it is halal doesn’t mean u should do it. everything is within context

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
21 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Someone said "Also, by your logic if you want to 'love' without sexual intimacy what then causes you to not love a women?"

 

My point here was misunderstood, if the issue is so much about love and not lust, as the brother is pointing it out to be, then why can’t they love a women. It’s flawed logic on their part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

The issue isn’t two men or two women engaging in same sex behavior, the issue is the normalization of this behavior and even the glamorization of this wretched sin.

What people do behind closed doors is none of our business, however, if they seek to maintain a greater relationship with their creator then it is in their interest to desist from this detestable behavior. 

Of course they are, God forbid these become normalized as well. 

Females outnumber Males, Islam is the only religion that gives an answer to this social dilemma by allowing men to marry more then one wife through the just institution of marriage, the concept of polygamy is very lengthy, if you would like to discuss perhaps we can open a separate thread?

Islam does not define cousin marriage as incestuous.

Before marriage near kin would take a blood test to see if they’re compatible.

The whole blood test thing sounds weird to me. Its as if cousin marriages morality might depend on modern technology. 

Personally, I don't think homosexuality can ever be normalized. Just like say, cross species sexuality. Some variation may cause people to biologically develope these interests, but it's inevitable that they remain a minority where offspring mandates heterosexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I would say that homosexuality also falls in a morally gray area, where in some cases it may be detrimental to society but in other cases it is not.

Again, nobody is denying this we are simply laying down the Islamic position, as well as the detriment homosexuality has if it becomes normalized, widespread, glamorized, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

The whole blood test thing sounds weird to me. Its as if cousin marriages morality might depend on modern technology. 

There are excellent threads on here that have discussed the issue of cousin marriage extensively, I sort of added blood testing to dilute the severity of the equation. Remember brother if we want to discount modern technology, we mustn’t forget that Arabs were experts in genealogy.

4 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Personally, I don't think homosexuality can ever be normalized. Just like say, cross species sexuality. Some variation may cause people to biologically develope these interests, but it's inevitable that they remain a minority where offspring mandates heterosexuality.

I agree, however, through an Islamic perspective it can be addressed morally if not ideally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Mohammad313Ali said:

My point here was misunderstood, if the issue is so much about love and not lust, as the brother is pointing it out to be, then why can’t they love a women. It’s flawed logic on their part.

Personally, as a married man, I love my wife. And, I could not see myself loving anyone else (at least while we are together). And, I think that a gay person could fall in love too, with someone of a like sex. 

Why couldn't they fall in love with a woman? Perhaps they're already in love with another man. Perhaps, much like we have a disposition toward women, they may have disposition toward men.

Personally, I was attracted to women from a very young age. I think the same could be true for gays.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

There are excellent threads on here that have discussed the issue of cousin marriage extensively, I sort of added blood testing to dilute the severity of the equation. Remember brother if we want to discount modern technology, we mustn’t forget that Arabs were experts in genealogy.

I agree, however, through an Islamic perspective it can be addressed morally if not ideally.

So you agree that homosexuality cannot be normalized, yet you feel that there is value in addressing it islamicaly? Why address something that cannot exist?

Maybe I misread this one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Just now, iCenozoic said:

I think that a gay person could fall in love too, with someone of a like sex. 

 

Of course they can, well depending on what we define “love” to be. As some brothers stated their idea of love comes through the marital union, while others define love to more differently. 

In the end, as long as sexual immorality is not being practiced, there is no objection to the type of “love” being professed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Of course they can, well depending on what we define “love” to be. As some brothers stated their idea of love comes through the marital union, while others define love to more differently. 

In the end, as long as sexual immorality is not being practiced, there is no objection to the type of “love” being professed.

From a position of Islam, I would agree with your idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 minute ago, iCenozoic said:

So you agree that homosexuality cannot be normalized, yet you feel that there is value in addressing it islamicaly? Why address something that cannot exist?

There are so many ideologies, and philosophies pertaining to what is right or wrong, many of which are subjective. Unless everyone adheres to at least the same objective outlook towards homosexuality the matter can not be fully remedied, however, as Muslims we are to continue inviting towards the straight path. 

The best way the issue can truly be addressed concerning all such subjectivity is through establishing a proper Islamic state which is strictly bounded by the morals and guidelines of Islam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Just now, iCenozoic said:

From a position of Islam, I would agree with your idea. 

My entire premise and conclusion is founded solely on an Islamic position, considering that I am within this thread addressing Muslims in particular.

You can never give a solution that will leave everyone content, unless they are those who submit to Allah irrespective of their inclinations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

I agree that these topics are gray, polygamy and incest. I would go a step further and I would say that homosexuality also falls in a morally gray area, where in some cases it may be detrimental to society but in other cases it .

As I said we are opposed to the making love in public thing wether gay or not, in an islamic society and to muslims in general it would just cause immorality, I am defently not talking about the private setting which is between them and Allah(stw) which you seem to be reffering too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Personally, I think that if a woman can be born with male organs and a male born with female organs, and if people can be born biologically in between, then it follows that their psychology can fall in between by natural means as well, given that our psychology and sexual selection is in large part driven by our biology.

what a cunning way to use the word natural

forest fires, earthquakes, volcanic ash, these are all natural as well

and while "nature" may birth such variations in the human being, it is by no means "natural" as it is to be "normal", and this, whether you realize it, admit it, or intended it or not, is a common way for advocates of open trans and homosexuality "naturalize" or "normalize" things in the minds of the people,

hence why i am emphasizing and pointing it out here.

in other words, sure, "nature" produced hermaphrodites, just as nature can produce a six finger person or 1 eyed man; however this is all unnatural, abnormal.

Therefore call the 'means' natural, but also call the result in unnatural.

All this being said, this does not mean a person experiencing unnatural psychological conflict should be hated. they should be encouraged to seek medical help to correct the issue as a person would with multi sexual organs (where the dominant organ and hormones will be chosen and lived by, as opposed to a transexual who 'feels' they are one thing yet change their entire body and hormonal makeup to be another).

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, dragonxx said:

what a cunning way to use the word natural

forest fires, earthquakes, volcanic ash, these are all natural as well

and while "nature" may birth such variations in the human being, it is by no means "natural" as it is to be "normal", and this, whether you realize it, admit it, or intended it or not, is a common way for advocates of open trans and homosexuality "naturalize" or "normalize" things in the minds of the people,

hence why i am emphasizing and pointing it out here.

in other words, sure, "nature" produced hermaphrodites, just as nature can produce a six finger person or 1 eyed man; however this is all unnatural, abnormal.

Therefore call the 'means' natural, but also call the result in unnatural.

All this being said, this does not mean a person experiencing unnatural psychological conflict should be hated. they should be encouraged to seek medical help to correct the issue as a person would with multi sexual organs (where the dominant organ and hormones will be chosen and lived by, as opposed to a transexual who 'feels' they are one thing yet change their entire body and hormonal makeup to be another).

 

"Therefore call the 'means' natural, but also call the result in unnatural."

this is contradictory, either it's natural or it's not 

Some might use this same line of reasoning to suggest that Africans have abnormal features (I've been told many times that I have an odd shaped nose, abnormal they say).

This isn't a real response at all. And yes, earthquakes are natural and normal too, they happen everyday. And your personal absence of awareness of it, isn't justification for calling it unnatural or abnormal.

You aren't providing any measure here, just a personal opinion of what is normal and what isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Opabinia is abnormal, anomalocaris is abnormal, ediacaran biota are abnormal. Gays on the other hand, are relatively common. They have communities in every nation worldwide, and even in every state here in the US, you can even meet gays in every county of every state as well so far as I've experienced. and gays have been around all throughout history. They've very common. And observed homosexual acts in the animal kingdom are common as well.

And even these abnormal things listed above, indeed were normal in a relative place at a relative time.

It's only when we look at the history of life on earth that we realize just how very common gays actually are. 

And sometimes they may hide from oppression, sometimes they might be abused. But that doesn't make them unnatural or uncommon at all. And quite frankly, treating gays as if they're disgusting or vile, or comparing them with people born with 6 fingers or cyclopses of one eye is really borderline bigotry.

And also, being gay isn't necessarily a birth defect either. People always draw comparisons to beastiality and birth defects, rather than just examining them for what they are, relatively common people who, as they say, just want freedom to love (which includes not having to hide from society).

When I walk down the street, I like holding my wife's hand. And gays should be afforded the same right, even if it's in public.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/6/2020 at 7:57 PM, iCenozoic said:

this is contradictory, either it's natural or it's not 

 

totally missed the point. though it's possibly because i am not eloquent enough, or possibly you disregarded the entire context provided prior to "therefore".

and to your second post, no, not at all, they are not common. They are a very small part of the world community. Media makes it appear they have numbers rivalling heterosexuals by plastering them all over the media.

Anyway, if you want to talk about 'natural' means, it is only 'natural' homosexuals go extinct given their lack of ability to reproduce, in this case it would also be 'normal' as well as 'natural'.

On 8/6/2020 at 8:04 PM, iCenozoic said:

And quite frankly, treating gays as if they're disgusting or vile, or comparing them with people born with 6 fingers or cyclopses of one eye is really borderline bigotry.

I once had a very sweet teacher who had a sixth finger, it seems you for some reason think this teacher is vile (hypocritical?). 

This sixth finger (or other abnormality) does not mean they themselves are bad. But if that teacher were to tell me it's natural/normal to have a sixth finger, that would be a backwards thought based off emotion and not intellect, and I sure hope she doesn't ever take to teaching anatomy.

To spell it out for you given how you continue to cunningly twist meanings, including the words I've posted,

there is no issue with experiencing abnormality, but to exercise it as a normality is foolish and detrimental to society. That is not borderline bigotry, that's only "natural" =)

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, dragonxx said:

totally missed the point. though it's possibly because i am not eloquent enough, or possibly you disregarded the entire context provided prior to "therefore".

and to your second post, no, not at all, they are not common. They are a very small part of the world community. Media makes it appear they have numbers rivalling heterosexuals by plastering them all over the media.

Anyway, if you want to talk about 'natural' means, it is only 'natural' homosexuals go extinct given their lack of ability to reproduce, in this case it would also be 'normal' as well as 'natural'.

I once had a very sweet teacher who had a sixth finger, it seems you for some reason think this teacher is vile (hypocritical?). 

This sixth finger (or other abnormality) does not mean they themselves are bad. But if that teacher were to tell me it's natural/normal to have a sixth finger, that would be a backwards thought based off emotion and not intellect, and I sure hope she doesn't ever take to teaching anatomy.

To spell it out for you given how you continue to cunningly twist meanings, including the words I've posted,

there is no issue with experiencing abnormality, but to exercise it as a normality is foolish and detrimental to society. That is not borderline bigotry, that's only "natural" =)

I disagree with your position. Gays are very common, I've met and known several. They are in communities in every county of every state. They are in every every country and have been around as long as non-gays and as long as humanity, so far as we are aware. Acts of homosexuality, to be fair, have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

This is normal. Far more normal than your analogy to cyclopses. 

As the common response goes, there are many benefits to community life beyond just giving birth. To suggest they ought to be extinct because they don't reproduce is baseless.

Being gay isn't necessarily a genetic defect either, to suggest that it is is also baseless. So really comparing gays to cyclopses is unjustified.

And I'm sure whites would consider love with African Americans to be abnormal in the 50s, but your understanding of what is normal is bent around your own personal experience and really is irrelevant in the history of life's existence on earth. Opabinia is abnormal, anomalocaris is abnormal. Gays on the other hand, are very normal and common.

Much in the way that whites considered blacks genetically degenerate animals, you're acting the same in viewing gays as genetically handicapped or broken people, but in reality this view is purely imaginative and based on pre-existing cultural bigotry.

you suggest that you have empathy for gays, yet then turn and talk about how they ought to be extinct, you compare them to cyclops and people with 6 fingers, you tell them that if they express their love that they will go to hell. You suggest that gays are detrimental to society or to survival of our species, which is also baseless. Maybe they are detrimental to your personal beliefs and feelings, but if they're paying taxes and working to better society (maybe they're a surgeon saving countless lives, or an educator raising children), then they certainly cannot be considered detrimental to society, nor to our species.

Your position is shameful and baseless.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

More on the above from wiki:

Surveys in Western cultures find, on average, that about 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual, 4% of men and 10% of women as mostly heterosexual, 0.5% of men and 1% of women as evenly bisexual, 0.5% of men and 0.5% of women as mostly homosexual, and 2% of men and 0.5% of women as completely homosexual.[1] An analysis of 67 studies found that the lifetime prevalence of sex between men (regardless of orientation) was 3-5% for East Asia, 6-12% for South and South East Asia, 6-15% for Eastern Europe, and 6-20% for Latin America.[4] The International HIV/AIDS Alliance estimates a worldwide prevalence of men who have sex with men between 3 and 16%.[5]

 

 

Even if we assumed that only 0.01% of people were homosexual , there would be 78 million gays on earth, but in fact, estimates for the lgb community run much higher in countries where they aren't in danger of being stoned to death.

In reality, there are more gays on earth than there are Shia (likely by several times over).  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/5/2020 at 11:12 PM, modaoudi said:

Yeah but with homosexuality it never stops at "falling in love", at a certain point sex will be involved. Otherwise it would be the same kind of love you have with the rest of people you know. (Like Mohammad313Ali mentioned) (non-sexual)

It is the same kind of love as straight love. I'm not the one denying that. It's you.

  

On 8/6/2020 at 1:56 AM, Mohammad313Ali said:

My point here was misunderstood, if the issue is so much about love and not lust, as the brother is pointing it out to be, then why can’t they love a women. It’s flawed logic on their part.


What are you even saying? You seem to be confusing being gay with being bisexual. Well, biromantic. Which I'm not, I'm just gay. Or are you saying you can fall in love with a man? I hate to break it to you, man, but I think you might be biromantic. Or else your own point is null and void.

@Mariam17 Like I've said, I have nothing against people like you, who I still treat people with respect. But there are people on this very thread comparing gay people to pedophilles and those people who think that I'm so disgusting. Yeah, I have a right to be angry at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, gayboyanon said:

It is the same kind of love as straight love. I'm not the one denying that. It's you.

I'm not denying that it is love. I'm just saying that sexual intercourse is going to play a part in the relationship. In Islam loving someone, whatever their sex, is permissible. But the consequent sexual relationship (when that love is romantic and not platonic), whether homosexual or outside of marriage is prohibited.

Edited by modaoudi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, gayboyanon said:

Like I've said, I have nothing against people like you, who I still treat people with respect. But there are people on this very thread comparing gay people to pedophilles and those people who think that I'm so disgusting. Yeah, I have a right to be angry at them.

We shouldn’t be doing this. I haven’t been keeping up with this thread but if the brother’s claims are true please stop. They are two different sins and are on varying degrees, there only relation is that they fit in the theme of sexual conduct. 
 

From seeing the recent replies they all seem to present their argument from an emotional standpoint i.e questioning the validity of love in relation to homosexuality. My approach is to look from a logical perspective. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) tells us to reproduce etc and in a homosexual relationship you cannot do such. The same is likewise if a woman and man engage in the act of sodomy, which such an act is usually exploited by those who are unmarried and want to not be known that they are not a virgin etc but that’s another topic.

So to summarise, 1) sodomy is forbidden because that is what is stated in the Quran in the “how-to” of sexual conduct. Both heterosexual and homosexual.

And 2) Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) tells us to reproduce and have children and in a same sex relationship you cannot do stuff.

Lets approach such a topic from a logical standpoint and not emotional as to hurt the brother @gayboyanon personally if his claims above are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

I notice this topic has been discussed in different threads. But I keep it simple, I am happy if at least they are still performing salaah, fast, read the Quran. And let Allah decide the best.  I would rather to pray may at least they are istiqaamah in praying, fasting, and religious duties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

It is the same kind of love as straight love. I'm not the one denying that. It's you.

  


What are you even saying? You seem to be confusing being gay with being bisexual. Well, biromantic. Which I'm not, I'm just gay. Or are you saying you can fall in love with a man? I hate to break it to you, man, but I think you might be biromantic. Or else your own point is null and void.

@Mariam17 Like I've said, I have nothing against people like you, who I still treat people with respect. But there are people on this very thread comparing gay people to pedophilles and those people who think that I'm so disgusting. Yeah, I have a right to be angry at them.

Nobody cares about you specifically. Don't take things personally.

The concept of intercourse between males is being addressed from an Islamic lens. If that makes you angry, you shouldn't be reading these types of threads where the title of the website is Shiachat.

And nobody is saying an adult homosexual male is identical to an adult pedophile. However, that which both groups commit reflects a grave sin, and thus they are similar in this regard and comparable. One can go further to say that some elements of mentality is certainly the same given both homosexuals and pedophiles utilize the same arguments to validate their position, such as 'I was born as such, and therefore it is "natural"' - which is foolish as explained above. Certainly even you can see some element of comparability here no matter your bias and emotions? 

Again, this is through an Islamic lens, and it should be taken as such; don't feel victimized because by feeling that way you are just mentally assaulting yourself, and no other is responsible for that.

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 1:14 AM, iCenozoic said:

More on the above from wiki:

Surveys in Western cultures find, on average, that about 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual, 4% of men and 10% of women as mostly heterosexual, 0.5% of men and 1% of women as evenly bisexual, 0.5% of men and 0.5% of women as mostly homosexual, and 2% of men and 0.5% of women as completely homosexual.[1] An analysis of 67 studies found that the lifetime prevalence of sex between men (regardless of orientation) was 3-5% for East Asia, 6-12% for South and South East Asia, 6-15% for Eastern Europe, and 6-20% for Latin America.[4] The International HIV/AIDS Alliance estimates a worldwide prevalence of men who have sex with men between 3 and 16%.[5]

 

 

Even if we assumed that only 0.01% of people were homosexual , there would be 78 million gays on earth, but in fact, estimates for the lgb community run much higher in countries where they aren't in danger of being stoned to death.

In reality, there are more gays on earth than there are Shia (likely by several times over).  

 

This is extremely biased for a multitude of reasons. One such example is the concept of prisoners who, in prison, will have intercourse with other men, yet out of prison will only sleep with women and strictly identify as heterosexual. This example alone illustrates several elements of bias.

How many of these people identify in the same way? Do people from different countries look at homosexuality as the West does? Do they define it the same? Does everyone involved in this think they are born predisposed to man as a man? Do some think it is a choice and simply abide by homosexual practices for their personal reasons/benefit? Do some do it out of rebellion, following, forcefulness, desperation? Do some do it out of childhood abuse? Do some do it because they were adopted by homosexuals and that is what they are taught? None of this is taken into account and therefore the stats reported are skewed massively, on top of being deliberately inflated. But then again, were are referencing wiki. Lol.

Also, 3% to 16% is an extremely large range, and it's funny that it's the HIV/AIDS alliance who reports this given that when HIV first came about it was exclusively in homosexuals for an extended period of time.

An ID/HIV specialist in Toronto in 2016 once commented on the sudden high spike in HIV cases a few weeks post gay pride parade every year; I wonder where the stats are on that, and I wonder why she did not have the same experience with yearly gatherings involving heterosexuals? 

Evidently, your position is emotional and illogical, thus usually the response to reasonable comments is: 'that is baseless and unfounded for no particular reason except my own anecdotal experience and perspective on life'.

On 8/8/2020 at 12:43 AM, iCenozoic said:

As the common response goes, there are many benefits to community life beyond just giving birth. To suggest they ought to be extinct because they don't reproduce is baseless.

Continually stating something is baseless with no actual reasoning but rather general unrelated comments, and stretching my words above. Did I say there was zero benefit at any point?

Let us see how long 100 male homosexuals who are strangers to one another will last should they relocate to an island alone. Or 100 female homosexuals.

Let us do the same with 50 male and 50 female heterosexuals. Guess what happens?

This is called biologic consequence. Emotions have no place in the heart of a scientist in search of scientific facts.

On 8/8/2020 at 12:43 AM, iCenozoic said:

Being gay isn't necessarily a genetic defect either, to suggest that it is is also baseless. So really comparing gays to cyclopses is unjustified.

Good twist, yet again. I didn't suggest a genetic defect in particular, I used very specific examples which may be or may not be of genetic consequence. For example fetal alcohol syndrome is not a genetic defect, it's a deficit imposed as a result of the mother's choices, though I am well aware you will never understand the meaning behind this example.

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

"Let us see how long 100 male homosexuals who are strangers to one another will last should they relocate to an island alone. Or 100 female homosexuals."

We don't live on Gilligan's island where only homosexuals exist. Your hypothetical is purely imaginative and based on an assumption that If all people were gay and it were detrimental to society, then that must mean that if a small population were gay that it must also be detrimental to society.

it's kind of like saying that if 100 people went to a deserted island and all of them were bus drivers, that it would be detrimental to the survival of humanity because they weren't good at making fires, and therefore bus drivers are detrimental for humanity when placed in an environment beyond the island. 

Alternatively, the truth is that gays can be beneficial for the survival of humanity. Some can be surgeons, or doctors. Some can be chefs or bus drivers, etc. They can do things beneficial for the survival of mankind, and our survival is dependent upon much more than just reproduction.

And your above post sounds like you are trying to suggest that because some gays have HIV, They are therefore detrimental to the existence of humanity.

The rest of my last post was appropriate 

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

"Let us see how long 100 male homosexuals who are strangers to one another will last should they relocate to an island alone. Or 100 female homosexuals."

We don't live on Gilligan's island where only homosexuals exist. Your hypothetical is purely imaginative and based on an assumption that If all people were gay and it were detrimental to society, then that must mean that if a small population were gay that it must also be detrimental to society.

it's kind of like saying that if 100 people went to a deserted island and all of them were bus drivers, that it would be detrimental to the survival of humanity because they weren't good at making fires, and therefore bus drivers are detrimental for humanity when placed in an environment beyond the island. 

Alternatively, the truth is that gays can be beneficial for the survival of humanity. Some can be surgeons, or doctors. Some can be chefs or bus drivers, etc. They can do things beneficial for the survival of mankind, and our survival is dependent upon much more than just reproduction.

And your above post sounds like you are trying to suggest that because some gays have HIV, They are therefore detrimental to the existence of humanity.

The rest of my last post was appropriate 

 

No matter, <-------stretch-------> my comments as much as you like, clearly we have reached an impasse. There are a countless reasons why normalizing homosexual acts have negative impact on society, and biologic reasons such as reproduction, HIV are simply the tip of the iceberg; the mental, societal, and reactionary natural effects are profoundly negative far more any beneficial effect.

But they are free to do as they please, after all God created humans with freewill. We shall see who is the truthful the Day of Judgement. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

P.S. you don't need to be a professional fire maker to make a fire. You do need compatible sexual organs to reproduce though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dragonxx said:

No matter, <-------stretch-------> my comments as much as you like, clearly we have reached an impasse. There are a countless reasons why normalizing homosexual acts have negative impact on society, and biologic reasons such as reproduction, HIV are simply the tip of the iceberg; the mental, societal, and reactionary natural effects are profoundly negative far more any beneficial effect.

But they are free to do as they please, after all God created humans with freewill. We shall see who is the truthful the Day of Judgement. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

P.S. you don't need to be a professional fire maker to make a fire. You do need compatible sexual organs to reproduce though.

As I've said, we don't live on Gilligan's island where only gay people exist. And actually, making a fire can be exceptionally difficult in the wilderness for people who are not trained (such as bus drivers).

Anyway, the point stands, that success and viability of a species can exist in some conditions, while not in others. A species can thrive with gays, so long as every person is not gay, much like how a species can thrive with bus drivers, so long as every person is not limited to being a bus driver.

This goes along with the more popular Batman analogy.  A society can thrive with Batman who never kills anyone. But if a society only had Batman's, and no criminals were ever killed, we would have a problem. Much the same, a society can thrive with gays in it, but if a society only had gays, we would have a problem. Utilitarianism being the wiser position over a kantian position. Your Gilligan's island idea reflects the atheistic ethics of Kant and his universalizability principal.

The point being that a hypothetical that universalizes Batman in order to say that Batman is in reality a bad guy, is unreasonable. Much in the same way that a hypothetical Gilligan's island where everyone is gay, is unreasonable to use as an argument against gays.

 I've grown up around gays, I've had gay friends, and our society is doing just fine with gays in it. I am fine as well. I don't have HIV, and to be honest, gays have actually helped me in my life. In fact, we are doing much better than the majority of societies elsewhere in the world, including those that have a history of executing gays out of fear of them.

Would it be a problem if every single person were gay? Probably. But likewise, I could say that it would also be an issue if every single person were a janitor, or had intellectual limitations only allowing them to do janitorial work (not everyone is skilled enough to conduct brain surgery), that would also be a problem. But does that make janitors detrimental to society? No. They play a role and a part in a larger community, and help society be successful in their own way. And the same can be said about gays. Society, our species, our communities, depend on much more than just reproduction. Gays are our scientists, our teachers, our doctors, our chefs, our engineers etc. Gays can be many things that actually help and increase success and viability of a society. I know gay scientists who help society. 

And this dreamworld where everyone just turns gay and all men forget how to make babies is just a hypothetical fantasy by people who, for personal reasons, hate gays. There is nothing practical about this position.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I find it saddening that this question always end up being discussed from the two opposing viewpoints. Either the liberal "do as you like" or the conservative prejudice. Only a very few such as Mariam17 has actually been arguing from the Quran.
I think this is sad because I think the Islam is in need of a ballanced discussion of these things that go beyond both the liberal "do as you like" and the conservative prejudice.


In the west the LGBTQ+ is an umbrella term that lumps homosexuality, transgender and gender activism into one grab bag category. This may give the false impression that it is all the same. However the Quran only mentions homosexuallity. This may be why Ali Khamenei and Imam Khomaini in their fatwas on this subject allows for gender change in certain individuals. As far as I have read these scholars of fiqr is trained all through their hawsa studies not to let their own opinion or prejudice influence their rulings, but only what the Quran and verified authentic hadiths tell them.

Homosexuality is really not a big issue in the Quran. It is mentioned in two cases. One is (mulitble mentions) in connection with the people of the prophet Lut and one is about chastisement of indicensy in Sura Al-Nisa 4:15-16

Every time the story of the People of Lut is mentioned it is in a compilation of examples where God in the past has destroyed people who rejected a prophet and the message he delivered. These compilations that is repeated several timers in the Quran relates to the Prophet Muhammeds(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) own problems with the Qureysh in Mecca rejecting him and the message he brought to them. So the foremost purpose in telling the story of Lut in the Quran is to tell the Qureysh that Allah may flatten their city if they reject the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
Now could the story of the People of Lut tell us something about Gods opinion on homosexuality? Yes it might, but it is only secondary to the purpose of why it is in the Quran in the first place. The Story of the People of Lut is not a fiqr ruling. That is something that has been deduced by scholars later.

So what was the message of Lut to the people of his city? In Sura Al-A'raf 7:81 "Indeed you come to men with desire instead of women! Indeed, you are a profligate lot." He is clearly accusing them of having same sex intercourse. Furthermore he designates them as "مُّسْرِفُونَ" a word that has been translated as "exessive," "profligate" or "libertine" To day we might even say "sex-positive." and what do they respond to Lut and his family? Sura Al-A'raf 7:82 "Expel them from our town! They are indeed a puritanical lot." (or people who purify them selves) Sura An-Naml 27:55-56 is along the same lines.

In Sura An-Naml 27:54 it says: "[We also sent] Lot, when he said to his people, ‘What! Do you commit this indecency while you look on?" This is clearly done in public. In sura Al-Ankabut 29:29 he says "What! Do you come to men, and cut off the way, and commit outrages in your gatherings?" Here he is once again accusing them of having same sex intercourse but further more doing it in gatherings, clearly more than two people. So not only was it done in public, they also did it in groups. But then they they answer "Bring down us Allah’s punishment, if you are truthful." This means that they are daring him to show the power of Allah something the Quraysh also scorn Muhammed(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) with. In other words they completely disregard Allah and do not believe in his punishment. This is also what sura Al-Qamar 54:33 says: "And the people of Lot denied the warnings." and in 54:36 "He had already warned them of Our punishment, but they disputed the warnings."

So I think we can assume from this that the message that Lut tried to deliver was that same sex intercourse is wrong. Doing it in public and with several partners is even worse. However the reason why God destroyed the town was because of their arrogance, their disregard for a pious prophet and their unbelief in Allahs punishment.

So what does the Quran say about chastisement? According to Sura Al-Nisa 4:15-16 The obligatory 4 credible witnesses should be presented. And if those guilty of indecent acts / homosexual acts repent they should be left alone, because Allah is all-clement, all-merciful. (At least the first time they are
caught.)
Again the question is how do you get 4 credible witnesses to an act that takes place between two people in the confines of their own bedroom? Either it is because the indecent acts is done in public for more than 4 people to see or these 4 people have some explaining to do as to why or how they ended up in the closet in somebody else's bedroom where they could see what was going on. A situation that most likely will render them not credible.

There may be a lot in this to criticizes the modern LGBTQ+ culture in the west, but in essence what should be criticized it the sexualisation of public spaces. People having sex in public "cruising areas." Drag queens reading stories for children. Queer activists attempt to abolish gender. The sexual display of Pride Parades and so on.
However what people do in the confine of their own bedrooms is between them and God. How people chose to self identify is their own business. If people who self identify as something with in the LGBTQ+ framework then ask your self if they are arrogance, disregard pious prophets or display unbelief in Allahs punishment. If they are doing that you can chose to turn away from them like Lut did, but if they are not arrogant and show love for God and the prophets why should you then turn away from them?

Prejudice should not have a place in Islam. Sura Al-Hujurat 49:12 "O you who have faith! Avoid much suspicion; indeed some suspicions are sins. And do not spy on one another or backbite. Will any of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it. Be wary of Allah; indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful."

Imam Jafar Al Sadiq said:
"
If you see something you don’t like in a brother, try to find 1-70 excuses for him. And if you can’t find an excuse, say 'There might be an excuse, but I don’t know it.'"

So homosexual inclinations may be a test and an ordeal for the homosexual, but think about that maybe the existence of LGBTQ+ people may be the way Allah is testing your prejudice.

Edited by Revert1963
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.


×
×
  • Create New...