Do you support marriage rights for homosexuals?

[Gunfingers]

i'm not stopping anyone i'm just giving my perspective, the thread asks if i support gay marriage and i say no.

If a law was proposed in your country allowing homosexuals to marry in mosques and churches that would accept them would you support or oppose it? If oppose, then you absolutely are stopping them.

 

[Gharib]

If a law was proposed in your country allowing homosexuals to marry in mosques and churches that would accept them would you support or oppose it? If oppose, then you absolutely are stopping them.

i do not like to make up 'scenarios' for the sake of arguing and i sure don't like answering them. i don't see a point in saying what you've said when it wont ever happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i do not like to make up 'scenarios' for the sake of arguing and i sure don't like answering them. i don't see a point in saying what you've said when it wont ever happen.

Then why are you arguing for a situation where nobody engages in homosexual acts at all? That's not going to happen either.

 

[Autodidact]

1. thanks for not answering my example once again
2. there is nothing wrong with marrying someone of a differnet age who also agrees to that marriage
3. thanks for not answering my example once again.

So just to clarify, in your moral system, it is morally right for a grown man to have sex with a little girl, but morally wrong for two people of the same sex to love each other and marry. Is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

as i said many times before and am still doing so, i am not comparing rape to homosexuality. there is no need to explain to me the difference between homosexuality and rape.

unfortunately though, it is many of you in this thread who don't seem to quite understand my examples even though i have stated in CAPITALS that i'm not comparing rape to homosexuality.

the reason why i mentioned rape was to show you guys an example of something that is illegal according to you so that you can see my stance on why i am against what you are all saying about homosexuality. i could just as well change the word rape to theft, murder etc etc, and for Gods sake it is not a comparison

Here's the key difference. One is WRONG. The other is not. Get it?

 

[Autodidact]

why is it that non-muslims view Muhameds salallahu alayhi we salam marriage to Aisha radiallahu anhu as negative, when non-muslims themself engage in this. have you not heard the term 'cradle snatcher'. but of course it's because he was muslim.

moreover, that is a topic for another thread, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You're alleging that I don't have a problem with pedophilia, as long as the assailant isn't Muslim? Well, for the record, I think all pedophilia is wrong, whether Muslim or not Muslim.

 

[Marble]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

I'm going to say, "No." Keeping in mind that my reason for believing this is based on personal experience:

My brother was raised with 3 other siblings in a home by two WWII generation parents. The word "gay" wasn't even whispered. It wasn't bashed ~ it just simply wasn't an idea that was entertained. Heterosexuality was naturally assumed and expected.

When he realized he didn't like women, he figured it was God's way of telling him he was destined to be a Catholic priest. It took him a while, but after must study and reflection, he eventually figured out he was gay.

The rest of us are straight. We were raised in the same environment and by the same set of parents. Why is he different?

There are many complex reasons why one is (not) homosexual.
I find this Wikipedia article very informative.

 

[Gunfingers]

So just to clarify, in your moral system, it is morally right for a grown man to have sex with a little girl, but morally wrong for two people of the same sex to love each other and marry. Is that right?

I'm gonna link back to this the next time someone tries to tell me that evolution can't be real because of morality is objective.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

why is it that non-muslims view Muhameds salallahu alayhi we salam marriage to Aisha radiallahu anhu as negative, when non-muslims themself engage in this. have you not heard the term 'cradle snatcher'. but of course it's because he was muslim.

moreover, that is a topic for another thread, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I doubt that non-muslims that engage in pedophilia are the same non-muslims that tell you that Muhammad's cradle snatching was wrong.

Marrying and HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN is wrong because children have not fully developed discriminatory and critical faculties, and are NOT EVEN SEXUALLY MATURE. Pedophilia is a predatory act.

Would you consider dating, marrying or having sex with a child, eselam?

How would you feel if a much older man wanted to marry and have sex with your very young daughter, eselam?

 

[tarasan]

You see for me this togic is a very muddy one, as im not quite sure if the bible agree or disagrees with it. (still researching)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You see for me this togic is a very muddy one, as im not quite sure if the bible agree or disagrees with it. (still researching)

Generally, the Bible (or at least the New Testament, anyhow) doesn't advocate political, governmental action at all, IMO.

I think that the faith presented in the New Testament is one that exists on the margins; it takes for granted that it will exist in a society that believes very different things. It doesn't generally try to change that society; instead, it concentrates on changing individuals, and eschews the Earthly society of today for the spiritual society in the world to come.

Of course, Christianity has been the religion of the state and the majority in various places for almost two millenia, so maybe I'm completely off-base in my interpretation.

 

[McBell]

First off let me remind you as devil's advocate, I am arguing from a secular economist standpoint. Since all civil marriages are regulated by the state we need to know to what interest does same sex couples provide to the state to receive costly benefits. I further argued that "traditional marriage" is considered a benefit to the state because of procreation and the consumption of costly resources to sustain the welfare of the child which is a costly endeavor, but the state and federal government does offer help which in turn is costly since it requires hundreds if not billions of dollars.

I understand marriage isn't always about having children but gay partners off no incentives to the state if they marry. Especially if both partners do not want to adopt. There is also no evidence to show that gay partners in transitional parenthood could match heterosexual traditional marriage. However you're implying that if gays can't have children then ban infertile people. No far from that.

I am saying that a gay male couple can adopt or provide sperm to a third party (female) who would be willing to give birth. Or a lesbian couple can use invetrofertilization to have a child. There are ways to have children however these processes are very expensive and everyone may not have the financial ability to have kids. Therefore it would only be logically feasible to say that the only interest for the state would be gay couples adopting.
But if the basis of gay activist is equality I am simply challenging that notion but citing examples of a cultural phenomena in some countries where people marry blood relatives. In majority of the states it is against the law to do so, however I argued earlier that if both parties agree to sterilization why deny then marriage? Or what about a group of five? If we are going to argue equality then gay marriage activist must argue why two and not five is more plausible.

Wow.
All that and you failed to answer the question...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

I'm going to say, "No." Keeping in mind that my reason for believing this is based on personal experience:

My brother was raised with 3 other siblings in a home by two WWII generation parents. The word "gay" wasn't even whispered. It wasn't bashed ~ it just simply wasn't an idea that was entertained. Heterosexuality was naturally assumed and expected.

When he realized he didn't like women, he figured it was God's way of telling him he was destined to be a Catholic priest. It took him a while, but after must study and reflection, he eventually figured out he was gay.

The rest of us are straight. We were raised in the same environment and by the same set of parents. Why is he different?

Maybe there was child sexual influences of his surroundings.

But even if that was not true, and there was no reason to it, what would be wrong of it?

 

[Gharib]

for all those who are bringing up the issue of Prophet Muhameds salallahu alayhi we salam marriage to Aisha radiallahu anhu, it has nothing to do with the topic of homosexuality. thus i will not reply to such posts, if anyone wants to open a new thread on that please do, there is however one such discussion going on at this very moment in another thread, and many others before that. so no going away from the issua at hand.

 

[Gharib]

Then why are you arguing for a situation where nobody engages in homosexual acts at all? That's not going to happen either.

nobody engages in homosexual acts? you might want to read the title of the thread once again.

 

[darkendless]

for all those who are bringing up the issue of Prophet Muhameds salallahu alayhi we salam marriage to Aisha radiallahu anhu, it has nothing to do with the topic of homosexuality. thus i will not reply to such posts, if anyone wants to open a new thread on that please do, there is however one such discussion going on at this very moment in another thread, and many others before that. so no going away from the issua at hand.

It has every relevence given the nature of your arguement which suggest that it is immoral. What other have attempted to do is show the difference between natural things and wilfully immoral acts like how many people today view the marriage of your prophet.

Can you not see that ideals change, and are changing. Homosexuality is beginning to gain acceptance from all areas aside from religious bigots and homophobes.

 

[Gharib]

So just to clarify, in your moral system, it is morally right for a grown man to have sex with a little girl, but morally wrong for two people of the same sex to love each other and marry. Is that right?

according to whom was Aisha radiallau anhu a 'little girl'?

as for homosexuality, giving consent is not the issue. homosexuality is a sin in the first place to begin with. so no point in going to the scenario of 2 consenting adults if the begining is a sin/crime then the middle and end is also. first you need to prove that homosexuality is OK.

 

[Bismillah]

Homosexuality is at its very core incompatible with the Islamic vision of a family nor the dualistic roles of a mother and father, in short it has no relevance in Islam as it perverts the very nature and duties placed upon both spouses to ensure a stable healthy household.

 

[LuisDantas]

nobody engages in homosexual acts? you might want to read the title of the thread once again.

I'm confused. What does the title of the thread has to do with 9/10ths statement that homosexual acts will never cease to exist?

 

[LuisDantas]

Homosexuality is at its very core incompatible with the Islamic vision of a family nor the dualistic roles of a mother and father, in short it has no relevance in Islam as it perverts the very nature and duties placed upon both spouses to ensure a stable healthy household.

That would suggest that the Islamic vision of a family is flawed, then.

Or, maybe, that it hasn't been sufficiently elaborated yet to account for the reality of homosexuality.

Or, perhaps, that (many? most?) Muslims aren't really interested in dealing with the fact that homosexuality exists and will not go away.

Also, in which sense would homosexuality be a perversion? It is not like it changes people's behavior or makes then perverse or even irresponsible. More like the opposite, really.