Do you support marriage rights for homosexuals?

[Duck]

I don't know why you guys went from marriage to talking about HIV/AIDS

One could almost propose, similarly, to Godwin's law that in discussions regarding homosexuality the chance of HIV being blamed on gays (as proof that homosexuality is not harmful) is near unity. One could also presuppose that the chance of mention of (a) rape, (b) incest, (c) pedophilia, (d) bestiality or (e) destruction of humanity due to lack of breeding being mentioned as a comparison to adult consensual homosexual relationships IS unity. For discussions specific to legal recognition of homosexual unions the chance of mention of the five cases above with addition of legalization of polygamous unions or of legalization of human-non human unions (cf. Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum...Google is NSFW in the case of Santorum) is so near unity as to be insignificantly different.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

That would be you. You raised the issue of why rape is wrong. It is wrong because it harms someone. Muhammed's child sexual abuse was just one example of that.

 

[Autodidact]

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

The historians, and Muslim tradition, which says she was 6 at the time of marriage, and 9 at the time of first intercourse.

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.

O.K., that's easy. Love is good, regardless of the gender of the loving couple. There is no harm in two consenting adults expressing their love physically/sexually. Marriage supports and stabilizes loving relationships, and that's a good thing.

Now you show us why it's not.

 

[Autodidact]

I personally don't know why homosexuals would want to be married by an institution that oppresses them. There should be no law forcing the Church to marry homosexuals, and I don't really understand why they would want to be married by people who hate them tbh. But if they were married under more secular means, then I don't see why not. The Church shouldn't have any impact on the State in that instance.

I picked other.

No law recognizing same-sex marriage has ever required any church to do anything. The U.S. laws specifically exempt churches from marrying anyone they don't want to, so that is irrelevant.

 

[McBell]

I personally don't know why homosexuals would want to be married by an institution that oppresses them. There should be no law forcing the Church to marry homosexuals, and I don't really understand why they would want to be married by people who hate them tbh. But if they were married under more secular means, then I don't see why not. The Church shouldn't have any impact on the State in that instance.

I picked other.

Do you honestly think that one has to be married in a church?

 

[Draka]

Eselam I was wondering if you would care to address my previous post ?

 

[Comet]

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

Indeed. I apologize for stating my stance on the difference between rape and homosexuality. I know that is not your intent to discuss... I apologize for bringing it up again.

To address your point and stance on homosexuality again, again I must state:

I am an American: probably of a different fundament political view from you.
I am a Monist: a different fundamental spiritual view from you.

Due to these reasons, I can see your point and accept that due to part of my beliefs as an American. Yet, my other American beliefs do not allow this in a civil stance...

As for the religious view of things, we obviously differ.

Perhaps you could quote me the passages in the Quaran where it states homosexuality is wrong. Then I'd like you to post the passages as to WHY it is wrong. Or does your holy book only state that it is wrong without reason?

 

[Comet]

No law recognizing same-sex marriage has ever required any church to do anything. The U.S. laws specifically exempt churches from marrying anyone they don't want to, so that is irrelevant.

A law doing so would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

[Gharib]

Eselam I was wondering if you would care to address my previous post ?

sorry, i missed that. here it is

You just said Islamic law applies only to Muslims. Now you change that. Ok, now if we take out of consideration certain Islamic theocratic countries and look at most other countries where the laws are secular and the population diverse, and the religions also diverse, then what is the rationale for opposing the availability of affording equal marriage rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples? What is the LEGAL reasoning to oppose equality? As I, and many others, have attempted to point out, your beliefs are merely your beliefs and should not be used as a guideline to dictate what is right for the majority of people. Only for you and others who believe the same way as you. Quite simply...if you don't agree with same sex marriage...then simply don't marry a man. Who are you to say that John can't marry Mark or Vicki can't marry Stephanie? If Islamic law is only for Muslims, and you live in a country that is NOT an Islamic theocracy, then what Islam has to say about it shouldn't matter one lick to the actual laws of the country.

i said islamic law applies to muslims only with the exceptions of a few laws that do affect non-muslims living under islamic rule.

as for what you have said, only under islamic rule would a homosexual who engages in homosexual activity would get punished, under non-islamic rule muslims cannot impose their laws on non-muslims. for example some muslim majority countries forbid alcohol, but such a law cannot be implemented on western countries, however, that law applies to non-muslims visiting such muslim countries.

as for homosexuality in a non-muslim country, if homosexual marriage is recognised etc, then thats fine. but the islamic stance on it is that it is forbiden for a homosexual to engage in homosexual activity. thus muslims living in western countries oppose it. but our views in no way can be implemented unless the people accept them.

 

[Gharib]

Indeed. I apologize for stating my stance on the difference between rape and homosexuality. I know that is not your intent to discuss... I apologize for bringing it up again.

To address your point and stance on homosexuality again, again I must state:

I am an American: probably of a different fundament political view from you.
I am a Monist: a different fundamental spiritual view from you.

Due to these reasons, I can see your point and accept that due to part of my beliefs as an American. Yet, my other American beliefs do not allow this in a civil stance...

As for the religious view of things, we obviously differ.

Perhaps you could quote me the passages in the Quaran where it states homosexuality is wrong. Then I'd like you to post the passages as to WHY it is wrong. Or does your holy book only state that it is wrong without reason?

both the Quran and Hadith state that homosexuality is wrong and why/what about it is wrong. you will find all that you asked for in the following link:

Islam and Homosexuality

 

[Vendetta]

One could almost propose, similarly, to Godwin's law that in discussions regarding homosexuality the chance of HIV being blamed on gays (as proof that homosexuality is not harmful) is near unity. One could also presuppose that the chance of mention of (a) rape, (b) incest, (c) pedophilia, (d) bestiality or (e) destruction of humanity due to lack of breeding being mentioned as a comparison to adult consensual homosexual relationships IS unity. For discussions specific to legal recognition of homosexual unions the chance of mention of the five cases above with addition of legalization of polygamous unions or of legalization of human-non human unions (cf. Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum...Google is NSFW in the case of Santorum) is so near unity as to be insignificantly different.

Dude what are you saying its about making sense

 

[McBell]

both the Quran and Hadith state that homosexuality is wrong and why/what about it is wrong. you will find all that you asked for in the following link:

Islam and Homosexuality

Seems to me your link is nothing more than quoting Mohammad then trying desperately to explain why Mohammad said what he said.

 

[diosangpastol]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851764.html

New York's very popular governor (78% acceptance rating) announced that he has launched a campaign to have same-sex marriage approved by the New York Legislature. According to survey, this proposed measure has support of 58% of New Yorkers. It this pushes through, this is big deal as New York is the premier city of the nation and the its cultural and intellectual center.

But why? Please speculate why would the governor and people of New York do that. Don't they know it is a sin and the Apostle Paul did not like it? The support is 58%; there can't be that many gay people in the city of 12 million. Straights must also be supporting this campaign. Why would they do that? Choose:

a. They know it is a sin and they are bad people who just want God to get angry.

b. They are tired of these sin/abomination ek ek, and they just want to support the rights of all New Yorkers.

 

[darkendless]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851764.html

New York's very popular governor (78% acceptance rating) announced that he has launched a campaign to have same-sex marriage approved by the New York Legislature. According to survey, this proposed measure has support of 58% of New Yorkers. It this pushes through, this is big deal as New York is the premier city of the nation and the its cultural and intellectual center.

But why? Please speculate why would the governor and people of New York do that. Don't they know it is a sin and the Apostle Paul did not like it? The support is 58%; there can't be that many gay people in the city of 12 million. Straights must also be supporting this campaign. Why would they do that? Choose:

a. They know it is a sin and they are bad people who just want God to get angry.

b. They are tired of these sin/abomination ek ek, and they just want to support the rights of all New Yorkers.

Essentially if New York is an intillectual centre then the governor will realise that rational minds will get over petty draconian religious beliefs and support equality.

If 100% of New Yorkers were christian/ Islamic then it may be fair, but its not. Religion has no place influencing society.

 

[LuisDantas]

Essentially if New York is an intillectual centre then the governor will realise that rational minds will get over petty draconian religious beliefs and support equality.

If 100% of New Yorkers were christian/ Islamic then it may be fair, but its not. Religion has no place influencing society.

To be fair, many Christians (and, I assume, Muslims) either don't think about the matter too much or are suportive of LGBT rights to some degree, sometimes going all the way. It just happens that the most visible and easier to remember are the most opposed to those rights.

 

[darkendless]

To be fair, many Christians (and, I assume, Muslims) either don't think about the matter too much or are suportive of LGBT rights to some degree, sometimes going all the way. It just happens that the most visible and easier to remember are the most opposed to those rights.

If they (as a group) didn't care these laws would have already gone through across the world. The problem is that they do, so as long as they oppose it politicians will be weary of putting law up.

 

[sandandfoam]

I support LGBT rights fully. I am 100% for gay marriage. From a religious point of view I believe that people are entitled to live their lives as God created them.

 

[darkendless]

I support LGBT rights fully. I am 100% for gay marriage. From a religious point of view I believe that people are entitled to live their lives as God created them.

If only the fundies also felt that they don't need to enforce their God's laws onto people who do not share their beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

If they (as a group) didn't care these laws would have already gone through across the world. The problem is that they do, so as long as they oppose it politicians will be weary of putting law up.

I'm not sure if you are exagerating for effect, but I want to say that I disagree. Most people aren't very active homophobes at all and could in fact be easily convinced with just a little bit of encouragement, even if they had to go against the interpretations of their own priests while at it.

It just turns out that their social circles don't give them a whole lot of incentive to question their (mostly passive or at most emulative) homophoby.

For good or worse, most homophobes are generaly good people that simply haven't quite realized that homophoby is wrong. I assume that makes the plight of homosexuals and transexuals that much more frustrating and difficult; it is hard to accept that otherwise nice people see no problem in denying you your basic rights to seek happiness.

 

[darkendless]

I'm not sure if you are exagerating for effect, but I want to say that I disagree. Most people aren't very active homophobes at all and could in fact be easily convinced with just a little bit of encouragement, even if they had to go against the interpretations of their own priests while at it.

It just turns out that their social circles don't give them a whole lot of incentive to question their (mostly passive or at most emulative) homophoby.

For good or worse, most homophobes are generaly good people that simply haven't quite realized that homophoby is wrong. I assume that makes the plight of homosexuals and transexuals that much more frustrating and difficult; it is hard to accept that otherwise nice people see no problem in denying you your basic rights to seek happiness.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say or I was not clear. For the most part of your post I agree. Thik about it though, in America with such a large percentage of Christians, how many prominent people are going to put their neck on the line to push this issue past the homophobes?

The problem is organisations who rile up otherwise indifferent people to oppose homosexuality and LGBT legislation. Remember the Californian Prop 8 campaign. If certain Mormon groups didn't bother compaigning against it the law probably would have gone through.
I see the power certain churches have over people even loosely connected to the organisation as a problem with regard to LGBT laws and marriage. Their ability to gather support is dangerous.
Note that my post focuses on certain groups and not the religion in general.