More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry,

[doppelganger]

While I am not disregarding the obviously scholarly authority of Wiki Islam, it would be most helpful to look at what is clearly and explicitly stated in Islam.

"Whoever comes to an animal, kill him and kill it with him. I (Ikrimah) said: I asked him (Ibn Abbas): What offence can be attributed to the animal? He replied: I think he (the Prophet) disapproved of its flesh being eaten when such a thing had been done to it. " Abu Huraira and Ibn Abbas.

" Cursed is he who goes in unto an animal." Abdallah Ibn Abbas.

I'm not crowing for Wiki Islam either, but to be precise, my statement was that the Qu'ran says nothing about it. So if you can add additional teachings, then someone could conceivably finally come around to pointing out how inherently violent and disrespectful homophobic attitudes like some on display in this thread can be.

 

[Alceste]

Well it seems to me every time you hear of people arguing the subject, the only thing that seems to be needed is a refined terminology. I also feel that there should be not shame in this. The very reason why several people disagree is due to the lack of differentiating between the two. Either way a marriage is a marriage, my point is that this is what seems to be on people's minds when the subject is discussed, so why would clearly stating the difference be so offensive?

Seems you may be a little naive. It isn't homosexual marriage the religious right opposes, it is homosexuality itself. The hystrionics about same sex couples using the same terminology as opposite couples to describe relationships that are identical by all but the most infantile assessments (i.e. what kind of wee-wees are involved) is only one prong on the fork of anti-gay hysteria.

 

[Autodidact]

Well it seems to me every time you hear of people arguing the subject, the only thing that seems to be needed is a refined terminology. I also feel that there should be not shame in this. The very reason why several people disagree is due to the lack of differentiating between the two. Either way a marriage is a marriage, my point is that this is what seems to be on people's minds when the subject is discussed, so why would clearly stating the difference be so offensive?

You're telling me that same sex marriage opponents are so stupid that if we just call it something else, they'll accept it?

 

[Autodidact]

Aside from this here is an article about homosexuality in S.A

The Kingdom in the Closet - Magazine - The Atlantic

Yes, I've read about this. The more Muslim a country is, the more gay--as long as it's not formalized through marriage. Very weird.

 

[Bismillah]

Qu'ran says nothing about it

The Qur'an is not the sole source for fiqh, merely the primary one. Regardless, it too condemns homosexual relations.

So if you can add additional teachings

The teachings I am talking about have not changed for centuries.

then someone could conceivably finally come around to pointing out how inherently violent and disrespectful homophobic attitudes like some on display in this thread can be.

Notwithstanding your assertions of bestiality in Islam, you are quite directly missing the core of the argument.

Just as in one hand homosexual relations can be condemned, so too can heterosexual relations; both of which concern the public sphere. As modesty is an underlying value throughout the M.E inciting "violence" and "hate" are quite the wrong terms; in that sexual matters in their entirety are held by norm to be private and thus secret (in regards to affairs).

I think you really ought to read the link I posted.

 

[Bismillah]

The more Muslim a country is, the more gay--as long as it's not formalized through marriage. Very weird.

Not really many S.A. are sexually repressed and they resort to other outlets, many times temporarily.

 

[horizon_mj1]

The difference between calling a relationship a civil union instead of a marriage can still have implications. For instance, even if the two have the same rights in the US, what happens if you're travelling abroad? Will your relationship be recognized at a foreign hospital if you need to conset to care for your incapacitated spouse? Depends on the local laws, and some countries recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. What if you move to another country? Will your American relationship be recognized there automatically?

Also, if there's a distinction under the law between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, even if there's no difference in rights now, the fact that there's a legal distinction between them could make it easier for a difference to be created in future.

I did not state that same sex marriage should be called a "civil union", why not call it a "unified marriage". Marriage I agree should still be a part of the name to clarify legalities. No nation is under obligation to recognize anything from a foreign entity unless otherwise stated in international law. Common law marriages may be recognized here, but may not be honored in other nations. Asking for the entire world to comply and accept same sex marriages is like asking for the entire world to never have any wars ever again (it is asking for the improbable).

 

[horizon_mj1]

You're telling me that same sex marriage opponents are so stupid that if we just call it something else, they'll accept it?

Not at all. Where have I stated that there is any stupidity in this? What I am stating is simply, people who are in heterosexual marriages feel that they should have the right to defend the original definition of marriage (between a man and a woman). That is where several people find it offensive that others are trying to change what it is that they have. Is there some kind of insecurity with defining the difference? If so why? I am simply saying that I agree that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, but what is wrong with stating the difference when speaking of marriage? There are some that will never accept homosexuality even though there is now scientific evidence that proves some people may be born that way. Once again, looking for complete acceptance is asking for the improbable, but I do think that yes, there are some people that would find it easier to accept if the difference is clearly stated. I am a homosapien and would find it offensive if someone was trying to define me as a monkey. It is kind of the same thing don't you think?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Seems you may be a little naive. It isn't homosexual marriage the religious right opposes, it is homosexuality itself. The hystrionics about same sex couples using the same terminology as opposite couples to describe relationships that are identical by all but the most infantile assessments (i.e. what kind of wee-wees are involved) is only one prong on the fork of anti-gay hysteria.

In this case we are not discussing what religions think, but the law. I know that religions have difficulties with truth.

 

[McBell]

I am not sure what you are implying but it is the general consensus that the Hadith and Sunnah are inviolable part of Islam, without which huge portions of our faith would be unavailable to us.

Secondly there are more than 18 different accounts of authentic Hadith condemning bestiality.

I cannot help but wonder if your are blind or merely dishonest.

 

[Autodidact]

The Qur'an is not the sole source for fiqh, merely the primary one. Regardless, it too condemns homosexual relations.

Actually, only male homosexual relations.

The teachings I am talking about have not changed for centuries.

Notwithstanding your assertions of bestiality in Islam, you are quite directly missing the core of the argument.

Just as in one hand homosexual relations can be condemned, so too can heterosexual relations; both of which concern the public sphere. As modesty is an underlying value throughout the M.E inciting "violence" and "hate" are quite the wrong terms; in that sexual matters in their entirety are held by norm to be private and thus secret (in regards to affairs).

Which is irrelevant to the thread, which is about marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

Not at all. Where have I stated that there is any stupidity in this? What I am stating is simply, people who are in heterosexual marriages feel that they should have the right to defend the original definition of marriage (between a man and a woman). That is where several people find it offensive that others are trying to change what it is that they have. Is there some kind of insecurity with defining the difference? If so why? I am simply saying that I agree that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, but what is wrong with stating the difference when speaking of marriage? There are some that will never accept homosexuality even though there is now scientific evidence that proves some people may be born that way. Once again, looking for complete acceptance is asking for the improbable, but I do think that yes, there are some people that would find it easier to accept if the difference is clearly stated. I am a homosapien and would find it offensive if someone was trying to define me as a monkey. It is kind of the same thing don't you think?

So just to be clear, your proposal is that same-sex couples have each and every right that opposite-sex couples do, including tax filing, social security, military widow's benefits, and so forth, but that we call it, "unified marriage" instead of just "marriage"?

 

[Alceste]

Not at all. Where have I stated that there is any stupidity in this? What I am stating is simply, people who are in heterosexual marriages feel that they should have the right to defend the original definition of marriage (between a man and a woman). That is where several people find it offensive that others are trying to change what it is that they have. Is there some kind of insecurity with defining the difference? If so why? I am simply saying that I agree that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, but what is wrong with stating the difference when speaking of marriage? There are some that will never accept homosexuality even though there is now scientific evidence that proves some people may be born that way. Once again, looking for complete acceptance is asking for the improbable, but I do think that yes, there are some people that would find it easier to accept if the difference is clearly stated. I am a homosapien and would find it offensive if someone was trying to define me as a monkey. It is kind of the same thing don't you think?

Whoever has a problem with calling a marriage a marriage if there aren't the right types of wee-wees involved can go ahead and call it something else. There's no reason for grown-ups to accommodate their sqeamishness by making arbitrary, nonsensical semantic legal distinctions between one married couple and another.

It offends me as a married heterosexual that you imply with your first sentence the resistance to gay equality is coming from married heterosexuals. It comes from the religious right, gay and straight, married and single.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. Where have I stated that there is any stupidity in this? What I am stating is simply, people who are in heterosexual marriages feel that they should have the right to defend the original definition of marriage (between a man and a woman). That is where several people find it offensive that others are trying to change what it is that they have.

Speaking as a person in a "heterosexual" marriage myself, I define my marriage in terms of love and commitment, not gender. And I'd say that any definition of marriage that implies that either my wife or I are interchangeable with someone who has the same type of genitals sure wasn't the "original definition of marriage" that I was taught.

My marriage is a relationship between me and my wife, not between some generic "man" and "woman".

Is there some kind of insecurity with defining the difference? If so why?

Two big reasons:

- even if the two different categories are treated equally now, making a distinction between them allows for inequality in the future.
- history has shown that "separate but equal" doesn't end up being actually equal.

 

[KnightOwl]

How often do you see gay guys wearing wife-beaters and flannel shirts?

Probably more often than you think.

I read a book once titled, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne. I had to pay over $30 for a used paperback in fair condition because it is in such high demand (and out of print). In it he points out that people spend way too much time concentrating on spending time with people they don't get along with and the way to happiness is being yourself and making conscious decisions about with whom you associate. If you get more benefit than not, then you should continue. If you don't... don't.

I have no issue with you finding homosexuality sick and disgusting, eselam -- I find your obsession with laws that control it a big problem though. In fact, I wish there were no marriage laws. I'm for separation of marriage and state. The secular part of marriage can be handled contractually and with laws that don't discriminate and the religious part should be separate anyway.

 

[Autodidact]

Wow, I hadn't thought about that book in 30 years. I guess I should have hung on to my copy.

 

[KnightOwl]

Wow, I hadn't thought about that book in 30 years. I guess I should have hung on to my copy.

Yeah, a first edition, esp. signed is worth a grand easy. I had to read it because although the first libertarian book I read was by Harry Browne, I had never read that one and so many libertarians I met said it was their introduction. Although, I don't see "How I..." as so much a libertarian book as a self-help book that is compatible with libertarian thought.

 

[Bismillah]

I cannot help but wonder if your are blind or merely dishonest.

Thanks for that great piece of wisdom o blessed one. The moment you make an actual statement call me back.

Actually, only male homosexual relations.

That is wrong.

Which is irrelevant to the thread, which is about marriage.

Noted, but my post was a response.

It's funny to me that two Muslim people are posting on here claiming this overwhelming consensus that Islam is against homosexuality

I cannot for the life of me see why.

I've spent quite a bit of time in Arab countries and trust me, this is definitely the case.

You do realize the story of Lut is held in Arabia?

Another story:

Given that the country in question is Afghanistan (who are not Arabs) it is not surprising.

In regards to the topic while there cannot be any "Gay Islamic marriages" secular marriages are unrelated.

 

[Vendetta]

Bismillah call it what you will but there are a lot of gay Arab "muslims" at least here in California and especially in orange county where there is a large Palestinian, Egyptian population.

 

[Bismillah]

Bismillah call it what you will but there are a lot of gay Arab "muslims" at least here in California and especially in orange county where there is a large Palestinian, Egyptian population.

I have not met one, but perhaps that's because the same people tend not to actually participate in any religious obligations.

I am not denying that they don't exist (I linked an article about how certain policies in S.A encourage sodomy). I am saying that same sex marriage could never be certified in an Islamic context, secular marriages aside.