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

[Alceste]

I take it you fear when someone makes refined distinctions? I apologize, but after studying law for over 3 years, if distinctions are not made, relevance to action is not clear. How would you be able to define the difference between a summary offense, a misdemeanor offense, or a felony? I do not believe that the majority of gay marriage resistance comes "just from heterosexual" couples, but I can guarantee that the ones making the laws see it as not only a religious infringement, but also a personal one. The distinction would set some at ease, but as I stated earlier, it is highly unlikely that everyone will agree with same sex marriage.

Lol. I have no quibble with "refined" distinctions. I thought I made it clear through my posts that obsessing about the genital equipment of two people in a marriage is infantile, immature, and unrefined. It is a meaningless, unsupportable and unnecessary distinction.

BTW, I live in Canada, where the matter is settled. Marriage is marriage here and I don't hear anyone complaining.

 

[Marble]

whats silly is a man loving a man and a woman living a woman. if i said i wanted an animal beside me in bed or in hospital would anyone oppose me?

personally speaking, i don't see any kind of difference to homosexuality and bestiality, none wathsoever.

That is something entirely different.
Homosexuals of both sexes love humans not animals.

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

The Kingdom in the Closet - Magazine - The Atlantic

From that article:

Yasser turned onto a side street, then braked suddenly. “Oh ****, it’s a checkpoint,” he said, inclining his head toward some traffic cops in brown uniforms. “Do you have your ID?” he asked me. He wasn’t worried about the gay-themed nature of his tour—he didn’t want to be caught alone with a woman. I rummaged through my purse, realizing that I’d left my passport in the hotel for safekeeping. Yasser looked behind him to see if he could reverse the car, but had no choice except to proceed. To his relief, the cops nodded us through. “God, they freaked me out,” Yasser said. As he resumed his narration, I recalled something he had told me earlier. “It’s a lot easier to be gay than straight here,” he had said. “If you go out with a girl, people will start to ask her questions. But if I have a date upstairs and my family is downstairs, they won’t even come up.”

This legal and public condemnation notwithstanding, the kingdom leaves considerable space for homosexual behavior. As long as gays and lesbians maintain a public front of obeisance to Wahhabist norms, they are left to do what they want in private.

But what seems more startling, at least from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity. Nor does it strip a man of his masculinity, as long as he is in the “top,” or active, role.

In Saudi Arabia, “It’s easier to be a lesbian [than a heterosexual]. There’s an overwhelming number of people who turn to lesbianism,” Yasmin said, adding that the number of men in the kingdom who turn to gay sex is even greater. “They’re not really homosexual,” she said. “They’re like cell mates in prison.”

The kingdom of lies.
Seems to me that homosexual contacts are more frequent in Islamic societies than in the West, simply because even heterosexuals resort to gay sex when they have to live "like in prison".

 

[Autodidact]

It is thought to be caught up in the overarching definition of Zina.

Well it's thought wrong then. That's just obviously wrong. There is no reason on earth why being in a relationship with a woman is any more adulterous than a relationship with a man. I mean--that's obvious.

I am sure picking and choosing whatever phrases ping in Islmaphobic sites gives you a sound grasp of the book.

No one on earth has a sound grasp on the quran. It's an obscure, confusing, ambiguous, untranslatable collection of pre-medieval superstition, plagiarism and myth.

Hardly. There is almost always a consensus in all four schools of thought and the only variance is implementation. Then again I expect your knowledge of fiqh to be largely irrelevant aside from the occasional law the concerns your specific aims.

I don't care what you think frankly. It is accepted by all four Sunni schools of thought and every major scholar of Islam.

What is?

The words that appear are interchangeable adultery, fornification, lewdness. Since the passage is directed at women it is talking about their actions which invariably includes Lesbianism either explicitly or implicitly, it does not matter.

You are not making any sense. Why would adultery include lesbianism?

The fact is, the quran says nothing about lesbianism. It's simply silent on the subject. You may for some bizarre reason try to twist the meaning of "adultery" to include it, but that's obviously and simply wrong. They're two different things that have nothing to do with each other.

Wrong completely given that there are Hadith that particularly discuss Lesbianism aside from the discussed verses.

Yes, well those hadith, they're a bit problematic, aren't they?

 

[Bismillah]

Well it's thought wrong then. That's just obviously wrong. There is no reason on earth why being in a relationship with a woman is any more adulterous than a relationship with a man. I mean--that's obvious.

You are confused I stated that Lesbianism falls under the definition of Zina as Islam does not recognize homosexual marriages. Any sexual acts committed then do not fall under marital context.

No one on earth has a sound grasp on the quran. It's an obscure, confusing, ambiguous, untranslatable collection of pre-medieval superstition, plagiarism and myth.

Yes I am not surprised that you are confused, but your failure is expected. It is true that given that many portions of the Qur'an are metaphorical and as such portions of those can only be understood first by its author, then its revelator, then its scholars, and then the people. Given these portions of the Qur'an, Muslims are able to adapt their ultimate goal of tawhid and is necessary lest the scripture become obsolete.

That said in matters that concern the dunya there is little disagreement among scholars in prohibited practices and slight interpretations of how to handle infringements of faith.

Your claims are worthless.

What is?

The concept of marriage to be between man and women. Aside from my other points, every single instance of marriage details relations between man and women. Given that the Qur'an is the guidebook by which Muslims live their lives, the exclusion of lesbianism logically infers that it is not a part of Muslim marriage.

Why would adultery include lesbianism?

Both fall under Zina and in this case concerns pre-marital adultery if they are not married or adultery if the women is married. The passage is clearly directed at women and talking about fornification occurring between women. Given that Islam does not recognize lesbian marriages acts of fornification also includes lesbianism.

Yes, well those hadith, they're a bit problematic, aren't they?

No they are not and only add to the argument that Lesbianism is thoroughly rejected and really it is a simple matter of common sense in grasping that notion.

 

[Autodidact]

You are confused I stated that Lesbianism falls under the definition of Zina as Islam does not recognize homosexual marriages. Any sexual acts committed then do not fall under marital context.

Why should Islam not recognize female/female marriage?

Yes I am not surprised that you are confused, but your failure is expected. It is true that given that many portions of the Qur'an are metaphorical and as such portions of those can only be understood first by its author, then its revelator, then its scholars, and then the people. Given these portions of the Qur'an, Muslims are able to adapt their ultimate goal of tawhid and is necessary lest the scripture become obsolete.

Yes, this is pretty much how we can be sure that God did not use this method to communicate with all of humanity.

That said in matters that concern the dunya there is little disagreement among scholars in prohibited practices and slight interpretations of how to handle infringements of faith.

Your claims are worthless.

Argue by pronouncement much?

The concept of marriage to be between man and women

Yes, that's what you're trying to demonstrate. For example, you could provide a verse that prohibits two women from marrying, if there is one.

. Aside from my other points, every single instance of marriage details relations between man and women. Given that the Qur'an is the guidebook by which Muslims live their lives, the exclusion of lesbianism logically infers that it is not a part of Muslim marriage.

so if the quran doesn't mention automobiles, Muslims are prohibited from riding in them?

You're saying that silence = prohibition? Anything that's not mentioned is prohibited? That's your argument? Does the quran mention computers? If not, you're in trouble.

Both fall under Zina and in this case concerns pre-marital adultery if they are not married or adultery if the women is married. The passage is clearly directed at women and talking about fornification occurring between women. Given that Islam does not recognize lesbian marriages acts of fornification also includes lesbianism.

Not if the two women are allowed to marry. Problem solved.

No they are not and only add to the argument that Lesbianism is thoroughly rejected and really it is a simple matter of common sense in grasping that notion.

You mean YOU reject it. The quran doesn't; it doesn't mention it. Fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

If you're going to argue that in a cautionary tale about threatened same-sex gang rape, the offensive thing is the "same-sex" part and not the "gang rape" part, then I would say that your moral sense is rather untrustworthy.

Inequality exists by mere truth. Black is not equal to white, but they are both colors. How could there possible an entire equality when there never will be one (homosexual vs heterosexual)?

I'm not asking for "entire equality", just equality under the law, which is completely doable.

Oh and one last question, please explain what a generic "man" and "woman" is; I truly do not understand what you mean by this.

I mean that my marriage is based on love and commitment to my spouse, not on the type of genitals that we both have.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

There are just as many misinterpretations of the Quran as there are of the Bible. To claim otherwise is dishonest. When something is as vague as holy books, it's solely left up to the "scholars" to make meaning of it and pass it to the people. Problem is Scholars rarely interpret it the same way. Therefore you have different regions grasping different meanings of the same writing. I don't see how anyone can see this as reliable.


Considering you yourself said

It is true that given that many portions of the Qur'an are metaphorical and as such portions of those can only be understood first by its author, then its revelator, then its scholars, and then the people.

Not everyone is going to ingest the same meanings from metaphors, especially one's as vague as what is in the Quran/Bible.

You can quote all the scripture you wish, but 9 times out of 10, the guy down the road will decipher it's meaning differently.

 

[Bismillah]

Why should Islam not recognize female/female marriage?

It directly counteract the social responsibilities that come with marriage.

Yes, this is pretty much how we can be sure that God did not use this method to communicate with all of humanity.

What.

Argue by pronouncement much?

Yeah I have hundreds of years of scholarly opinion with more effort placed in tafsir, fiqh, and qiyas by each individual than can be understood or appreciated by most members of this forum. I hold their opinion in high regard, yours not so.

Yes, that's what you're trying to demonstrate. For example, you could provide a verse that prohibits two women from marrying, if there is one.

I did.

so if the quran doesn't mention automobiles, Muslims are prohibited from riding in them?

You're saying that silence = prohibition? Anything that's not mentioned is prohibited? That's your argument? Does the quran mention computers? If not, you're in trouble

Use simple reasoning.

1. The Qur'an clearly condemns sodomy and recognizes it as part of Zina.
2. The Qur'an clearly condemns "indecency", "lewdness", "fornification" from among your women.
3. The Qur'an clearly details the social and economic factors of marriage. Every single reference is between men and women.

The Qur'an clearly stipulates marriage and the priorities of each partner. It clearly explains that man and women are different but equal in marriage and form one harmonious contract.

It is silent on women marrying women. Given that such a huge part of social life is clearly detailed using one aspect and the basis of Islamic society is based on this one aspect it is safe to assume that any diverging opinions on marriage are not mentioned in the Qur'an and thus are not the path of a Muslim. Given that the Qur'an condemns sodomy quite directly and offers marriage between man and women as a solution, this diverging approach is thrown into serious doubt as not only not the path a Muslim follows but one that is discouraged at the least.

Given the Hadith that later clarifies that it is not only discouraged but forbidden the conclusion is set in stone.

Bang your head against the wall, you are going against the consensus of centuries of scholarly authority and simple logic.

If you're going to argue that in a cautionary tale about threatened same-sex gang rape, the offensive thing is the "same-sex" part and not the "gang rape" part, then I would say that your moral sense is rather untrustworthy.

I am not sure where you are getting "gang rape" from as the verses are concerned with the public practice of sodomy in Lut's town and their attempts to fufil their desires on Angels.

Regardless I think you missed the context and point of the post. The person I responded to stated that Arabia has a part past that seemed conducive to sodomy. This is not either new or surprising as God places challenges in everyone's path. I offered the classic story of Lut who was an Arab and how his town was afflicted with sodomy. That is no one claims Arabia to be free of homosexual tendencies, in fact deviance is what prompts revelation in the first place.

 

[Bismillah]

Not everyone is going to ingest the same meanings from metaphors, especially one's as vague as what is in the Quran/Bible.

You clearly don't understand the subject matter. Auto is talking about Islamic jurisprudence, in that matter there is little dissension and little variance in actual punishment for infringement. The spiritual path of one is set aside from another and the ability for different paths to emerge that converge to one final ideal is ultimate purpose of those points.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

You clearly don't understand the subject matter. Auto is talking about Islamic jurisprudence, in that matter there is little dissension and little variance in actual punishment for infringement. The spiritual path of one is set aside from another and the ability for different paths to emerge that converge to one final ideal is ultimate purpose of those points.

So what does the Quran say about punishing those that commit homosexual acts?

 

[Autodidact]

It directly counteract the social responsibilities that come with marriage.

In what way? What are the social responsibilities, and why can't two women carry them out?

1. The Qur'an clearly condemns sodomy and recognizes it as part of Zina.

Not lesbianism, though.

2. The Qur'an clearly condemns "indecency", "lewdness", "fornification" from among your women.

Again, what is forbidden is indeceny and fornication, not lesbianism. Not condemned at all.

3. The Qur'an clearly details the social and economic factors of marriage. Every single reference is between men and women.

Well, it also talks about camels, not cars, but I'm sure you don't feel confined to camels, do you?

The Qur'an clearly stipulates marriage and the priorities of each partner. It clearly explains that man and women are different but equal in marriage and form one harmonious contract.

That tells you waht the quran thinks about marriage between men and women.

It is silent on women marrying women. Given that such a huge part of social life is clearly detailed using one aspect and the basis of Islamic society is based on this one aspect it is safe to assume that any diverging opinions on marriage are not mentioned in the Qur'an and thus are not the path of a Muslim

Kind of like cars, computers, cell phones?

Given that the Qur'an condemns sodomy quite directly and offers marriage between man and women as a solution, this diverging approach is thrown into serious doubt as not only not the path a Muslim follows but one that is discouraged at the least.

Sounds like Allah has a problem with homosexuality, but none with lesbianism.

Allah knows how to forbid things. Had He wanted to forbid it, He would have done so. He did not. It is not for us to judge what He should have forbidden, or might have. Remember, Islam = submission to what Allah actually said, not what you want Him to say.

Given the Hadith that later clarifies that it is not only discouraged but forbidden the conclusion is set in stone.

Bang your head against the wall, you are going against the consensus of centuries of scholarly authority and simple logic.

Simple logic = It's not forbidden. Therefore it's permitted.

Still using your computer? Doesn't the quran prohibit that? It's never mentioned as being permissible for Muslims to use it.

 

[Bismillah]

So what does the Quran say about punishing those that commit homosexual acts?

Clearly it is a monumental sin. It can only be punished in this life if it is witnessed in public and punishment ranges from stoning to lashing. What is your point?

Here are the relevant parts.

Well, it also talks about camels, not cars, but I'm sure you don't feel confined to camels, do you?

Are camels, cars, and phones an essential part of Islamic life? You are clearly ignorant if you think that social and family life does not constitute one of the biggest roles in Islam. A family is, in essence, a miniature Caliphate and as such divine. There are clear laws stipulating the path that a Muslim family adheres to and follows these rules to live an Islamic life as referenced in Fatihah

"Show us the straight way".

That tells you waht the quran thinks about marriage between men and women.

No it tells you what the Qur'an thinks of marriage and the ideal that Muslims are required to follow. Period.

Kind of like cars, computers, cell phones?

No. It is not silent on marriage, just on a particular view of marriage. Your analogy does not hold together.

Sounds like Allah has a problem with homosexuality, but none with lesbianism.

At the least a rational being would conclude that Islam condemns sodomy, continually upholds marriages between men and women (among the Prophets who are the most noble of creations), and in depth describes the ideal Muslim marriage and the stipulations that the contract ensures. All of which deals with, that's right, a male wed to a female. At the bare minimum the Qur'an shows the best path to marriage, out of wisdom of our creator, and as such it is the path that is required given its presence in the Qur'an.

The Hadith only come to solidify this point. The scholars agree with me and scholars for dollars Irshad Manji agrees with you.

Simple logic.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Clearly it is a monumental sin. It can only be punished in this life if it is witnessed in public and punishment ranges from stoning to lashing. What is your point?

The point being that if it is condemned in the Quran, why is it barely enforced in countries such as S.A., Turkey, Afghanistan, etc. where homosexuality between men is quite prolific and in the open, to include sex with young boys. There has to be a reason the proverb "Women are for children, Men/boys are for pleasure" was formed. Just because Muslim men don't consider it homosexuality, doesn't make it not homosexuality. You hear more stories about Men being punished for Adultery, or acting on sexual urges out of wedlock than homosexuality.

This is the reason why the Quran condemning it is so controversial. It happens and isn't punished. At least that is what confuses me about it.

 

[Bismillah]

It was quite clearly punished when Islam was a political force, that stopped happening after the death of Ali and in my view only briefly resurfaced once under an unconnected Caliph (not of the two generations after the Sahaba).

A lack of enforcement is a failure of Muslim society but in the grand scheme of things indeed a very small one. Regardless, Islamically speaking, enforcing this punishment in todays world is not permissible.

 

[Autodidact]

Clearly it is a monumental sin. It can only be punished in this life if it is witnessed in public and punishment ranges from stoning to lashing. What is your point?

Well, it wasn't my point, but it's clearly barbaric.

Here are the relevant parts.

Are camels, cars, and phones an essential part of Islamic life? You are clearly ignorant if you think that social and family life does not constitute one of the biggest roles in Islam. A family is, in essence, a miniature Caliphate and as such divine. There are clear laws stipulating the path that a Muslim family adheres to and follows these rules to live an Islamic life as referenced in Fatihah

Yes, and nowhere in all that does it say that two women can't do it.

"Show us the straight way".

No it tells you what the Qur'an thinks of marriage and the ideal that Muslims are required to follow. Period.

No. It is not silent on marriage, just on a particular view of marriage. Your analogy does not hold together.

It's silent on lesbianism, and silent on two women marrying.

At the least a rational being would conclude that Islam condemns sodomy,

Yes, it does.

continually upholds marriages between men and women

I don't know about uphold. It describes and regulates.

(among the Prophets who are the most noble of creations), and in depth describes the ideal Muslim marriage and the stipulations that the contract ensures. All of which deals with, that's right, a male wed to a female. At the bare minimum the Qur'an shows the best path to marriage, out of wisdom of our creator, and as such it is the path that is required given its presence in the Qur'an.

Maybe. But that's not the point. The point is that neither lesbianism nor female marriage are prohibited. The only basis for your opposition is pure bigotry--not Islam, not Allah, not the quran.

The Hadith only come to solidify this point. The scholars agree with me and scholars for dollars Irshad Manji agrees with you.

I refer you to your previous discussion of the hadith.

Simple logic.

Yup. What is not prohibited is permitted.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

It was quite clearly punished when Islam was a political force, that stopped happening after the death of Ali and in my view only briefly resurfaced once under an unconnected Caliph (not of the two generations after the Sahaba).

A lack of enforcement is a failure of Muslim society but in the grand scheme of things indeed a very small one. Regardless, Islamically speaking, enforcing this punishment in todays world is not permissible.

Islam is a political force in pretty much the entire Middle East. As far as the punishment not being permissible, men and women are stoned for acts of unwed sexual encounters and Adultery. Men and women in S.A. are either publicly executed, or have hands/limbs cut off in a public square. Ever heard of "Chop Chop Square"? I've seen it. They take Americans and move them to the front so they can see first hand what happens to criminals in their country. If the punishment is permissible for what I'll call "Marriage" crimes, then I don't see the difference in doing the same for homosexual acts. All that tells me is that homosexuality is much less condemned than the Quran leads one to believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are camels, cars, and phones an essential part of Islamic life? You are clearly ignorant if you think that social and family life does not constitute one of the biggest roles in Islam. A family is, in essence, a miniature Caliphate and as such divine. There are clear laws stipulating the path that a Muslim family adheres to and follows these rules to live an Islamic life as referenced in Fatihah

"Show us the straight way".

Seeing how this thread is about secular, civil marriage rights, what (if anything) do the Quran or the Hadiths say about same-sex marriage between non-Muslims?

Nobody's talking about forcing Muslims to do anything; the question is what views should be accommodated under secular law. Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal, Muslims would be able to follow the Muslim view of marriage when it comes to their own marriages; whether that means allowing same-sex marriages or not is a matter for you and your fellow Muslims. What's at issue is whether the Muslim view of marriage should be imposed on non-Muslims.

 

[Bismillah]

Well, it wasn't my point, but it's clearly barbaric.

I agree sex in public is barbaric.

I don't know about uphold. It describes and regulates.

No, it upholds them.

"O' my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you! Beware of Allah and degrade me not in (the presence of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ?" (11: 78)

"O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve) (Al-Nisa 4:1)

"O Allah grant that our spouses and our offspring be the coolness of our eyes and cause us to be a model for the righteous" (25:74)

There is one permitted sexual outlet "Permitted to you on the night of the Fasts is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and you are their garments." (2:187)

Maybe. But that's not the point. The point is that neither lesbianism nor female marriage are prohibited. The only basis for your opposition is pure bigotry--not Islam, not Allah, not the quran.

You consistently miss the point. The Qur'an dictates the way of life. It clearly dictates how marriage functions in a Muslim's life. The absence of Lesbian relations signifies that it is NOT the path a Muslim takes. The glorification and paragons of male female relations are witnessed in the Qur'an and the lives of the Prophet.

The Prophet himself later adds to this large collection of damning evidence and quite explicitly nips the matter at the bud. So why do you discount this fact as well, is it not convenient? It is clear both the day to day and sexual nature of marriage entails

"He helped his wives in domestic chores..." In another naration she says: "The Holy Prophet SAW used to mend his shoes, sew his cloth and work in his house just as any one of you work's in his own house"

"None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal but let there be first a messenger between you" They asked: "And what is the messenger?" He replied: "Kisses and words" (Daylami)

"the most perfect belief is that of those who are best mannered and most tender to their wives."

"A man will be rewarded for spending on his wife, even for putting a morsel of food in her mouth"

"The best of you are those that are best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives"

"Should I not inform you of the best of man's treasures? A pious wife, when he looks at her she pleases him...."

I have provided ample evidence you have not.

Simple logic.

Islam is a political force in pretty much the entire Middle East. As far as the punishment not being permissible, men and women are stoned for acts of unwed sexual encounters and Adultery. Men and women in S.A. are either publicly executed, or have hands/limbs cut off in a public square. Ever heard of "Chop Chop Square"? I've seen it. They take Americans and move them to the front so they can see first hand what happens to criminals in their country. If the punishment is permissible for what I'll call "Marriage" crimes, then I don't see the difference in doing the same for homosexual acts. All that tells me is that homosexuality is much less condemned than the Quran leads one to believe.

Where do you see an Islam ruling a government and where do you see a government ruling Islam? I am not unaware of KSA and various other countries laws, but the hudud can only be carried out under a Caliphate, I don't see one do you? That is why they are not permissible even if they are committed.

 

[Bismillah]

Seeing how this thread is about secular, civil marriage rights, what (if anything) do the Quran or the Hadiths say about same-sex marriage between non-Muslims?

You are right I will stop responding to tangents, I feel I have made my statement.

I am not aware of anything that references them as the Qur'an and Hadith are naturally centered around Muslim life. I believe that as long as there is no public displays of sex then you can range from a very conservative to liberal view.

After all secular marriage is something completely different and has no impact on Islamic law or society. I do not know if there is any argument that would be against that marriage or at least terms of marriage that are granted to others. But I do know that many people would tend to adopt a stricter interpretation limiting the prevalence of homosexuality in society.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I agree sex in public is barbaric.

No, it upholds them.

"O' my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you! Beware of Allah and degrade me not in (the presence of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ?" (11: 78)

"O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife (Eve) (Al-Nisa 4:1)

"O Allah grant that our spouses and our offspring be the coolness of our eyes and cause us to be a model for the righteous" (25:74)

There is one permitted sexual outlet "Permitted to you on the night of the Fasts is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and you are their garments." (2:187)

You consistently miss the point. The Qur'an dictates the way of life. It clearly dictates how marriage functions in a Muslim's life. The absence of Lesbian relations signifies that it is NOT the path a Muslim takes. The glorification and paragons of male female relations are witnessed in the Qur'an and the lives of the Prophet.

The Prophet himself later adds to this large collection of damning evidence and quite explicitly nips the matter at the bud. So why do you discount this fact as well, is it not convenient? It is clear both the day to day and sexual nature of marriage entails

"He helped his wives in domestic chores..." In another naration she says: "The Holy Prophet SAW used to mend his shoes, sew his cloth and work in his house just as any one of you work's in his own house"

"None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal but let there be first a messenger between you" They asked: "And what is the messenger?" He replied: "Kisses and words" (Daylami)

"the most perfect belief is that of those who are best mannered and most tender to their wives."

"A man will be rewarded for spending on his wife, even for putting a morsel of food in her mouth"

"The best of you are those that are best to their wives, and I am the best of you to my wives"

"Should I not inform you of the best of man's treasures? A pious wife, when he looks at her she pleases him...."

I have provided ample evidence you have not.

Simple logic.

Where do you see an Islam ruling a government and where do you see a government ruling Islam? I am not unaware of KSA and various other countries laws, but the hudud can only be carried out under a Caliphate, I don't see one do you? That is why they are not permissible even if they are committed.

You dont consider Sharia Islamic ruling?