Surely the world we live in proves there is no [loving] God.

[Triumphant_Loser]

Once again talking from pure ignorance ... you seem to be quite worthy of your name though

Okay...Please do educate me then. Did he, or did he not have sex with a 9 year old? And thanks...quite triumphant, I know.

 

[Badran]

No one talks about 'bigotry' and 'hatred' against an adulterer or fornicator. That's why I said it is nothing but a way to draw sympathy and promote homosexuality

There's the obvious element of sexual orientation here. When someone says that they believe sex before marriage is wrong or that adultery (with or without the cheating aspect) is wrong, they're addressing different sexual behaviors under the heterosexual umbrella, and are promoting a certain restrictive set of behaviors as the appropriate manner in which a heterosexual person should seek having sex that would satisfy their natural desire. Which can be reasonable or unreasonable. It can be restrictive, simplistic, ignorant, oppressive etc., but not necessarily hateful (though it can be).

In the case of a homosexuality, it's specifically being stated that homosexuals should not try to seek having sex that would satisfy their natural desire at all. They're told that having sex with someone of their same gender, which is what they're attracted to, is wrong, period. This is a pretty significant difference because it addresses a more crucial aspect of the person's identity, and carries considerably more serious consequences to their potential happiness in life.

(regardless of whether the attraction is natural or not).

The premise that homosexuality is in fact natural is a pretty important element of that entire debate, and i've rarely seen it discarded.

Therefore, you could not prove why practicing homosexuality is natural and ok where as all those other types of sexual perversions are wrong.

Trying to address all those things collectively as equivalents is something only you are insisting upon. It's a poor approach to the matter because it ignores the unique aspects in each case, and only focuses on the similarities or comparable parts. You assume that either all those things are wrong or all are right, all should be legal or all should be illegal, or that all even put forth the same amount of issues to be considered. That's not the case.

More importantly, it misses that actual core of the matter. To suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, first you actually need to provide justification for these statements, which should be simple enough considering just how immoral it is often proposed to be. Reading your posts here, i don't recall an instance where you've actually did that.

I don't think I need to respond to that ... it speaks for itself.

Actually all it speaks for is someone actually trying to address complex, different, and in some cases difficult issues that are concerned with possible harms on one end and freedoms of an individual in society on the other, rather than:

Who decides the cut off age? Only our Creator has a right to do that . Without God you don't have objective morality.

Which is a terrible point to try to score here given the obvious, glaring, and known debatable nature of the question of whether there is actually any such creator at all and that if there is, who exactly is it and which religion teaches it's supposed objective morality, if any.

And you are talking about subjective things like my way of killing is more humane than your way of killing. So silly. That's why we take it from God, our Creator, who knows best and why. Read the details please ... see how many people really get Stoned for that.

That's quite the simplification of the clear objectionable elements here. It's hardly just a question of a way of killing. That's just an added element that displays how low humans are capable of going.

It's a question of severe reasoning deficiency and alarming lack of empathy when death is proposed to be an appropriate punishment for something like consensual sex, and then, a question of the method to carry out that sentence, which makes the whole proposed punishment nothing short of madness.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Okay...Please do educate me then. Did he, or did he not have sex with a 9 year old? And thanks...quite triumphant, I know.

"Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimizes such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates."

I will just quote the conclusion from the article ... but if you are really sincere about knowing ... read the full article and you will find the answer: The truth about Muhammad and Aisha | Myriam François-Cerrah | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

"Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimizes such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates."

I will just quote the conclusion from the article ... but if you are really sincere about knowing ... read the full article and you will find the answer: The truth about Muhammad and Aisha | Myriam François-Cerrah | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Read the article... basically a sugar-coated version of "yes."

 

[Sees]

Read the article... basically a sugar-coated version of "yes."

Typical

 

[loverOfTruth]

There's the obvious element of sexual orientation here. When someone says that they believe sex before marriage is wrong or that adultery (with or without the cheating aspect) is wrong, they're addressing different sexual behaviors under the heterosexual umbrella, and are promoting a certain restrictive set of behaviors as the appropriate manner in which a heterosexual person should seek having sex that would satisfy their natural desire. Which can be reasonable or unreasonable. It can be restrictive, simplistic, ignorant, oppressive etc., but not necessarily hateful (though it can be).

In the case of a homosexuality, it's specifically being stated that homosexuals should not try to seek having sex that would satisfy their natural desire at all. They're told that having sex with someone of their same gender, which is what they're attracted to, is wrong, period. This is a pretty significant difference because it addresses a more crucial aspect of the person's identity, and carries considerably more serious consequences to their potential happiness in life.

Sorry I do not agree...it is no different. The same is being asked of adulterers and fornicators.

Trying to address all those things collectively as equivalents is something only you are insisting upon. It's a poor approach to the matter because it ignores the unique aspects in each case, and only focuses on the similarities or comparable parts. You assume that either all those things are wrong or all are right, all should be legal or all should be illegal, or that all even put forth the same amount of issues to be considered. That's not the case.

No, that's not what I am assuming. They are very much related. You cannot just claim that heterosexuality is natural and bestiality, pedophilia and incest is not without a valid reason.

More importantly, it misses that actual core of the matter. To suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, first you actually need to provide justification for these statements, which should be simple enough considering just how immoral it is often proposed to be. Reading your posts here, i don't recall an instance where you've actually did that.

Then you have missed the point of my discussion here. My main argument was why Islam is considered 'bigoted'/'hateful' towards 'homosexuals' and not 'adulterers/fornicators'.

Which is a terrible point to try to score here given the obvious, glaring, and known debatable nature of the question of whether there is actually any such creator at all and that if there is, who exactly is it and which religion teaches it's supposed objective morality, if any.

That's an entirely separate discussion. But the fact that 'requiring consent' is subjective which cannot resolve right vs. wrong unless there is objective morality is absolutely a valid point relevant to the discussion.

That's quite the simplification of the clear objectionable elements here. It's hardly just a question of a way of killing. That's just an added element that displays how low humans are capable of going.

It's a question of severe reasoning deficiency and alarming lack of empathy when death is proposed to be an appropriate punishment for something like consensual sex, and then, a question of the method to carry out that sentence, which makes the whole proposed punishment nothing short of madness.

Then once again you have missed the point about the proposed punishment and rambling on about subjective issues.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Once again you are talking from pure ignorance. That's why I told you to read the Islamic position here : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...65-post48.html

I and neither Islam is in support of businesses restricting service to homosexuals. Go tell that to those who think that way. Don't blame Islam of bigotry and hatred then.

I'm not talking about businesses refusing services to LGBT people. I'm talking about certain religions condemning us for who are. Islam teaches that homosexuality and, I presume, being transgender is a "sin" and does not allow same-gender relationships. That is the bigotry here.

And you are talking about subjective things like my way of killing is more humane than your way of killing. So silly. That's why we take it from God, our Creator, who knows best and why. Read the details please ... see how many people really get Stoned for that.

Oh, please. If someone has to be put to death for committing an egregious crime, a bullet to the head will suffice. You can't possibly argue that shooting someone in the head is a worse way of dying than being stoned to death! Stoning someone to death is just pure sadism and torture. I've seen videos of your Islamic comrades stoning men and women to death and it's simply horrific. It's a slow and brutal death.

No one should ever have to be stoned to death! Especially for something as petty as adultery! The possibility shouldn't even be on the table, period!

Once again your views are just typical ignorance as a result of brainwashing by the media. I have discussed all those issues in this thread. Please read ...

Do you believe that Islam is a fair and just religion? - Religious Education Forum

I know about Islam's teachings dealing with polygamy. Your religion still has a bizarre hangup about sex.

But there's a reason for 'sex with a 12 year old' to be illegal ?


So you think its ok for an adult to have consensual sex with a 12 year old ? Don't avoid the question please.

No. 12 year olds generally aren't psychologically mature enough to handle the responsibilities of sex. They're generally not that physically mature, as well. I think 16 is probably the best age of consent.

Of course there is. Otherwise, one person's right would be another person's wrong - and who gets to decide who is right ?

People decide what is right or wrong for themselves. When enough people agree that something is wrong, it is made illegal. When opinions shift, what was once illegal can be made legal. We see this is the gradual legalization of recreational marijuana in some states in the US.

I don't think I need to respond to that ... it speaks for itself.

Okay, then. I stand by it.

 

[Badran]

Sorry I do not agree...it is no different. The same is being asked of adulterers and fornicators.

Did you actually read what i said?

From Islam's point of view, a man can't have sex with a man and woman can't have sex with a woman, period. On the other hand, men can have sex with women, with some restrictions. Such as having sex without marriage and having sex with someone other than your spouse (even if it's not cheating) being considered immoral and punishable.

So for a heterosexual person, while there are unreasonable and unfair difficulties too in my judgement, it still at least allowed for them to have pleasurable, fulfilling sex within the context of marriage. For a homosexual person, this is not the case. Is this clear?

No, that's not what I am assuming. They are very much related. You cannot just claim that heterosexuality is natural and bestiality, pedophilia and incest is not without a valid reason.

Would you like to quote to me where i said that they were unnatural?

Then you have missed the point of my discussion here. My main argument was why Islam is considered 'bigoted'/'hateful' towards 'homosexuals' and not 'adulterers/fornicators'.

I have not missed your point, i'm directly addressing it above, and i'm following the flow of the discussion quite well. You've entered a thread questioning the notion of a loving god and offered things from the perspective of Islam, and more specifically from your view of it. In post #225, you offered homosexuality as an example of the things god protects us from, due to the harms and havoc they bring upon society. It seems to me that you offered a terrible example, since it's pretty basic to expect you to at least be able to explain these harms in regards to the example you're offering. Otherwise, you're just quoting references and offering a view without properly explaining or justifying it in anyway.

That's an entirely separate discussion. But the fact that 'requiring consent' is subjective which cannot resolve right vs. wrong unless there is objective morality is absolutely a valid point relevant to the discussion.

1) And yet, you have not sufficed with trying to argue for the second statement, but particularly added the element which you deem now as entirely separate from the discussion (which, of course, i agree it is, since that's exactly what i was pointing out).

2) The difficulty we face in determining certain criteria in regards to possibly harmful things to us doesn't necessitate moral relativism in the sense you're implying here, in my view. I can explain why of course, but i'll save the effort for when and if you ask for it.

Then once again you have missed the point about the proposed punishment

You keep making false assumptions, may be it's time to ease up on that and try to look for possible shortcomings on your behalf instead? I have not missed the special point of the punishment, i understand the deterrence element and the considerably high requirements that render the punishment a very, very rare occurrence (assuming it's followed correctly).

However, that doesn't even begin to address a word from what i said. In that rare occurrence, when it happens, every word from what i said applies, and you don't seem too interested in trying to attempt to justify the blatant disproportion of the punishment proposed here, nor the unspeakably cruel nature of the method in which it's carried out.

and rambling on about subjective issues.

Oh! As opposed to you doing what?

 

[Badran]

Islam teaches that homosexuality and, I presume, being transgender is a "sin" and does not allow same-gender relationships.

For accuracy, it only teaches the bold part.

For the rest, it doesn't teach that being attracted to the same gender is a sin, and in regards to being transgender, it's a little too detailed for me to bother to explain it, and probably with different views, but it's not nearly as simple as considering a person perceiving a mismatch for example being a sin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For accuracy, it only teaches the bold part.

For the rest, it doesn't teach that being attracted to the same gender is a sin, and in regards to being transgender, it's a little too detailed for me to bother to explain it, and probably with different views, but it's not nearly as simple as considering a person perceiving a mismatch for example being a sin.

Thanks. Sounds the same as Catholicism's teachings on that subject.