[VIDEO] Gay and Muslim: Family wanted to 'make me better'

[James]

No, I haven't.

I'd like to see where I have.

You’ve moved on from someone being gay to specifically being about the homosexual physical act. Change from the start of the thread.

 

[Barragan]

You’ve moved on from someone being gay to specifically being about the homosexual physical act. Change from the start of the thread.

Doesn't gay involve sodomy?

They go hand in hand, unless your talking about the gay, as in "happy" gay.

 

[James]

Doesn't gay involve sodomy?

They go hand in hand, unless your talking about the gay, as in "happy" gay.

No, not necessarily.

I know several gay men who have a partner for companionship but are celibate.

 

[Barragan]

No, not necessarily.

I know several gay men who have a partner for companionship but are celibate.

Well, that is very rare.

Majority do practice sodomy, so I'll keep it like that and use that as a reference.

 

[James]

Well, that is very rare.

Majority do practice sodomy, so I'll keep it like that and use that as a reference.

What is your evidence?

 

[the Great Khan]

The discussion isn't about thoughts.

No one knows what another person is thinking.

The discussion is about, if a person is partaking in sodomy and what would be the punishment.

Err no. You have now realised your initial statements are not correct and lack nuance and context.

The shariah is not so trivial as to discuss in such a manner on a cricket forum by uneducated Muslims. And by uneducated I mean in fiqh.

Islam talks about sexual misconduct in holistic terms. All pre marital relations have penalties but to prove is very very difficult beyond a self confession and ven then it's not so clear cut. The Islamic penal code is about deterrence.

But I'm gonna stop here as this is not a topic we should talk about without the proper knowledge..

 

[Barragan]

What is your evidence?

I don't need evidence to know what gay guys do.

You'll obviously have a different perspective because of your personal experience.

 

[Barragan]

Err no. You have now realised your initial statements are not correct and lack nuance and context.

The shariah is not so trivial as to discuss in such a manner on a cricket forum by uneducated Muslims. And by uneducated I mean in fiqh.

Islam talks about sexual misconduct in holistic terms. All pre marital relations have penalties but to prove is very very difficult beyond a self confession and ven then it's not so clear cut. The Islamic penal code is about deterrence.

But I'm gonna stop here as this is not a topic we should talk about without the proper knowledge..

I'm sorry, but this is the whole discussion.

This is why I brought up the whole story of Prophet Lut.

Not here to discuss thoughts only!

Only a person being gay and what Islam says is the outcome of such an act.

 

[Varun]

I don't need evidence to know what gay guys do.

You'll obviously have a different perspective because of your personal experience.

Hey - what's the deal with these posts, so early on in the thread? :

You can't be gay and muslim.

You can denounce Islam, be gay and live your life as you please.

If he still wants remain gay and a Muslim, then he has to face the punishment according to Islamic laws.

Death.

Stop being so extremist, if I may use the word.

 

[Barragan]

Hey - what's the deal with these posts, so early on in the thread? :





Stop being so extremist, if I may use the word.

It's all the same, nothing different here.

Death is the punishment for someone gay.

 

[Varun]

It's all the same, nothing different here.

Death is the punishment for someone gay.

Well let's just say that the thread right after this one (mob burns Sri Lankan man for alleged blasphemy) contains an incident that came about because of mentalities like yours.

 

[Barragan]

Well let's just say that the thread right after this one (mob burns Sri Lankan man for alleged blasphemy) contains an incident that came about because of mentalities like yours.

I have no idea why you would link the two?

What mentality are you referring to?

What a pathetic assumption!

 

[Varun]

I have no idea why you would link the two?

What mentality are you referring to?

What a pathetic assumption!

Hardly - both you and those sets of people have decided that "Death" is an acceptable punishment to somebody supposedly in the wrong and in the mob's case, they proceeded to do the needful.

 

[Barragan]

Hardly - both you and those sets of people have decided that "Death" is an acceptable punishment to somebody supposedly in the wrong and in the mob's case, they proceeded to do the needful.

The discussion here is regarding the law.

If someone steals, will they be punished?

Bringing in some nonsense about mob mentality.

Don't link the two because it isn't!

 

[realitygaf]

Of course homosexuality is part of the norm, has been since the beginning of our species and for at least two hundred species more.

It’s a norm in the same sense as disabilities which cause actions other than normal such as disabilities people have. Once you realize it broadly you will realize like many disability of how a person is persuaded internally to act a way . Same with homosexuality. Sexual disorders, eating disorders, sleeping disorders etc

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Homosexuality is being used as a political tool to smite Muslim countries. It's been used to overshadow racism and where there is oppression, homophobia has taken precedent.

The cultural shift has been seismic.

 

[Robert]

It’s a norm in the same sense as disabilities which cause actions other than normal such as disabilities people have. Once you realize it broadly you will realize like many disability of how a person is persuaded internally to act a way . Same with homosexuality. Sexual disorders, eating disorders, sleeping disorders etc

Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.

But something that differs so drastically from the norm is therefore abnormal.

 

[MenInG]

Canadian lawmakers have passed a motion banning the discredited practice of “conversion therapy”, in a rare show of unanimity in the country’s parliament.

A surprise motion on Wednesday by the opposition Conservatives to fast-track the legislation prompted applause in the House of Commons. A handful of Liberal cabinet ministers hugged their Conservative colleagues after the vote.

“I dream of the day when LGBTQ2 issues are no longer political footballs. And we are one day closer to that future,” said Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault, who is gay.

Canada’s justice minister, David Lametti, praised the Conservatives for bringing the motion forward.

“There are clearly people in the Conservative caucus who exercised a great deal of leadership on the issue, and I thank them,” he said. “This is what we can do when parliament works together.”

The governing Liberals had made repeated attempts to pass legislation banning the practice, which aims to change individuals’ sexual orientation or gender identity, and has been deemed harmful by health experts globally.

The Liberals first introduced the bill in March 2020, but it died after the government prorogued parliament. Trudeau’s party reintroduced the bill again but it died when parliament dissolved ahead of the September federal election.

The Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, has become an outspoken proponent of LGBTQ rights since taking control of the party. By voting to fast-track the bill, lawmakers avoid having to record their vote. Previously, 62 Conservatives voted against the motion in June.

The bill will now go to the senate for a separate vote before it becomes law.

A recent UN report found that conversion practices are performed in at least 68 countries, although experts say some version of conversion practice is still found in all nations.

Aversion therapy, where a person is subjected to a “negative, painful or otherwise distressing sensation”– including electric shocks – to create a negative association, has been used in many countries.

The vote puts Canada one step closer to joining a small number of nations – Brazil, Ecuador, Germany and Malta – that have outright banned the practice. A recent bill in the UK has proposed restricting, but not banning, the practice.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/02/canada-votes-ban-lgbtq-conversion-therapy

 

[Robert]

But something that differs so drastically from the norm is therefore abnormal.

Well, that’s just semantics. Who defined norm? Western societies have a broader definition.

 

[Technics 1210]

Well, that’s just semantics. Who defined norm? Western societies have a broader definition.

There’s a difference between something that is normal, and something that is acceptable.

Homosexuality is not normal, but is acceptable in Western societies.

 

[James]

But something that differs so drastically from the norm is therefore abnormal.

It doesn’t differ so drastically from the norm, not really. It’s still a consensual adult-and-adult relationship between two human beings which involves companionship, physicality, and love. It’s just not a man and a woman partaking.

 

[Mamoon]

Well, that’s just semantics. Who defined norm? Western societies have a broader definition.

The vast majority of people in every society, including the west, will be heterosexual because it is the instinct of every specie to ensure it’s survival.

Therefore, homosexuality is not normal behavior and thus it should not be normalized.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

It doesn’t differ so drastically from the norm, not really. It’s still a consensual adult-and-adult relationship between two human beings which involves companionship, physicality, and love. It’s just not a man and a woman partaking.

Also contributed to social ills, literally.

 

[James]

The vast majority of people in every society, including the west, will be heterosexual because it is the instinct of every specie to ensure it’s survival.

Therefore, homosexuality is not normal behavior and thus it should not be normalized.

Given that many countries have normalised homosexuality now, not only being homosexual and having a same sex partner but also civil partnerships / marriage. What is your outlook going forward?

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Given that many countries have normalised homosexuality now, not only being homosexual and having a same sex partner but also civil partnerships / marriage. What is your outlook going forward?

The apocalypse. Society is slowly degrading to nothingness and homosexuality can be allowed, fine, but why the barrage of cultural awareness and promotion of it?. Reparations for a past oppression yet society is more divided than ever.

 

[Mamoon]

Given that many countries have normalised homosexuality now, not only being homosexual and having a same sex partner but also civil partnerships / marriage. What is your outlook going forward?

There is no tolerance and no room for homosexuality in Islam. It is not a grey area. So as a Muslim I cannot condone it. In my opinion, homosexuality is mental sickness and it should be viewed as such.

It is generally not harmful to the society so I can understand why there is widespread acceptance in the name of freedom, but it should not be viewed as “normal” behavior.

It clearly isn’t, because it goes against the natural instinct of protecting your species from extinction. An instinct that drives every animal of reproduce.

The common defense for homosexuality is that it is not exclusive to Homo sapiens only. So what? Other mammals can be mentally sick too.

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

With all due respect, some of your statements in this thread show a distinct lack of fiqhi knowledge. Calling yourself gay and having homosexual thoughts are not things that take you out of the fold of Islam nor are they punishable by death or any other form of punishment. Islam doesn't punish thought crimes. Homosexual acts are what can be punished (in an islamic state of course and after a trial with eyewitnesses etc- no one should be supporting any type of vigilante action).

The act of participating in homosexual activity is a sin but doesn't take you out of the fold of Islam UNLESS the person thinks they aren't sinning at all thereby denying a clear part of the Quran where these acts are called an abomination. There is one thing giving in to the whispers of shaytaan (just like those who drink alcohol or commit zina do) but another thing altogether trying to change the religion itself.

This is my understanding as well . Also the burden of proof is pretty high to be considered actionable . Like 2 witnesses have to literally see you doing it with their own two eyes . I feel bad for gay folks TBH . They get so much hate and discrimination not only form the society but even their own families. It's like they have no safe space. I mean Muslims facing discrimination should be able to understand this more than others .

 

[Robert]

There’s a difference between something that is normal, and something that is acceptable.

Homosexuality is not normal, but is acceptable in Western societies.

To gay people it is the most normal and natural thing in the world, an expression of love.

 

[Robert]

There is no tolerance and no room for homosexuality in Islam. It is not a grey area. So as a Muslim I cannot condone it. In my opinion, homosexuality is mental sickness and it should be viewed as such.

It is generally not harmful to the society so I can understand why there is widespread acceptance in the name of freedom, but it should not be viewed as “normal” behavior.

It clearly isn’t, because it goes against the natural instinct of protecting your species from extinction. An instinct that drives every animal of reproduce.

The common defense for homosexuality is that it is not exclusive to Homo sapiens only. So what? Other mammals can be mentally sick too.

So you know better than the learned bodies of psychiatry.

 

[Robert]

I’ve often wondered why the Abrahamic religious prohibit physical love between men.

In the Torah / Old Testament the word abomination is used - but in Aramaic this is the same word for unhygienic. Which makes sense in a desert community without much soap and water.

A feminist perspective is that the One-God Skyfather religions must ban the expression of love between men, as such love is inimicable to patriarchal dominator culture.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

I’ve often wondered why the Abrahamic religious prohibit physical love between men.

In the Torah / Old Testament the word abomination is used - but in Aramaic this is the same word for unhygienic. Which makes sense in a desert community without much soap and water.

A feminist perspective is that the One-God Skyfather religions must ban the expression of love between men, as such love is inimicable to patriarchal dominator culture.

In common parlance?.

 

[Technics 1210]

I’ve often wondered why the Abrahamic religious prohibit physical love between men.

In the Torah / Old Testament the word abomination is used - but in Aramaic this is the same word for unhygienic. Which makes sense in a desert community without much soap and water.

A feminist perspective is that the One-God Skyfather religions must ban the expression of love between men, as such love is inimicable to patriarchal dominator culture.

Physical love? You mean sex. Sex between homosexuals is prohibited.

Abrahmic faiths do not ban expression of love, 2 males can perfectly love each other, Son and Father, as an example.

 

[Technics 1210]

Also, to pin homophobia to Abrahmic faiths is simply not true; outside of religion, many oppose homosexuality because it is unnatural, and you don’t need a book to tell you this.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

If animals partake in it, given homosapiens are meant to be intelligent and it goes against biology, what gives credence.

 

[realitygaf]

Physical love? You mean sex. Sex between homosexuals is prohibited.

Abrahmic faiths do not ban expression of love, 2 males can perfectly love each other, Son and Father, as an example.

If you want to be specific . The sin is not even one man liking another the sin is specifically the sexual activity itself between same sex couples in faith. That part itself the most unnatural and if
Even straight folks pay attention to sexual activity between same sex even if they claim to be pro gay rights they will be disgusted. If you are not disgusted then you have gay tendencies yourself. It’s an interesting thought experiment. If you show a straight pro gay Rights person 2 sex videos, one with Heterosexual sex and one with homosexual sex I can guarantee a straight person will be disgusted at the gay sex scene

 

[Third_Umpire]

If you want to be specific . The sin is not even one man liking another the sin is specifically the sexual activity itself between same sex couples in faith. That part itself the most unnatural and if
Even straight folks pay attention to sexual activity between same sex even if they claim to be pro gay rights they will be disgusted. If you are not disgusted then you have gay tendencies yourself. It’s an interesting thought experiment. If you show a straight pro gay Rights person 2 sex videos, one with Heterosexual sex and one with homosexual sex I can guarantee a straight person will be disgusted at the gay sex scene

Yes, but a straight person feeling disgusted at a gay sex scene proves what exactly? I am straight, don’t ever want to see any gay sex, but at the same time don’t care if gay people have sex. It’s their business, orientation and preference.

The ultimate purpose of sex is procreation. That some % of the population is not oriented to procreate is just a fact of nature. Only if you believe in intelligent design does this seem like an anomaly. In that case, the problem is you and your unsubstantiated belief in intelligent design, not homosexuals.

 

[realitygaf]

Yes, but a straight person feeling disgusted at a gay sex scene proves what exactly? I am straight, don’t ever want to see any gay sex, but at the same time don’t care if gay people have sex. It’s their business, orientation and preference.

The ultimate purpose of sex is procreation. That some % of the population is not oriented to procreate is just a fact of nature. Only if you believe in intelligent design does this seem like an anomaly. In that case, the problem is you and your unsubstantiated belief in intelligent design, not homosexuals.

It shows the natural inhibitions of a person who claims to be pro gay rights is not really pro gay sex. To many it’s about tolerance not acceptance and this tolerance is the only link which makes gay marriage acceptable in the west . You hit the nail on the head , sex purpose is procreation but that’s not the purpose for gay folks. A recent 2015 study said straight men found watching maggots being eaten more acceptable to than gay sex to their mind but if a restaurant started serving maggots on a plate along with other meals
You would find that crazy

 

[Third_Umpire]

It shows the natural inhibitions of a person who claims to be pro gay rights is not really pro gay sex. To many it’s about tolerance not acceptance and this tolerance is the only link which makes gay marriage acceptable in the west . You hit the nail on the head , sex purpose is procreation but that’s not the purpose for gay folks. A recent 2015 study said straight men found watching maggots being eaten more acceptable to than gay sex to their mind but if a restaurant started serving maggots on a plate along with other meals
You would find that crazy

I guess I don’t follow your point. It’s not that I am not pro gay sex, I don’t care what gay people do behind closed doors just like I don’t care what other straight people do. I don’t find the idea of gay sex appealing, but that’s just my personal preference. None of this is evidence that there is something wrong or unnatural about gay sex. Even if they can’t procreate, who said nature is perfect?

Only if you view this with a religious context sk you start to find faults and label things as sin and people as sinners. My point is that the problem in that is the religion and the people that choose to follow that religion for reasons known to them.

 

[Mamoon]

So you know better than the learned bodies of psychiatry.

The learned bodies of psychiatry listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in DSM-1 but they were forced to remove it from the list in DSM-3 because of societal pressure and the concept of acceptance.

It is a myth that homosexuality was unlisted based on some credible empirical evidence that supported the argument that homosexuality is normal behavior.

The progressive West has gone to far with their willingness to not only accept but also promote erratic behavior. We have reached a point where society has no choice but accept any sort of behavior as long as it does not cause social harm. That is not right.

There are plenty of lunatics in the world who are busy causing self-harm, such as Ellen Page or Bruce Jenner, then you have more extreme examples as well - for example, a man in France spent millions trying to morph himself into an alien and cosmetic surgeons agreed.

Ellen Page, Bruce Jenner, that alien guy and the thousands of other people out there are not sane individuals - they are mentally sick.

Instead of encouraging and facilitating their behavior, they should have been helped through psychiatric and psychological means.

This is where the liberal, progressive West went wrong. They have decided that lunatics will be treated as normal human beings as long as their “idiosyncrasies”, to put it mildly, is not causing societal harm.

That is wrong. These people need our help and facilitating their delusional behavior is not help. You are actually hurting them.

 

[Robert]

Also, to pin homophobia to Abrahmic faiths is simply not true; outside of religion, many oppose homosexuality because it is unnatural, and you don’t need a book to tell you this.

Actually you do need books to tell you this - Abrahamic scripture.

Nobody would ever have cared otherwise.

 

[Robert]

The learned bodies of psychiatry listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in DSM-1 but they were forced to remove it from the list in DSM-3 because of societal pressure and the concept of acceptance.

It is a myth that homosexuality was unlisted based on some credible empirical evidence that supported the argument that homosexuality is normal behavior.

The progressive West has gone to far with their willingness to not only accept but also promote erratic behavior. We have reached a point where society has no choice but accept any sort of behavior as long as it does not cause social harm. That is not right.

There are plenty of lunatics in the world who are busy causing self-harm, such as Ellen Page or Bruce Jenner, then you have more extreme examples as well - for example, a man in France spent millions trying to morph himself into an alien and cosmetic surgeons agreed.

Ellen Page, Bruce Jenner, that alien guy and the thousands of other people out there are not sane individuals - they are mentally sick.

Instead of encouraging and facilitating their behavior, they should have been helped through psychiatric and psychological means.

This is where the liberal, progressive West went wrong. They have decided that lunatics will be treated as normal human beings as long as their “idiosyncrasies”, to put it mildly, is not causing societal harm.

That is wrong. These people need our help and facilitating their delusional behavior is not help. You are actually hurting them.

So you do know better than the learned bodies of psychiatry. You are telling people that they are mad because they creep you out. You’re not helping, you are oppressing. It’s none of your business.

Why the conflation with transgender people? That still requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the USA.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Actually you do need books to tell you this - Abrahamic scripture.

Nobody would ever have cared otherwise.

So outlawing of homosexuality is exclusive to s Abrahamic faiths ??

 

[IMMY69]

I would just like to say one thing and one thing only...

We're living in the 21st Century

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

Doesn't gay involve sodomy?

I want to know what according to you is approved for straight couples in Islam. Is sodomy allowed? If not then do you also demand such couples (who indulge in non-procreative sexual activity) to denounce Islam and what is the punishment for such couples if death is a punishment for gay couple.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

You can't be gay and muslim.

You can denounce Islam, be gay and live your life as you please.

If he still wants remain gay and a Muslim, then he has to face the punishment according to Islamic laws.

You can be gay and Muslim. Allah made them that way and He knows why. But He also instructed not to engage in homosexual relations so they should not engage in these.

You can be gay and Muslim and there wouldn’t be an issue as long you don’t act on your urges similar to how you one shouldn’t act on urge to do zina. It’s a similar sin in my book

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

It is the law and the person involved knows it as well.

No need to complicate anything, just leave the religion and be happy.

This is easier said than done. When they leave Islam Crazies will say they are wajib ul qatl

 

[Barragan]

I want to know what according to you is approved for straight couples in Islam. Is sodomy allowed? If not then do you also demand such couples (who indulge in non-procreative sexual activity) to denounce Islam and what is the punishment for such couples if death is a punishment for gay couple.

It is not encourged in Islam between a straight couple.

There is certainly no punishment for it either.

It is the equivalent of lying, it is not right, but people still do it and there certainly won't be a punishment either!

 

[The_KING]

I would just like to say one thing and one thing only...

We're living in the 21st Century

And? So what if we are living in the 21st century?

 

[The_KING]

If you want to engage in homosexual relationships, you can't be a Muslim. There are gay Muslims who justify homosexuality and say that Islam doesn't prohibit it lol. Islam is against homosexual relationships. Simple as that.

 

[IMMY69]

And? So what if we are living in the 21st century?

I said the one thing I was going to say..

 

[Robert]

So outlawing of homosexuality is exclusive to s Abrahamic faiths ??

I don’t know what the Hindu, Buddhist and Shinto positions are.

 

[street cricketer]

I don’t know what the Hindu, Buddhist and Shinto positions are.

Unlike the abrahahmic religions, the religions you mentioned are not "organised religions" with a central book and hard and fast rules to follow. Therefore the beliefs can vary with different regions according to their cultural norms.

For example, a lot of hindus in the north and west India mostly abstain from eating meat. A lot of them in the South and east do eat meat. A lot of hindus in Kerala and north east relish their beef, which is abstained by a lot of hindus elsewhere. But all of these people are hindus and nobody can proclaim someone is not a hindu just because he eats beef or other meat, as there's no centralised authority. This is in stark contrast to an organised religion like Islam where muslims will abstain from eating pork regardless of where they live in the world, be it in Asia, Africa or the west. So you can't view paganistic religions with the same lens you use to view abrahamic religions. Culture has a huge influence in pagan religions where attitudes may vary according to the regional cultural norms whereas religion supersedes culture in abrahamic religious societies.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

I don’t know what the Hindu, Buddhist and Shinto positions are.

Non-abrahamic faiths have no specific teachings about homosexuality and their holy scriptures does not explicitly mention heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.

Non-abrahamic faiths believe a person has a physical gender like physical body but souls are genderless.

of all Indic faiths, Sikhism is newest and even it doesn't mention anything.

--------------------

Indic religions are very tolerant but that doesn't mean there's no LGBTQ discrimination among Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. India and Pakistan have shared culture. Some of the ills practised by modern day Hindus have been adopted by some cults, groups, section of Pakistani society and that's why you see Ahmadi's and Sufi's being targeted as they commit Shirk (sin of idolatry or polytheism) and vice versa Hindus and Sikhs have adopted many of Islamic practices.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So you know better than the learned bodies of psychiatry.

lol. The west or the white community doesn't have a right to state to others what they should believe in/accept or not.

This is a simple debate.

If you believe two males based on consent have a right to do as they please in private. I then assume you are also a supporter of incest?

Islam is very clear, intimate relations between two men or a unmarried man and woman or adultery or incest or animals is not allowed. In Spain and other European nations, incest is legal. Their learned bodies of psychiatry must be ok with this. In some US states, bestiality is legal, their learned bodies of psychiatry seem to be ok with this. Are you , if not why not?

 

[KingKhanWC]

As for the program, yet more attention seekers who seem to want Islam to allow this. I believe Lewis Hamilton also stated religions can change.

Islam will not change as there are no flaws.

These chaps can still be classed as Muslims but if they had any self respect, they would leave a faith which they believe is against their nature and move on.

 

[realitygaf]

A historical note. the Middle East and South Asia did not punish homosexuals because the Islamic influence was still of the classical original era in the culture whereby Homosexuality was a sin but the act of punishing required 3 witnesses and each witness had to be the best of society, just as Islam requires. An almost impossible situation unless the homosexual couple is having sex in the middle of the street. The punishment for homosexuality for something that happened behind closed doors was introduced by the Church of England when the British took over the region. They were the ones who introduced death for homosexuality. and after decades of British rule, it became part of ME and south Asian culture

 

[Robert]

lol. The west or the white community doesn't have a right to state to others what they should believe in/accept or not.

This is a simple debate.

If you believe two males based on consent have a right to do as they please in private. I then assume you are also a supporter of incest?

Islam is very clear, intimate relations between two men or a unmarried man and woman or adultery or incest or animals is not allowed. In Spain and other European nations, incest is legal. Their learned bodies of psychiatry must be ok with this. In some US states, bestiality is legal, their learned bodies of psychiatry seem to be ok with this. Are you , if not why not?

Yeah, we do, it’s called obeying UK law. If I lived in Saudi Arabia then the Saudis would have the right to tell me what to accept - their law. I could accept their law, or I could leave Saudi Arabia.

You asked me those questions before. They are straw men. We are talking about homosexuality not incest or bestiality. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] opined that gays are insane, but the Western doctors who decide what is sane and what isn’t sane say that gays are sane.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yeah, we do, it’s called obeying UK law. If I lived in Saudi Arabia then the Saudis would have the right to tell me what to accept - their law. I could accept their law, or I could leave Saudi Arabia.

You asked me those questions before. They are straw men. We are talking about homosexuality not incest or bestiality. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] opined that gays are insane, but the Western doctors who decide what is sane and what isn’t sane say that gays are sane.

Of course everyone should follow the law of the land, there is no debate here. However you implied westerners have proven same sex couples are normal.

Its not strawman, you always resort to this when you cant answer.

Again, two adults with consent is fine for same sex so why isn't incest accepted by you? It is accepted by many Europeans nations, do you think they are backward or forward in thinking?

Im not interested in anything Mamooon says.

 

[Robert]

A historical note. the Middle East and South Asia did not punish homosexuals because the Islamic influence was still of the classical original era in the culture whereby Homosexuality was a sin but the act of punishing required 3 witnesses and each witness had to be the best of society, just as Islam requires. An almost impossible situation unless the homosexual couple is having sex in the middle of the street. The punishment for homosexuality for something that happened behind closed doors was introduced by the Church of England when the British took over the region. They were the ones who introduced death for homosexuality. and after decades of British rule, it became part of ME and south Asian culture

That’s fascinating! I learn loads in this place Those whacky imperialist Brits eh, going over there and radicalising Islam….

POTW for [MENTION=155401]realitygaf[/MENTION]?

 

[Robert]

Non-abrahamic faiths have no specific teachings about homosexuality and their holy scriptures does not explicitly mention heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.

Non-abrahamic faiths believe a person has a physical gender like physical body but souls are genderless.

of all Indic faiths, Sikhism is newest and even it doesn't mention anything.

--------------------

Indic religions are very tolerant but that doesn't mean there's no LGBTQ discrimination among Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. India and Pakistan have shared culture. Some of the ills practised by modern day Hindus have been adopted by some cults, groups, section of Pakistani society and that's why you see Ahmadi's and Sufi's being targeted as they commit Shirk (sin of idolatry or polytheism) and vice versa Hindus and Sikhs have adopted many of Islamic practices.

Thanks for clarification [MENTION=78116]Tera Gawaandi[/MENTION].

So it is only the Abrahamic faiths who historically oppress gays.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Thanks for clarification [MENTION=78116]Tera Gawaandi[/MENTION].

So it is only the Abrahamic faiths who historically oppress gays.

Wrong
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/homosexuality-i

 

[street cricketer]

Of course everyone should follow the law of the land, there is no debate here. However you implied westerners have proven same sex couples are normal.

Its not strawman, you always resort to this when you cant answer.

Again, two adults with consent is fine for same sex so why isn't incest accepted by you? It is accepted by many Europeans nations, do you think they are backward or forward in thinking?

Im not interested in anything Mamooon says.

Well there's a difference between homosexuality and incest. Yes, both can be consensual, but the very reason incest has been frowned upon in human societies is because union of two people with very similar genetic make ups can produce off springs with a lot of genetic defects. Otherwise incest used to be quite common in Egyptian civilization or even as late as royal families in Europe during the middle ages. As human evolution is based on the theory of survival of the fittest, those practices which led to production of 'imperfect offsprings' started to get shunned by humans and that is why union of two closely related people in families is heavily discouraged and looked down upon. It is pretty much a form of cultural eugenics humans have socially adopted as they have evolved as societies over time.

There is also the ethical considerations of incest. Incest can lead to the birth of a defective child, who is condemned to live a life of diseases or even shortened life due to choices not made by him/her. You are essentially condemning a third person (the off spring) to a painful life because of your choices. So even if incest between two adults is consensual, the child born doesn't have a choice here. Whereas homosexuality between two consenting adults will remain just that, it's not naturally possible to produce an off spring, never mind about off springs with genetic and physical defects.

It is for this reason, incest is considered perverted or looked down upon in many societies. A lot of countries classify cousin marriage under varying degrees of incest too, but still it's quite common in our part of the world. I think calling homosexual people as "mentally insane" is very harsh, and is the same as those societies which shun cousin marriages calling people engaging in cousin marriages in our part of the world as "perverted" people. Homosexuality is not my cup of tea or many people's either, but I don't think I have a right to judge two consenting adults for their sexual choices as long as they're not harming anybody or a third person.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

Wrong
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/homosexuality-i

wth I just read -

the punishment for a man who is submitted to **** intercourse against his will is “eight hundred strokes with the horse whip, eight hundred with the bastinado

This is not a religion people should be following if a raped person is punished.

 

[Mamoon]

Well there's a difference between homosexuality and incest. Yes, both can be consensual, but the very reason incest has been frowned upon in human societies is because union of two people with very similar genetic make ups can produce off springs with a lot of genetic defects. Otherwise incest used to be quite common in Egyptian civilization or even as late as royal families in Europe during the middle ages. As human evolution is based on the theory of survival of the fittest, those practices which led to production of 'imperfect offsprings' started to get shunned by humans and that is why union of two closely related people in families is heavily discouraged and looked down upon. It is pretty much a form of cultural eugenics humans have socially adopted as they have evolved as societies over time.

There is also the ethical considerations of incest. Incest can lead to the birth of a defective child, who is condemned to live a life of diseases or even shortened life due to choices not made by him/her. You are essentially condemning a third person (the off spring) to a painful life because of your choices. So even if incest between two adults is consensual, the child born doesn't have a choice here. Whereas homosexuality between two consenting adults will remain just that, it's not naturally possible to produce an off spring, never mind about off springs with genetic and physical defects.

It is for this reason, incest is considered perverted or looked down upon in many societies. A lot of countries classify cousin marriage under varying degrees of incest too, but still it's quite common in our part of the world. I think calling homosexual people as "mentally insane" is very harsh, and is the same as those societies which shun cousin marriages calling people engaging in cousin marriages in our part of the world as "perverted" people. Homosexuality is not my cup of tea or many people's either, but I don't think I have a right to judge two consenting adults for their sexual choices as long as they're not harming anybody or a third person.

What if a brother-sister agree to engage in an incestual relationship but not have a child? What if they decide to adopt? Will it be acceptable by the West? If not, why?
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - I am as uninterested in KKWC's views as he is in mine, but I can see that you have been ducking against his incest point better than Mike Atherton ducked against Donald's bouncers at Trent Bridge. What is your take on this?

How far are you willing to walk on the path of personal freedom and individual rights?

 

[Third_Umpire]

Of course everyone should follow the law of the land, there is no debate here. However you implied westerners have proven same sex couples are normal.

Its not strawman, you always resort to this when you cant answer.

Again, two adults with consent is fine for same sex so why isn't incest accepted by you? It is accepted by many Europeans nations, do you think they are backward or forward in thinking?

Im not interested in anything Mamooon says.

Incest and homosexual relationships are two different things. This is a common line of argument by the religiously inclined, start with incest, then children, then animals, etc. knowing full well that the others are illegal due to a societal cost (usually the health or safety of those impacted), which isn’t the case with homosexuality.

 

[Third_Umpire]

What if a brother-sister agree to engage in an incestual relationship but not have a child? What if they decide to adopt? Will it be acceptable by the West? If not, why?
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - I am as uninterested in KKWC's views as he is in mine, but I can see that you have been ducking against his incest point better than Mike Atherton ducked against Donald's bouncers at Trent Bridge. What is your take on this?

How far are you willing to walk on the path of personal freedom and individual rights?

Are you seeing a lot of brother and sisters entering into relationship? And then adopting or not having a child? This is a moot point to bring up, since it’s an edge case. Society self regulates, and given the bond most siblings share it’s unlikely they will want to enter into a romantic relationship.

What is the connection again to this and homosexuality? Is it a case of running out of things to say and therefore clutching at straws?

It’s funny that you bring up incest as a straight relationship that you would oppose, yet if I lose the scenario of a relationship between a 9 year old and an adult, I am sure you will find millions of reason you justify it.

 

[street cricketer]

What if a brother-sister agree to engage in an incestual relationship but not have a child? What if they decide to adopt? Will it be acceptable by the West? If not, why?
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - I am as uninterested in KKWC's views as he is in mine, but I can see that you have been ducking against his incest point better than Mike Atherton ducked against Donald's bouncers at Trent Bridge. What is your take on this?

How far are you willing to walk on the path of personal freedom and individual rights?

Well if you legalise a relationship between closely related family members, most definitely it will lead to a lot of practical problems. How would the state know if every Cersei-Jaime couple in the country wouldn't reproduce to take their 'relationship' to the next level. When a man is attracted to a woman and vice versa, they enter a relationship and they marry each other if the bond is strong. Later they end up having a child as that's the natural progression of any relationship. How would you stop the same desire developing in incestuous couples.

So it's better off banning incest altogether rather than allowing them to have a relationship but banning them to reproduce off springs. Otherwise it would be a nightmare for the state to regulate things.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You can be gay and Muslim. To be a Muslim all you need to do is believe in the Shahada. That is it. You can drink and be Muslim, you can be a womanizer and be Muslim, and you can be a homosexual and be Muslim.

 

[Arsal_AK]

This incest take on here is absolutely ridiculous. What has homosexuality go to do with incest? First help me understand that and then we can talk about answering the question whether it should be legalized or not.

 

[Robert]

Of course everyone should follow the law of the land, there is no debate here. However you implied westerners have proven same sex couples are normal.

Its not strawman, you always resort to this when you cant answer.

Again, two adults with consent is fine for same sex so why isn't incest accepted by you? It is accepted by many Europeans nations, do you think they are backward or forward in thinking?

Im not interested in anything Mamooon says.

Well, you jumped on me for countering Mamoon‘s point about insanity.

I simply don’t see the relevance of the incest question. How is it related to homosexuality in your mind?

That some but not all Western nations permit sex between siblings under law (though not marriage due to the likelihood of birth abnormalities) has no bearing of how homosexuality is treated under law. Some degree of incest is also legal in India, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and Argentina so the majority of the planet permits it.

 

[Robert]

What if a brother-sister agree to engage in an incestual relationship but not have a child? What if they decide to adopt? Will it be acceptable by the West? If not, why?
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] - I am as uninterested in KKWC's views as he is in mine, but I can see that you have been ducking against his incest point better than Mike Atherton ducked against Donald's bouncers at Trent Bridge. What is your take on this?

How far are you willing to walk on the path of personal freedom and individual rights?

As [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION] says I believe it should be deterred due to the risk of birth defects. Humanity has known this since the year dot, but never had any problems with homosexuality since Abrahamic faiths emerged.

Now let us return to the subject of the thread instead of indulging in further strawmen..

 

[Mamoon]

This incest take on here is absolutely ridiculous. What has homosexuality go to do with incest? First help me understand that and then we can talk about answering the question whether it should be legalized or not.

Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality but the context here is allowing people to do what they want because they deserve freedom.

These days, lunatics have the option to identify themselves whatever they want. A man can identify as a woman and spend thousands of dollars on a sex-change surgery and society is then forced to acknowledge that person as a woman.

Let’s see that a brother and a sister do not identify each other as siblings and fall in love. They do not want to conceive because they are not interested in becoming parents.

Do you think their relationship should be recognized and accepted by society? If no, why not? We are talking about two adults who want to enter a relationship based on mutual consent. Why should they be denied this freedom of choice?

 

[Technics 1210]

The NHS uptil July 21 banned blood donations from homosexuals; the ban was lifted but comes with many constraints. Homosexuality isn:t just about feelings it's also to do with disease.

Plus homosexuality was frowned upon before the emergence of Abrahamic faith. This is a well documented fact.

 

[Mamoon]

Are you seeing a lot of brother and sisters entering into relationship? And then adopting or not having a child? This is a moot point to bring up, since it’s an edge case. Society self regulates, and given the bond most siblings share it’s unlikely they will want to enter into a romantic relationship.

What is the connection again to this and homosexuality? Is it a case of running out of things to say and therefore clutching at straws?

It’s funny that you bring up incest as a straight relationship that you would oppose, yet if I lose the scenario of a relationship between a 9 year old and an adult, I am sure you will find millions of reason you justify it.

Again, there is no connection between homosexuality and incest. The point of discussion here is personal freedom and consent.

If a brother and sister do not identify as brothers and sisters and they want to engage in sexual relations, will Western society accept the relationship and allow them to marry? If not, why?

It is a not a moot point - it is just that the LGBQT (or whatever that nonsense is called) movement does not have an answer to this and is always sidestepping.

Anyway, as more and more mentality sick people are facilitated and encouraged to whatever they want under the guise of personal freedom, we will keep adding more and more alphabets to LGBQT.

A relationship between a 9 year old and an adult is not acceptable because a 9 year old is a minor. However, would Western society be willing to accept a relationship between an 18 year old woman (girl) and a 90 year old man if the girl consents? Certainly not, and this is where the Western and liberal hypocrisy is exposed.

 

[Mamoon]

Well if you legalise a relationship between closely related family members, most definitely it will lead to a lot of practical problems. How would the state know if every Cersei-Jaime couple in the country wouldn't reproduce to take their 'relationship' to the next level. When a man is attracted to a woman and vice versa, they enter a relationship and they marry each other if the bond is strong. Later they end up having a child as that's the natural progression of any relationship. How would you stop the same desire developing in incestuous couples.

So it's better off banning incest altogether rather than allowing them to have a relationship but banning them to reproduce off springs. Otherwise it would be a nightmare for the state to regulate things.

So in other words, you are taking away personal freedom and individual rights because it will lead to greater problems and will not benefit society at large. In other words, collective impact on society takes preference over individual needs.

This is how some cultures and societies view homosexuality and this is why the West and the liberal crowd should stop criticizing those who do not have tolerance for homosexuality and argue that it is no good for the society at large.

The West also criticizes second-cousin marriages when they reality is that the chances of mutation and birth-defects in second cousin marriages are pretty much the same as non-cousin marriages.

The issue is that the West wants to decide what is right and what is wrong and we have to accept their categorization even if it is drenching with hypocrisy and logical fallacies.

 

[Robert]

The NHS uptil July 21 banned blood donations from homosexuals; the ban was lifted but comes with many constraints. Homosexuality isn:t just about feelings it's also to do with disease.

Plus homosexuality was frowned upon before the emergence of Abrahamic faith. This is a well documented fact.

The incidence of HIV among straight people has long since outstripped that in gays. That rule was discriminatory and should have been struck down much earlier.

On your second point - could you give an example of said documentation? There were very few documents. Baghavad Gita, Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

[Robert]

So in other words, you are taking away personal freedom and individual rights because it will lead to greater problems and will not benefit society at large. In other words, collective impact on society takes preference over individual needs.

This is how some cultures and societies view homosexuality and this is why the West and the liberal crowd should stop criticizing those who do not have tolerance for homosexuality and argue that it is no good for the society at large.

The West also criticizes second-cousin marriages when they reality is that the chances of mutation and birth-defects in second cousin marriages are pretty much the same as non-cousin marriages.

The issue is that the West wants to decide what is right and what is wrong and we have to accept their categorization even if it is drenching with hypocrisy and logical fallacies.

Incest has a negative impact on society. Homosexuality doesn’t have any negative impact on society, so your asserted Western logical fallacy isn’t there. The logical fallacy is yours for trying to draw an equivalence.

 

[Technics 1210]

The incidence of HIV among straight people has long since outstripped that in gays. That rule was discriminatory and should have been struck down much earlier.

On your second point - could you give an example of said documentation? There were very few documents. Baghavad Gita, Epic of Gilgamesh?

HIV is hetrosexuals is through blood transfusion,and of course there are more hetrosexuals, which is different from HIV being caused by homosexuals. The fact remains blood donations were banned from homosexuals. You call it discimination, but are you now saying you know more than the medical professionals?

As for documentation, Ancient Greece is a good example.

You just cannot pin homophobia to Abrahamic faith because you are an Athiest. Many Athiests who reject God also find Homosexuality disgusting, how is this the fault of Abrahamic faith?

 

[Technics 1210]

Incest has a negative impact on society. Homosexuality doesn’t have any negative impact on society, so your asserted Western logical fallacy isn’t there. The logical fallacy is yours for trying to draw an equivalence.

Homosexuality does have a negative impact on society. A child walks into his sociology class and is taught Homosexuality is normal and natural, then walks into the science class to be taught only hetrosexuals can mate and reproduce.

The logical fallacy here is homosexuality being justified through nature, when the same nature has murder and maming - why are the later not justified in human society then?

Seems to me you blame Abrahmic faith for homophobia yet the same faith teaches us that its imoral to murder and forbidden to murder another human, also incest is forbidden - Why pick and choose?