What's new

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

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.

It's still frowned upon today, just not openly. I can guarantee you 95% of white Brits would be heartbroken if their son or daughter announced they were in homosexual relationship. They might put a stiff upper lip about it, but inside a part of them will have died. It's nothing to do with Abrahamic faith, it's about the concept of family.
 
Thanks for clarification [MENTION=78116]Tera Gawaandi[/MENTION].

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

Remind me of China’s human rights records against homosexuals? Bhuddism is the largest religion in China.

Still going to tell us that Abrahmic faiths are responsible for homophobia and opression towards homosexuals?
 
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?

That first sentence is all there is to it then, no? The context you are implying isn't there. It would have been if incest was only a homosexual phenomenon. This same line of questions then puts it's next stop at pedophilia. Again something that has nothing to with homosexuality.

The second paragraph has more to do with gender and not sex and even less with sexual attraction. It's irrelevant to the discussion here.

The same question (last paragraph) can be posed to anyone, be it homo or heterosexuals. I don't see why people of one sexual preference have the burden of answering it (as you are claiming in a post below that they don't have an answer). Why are two siblings not allowed the same freedom that we allow two normal heterosexual couples? Why can't they be parents, marry out of love as outher hetrosexual couples do, as cousins do? You see how ridiculous that sounds. This question about incest can be posed even if homosexuality is not allowed or didn't exist. If anything, the more harmful consequences of incest are as a result of hetrosexual pairings.

I really don't care what two consenting adults do as long as it's not harmful, especially not harmful to a third person.
 
It's still frowned upon today, just not openly. I can guarantee you 95% of white Brits would be heartbroken if their son or daughter announced they were in homosexual relationship. They might put a stiff upper lip about it, but inside a part of them will have died. It's nothing to do with Abrahamic faith, it's about the concept of family.

Not sure your guarantee is watertight, Cap.

Love is love.
 
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?

Because murder damages society. Homosexuality doesn’t.

Lesbians can in fact reproduce, they just need a sperm donor.
 
Because murder damages society. Homosexuality doesn’t.

Lesbians can in fact reproduce, they just need a sperm donor.

Homosexuality damages society through disease and leads to confusion to a child in school as per example I have provided.

Lesbians needing a sperm donor is not reproducing/procreating in the natural viewpoint, but a social construct known as being a surrogate.

In the natural world, murder is part of the food chain, and what you call, survival of the fittest, it’s what put humans on top of the ‘food chain’. Good enough for animals but not humans?

You cannot pick and choose. If you believe humans are different from animals, then make the clear distinction, not based on love.
 
Last edited:
Not sure your guarantee is watertight, Cap.

Love is love.

2 Adults consenting in incest is also love; even if they decide not to have offspring.

Why then is incest detrimental to society given the adults agree not to have any off-spring?

Love is love right?
 
Why Do Gay Men Have an Increased Risk of HIV?

https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-do-gay-men-have-an-increased-risk-of-hiv-3132782

Have a read, a scientific explanation of why gay men have the highest risk of HIV. Nature has an organ for one purpose, gay men use it for another.

This is why blood from homosexuals was banned and under intense scrutiny.

Don’t let anyone tell you homosexuality isn’t detrimental to society, it is, predominately from a medical perspective. This isn’t discrimination, this is science.
 
Not sure your guarantee is watertight, Cap.

Love is love.

There's the proposed ideal, and then there's reality. Will we ever see a gay Bond? Or even some equivalent who is anywhere near as popular? Gay celebrities are slowly emerging, but they are still seen as novelties rather than icons. How many footballers are proud to announce their sexuality to the world?

That doesn't mean it will stay that way of course, but this is where we are currently.
 
Never understood why homosexuality is sometimes grouped in with incest and/or bestiality. Doesn’t really seem like an obvious or a logical link to me.
 
It's still frowned upon today, just not openly. I can guarantee you 95% of white Brits would be heartbroken if their son or daughter announced they were in homosexual relationship. They might put a stiff upper lip about it, but inside a part of them will have died. It's nothing to do with Abrahamic faith, it's about the concept of family.

95%, 19 out of 20 white parents? That seems very high. I’m not sure that’s right.
 
Never understood why homosexuality is sometimes grouped in with incest and/or bestiality. Doesn’t really seem like an obvious or a logical link to me.

It's pretty obvious why. The justification for homosexuality is 'oh it can be viewed in nature', well so can incest. Plus if liberals are going to top up with the '2 consenting adults' malarky, same applies to incest. Mention love, same applies to incest.

The Last gambit liberals have is incest is detrimental to society, well so is homosexuality, in a biological way too.
 
Asad has got the rugged smouldering look going on...

I think he's pretty handsome
 
It's pretty obvious why. The justification for homosexuality is 'oh it can be viewed in nature', well so can incest. Plus if liberals are going to top up with the '2 consenting adults' malarky, same applies to incest. Mention love, same applies to incest.

The Last gambit liberals have is incest is detrimental to society, well so is homosexuality, in a biological way too.

In a biological way?
 
There's the proposed ideal, and then there's reality. Will we ever see a gay Bond? Or even some equivalent who is anywhere near as popular? Gay celebrities are slowly emerging, but they are still seen as novelties rather than icons. How many footballers are proud to announce their sexuality to the world?

That doesn't mean it will stay that way of course, but this is where we are currently.

Unsure what Bond has to do with it. Most people are straight so cinema action heroes will be straight too. Straight men want to be Bond, straight women (and gay men) fancy Bond. He might have a gay sidekick to help him, a gay M or Q perhaps.

There are numerous gay icons - Elton John, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, George Michael, Communards, Pet Shop Boys. Massive stars, some of them.

Football is institutionally homophobic and doesn’t represent society as a whole.
 
Unsure what Bond has to do with it. Most people are straight so cinema action heroes will be straight too. Straight men want to be Bond, straight women (and gay men) fancy Bond. He might have a gay sidekick to help him, a gay M or Q perhaps.

There are numerous gay icons - Elton John, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, George Michael, Communards, Pet Shop Boys. Massive stars, some of them.

Football is institutionally homophobic and doesn’t represent society as a whole.

There is a market for camp gay people, and we should never underestimate their contribution to entertainment in general. Glee was a fabulous show until they started overdoing it, and suddenly every other star was gay and it became somewhat overwhelming. But yes, most people are straight, it's my contention that through the gay equality teachings being pushed in education, a lot less of them will be straight in the future, and probably a lot more besides will be confused or misled due to the lack of clarity on these issues.

But this is just a personal opinion, we all have to live with the wishes of the majority.
 
There is a market for camp gay people, and we should never underestimate their contribution to entertainment in general. Glee was a fabulous show until they started overdoing it, and suddenly every other star was gay and it became somewhat overwhelming. But yes, most people are straight, it's my contention that through the gay equality teachings being pushed in education, a lot less of them will be straight in the future, and probably a lot more besides will be confused or misled due to the lack of clarity on these issues.

But this is just a personal opinion, we all have to live with the wishes of the majority.

Dunno about market. EJ and Queen sold bazillions before their stars came out.

I don’t think being told gayness is ok in school will make students gay. They are or they aren’t. Or they might be bisexual.
 
Dunno about market. EJ and Queen sold bazillions before their stars came out.

I don’t think being told gayness is ok in school will make students gay. They are or they aren’t. Or they might be bisexual.

Young people are impressionable. If they can be taught that smoking is a desirable thing to do, despite it usually being a horrible experience for the first time, then it's quite possible for straight people to learn that being gay is ok as well. I don't think it's a case of you are gay or you aren't. People can be persuaded to do all manner of strange things once they are taught this is the way it should be. Germans got taught it was ok to send Jews to the gas chamber not so long ago after all.
 
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.

If two siblings or a parent and a child engage in sexual intercourse but are not interested in having a child, they are not more or less harmful to the society than homosexuals. Both are examples of mental sickness.

Why do you, or the west in general, get to decide what is harmful and what is not? Explain why a childless but incestuous relationship is more to harmful to society than a childless but gay relationship?

In both scenarios, you have two consensual adults who are in love and just want to mind their own business. Why not validate and accept their relationship?
 
That first sentence is all there is to it then, no? The context you are implying isn't there. It would have been if incest was only a homosexual phenomenon. This same line of questions then puts it's next stop at pedophilia. Again something that has nothing to with homosexuality.

The second paragraph has more to do with gender and not sex and even less with sexual attraction. It's irrelevant to the discussion here.

The same question (last paragraph) can be posed to anyone, be it homo or heterosexuals. I don't see why people of one sexual preference have the burden of answering it (as you are claiming in a post below that they don't have an answer). Why are two siblings not allowed the same freedom that we allow two normal heterosexual couples? Why can't they be parents, marry out of love as outher hetrosexual couples do, as cousins do? You see how ridiculous that sounds. This question about incest can be posed even if homosexuality is not allowed or didn't exist. If anything, the more harmful consequences of incest are as a result of hetrosexual pairings.

I really don't care what two consenting adults do as long as it's not harmful, especially not harmful to a third person.

You are saying a lot without saying much because you are dancing around my simple point and it is easy to see why. You cannot answer this without exposing your double-standards.

You cannot justify why two adults cannot be allowed to have a consensual incestuous relationship if they are not interested in having children. They are not harming anyone and they are just minding their own business. Why shouldn’t society accept them?

It sounds ridiculous to you but homosexuality sounds ridiculous to me as well. Why do you or the West gets to decide what is ridiculous and what is not? Should we label you as incest-o-phobic?

Pedophilia does not count because it does not involve consent. A child/minor is not legally capable of making his/her own decisions. Therefore, it is basically rape.

You don’t believe in God and you support LGBQT because you believe in individual freedom and people having the right to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. Incestuous couples who do not want to have children fall under this category, so you and everyone else who supports LGBQT rights should be accepting it.

The moral of the story is that terms like “homophobia” and criticism of people who criticize LGBQT should be put away with it, because it is very easy to expose their own phobic mentality and intolerance.
 
You are saying a lot without saying much because you are dancing around my simple point and it is easy to see why. You cannot answer this without exposing your double-standards.

You cannot justify why two adults cannot be allowed to have a consensual incestuous relationship if they are not interested in having children. They are not harming anyone and they are just minding their own business. Why shouldn’t society accept them?

It sounds ridiculous to you but homosexuality sounds ridiculous to me as well. Why do you or the West gets to decide what is ridiculous and what is not? Should we label you as incest-o-phobic?

Pedophilia does not count because it does not involve consent. A child/minor is not legally capable of making his/her own decisions. Therefore, it is basically rape.

You don’t believe in God and you support LGBQT because you believe in individual freedom and people having the right to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. Incestuous couples who do not want to have children fall under this category, so you and everyone else who supports LGBQT rights should be accepting it.

The moral of the story is that terms like “homophobia” and criticism of people who criticize LGBQT should be put away with it, because it is very easy to expose their own phobic mentality and intolerance.

Would that make you feel better? Because this is about your discomfort with homosexuality.

As per Karl Popper - we won’t tolerate your intolerance. You are stretching this incest fallacy to breaking point so as to convince yourself that your discomfort is based on reason instead of emotion.

Don’t bring your intolerance to the West. It is no longer welcome here.
 
Last edited:
Would that make you feel better? Because this is about your discomfort with homosexuality.

As per Karl Popper - we won’t tolerate your intolerance. You are stretching this incest fallacy to breaking point so as to convince yourself that your discomfort is based on reason instead of emotion.

Don’t bring your intolerance to the West. It is no longer welcome here.

Robert - you continue to fail to explain why incestuous relationships should not be accepted by society if they are not boring children. Clearly, the "personal freedom" and "individual rights" acts have been exposed.

I don't need to bring my intolerance to the West because the West is and will continue to be intolerant. They choose to be selective about their intolerance and they have convinced themselves that their selectivity is justified.
 
Some sins are worse than others.

Even alcoholic's shouldn't be shown leniency either.

If you don't refrain from the forbidden acts, then why would you call yourself a Muslim?

Just live and be happy being an atheist, nothing wrong with that.

When we deal with Islamic rulings we cannot be overwhelmed by emotions.

Even if a person does major sin , it does not exclude a person from Islam. There were several great people including companions who did forbidden things , it did not make them disbelievers.
 
Well isn't leaving Islam punishable by death sentence as well in an islamic country?

A gay muslim in such a country would be caught between a rock and hard place in that case.

Islamic country is ruled by Quran and Hadeeth. Its NOT a religion but way of life, if they person leaves the religion he is NOT an apostate only but its an act of treason that is against the state , and every state would execute such a person.
 
Christians accept that the Bible is inaccurate and does not reflect today's values. It was a sin but is now accepted as normal. Islam also accepts that in today's world homosexuality is not something you can discriminate against.

Do we take Christianity from Christians or Bible? Whn we have issue with spelling of a certain word we will go with teacher or the dictionary ?
 
Islamic country is ruled by Quran and Hadeeth. Its NOT a religion but way of life, if they person leaves the religion he is NOT an apostate only but its an act of treason that is against the state , and every state would execute such a person.

How can leaving religion be an act of treason against the state?

Religion is something that's followed within the four walls of our homes or in our places of worship. How is random Joe becoming an atheist or converting to another religion threaten the security of a state?
 
Googled did you? Where does it say to kill gays? At best the verses you have cited command gays to be outcasted, not death as you claimed.

The Hadiths were tabulated 200 years AFTER the Qur’an was revealed.

Show me where God instructed gays to be killed in the Qur’an - the divine message before Hadith.

Brother, Hadeeth is part of jurisprudence in Islam. Without hadeeth Islam jurisprudence is Zero.

I give you a simple example. In Quran Allah says Muhammad ( saw ) had tremendous character. Without hadeeth how will you show that ? Where is the evidence, unless you see hadeeth.
 
How can leaving religion be an act of treason against the state?

Religion is something that's followed within the four walls of our homes or in our places of worship. How is random Joe becoming an atheist or converting to another religion threatening the security of a state?

Religion is NOT something followed within four walls. Islamic religion deals with all aspects of Humans in society. In Islam, we have the smallest thing in the life of a prophet including his personal details how he lived in his house in the house, how he used the washroom to big matters like how a ruler should rule. Islam and politics are not separate.

But the important question here is that is there any nation that can claim to implement these kinds of laws?In order to do so , you need to have true shariah law implemented, and justice should be done by the rulers. Unfortunately most Muslim rulers we have seen apart from very few have been totally against shariah and lived a pathetic and lusty lives .
 
No, not necessarily.

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

Even a normal straight person can have a partner for companionship, if sexual act is Not involved they cannot be classified as Gay.
 
Religion is NOT something followed within four walls. Islamic religion deals with all aspects of Humans in society. In Islam, we have the smallest thing in the life of a prophet including his personal details how he lived in his house in the house, how he used the washroom to big matters like how a ruler should rule. Islam and politics are not separate.

But the important question here is that is there any nation that can claim to implement these kinds of laws?In order to do so , you need to have true shariah law implemented, and justice should be done by the rulers. Unfortunately most Muslim rulers we have seen apart from very few have been totally against shariah and lived a pathetic and lusty lives .

Even though my beliefs are drastically different, I respect your opinion and you for being open about your beliefs. It's amusing in a way, but I've always believed that the Hindu right in India has been heavily inspired by political Islam and they would love to implement a law like this, to prevent the conversion of Hindus in India, mainly by Christian evangelists and some to Islam as well..

But it's hard to implement the laws you cite in practice even in muslim states, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. It would be near impossible to implement the same laws in India, as much as the Hindu right would want it to happen.
 
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.

What hindus do does that define Hinduism or scriptures.

For example ( I presume you are a hindu ) , suppose a Muslim , christian , sikh or atheist etc comes to you and says he wants to become a hindu , what should be his guidelines , what will you suggest? Just go and do whatever you want , we are not organised religion ? Off course you would suggest him scriptures.

Thus eating beef as per scriptures is not disallowed or prohibited. If hindus are avoiding them it is there cultural or personal choice .
 
Even though my beliefs are drastically different, I respect your opinion and you for being open about your beliefs. It's amusing in a way, but I've always believed that the Hindu right in India has been heavily inspired by political Islam and they would love to implement a law like this, to prevent the conversion of Hindus in India, mainly by Christian evangelists and some to Islam as well..

But it's hard to implement the laws you cite in practice even in muslim states, except maybe Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. It would be near impossible to implement the same laws in India, as much as the Hindu right would want it to happen.


Brother , I am not here to write politically correct views, what is true I have to tell, that is what Islam teaches even if it goes against me.

India can make laws against conversion bypassing parliament legislation but that will not be religious in nature.

Hinduism is also organized and has its jurisprudence and political system, but the issue is the majority of Hindus do not accept it at all. I personally believe if the Vedic laws are implemented it will benefit society. It is better than a God-less society.

If a Hindu or any disbeliever lives in an Islamic state he will be given full protection, even ahead of its own Muslim protection. If there is a war, that disbeliever cannot be forced to fight for that country, if he does voluntarily that is his choice. His place of worship will be protected ahead of Mosque.

Do the so-called Muslim countries give this kind of security to disbelievers? NO. So they have no right to kill an apostate.
 
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.

Never understood why homosexuality is sometimes grouped in with incest and/or bestiality. Doesn’t really seem like an obvious or a logical link to me.



Its strange two intelligent people cant work out basic logic.

The principle is consent between two adults.

Also those saying incest leads to issue baby issues, health issues or bad for society.....are assuming it would be a man and woman. This is ironic considering these posters are defending homosexuality.

Incest between two adult men with consent is no different, yet wont be accepted????

I don't agree usually with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but he has truly schooled everyone he has quoted in this thread.
 
Its strange two intelligent people cant work out basic logic.

The principle is consent between two adults.

Also those saying incest leads to issue baby issues, health issues or bad for society.....are assuming it would be a man and woman. This is ironic considering these posters are defending homosexuality.

Incest between two adult men with consent is no different, yet wont be accepted????

I don't agree usually with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but he has truly schooled everyone he has quoted in this thread.

How does it feel like to be in 2021 and still think homosexuality should be outlawed? And to feel the need to make these nonsensical connections to remote instances of incest between the same sex? Must feel pretty stupid; too bad you are beholden to the 6th century and must defend the indefensible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its strange two intelligent people cant work out basic logic.

The principle is consent between two adults.

Also those saying incest leads to issue baby issues, health issues or bad for society.....are assuming it would be a man and woman. This is ironic considering these posters are defending homosexuality.

Incest between two adult men with consent is no different, yet wont be accepted????

I don't agree usually with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but he has truly schooled everyone he has quoted in this thread.

There is a vast difference between Incest and homosexuality. From the difference in sexual urges to how various laws in the western world distinguishes between the two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a vast difference between Incest and homosexuality. From the difference in sexual urges to how various laws in the western world distinguishes between the two.

Suppose bestiality a better comparison
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How does it feel like to be in 2021 and still think homosexuality should be outlawed? And to feel the need to make these nonsensical connections to remote instances of incest between the same sex? Must feel pretty stupid; too bad you are beholden to the 6th century and must defend the indefensible.

You have made no argument, just seem upset, perhaps the subject is close to home. I apologise if I have offended any gay people. You must be seeing things, never have I suggested it should be outlawed lol. People are free do what they please if the law of the land allows. In Europe Incest is also lawful.

There is a vast difference between Incest and homosexuality. From the difference in sexual urges to how various laws in the western world distinguishes between the two.

Desires , urges will differ but its irrelevant. Yes its also lawful in many US states to marry an animal.

The point is simple, if its ok for two men to have intimate relations it should be ok if they in the family too. No children involved, no harm to anyone.

People cant pick and choose because of what they find comfortable, hypocrisy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's an interesting counterpoint that in western society cousin marriage has been heavily tabooed. Granted there are congenital risks but exacerbated by the stigma against. Those that are of sound health are maligned by society simply by virtue of their being.

Homosexuality on the other hand, has proliferated in line with the normalisation of adultery, promiscuity and a steady but steep increase of amorality. This is something that is being replicated the world over.
 
Western society is built on the concept of individualism. especially in modern age. That is why pro abortion is more accepted in west because aborting a baby because a young couple cannot afford it to enjoy their life is acceptable. Also dogs are equal to children. young people are getting dogs and accepting them as what they can take care of and less and less young people are having children. Quite ironic that their individualism will end the western culture itself from non-copulation and rise of more conservative traditional families who like to build families and have more children.

in the same vein, homosexuality is accepted because of individually, the "person should love whoever they wish " thinking....except multiple wives and cousin marriage is unacceptable unlike other cultures. the entire rise of homosexuality and fall of a family unit is because they are in itself opposing terms. homosexuality is built purely on pleasure not copulation while family unit is built more on family and less on worldly pleasures
 
People can't speak about homosexuality without mentioning unrelated things such as incest and bestiality.

Homosexual relations between two consenting adults are amoral.

Many of the people in the thread will (rightfully) point out the bad treatment of Muslims in areas, yet will easily condemn other minority groups. Laughable.
 
People can't speak about homosexuality without mentioning unrelated things such as incest and bestiality.

Homosexual relations between two consenting adults are amoral.

Many of the people in the thread will (rightfully) point out the bad treatment of Muslims in areas, yet will easily condemn other minority groups. Laughable.

You are condemning posters for mentioning unrelated things such as incest or bestiality, but then go on yourself to talk about bad treatment of Muslims...which is of course unrelated.

Also, every minority has their own independent view, gay people don't have to show solidarity with Muslims just because they are minorities, and same is true vice versa.
 
People can't speak about homosexuality without mentioning unrelated things such as incest and bestiality.

Homosexual relations between two consenting adults are amoral.

Many of the people in the thread will (rightfully) point out the bad treatment of Muslims in areas, yet will easily condemn other minority groups. Laughable.

As an atheist, please explain what would be amoral? How do you decide and why two men just because they are related is not morally right but if they are not its fine?

Btw do you know any gay Muslims?
 
As an atheist, please explain what would be amoral? How do you decide and why two men just because they are related is not morally right but if they are not its fine?

Btw do you know any gay Muslims?

I have a much better idea of morality than Divine Command Theory (care to answer the Euthyphro dilemma?), that's for sure.

Morality really isn't a difficult thing to comprehend, especially when we approach it from a practical ethics standpoint. If we take wellbeing as an axiom, then we can aim to maximise wellbeing of society, and minimise the opposite of that. Incest usually comes with the issue of deformed children, power dynamics, issues with the family structure, etc, where homosexuality has none of these. Let's not act like you're against incest when you follow an ideology which allows cousin marriage, and the having of children is promoted greatly in Islam.

Of course, Abrahamic faiths in general are very anti-homosexuality, it is just that Muslims are typically more devout/less cherry-picky than Christians and Jews, so the logical conclusion of Islam is generally seen a lot more.

I have known a few, but known one fairly closely, he was a college at a part-time job I had. He had many relations with men, and considered himself Muslim. Be careful if you want to call takfir on him, as that is a sin.
 
People can't speak about homosexuality without mentioning unrelated things such as incest and bestiality.

Homosexual relations between two consenting adults are amoral.

Many of the people in the thread will (rightfully) point out the bad treatment of Muslims in areas, yet will easily condemn other minority groups. Laughable.

Incest can also be with consent.
 
As an atheist, please explain what would be amoral? How do you decide and why two men just because they are related is not morally right but if they are not its fine?

Btw do you know any gay Muslims?

Muslims can have all the vices like other people , there are gay muslims, drug addict muslims , adulterous muslims etc.
 
Pakistan leading the way in every other type of key word searches (from a Pakistani source) -- https://tribune.com.pk/story/823696/pakistan-tops-list-of-most-porn-searching-countries-google

The above links prove that there are all kinds of people in all geographies. They also show that being gay has a higher component of "Nature" and people are not just made gay because of the environment (Nurture) given that more people are looking to know about being gay from parts of the world that have zero "Nurture" component.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Incest can also be with consent.

Perhaps, yes.

The issue with incest usually comes from the higher chance of disabled offspring, power dynamics, and causing issues within the family. If we can guarantee a scenario where these won't be an issue, then sure, it would be moral. We may all find it intuitively disgusting, but arguments from intuition are fallacious. There are, of course, evolutionary reasons for our distaste of incest.

I suppose the issue here is that it is very difficult to find that situation in the real-world, so it's a useful heuristic to look negatively on incest.
 
Muslims can have all the vices like other people , there are gay muslims, drug addict muslims , adulterous muslims etc.

That's pretty obvious.

I have a much better idea of morality than Divine Command Theory (care to answer the Euthyphro dilemma?), that's for sure.

Morality really isn't a difficult thing to comprehend, especially when we approach it from a practical ethics standpoint. If we take wellbeing as an axiom, then we can aim to maximise wellbeing of society, and minimise the opposite of that. Incest usually comes with the issue of deformed children, power dynamics, issues with the family structure, etc, where homosexuality has none of these. Let's not act like you're against incest when you follow an ideology which allows cousin marriage, and the having of children is promoted greatly in Islam.

Of course, Abrahamic faiths in general are very anti-homosexuality, it is just that Muslims are typically more devout/less cherry-picky than Christians and Jews, so the logical conclusion of Islam is generally seen a lot more.

I have known a few, but known one fairly closely, he was a college at a part-time job I had. He had many relations with men, and considered himself Muslim. Be careful if you want to call takfir on him, as that is a sin.


What a lame response mixed with your usual diversion.

You haven't explained what are morals to you?

Two men can have intimate relations is ok with you but not if they are related ? lol

Kids, family structure etc are not valid here. Two men from same family living on their own, not harming anyone else is a problem for you? Why?

It seems this subject is draws a passionate response from you which is fine but please do try to address a point for once.
 
Pakistan leading the way in every other type of key word searches (from a Pakistani source) -- https://tribune.com.pk/story/823696/pakistan-tops-list-of-most-porn-searching-countries-google

The above links prove that there are all kinds of people in all geographies. They also show that being gay has a higher component of "Nature" and people are not just made gay because of the environment (Nurture) given that more people are looking to know about being gay from parts of the world that have zero "Nurture" component.

Seems like it may be used by the neighbours to bypass their own..
 
Seems like it may be used by the neighbours to bypass their own..

So you are denying a Pakistani media website with your own alternate theory? This is a clutching at straws type argument and you know that too.

Point is there are many good religious people even in deeply religious countries who happen to be gay in their orientation but are unfortunately denied their rights. This is true not just in Pakistan (not intending this to be against Pakistan) but it is also true for dharmic majority countries like India, Nepal, or Sri Lanka.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are denying a Pakistani media website with your own alternate theory? This is a clutching at straws type argument and you know that too.

There was another link from an equally reputed media source that shows Pakistan being the lead for gay relationship searches in 2016. It was unfortunately removed even though it is a genuine source contributing for this discourse.

Point is there are many good religious people even in deeply religious countries who happen to be gay in their orientation but are unfortunately denied their rights. This is true not just in Pakistan (not intending this to be against Pakistan) but it is also true for dharmic majority countries like India, Nepal, or Sri Lanka.

So a country that neighbours a billion people, that besmirch the country at every turn, wouldn't be able to manipulate basic data?.

I think it's impressive Pakistanis find the time when the little electric they have on, before it where, spend the time looking for homoerotic material.
 
I do not agree with the statement. Being a gay is a sin in Islam. If an alcoholic person can remain a Muslim , so will a gay.

Sins does not take a person out of fold of Islam.


There is a difference between an alcoholic and a homosexual - the word 'gay' has been appropriated to promote an agenda, but we should describe things as they are - for one, Allah SwT did not destroy entire cities and and their citizens because they drank too much alcohol, HE destroyed them because they practised homosexuality and rejected His Messenger's (Lot pbuh) warning to desist.

Homosexuality is rooted in sexual desire, it negates the possibility of procreation - which requires a male and female - which is one of the fundamental purposes of marriage between a man and a woman.

A homosexual may be celibate, that is the only way he or she could practise Islam - just a single person can remain celibate and not engage in promiscuity. The word 'Muslim' means 'one wo submits' - to the Will of Allah SwT, not to one's personal, sexual desires. It is not possible to selectively apply one's faith and Allah SwT's Laws and declare, this I like but this I do not like. Which is why Allah SwT has instructed Muslims to enter into Islam (Submission) wholly and completely.

If one wishes to engage in unIslamic acts it is not necessary to broadcast it publicly, because it sets a bad example. Keep one's sin private - and let Allah SwT judge. But if declaring one's sin to the entire world is a way of justifying and rationalizing it, then everyone has been provided with the right to judge.
 
So a country that neighbours a billion people, that besmirch the country at every turn, wouldn't be able to manipulate basic data?.

I think it's impressive Pakistanis find the time when the little electric they have on, before it where, spend the time looking for homoerotic material.

The news source is from Pakistan. There are other equally reputable sources indicating very high search for gay relations originating from Pakistan. I shared a Pakistan based media source and your only counter is your own conspiracy theory? Do you have anything besides your own opinion to bring to the table?

As I always say, if you have evidence and fact based points to prove me otherwise, I will happily agree with what you say. I can only switch my opinion for facts and not for another baseless opinion ... and neither can you, right? In all fairness I have presented my facts to you from a reputable source (NOT my opinion). I request you to counter with facts and not your opinion.
 
This is old but very relevant documentary about exploitation of young boys in Pakistan.

Would the extent of this horror be lower in Pakistan if gay people were given their due rights and protection?

 
This is old but very relevant documentary about exploitation of young boys in Pakistan.

Would the extent of this horror be lower in Pakistan if gay people were given their due rights and protection?



no the exploitation of boys is due to lack of education amongst society. if these men were truly educated and followed their faith they wouldnt be predators BUT in a western society WITH education and no faith they would still have instances of pedophilia
 
no the exploitation of boys is due to lack of education amongst society. if these men were truly educated and followed their faith they wouldnt be predators BUT in a western society WITH education and no faith they would still have instances of pedophilia

Education alone does not equate to lack of crime. If that were the case then my own country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States) would have less crime. So lets remove that out of the equation. Your claim is narrowing a western society without faith to be the cause. If that were true then all religious countries (ranging from catholic Italy, catholic latin america, Hindu India, Buddhist Sri Lanka, Buddhist Thailand, muslim Malaysia, muslim Turkey, muslim Pakistan, muslim middle east).

Your contention then is that a combination of both education and faith results in lower sexual deviants. This is not true because many of the aforementioned countries/regions have both high education and rank high in faith, yet they do have a high share of deviants.

Another gap in your reasoning is the subjective interpretation that these people do not follow faith - this is true for any religion or humanitarian conduct. If any group of people follow ideal humanitarian principle (as prescribed in EVERY religion) then there would be no deviants. So this does not mean we can conclude that following the ideal code of a specific religion (Islam) will result in less deviance when every other religion or non-religious humanitarian code prescribe the exact same thing.

Of course it also begs the obvious question - how do you know that these gay child predators in Pakistan are not at least namesake (not ideal) followers of their faith? This is clearly your subjective opinion, right?
 
There is a difference between an alcoholic and a homosexual - the word 'gay' has been appropriated to promote an agenda, but we should describe things as they are - for one, Allah SwT did not destroy entire cities and and their citizens because they drank too much alcohol, HE destroyed them because they practised homosexuality and rejected His Messenger's (Lot pbuh) warning to desist.

Homosexuality is rooted in sexual desire, it negates the possibility of procreation - which requires a male and female - which is one of the fundamental purposes of marriage between a man and a woman.

A homosexual may be celibate, that is the only way he or she could practise Islam - just a single person can remain celibate and not engage in promiscuity. The word 'Muslim' means 'one wo submits' - to the Will of Allah SwT, not to one's personal, sexual desires. It is not possible to selectively apply one's faith and Allah SwT's Laws and declare, this I like but this I do not like. Which is why Allah SwT has instructed Muslims to enter into Islam (Submission) wholly and completely.

If one wishes to engage in unIslamic acts it is not necessary to broadcast it publicly, because it sets a bad example. Keep one's sin private - and let Allah SwT judge. But if declaring one's sin to the entire world is a way of justifying and rationalizing it, then everyone has been provided with the right to judge.

Allah swt has destroyed several nations , that does not mean everyone were homosexual. When a nation rejects a messenger ( not a prophet ) generally it has been seen they are punished severely. Off course there would be vices attached with such people.

Yes Homosexuality is rooted to sexual desires , but that does not mean that all homosexuals are impotent , they can have partners as well. There are many people who are bi sexual as well.

Allah has asked Muslims to submit , and accept Islam as a whole but at the same time Allah swt says he will forgive sinners. The point is that no one is perfect , even the companions did sins which were clearly condemned by Quran , did they not enter islam properly ?

I no where said Being Homo sexual is right or I endrose it or I said such punishment will certainly be forgiven by Allah swt. I do NOT KNOW.
But , as far as the ruling is concerned , its a major sin , NOT kufr , so the person remains a Muslim.

If on the day of Judgment Allah swt wants to punish such a person he will , if he wants to forgive he will , our fatwas will not work.

Its not an open shut case like a disbeliever.
 
Can't understand how two people of the same gender can be sexually attracted to ecah other. The way I see it is that the perpetrator tries to justify every crime by saying it wasn't their fault. I wouldn't want to kill him yet Muslim society in general will view him as an apostate. Better that such people leave Islam instead of calling themselves believers.

You can not be both Muslim and bisexual, gay or lesbian
 
Can't understand how two people of the same gender can be sexually attracted to ecah other. The way I see it is that the perpetrator tries to justify every crime by saying it wasn't their fault. I wouldn't want to kill him yet Muslim society in general will view him as an apostate. Better that such people leave Islam instead of calling themselves believers.

You can not be both Muslim and bisexual, gay or lesbian

But isn't the punishment for leaving Islam (apostasy), death?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apost... is a Hudood crime," (i.e. practicing) Muslim.
 
Pakistan leading the way in every other type of key word searches (from a Pakistani source) -- https://tribune.com.pk/story/823696/pakistan-tops-list-of-most-porn-searching-countries-google

The above links prove that there are all kinds of people in all geographies. They also show that being gay has a higher component of "Nature" and people are not just made gay because of the environment (Nurture) given that more people are looking to know about being gay from parts of the world that have zero "Nurture" component.

Tribune is an anti-Pakistan site despite calling itself Pakistani. As many have pointed out in the comments section, only 10% of Pakistan is even on internet, so how can they be dominating porn searches when countries like USA and Europe have 85% web coverage? Porn is banned in Islamic countries for the most part, so only way Pakistanis could access porn would be through VPNs, and those usually hide location and show as coming from different countries entirely. In fact Islamic countries are quite often used as misdirections for just that reason, so could well be someone in Calcutta using a VPN which shows he is sitting in Karachi.
 
This is old but very relevant documentary about exploitation of young boys in Pakistan.

Would the extent of this horror be lower in Pakistan if gay people were given their due rights and protection?


Tribune is an anti-Pakistan site despite calling itself Pakistani. As many have pointed out in the comments section, only 10% of Pakistan is even on internet, so how can they be dominating porn searches when countries like USA and Europe have 85% web coverage? Porn is banned in Islamic countries for the most part, so only way Pakistanis could access porn would be through VPNs, and those usually hide location and show as coming from different countries entirely. In fact Islamic countries are quite often used as misdirections for just that reason, so could well be someone in Calcutta using a VPN which shows he is sitting in Karachi.

What you say is quite possible were it not for other facts showing increase in gay relations (normal or predatory child behavior) from people on the ground.
 
What you say is quite possible were it not for other facts showing increase in gay relations (normal or predatory child behavior) from people on the ground.

Who are the people on the ground? That video is not viewable in my country. The stats you were linking earlier were for viewing porn, I didn't see anything specific about homosexuality. My own view is when people start looking up stats about a certain topic re a certain country, they must be very motivated.
 
Who are the people on the ground? That video is not viewable in my country. The stats you were linking earlier were for viewing porn, I didn't see anything specific about homosexuality. My own view is when people start looking up stats about a certain topic re a certain country, they must be very motivated.

It is a youtube documentary that should be viewable in all western countries. Are you really in the UK as your profile states or somewhere else?

Porn stats are published across every country not just Pakistan. So those websites publishing these stats are not out to get Pakistan or Pakistanis, they are just generic stats across every country. They were quoted here in this thread for Pakistan to show that people with gay orientation exist even in countries where it is not encouraged in public (Nature versus Nurture) and thus to refute claims that people are made gay (as opposed to a certain percentage just being born gay).
 
It is a youtube documentary that should be viewable in all western countries. Are you really in the UK as your profile states or somewhere else?

Porn stats are published across every country not just Pakistan. So those websites publishing these stats are not out to get Pakistan or Pakistanis, they are just generic stats across every country. They were quoted here in this thread for Pakistan to show that people with gay orientation exist even in countries where it is not encouraged in public (Nature versus Nurture) and thus to refute claims that people are made gay (as opposed to a certain percentage just being born gay).

I wasn't referring to the generic stats, I was referring to the poster who went looking for them in order to post them here. As I said, I checked the link, and it seemed to refer to porn searches rather than homosexuality specifically. Did you check them yourself?
 

Yes , but who will give death sentence , the mob or the judge ?

For the judge to give such rulings there are number of conditions , do Muslims even know basics of religion ? Brother , writing things in books is different thing and implementing is different .

If you want to give punishment according to shariah , then before that you need to implement shariah , which country has done that ?
 
Homosexuality is a sin in Islam.

End of.

The nation was punished by Allah by raining of hard clay stones which basically means its a sin as per Quran.

Should we punish the homosexuals? There is no clear cut punishment in the Quran for homosexuality except the incidence of Qaum of Lut in which they were killed by Allah for practicing as such.

Which means its a big sin.

But obviously eating pork, drinking alcohol, having sexual orgies with unmarried girls while being unmarried are also all big sins and many Muslims indulge in them.


However, my take is simple.

You cannot be a believer and say "its okay to be homosexual"

At least Quran agrees with that.
 
Homosexuality is a sin in Islam.

End of.

The nation was punished by Allah by raining of hard clay stones which basically means its a sin as per Quran.

Should we punish the homosexuals? There is no clear cut punishment in the Quran for homosexuality except the incidence of Qaum of Lut in which they were killed by Allah for practicing as such.

Which means its a big sin.

But obviously eating pork, drinking alcohol, having sexual orgies with unmarried girls while being unmarried are also all big sins and many Muslims indulge in them.


However, my take is simple.

You cannot be a believer and say "its okay to be homosexual"

At least Quran agrees with that.

The earlier Pentateuchal story of Lot suggests that the Cities of the Plain were nuked from orbit for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality. Lot offered his daughters to the rape gang to protect the two angels, yet was spared. His wife became a pillar of salt for looking back. Hard to find a moral here.
 
Can't understand how two people of the same gender can be sexually attracted to ecah other. The way I see it is that the perpetrator tries to justify every crime by saying it wasn't their fault. I wouldn't want to kill him yet Muslim society in general will view him as an apostate. Better that such people leave Islam instead of calling themselves believers.

You can not be both Muslim and bisexual, gay or lesbian

Well, gay people cannot understand how heterosexuals can be attracted to a person of the opposite sex.

People’s brains are just wired differently.
 
Last edited:
Well, gay people cannot understand how heterosexuals can be attracted to a person of the opposite sex.

People’s brains are just wired differently.

Plus I'd say many if not all men, of any religion or background, have had a homosexual thought, most likely in their dreams, when growing up....

Anyone that denies this is just a liar
 
Plus I'd say many if not all men, of any religion or background, have had a homosexual thought, most likely in their dreams, when growing up....

Anyone that denies this is just a liar

Sure, when the brain and sexuality are developing.
 
The earlier Pentateuchal story of Lot suggests that the Cities of the Plain were nuked from orbit for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality. Lot offered his daughters to the rape gang to protect the two angels, yet was spared. His wife became a pillar of salt for looking back. Hard to find a moral here.

You're definitely not a Tory politician, what about Sodom?.
 
Well, gay people cannot understand how heterosexuals can be attracted to a person of the opposite sex.

People’s brains are just wired differently.

For the world to grow it is normal to be attracted to the opposite sex. A criminal and sinner will always try to justify their acts. What is unnatural is exactly that.
 
Back
Top