Do you support gay marriage?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hydeman
You'd get on well with the self-proclaimed sheikhs of TSR. 
I usually do. It's much easier talking to people who possess a certain caibre of Islamic knowledge. Its hopeless talking to others who have little or no knowledge but are staunch bigots and homophobes.
Original post by Jhansen23
I usually do. It's much easier talking to people who possess a certain caibre of Islamic knowledge. Its hopeless talking to others who have little or no knowledge but are staunch bigots and homophobes.
But you see, they would accuse you of the same. At least, they do that to other people who don't share their view of homosexuality in Islam.
I should probably stop poisoning the well, though.
Original post by champ_mc99
Sodomy is haram though right? So even if Islam allowed gay marriage how would they make love?
A very good question.
When conservative Muslims claim that “homosexuality” is a major sin, they are basing their opinion on a DERIVED rule as opposed to a clear-cut law found within the Qur’an, as in the case of intoxicants (5:90), pork (5:03), fornication (17:32) and incest (4:23).
As a general rule, all major prohibitions of Islam come mainly in the form of a direct and clear statement in the Qur'an. These statements generally use variants of the following words: ‘Do not’, ‘Forbidden’ or ‘penalty of Hell’. Snippets of the following verses, depicting the prohibition of intoxicants, pork, fornication, incest, murder, slander, usury, gambling, disobedience to parents and associating partners with God, would substantiate this line of argument.
... intoxicants and games of chance … are only an uncleanness, … shun it therefore … (5:90)
... Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine… (5:03)
.... And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way (17:32)
... Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters... (4:23)
… do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, … and do not kill your people… (4:29)
… do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames… (49:11)
… Allah has … forbidden usury… and whoever returns (to it) – these are the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. (2:275)
… you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. …say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" nor chide them ... (17:23)
The above list indicates that in contrast to other sins, same-sex conduct, despite being branded as a major prohibition, surprisingly DOES NOT appear to be expressly and clearly prohibited in the Quran. Nonetheless, conservative Muslim scholars generally quote one of the three verses - 7:81, 26:165-166 or 27: 55 – to substantiate their claim that same-sex unions stand prohibited in Islam. Apart from the use of the word azwājikum (wives) in verse 26:166, these verses more or less contain the same information.
... Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people (7:81)
... What! Do you come to the males from among the creatures? And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits (26:165-166)
... What! Do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly (27:55)
WITHOUT paying attention to the context, some scholars extrapolate from such verses to apply them to all same-sex conduct. However, ignoring the context is contrary to the traditional methodology related to the applicability of qiyās (analogy), which applies only if the situations and circumstances of the two cases are similar and in the absence of other circumstances that render the analogy void. This suggests that the context of both situations, that of the people of Lūṭ on the one hand and Muslim gays and lesbians on the other hand, have to be meticulously studied to look at the parallels and differences in order to gauge the applicability of drawing a ruling from one case to another on the basis of qiyās. As such, the verses indicate that the people of Lūṭ exceeded limits by approaching males as a collective nation, which suggests that the purport of the verses is different from addressing a minority of men and women whose constitutional orientation is towards members of the same sex. Moreover, where exceeding limits makes sense in the case of a collective community of married people, whose sexual and emotional human needs are met through their spouses, it is not clear how limits are exceeded in the case of a minority of gay men and women whom conservative Muslim leaders deny their genuine need for sexual expression by prescribing them to remain permanently celibate.
This is the discussion that is ensuing between gay Muslims and Muslim leaders atm.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
But you see, they would accuse you of the same. At least, they do that to other people who don't share their view of homosexuality in Islam.
I should probably stop poisoning the well, though.
I should probably stop poisoning the well, though.
It's fine, the well cannot be poisoned where there is a genuine human need to drink from the water of truth.
and that is a thirst that can only be quenched by truth seekers
Original post by Jhansen23
A very good question.
When conservative Muslims claim that “homosexuality” is a major sin, they are basing their opinion on a DERIVED rule as opposed to a clear-cut law found within the Qur’an, as in the case of intoxicants (5:90), pork (5:03), fornication (17:32) and incest (4:23).
As a general rule, all major prohibitions of Islam come mainly in the form of a direct and clear statement in the Qur'an. These statements generally use variants of the following words: ‘Do not’, ‘Forbidden’ or ‘penalty of Hell’. Snippets of the following verses, depicting the prohibition of intoxicants, pork, fornication, incest, murder, slander, usury, gambling, disobedience to parents and associating partners with God, would substantiate this line of argument.
... intoxicants and games of chance … are only an uncleanness, … shun it therefore … (5:90)
... Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine… (5:03)
.... And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way (17:32)
... Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters... (4:23)
… do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, … and do not kill your people… (4:29)
… do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames… (49:11)
… Allah has … forbidden usury… and whoever returns (to it) – these are the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. (2:275)
… you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. …say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" nor chide them ... (17:23)
The above list indicates that in contrast to other sins, same-sex conduct, despite being branded as a major prohibition, surprisingly DOES NOT appear to be expressly and clearly prohibited in the Quran. Nonetheless, conservative Muslim scholars generally quote one of the three verses - 7:81, 26:165-166 or 27: 55 – to substantiate their claim that same-sex unions stand prohibited in Islam. Apart from the use of the word azwājikum (wives) in verse 26:166, these verses more or less contain the same information.
... Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people (7:81)
... What! Do you come to the males from among the creatures? And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits (26:165-166)
... What! Do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly (27:55)
WITHOUT paying attention to the context, some scholars extrapolate from such verses to apply them to all same-sex conduct. However, ignoring the context is contrary to the traditional methodology related to the applicability of qiyās (analogy), which applies only if the situations and circumstances of the two cases are similar and in the absence of other circumstances that render the analogy void. This suggests that the context of both situations, that of the people of Lūṭ on the one hand and Muslim gays and lesbians on the other hand, have to be meticulously studied to look at the parallels and differences in order to gauge the applicability of drawing a ruling from one case to another on the basis of qiyās. As such, the verses indicate that the people of Lūṭ exceeded limits by approaching males as a collective nation, which suggests that the purport of the verses is different from addressing a minority of men and women whose constitutional orientation is towards members of the same sex. Moreover, where exceeding limits makes sense in the case of a collective community of married people, whose sexual and emotional human needs are met through their spouses, it is not clear how limits are exceeded in the case of a minority of gay men and women whom conservative Muslim leaders deny their genuine need for sexual expression by prescribing them to remain permanently celibate.
This is the discussion that is ensuing between gay Muslims and Muslim leaders atm.
When conservative Muslims claim that “homosexuality” is a major sin, they are basing their opinion on a DERIVED rule as opposed to a clear-cut law found within the Qur’an, as in the case of intoxicants (5:90), pork (5:03), fornication (17:32) and incest (4:23).
As a general rule, all major prohibitions of Islam come mainly in the form of a direct and clear statement in the Qur'an. These statements generally use variants of the following words: ‘Do not’, ‘Forbidden’ or ‘penalty of Hell’. Snippets of the following verses, depicting the prohibition of intoxicants, pork, fornication, incest, murder, slander, usury, gambling, disobedience to parents and associating partners with God, would substantiate this line of argument.
... intoxicants and games of chance … are only an uncleanness, … shun it therefore … (5:90)
... Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine… (5:03)
.... And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way (17:32)
... Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters... (4:23)
… do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, … and do not kill your people… (4:29)
… do not find fault with your own people nor call one another by nicknames… (49:11)
… Allah has … forbidden usury… and whoever returns (to it) – these are the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. (2:275)
… you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. …say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" nor chide them ... (17:23)
The above list indicates that in contrast to other sins, same-sex conduct, despite being branded as a major prohibition, surprisingly DOES NOT appear to be expressly and clearly prohibited in the Quran. Nonetheless, conservative Muslim scholars generally quote one of the three verses - 7:81, 26:165-166 or 27: 55 – to substantiate their claim that same-sex unions stand prohibited in Islam. Apart from the use of the word azwājikum (wives) in verse 26:166, these verses more or less contain the same information.
... Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people (7:81)
... What! Do you come to the males from among the creatures? And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits (26:165-166)
... What! Do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly (27:55)
WITHOUT paying attention to the context, some scholars extrapolate from such verses to apply them to all same-sex conduct. However, ignoring the context is contrary to the traditional methodology related to the applicability of qiyās (analogy), which applies only if the situations and circumstances of the two cases are similar and in the absence of other circumstances that render the analogy void. This suggests that the context of both situations, that of the people of Lūṭ on the one hand and Muslim gays and lesbians on the other hand, have to be meticulously studied to look at the parallels and differences in order to gauge the applicability of drawing a ruling from one case to another on the basis of qiyās. As such, the verses indicate that the people of Lūṭ exceeded limits by approaching males as a collective nation, which suggests that the purport of the verses is different from addressing a minority of men and women whose constitutional orientation is towards members of the same sex. Moreover, where exceeding limits makes sense in the case of a collective community of married people, whose sexual and emotional human needs are met through their spouses, it is not clear how limits are exceeded in the case of a minority of gay men and women whom conservative Muslim leaders deny their genuine need for sexual expression by prescribing them to remain permanently celibate.
This is the discussion that is ensuing between gay Muslims and Muslim leaders atm.
I should have clarified what I meant by "sodomy". Isn't anal sex forbidden between a couple according to the hadith (something like don't have sex via the "back passage")? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?
Original post by champ_mc99
I should have clarified what I meant by "sodomy". Isn't anal sex forbidden between a couple according to the hadith (something like don't have sex via the "back passage"
? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?
? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?You do know that not all homosexual couples are into anal sex, right? It's tempting to think that anal sex is to gay men what vaginal intercourse is to a heterosexual couple, but it's not.
Original post by champ_mc99
I should have clarified what I meant by "sodomy". Isn't anal sex forbidden between a couple according to the hadith (something like don't have sex via the "back passage"? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?
? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?You do realise that gay men can still have sex without doing anal, dont you? Not all gay men like anal sex.
Original post by Hydeman
You do know that not all homosexual couples are into anal sex, right? It's tempting to think that anal sex is to gay men what vaginal intercourse is to a heterosexual couple, but it's not.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
You do realise that gay men can still have sex without doing anal, dont you? Not all gay men like anal sex.
You mean there's an alternative penetrative sex?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by champ_mc99
I should have clarified what I meant by "sodomy". Isn't anal sex forbidden between a couple according to the hadith (something like don't have sex via the "back passage")? I understand the rest (I've read the same from @The Epicurean who uses the same logic regarding Lut etc.) but my question is, if a man and man can marry, how would they have sex if anal is forbidden?
Original post by Hydeman
You do know that not all homosexual couples are into anal sex, right? It's tempting to think that anal sex is to gay men what vaginal intercourse is to a heterosexual couple, but it's not.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
You do realise that gay men can still have sex without doing anal, dont you? Not all gay men like anal sex.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE LESBIANS!
But yeah, not all gay men (and probably very very few gay women) have anal sex, and not only gay men have anal sex. So anything that's against anal sex is just against anal sex, not against homosexuality.
Original post by Ladbants
I know it is already legal in the UK but I was wondering what people thought about the issue.
yes, no explanation needed
Original post by minimarshmallow
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE LESBIANS!
I was just thinking that I should have mentioned the lesbian loophole in the perfect word of the creator of the universe.
Anyway, I was only talking about anal sex because that's what champ_mc99 had taken issue with, specifically when it takes place between men. 
Original post by minimarshmallow
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE LESBIANS!
But yeah, not all gay men (and probably very very few gay women) have anal sex, and not only gay men have anal sex. So anything that's against anal sex is just against anal sex, not against homosexuality.
But yeah, not all gay men (and probably very very few gay women) have anal sex, and not only gay men have anal sex. So anything that's against anal sex is just against anal sex, not against homosexuality.
Yeah I guess the argument against anal can't be applied to lesbians.
Original post by Hydeman
I was just thinking that I should have mentioned the lesbian loophole in the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Anyway, I was only talking about anal sex because that's what champ_mc99 had taken issue with, specifically when it takes place between men.
Anyway, I was only talking about anal sex because that's what champ_mc99 had taken issue with, specifically when it takes place between men. #equalrights
If the guys can't **** neither can the girls...
Spoiler
Yes, if they truly love each other, then I see no problem whatsoever
Original post by champ_mc99
You mean there's an alternative penetrative sex?
Sexual acts don't just include penetration. Without being crude, homosexual men can still engage in blowjobs, handjobs, rimming etc which any reasonable person would still class as sex.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Sexual acts don't just include penetration. Without being crude, homosexual men can still engage in blowjobs, handjobs, rimming etc which any reasonable person would still class as sex.
Not really. They would be classed as "sexual acts" afaik. You can't lose your virginity after someone just gives you oral.
Original post by champ_mc99
Not really. They would be classed as "sexual acts" afaik. You can't lose your virginity after someone just gives you oral.
That's an entirely different debate.
Original post by champ_mc99
Not really. They would be classed as "sexual acts" afaik. You can't lose your virginity after someone just gives you oral.
Sexual acts are still sex. As mentioned, lesbians can't have natural penetrative sex and it would be absurd to say that a practising lesbian couple who had never wanted to use toys such as dildos had never had sex.
Besides, the idea of losing your virginity by undergoing penetration is a hazy and blurred concept, mostly applicable to women and not generally to men. The hymen can be broken by non sexual acts such as horse riding and tampon insertion. And as highlighted, not all gay men have anal sex, but it would still be ridiculous to say that such a homosexual couple who had done all the other sex acts during their life had never had sex.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by champ_mc99
#equalrights
If the guys can't **** neither can the girls...
If the guys can't **** neither can the girls...
They can use strap-ons and such.
Spoiler
Spoiler
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
What does a timetable look like for a psychology student at the UOL?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1161
Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1314
Last reply 8 minutes ago
AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 9 minutes ago
AQA A Level Spanish Paper 3 (Speaking/IRP) 7692/3 - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 14 minutes ago
Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationshipTrending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
