Do you support gay marriage?
Scroll to see replies
Things like civil unions and even adoption? Yes. Homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples to pursue essentially the same legal contracts (in the eyes of the state, but not necessarily the eyes of the Church) and raise families in a household.
However, I'm very much a traditionalist when it comes to calling it marriage. I think there is a slight air of naivety and even arrogance in suddenly redefining the long-standing cultural tradition that is marriage, which exists between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages, to me, just don't feel legitimate. Call them marriages all you want, but they ain't.
Nevertheless, if a religious institution will perform the ceremony, let them. At the same time, however, the state shouldn't force them to marry people.
However, I'm very much a traditionalist when it comes to calling it marriage. I think there is a slight air of naivety and even arrogance in suddenly redefining the long-standing cultural tradition that is marriage, which exists between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages, to me, just don't feel legitimate. Call them marriages all you want, but they ain't.
Nevertheless, if a religious institution will perform the ceremony, let them. At the same time, however, the state shouldn't force them to marry people.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by minimarshmallow
What does your religion have to do with someone else's secular marriage? OR someone else's religious marriage if they have a different religion?
It's basically banned in all religions ?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hydeman
And you have watched that? 
And do you defend the right of certain businesses to 'stick to their principles' and not provide services to certain ethnic or religious groups? This has always struck me as the most ludicrous part of the same-sex marriage argument: the apparent willingness of those on the same slide as me to just create an exemption to anti-discrimination law for religious institutions for no other reason than 'because they shouldn't be forced to do anything they don't want.'
And do you defend the right of certain businesses to 'stick to their principles' and not provide services to certain ethnic or religious groups? This has always struck me as the most ludicrous part of the same-sex marriage argument: the apparent willingness of those on the same slide as me to just create an exemption to anti-discrimination law for religious institutions for no other reason than 'because they shouldn't be forced to do anything they don't want.'
What's the problem, it seems outrageous to some but if it's your property , I don't seem to understand the issue
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Withengar
Traditional marriage?
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
There's no such thing as "traditional marriage". Definitions of marriage have been changing since humans started to have more complex cultures and customs.
To Hell with you and the so-called "traditional marriage". LGBTQ people should be able to marry and are able to marry, and that's how it'll stay. Period.
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
There's no such thing as "traditional marriage". Definitions of marriage have been changing since humans started to have more complex cultures and customs.
To Hell with you and the so-called "traditional marriage". LGBTQ people should be able to marry and are able to marry, and that's how it'll stay. Period.
In all those cases, it's hetreosexual marriage not gay - your point is what?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by XcitingStuart
Of course.
I support same-sex marriage because I myself am likely to want one when I am older, and I am invested into a relationship (being mostly attracted to men, the same sex.)
I actually have principles, even if they act disadvantageous to me sometimes. Every time I compromise on my values, I would lose a part of myself, so I don't compromise.
I'm pro-conscience; I think that people should be allowed to have same-sex marriages, but I don't think people in churches should be forced to perform the ceremony, to go against their conscience, especially so as they aren't necessary, and there are currently people willing to do this.
I have adopted this view because I believe it;s a fair view, so why do you make this point?
"pro-conscience" is the vocabulary to take away from this.
I support same-sex marriage because I myself am likely to want one when I am older, and I am invested into a relationship (being mostly attracted to men, the same sex.)
I actually have principles, even if they act disadvantageous to me sometimes. Every time I compromise on my values, I would lose a part of myself, so I don't compromise.
I'm pro-conscience; I think that people should be allowed to have same-sex marriages, but I don't think people in churches should be forced to perform the ceremony, to go against their conscience, especially so as they aren't necessary, and there are currently people willing to do this.
I have adopted this view because I believe it;s a fair view, so why do you make this point?
"pro-conscience" is the vocabulary to take away from this.
My problem is " being mostly attracted to men" I swear gay people are born gay so how comes you're not fully attracted to them , can I ask what's your age ?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Maz96
My problem is " being mostly attracted to men" I swear gay people are born gay so how comes you're not fully attracted to them , can I ask what's your age ?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm bisexual, mostly attracted to men. Men always turn me on, but only occasionally do women. It would be lying to say otherwise.
Yes I believe gay people are born gay, but you work on the assumption / premise that sexual orientation is either or. Sexual orientation it seems to me more of a spectrum.
17.
And before you say about confusion, I will say from the ages of 14 to 16 I thought I was entirely gay, but then it switched back a bit and once my hormones settled down I realised I was attracted to a few girls, albeit very few.
Original post by Maz96
But not all.
No one religion gets to tell all other religions plus all secular institutions what to do.
TW: Sexual Content
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry for the belated reply, I was preparing for Ramadhan. But back to your question, yes that's right it is the same case with the other prohibitive Hadith in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud.
We call them the Abu Hurayra, Ibn ʿAbbās, Khuzayma ibn Thābit reports, and the Tirmidhī and Ibn Māja texts. and there appear to be SEVERE weaknesses in all these texts on anal intercourse on the basis of the transmission chain authenticity checks.
Now the argument for permissibility of anal intercourse revolves around Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the verse of tilth (2:223). This verse, part of which is reproduced below, has been interpreted differently by scholars on the basis of the key words used in the text, namely, ‘Ḥarth' - (tilth) and ‘faʾtū ḥarthakum annā shiʾtum - so go to your tilth as you will’.
Your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as you will … (2:223)
According to the commentary of al-Rāzī (d. 1209) , traditional scholars have differed on the interpretation of ḥarth (tilth), that is, whether the tilth mainly refers to bearing children or whether it refers to something beyond that, which could include mutual spiritual and emotional fulfilment of the couple involved. In fact, traditional scholars have advanced arguments for both interpretations. Likewise, there was a difference of opinion on the phrase ‘so go to your tilth as you will’, in that whether it included non-sexual approaching of the spouse or just focused on the sexual aspect of the approach. Furthermore, the word annā can easily accommodate meanings of both ‘when you will’ and ‘where you will’ and it is in the second sense that the verse has been traditionally used for the permissibility of anal sex with the wife.
So here we have a text that is traced back to Ibn ʿUmar (d. 693) through Nāfiʿ (d. 735) indicating that verse 2:223 actually allows for heterosexual anal intercourse on the basis of Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the Qur’anic text:“Ibn ʿUmar asked: Do you know Nāfiʿ, why this verse (2:223) was revealed to us? … When people did not like the fact that one of the men of Medina had anal intercourse with his wife, God revealed this verse (Your women are your tilth). Nāfiʿ asked: Coming to her from the back in the vagina? Ibn ʿUmar replied: No, in her anus.” (Mālik ibn Anas variant)
“Once Ibn ʿUmar read Chapter 2 until he came to the verse and asked Nāfiʿ: Do you know for what was it revealed? Nāfiʿ responded in the negative. Ibn ʿUmar replied it was revealed for that (anus) and then he continued.” (Bukhārī variant)
“Ibn ʿUmar mentioned about the verse (2:223): He comes to her ________ (anus)” (Bukhārī variant). Bukhārī actually leaves a blank.
To reiterate, there exist contradicting Hadith and reports on the act of anal intercourse, where some texts prohibit the act and others from Ibn ʿUmar allow for it. The Hadith in Bukhārī does not explicitly mention the dubur (anus) but leaves a blank, which leads to the impression that the text allowed for the act and therefore Bukhārī shied away from mentioning it expressly.
(Refer to : Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, Book of Nikāḥ, Chapter that addresses anal intercourse)
.
.
.
.
.
Original post by champ_mc99
Oh right. I'm aware that even Sahih Bukhari isn't always taken at face value, is this the same case with these hadith in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud? Can you post the other texts which refute this prohibition too?
Thanks
Thanks
Sorry for the belated reply, I was preparing for Ramadhan. But back to your question, yes that's right it is the same case with the other prohibitive Hadith in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud.
We call them the Abu Hurayra, Ibn ʿAbbās, Khuzayma ibn Thābit reports, and the Tirmidhī and Ibn Māja texts. and there appear to be SEVERE weaknesses in all these texts on anal intercourse on the basis of the transmission chain authenticity checks.
Now the argument for permissibility of anal intercourse revolves around Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the verse of tilth (2:223). This verse, part of which is reproduced below, has been interpreted differently by scholars on the basis of the key words used in the text, namely, ‘Ḥarth' - (tilth) and ‘faʾtū ḥarthakum annā shiʾtum - so go to your tilth as you will’.
Your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as you will … (2:223)
According to the commentary of al-Rāzī (d. 1209) , traditional scholars have differed on the interpretation of ḥarth (tilth), that is, whether the tilth mainly refers to bearing children or whether it refers to something beyond that, which could include mutual spiritual and emotional fulfilment of the couple involved. In fact, traditional scholars have advanced arguments for both interpretations. Likewise, there was a difference of opinion on the phrase ‘so go to your tilth as you will’, in that whether it included non-sexual approaching of the spouse or just focused on the sexual aspect of the approach. Furthermore, the word annā can easily accommodate meanings of both ‘when you will’ and ‘where you will’ and it is in the second sense that the verse has been traditionally used for the permissibility of anal sex with the wife.
So here we have a text that is traced back to Ibn ʿUmar (d. 693) through Nāfiʿ (d. 735) indicating that verse 2:223 actually allows for heterosexual anal intercourse on the basis of Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the Qur’anic text:“Ibn ʿUmar asked: Do you know Nāfiʿ, why this verse (2:223) was revealed to us? … When people did not like the fact that one of the men of Medina had anal intercourse with his wife, God revealed this verse (Your women are your tilth). Nāfiʿ asked: Coming to her from the back in the vagina? Ibn ʿUmar replied: No, in her anus.” (Mālik ibn Anas variant)
“Once Ibn ʿUmar read Chapter 2 until he came to the verse and asked Nāfiʿ: Do you know for what was it revealed? Nāfiʿ responded in the negative. Ibn ʿUmar replied it was revealed for that (anus) and then he continued.” (Bukhārī variant)
“Ibn ʿUmar mentioned about the verse (2:223): He comes to her ________ (anus)” (Bukhārī variant). Bukhārī actually leaves a blank.
To reiterate, there exist contradicting Hadith and reports on the act of anal intercourse, where some texts prohibit the act and others from Ibn ʿUmar allow for it. The Hadith in Bukhārī does not explicitly mention the dubur (anus) but leaves a blank, which leads to the impression that the text allowed for the act and therefore Bukhārī shied away from mentioning it expressly.
(Refer to : Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, Book of Nikāḥ, Chapter that addresses anal intercourse)
Original post by minimarshmallow
But not all.
No one religion gets to tell all other religions plus all secular institutions what to do.
No one religion gets to tell all other religions plus all secular institutions what to do.
that's absolutely right. And no one religion can tell its own religion what to do either. And this is most certainly the case in Islam, where gay marriage existed for instance in Egypt at the Oasis of Siwa, before the British put a stop to the practice when they occupied the city during WW2.
Original post by XcitingStuart
I'm bisexual, mostly attracted to men. Men always turn me on, but only occasionally do women. It would be lying to say otherwise.
Yes I believe gay people are born gay, but you work on the assumption / premise that sexual orientation is either or. Sexual orientation it seems to me more of a spectrum.
17.
And before you say about confusion, I will say from the ages of 14 to 16 I thought I was entirely gay, but then it switched back a bit and once my hormones settled down I realised I was attracted to a few girls, albeit very few.
Yes I believe gay people are born gay, but you work on the assumption / premise that sexual orientation is either or. Sexual orientation it seems to me more of a spectrum.
17.
And before you say about confusion, I will say from the ages of 14 to 16 I thought I was entirely gay, but then it switched back a bit and once my hormones settled down I realised I was attracted to a few girls, albeit very few.
the majority of people are innately bisexual, but just adhere consciously or unconsciously to a modern taboo against same-sex desires and activities. That adherence can fluctuate, as can the boundary lines of the taboo. History shows that same-sex activities have been very widespread among the general population in many cultures.
Original post by Mac117
I'm sure most of those who are against it also believe Earth is flat and global warming doesn't exist. 
Yeah, it is just a very conservative view on married people. But it really seems that a lot people are not willing to perceive it. They wouldn't realize that there are different feelings of love.
Original post by limetang
Why does that matter? I won't get in the way of same-sex couples that wish to marry. I will just hold my private view that same-sex marriage is not marriage.
No-one's denying you that private view, but you can't blame people for being curious as to why you hold that view if you state them on a public forum. So often I see 'Well I believe marriage should be between a man and woman' with no substantial reason to back that view other than religious ones.
I guess it's largely the religion effect, religion has ingrained into society this idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman to marry, while telling us homosexuality is 'unnatural' and wrong for whatever vague reason, maybe because it's never been the norm and only a minority in the population. And maybe some would argue it's because of reproduction, but there's more to a relationship and a marriage than reproduction, many heterosexual couples will get married and not even have children, the ability to reproduce shouldn't define a marriage's validity. So how is a homosexual marriage somehow inferior to heterosexual one? They love each other and are getting married for exactly the same reasons as a heterosexual couple gets married, so why is their union lesser?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jhansen23
x
Yeah no problem, I wasn't in a rush.
Ok jazakhallah I do see where you are coming from.
Original post by champ_mc99
Yeah no problem, I wasn't in a rush.
Ok jazakhallah I do see where you are coming from.
Ok jazakhallah I do see where you are coming from.
You're very welcome.
If you have any further questions on any aspect of gender and sexuality in Islam, please do not hesitate to ask me or tag me. It is so important to ask and educate our Ummah on matters that they shy away from.
Hope your fasts are going well, the warm days are surely a blessing😃
All that should matter is that every person on the planet deserves to be happy. We get one chance at life so whatever makes you happy, just do it, if you have the means too! Why would anybody have a problem with another person being happy? In my opinion it are these type of people (who do have a problem with other people being happy) that are the problem in this world!
I don't have any problem with gay people or gay marriage but it seems like it's been exaggerated over the recent years to a point where many people, I know just change for attention.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Maz96
What's the problem, it seems outrageous to some but if it's your property , I don't seem to understand the issue
It is discrimination.
Original post by Jhansen23
TW: Sexual Content
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry for the belated reply, I was preparing for Ramadhan. But back to your question, yes that's right it is the same case with the other prohibitive Hadith in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud.
We call them the Abu Hurayra, Ibn ʿAbbās, Khuzayma ibn Thābit reports, and the Tirmidhī and Ibn Māja texts. and there appear to be SEVERE weaknesses in all these texts on anal intercourse on the basis of the transmission chain authenticity checks.
Now the argument for permissibility of anal intercourse revolves around Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the verse of tilth (2:223). This verse, part of which is reproduced below, has been interpreted differently by scholars on the basis of the key words used in the text, namely, ‘Ḥarth' - (tilth) and ‘faʾtū ḥarthakum annā shiʾtum - so go to your tilth as you will’.
Your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as you will … (2:223)
According to the commentary of al-Rāzī (d. 1209) , traditional scholars have differed on the interpretation of ḥarth (tilth), that is, whether the tilth mainly refers to bearing children or whether it refers to something beyond that, which could include mutual spiritual and emotional fulfilment of the couple involved. In fact, traditional scholars have advanced arguments for both interpretations. Likewise, there was a difference of opinion on the phrase ‘so go to your tilth as you will’, in that whether it included non-sexual approaching of the spouse or just focused on the sexual aspect of the approach. Furthermore, the word annā can easily accommodate meanings of both ‘when you will’ and ‘where you will’ and it is in the second sense that the verse has been traditionally used for the permissibility of anal sex with the wife.
So here we have a text that is traced back to Ibn ʿUmar (d. 693) through Nāfiʿ (d. 735) indicating that verse 2:223 actually allows for heterosexual anal intercourse on the basis of Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the Qur’anic text:“Ibn ʿUmar asked: Do you know Nāfiʿ, why this verse (2:223) was revealed to us? … When people did not like the fact that one of the men of Medina had anal intercourse with his wife, God revealed this verse (Your women are your tilth). Nāfiʿ asked: Coming to her from the back in the vagina? Ibn ʿUmar replied: No, in her anus.” (Mālik ibn Anas variant)
“Once Ibn ʿUmar read Chapter 2 until he came to the verse and asked Nāfiʿ: Do you know for what was it revealed? Nāfiʿ responded in the negative. Ibn ʿUmar replied it was revealed for that (anus) and then he continued.” (Bukhārī variant)
“Ibn ʿUmar mentioned about the verse (2:223): He comes to her ________ (anus)” (Bukhārī variant). Bukhārī actually leaves a blank.
To reiterate, there exist contradicting Hadith and reports on the act of anal intercourse, where some texts prohibit the act and others from Ibn ʿUmar allow for it. The Hadith in Bukhārī does not explicitly mention the dubur (anus) but leaves a blank, which leads to the impression that the text allowed for the act and therefore Bukhārī shied away from mentioning it expressly.
(Refer to : Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, Book of Nikāḥ, Chapter that addresses anal intercourse)
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry for the belated reply, I was preparing for Ramadhan. But back to your question, yes that's right it is the same case with the other prohibitive Hadith in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud.
We call them the Abu Hurayra, Ibn ʿAbbās, Khuzayma ibn Thābit reports, and the Tirmidhī and Ibn Māja texts. and there appear to be SEVERE weaknesses in all these texts on anal intercourse on the basis of the transmission chain authenticity checks.
Now the argument for permissibility of anal intercourse revolves around Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the verse of tilth (2:223). This verse, part of which is reproduced below, has been interpreted differently by scholars on the basis of the key words used in the text, namely, ‘Ḥarth' - (tilth) and ‘faʾtū ḥarthakum annā shiʾtum - so go to your tilth as you will’.
Your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as you will … (2:223)
According to the commentary of al-Rāzī (d. 1209) , traditional scholars have differed on the interpretation of ḥarth (tilth), that is, whether the tilth mainly refers to bearing children or whether it refers to something beyond that, which could include mutual spiritual and emotional fulfilment of the couple involved. In fact, traditional scholars have advanced arguments for both interpretations. Likewise, there was a difference of opinion on the phrase ‘so go to your tilth as you will’, in that whether it included non-sexual approaching of the spouse or just focused on the sexual aspect of the approach. Furthermore, the word annā can easily accommodate meanings of both ‘when you will’ and ‘where you will’ and it is in the second sense that the verse has been traditionally used for the permissibility of anal sex with the wife.
So here we have a text that is traced back to Ibn ʿUmar (d. 693) through Nāfiʿ (d. 735) indicating that verse 2:223 actually allows for heterosexual anal intercourse on the basis of Ibn ʿUmar’s understanding of the Qur’anic text:“Ibn ʿUmar asked: Do you know Nāfiʿ, why this verse (2:223) was revealed to us? … When people did not like the fact that one of the men of Medina had anal intercourse with his wife, God revealed this verse (Your women are your tilth). Nāfiʿ asked: Coming to her from the back in the vagina? Ibn ʿUmar replied: No, in her anus.” (Mālik ibn Anas variant)
“Once Ibn ʿUmar read Chapter 2 until he came to the verse and asked Nāfiʿ: Do you know for what was it revealed? Nāfiʿ responded in the negative. Ibn ʿUmar replied it was revealed for that (anus) and then he continued.” (Bukhārī variant)
“Ibn ʿUmar mentioned about the verse (2:223): He comes to her ________ (anus)” (Bukhārī variant). Bukhārī actually leaves a blank.
To reiterate, there exist contradicting Hadith and reports on the act of anal intercourse, where some texts prohibit the act and others from Ibn ʿUmar allow for it. The Hadith in Bukhārī does not explicitly mention the dubur (anus) but leaves a blank, which leads to the impression that the text allowed for the act and therefore Bukhārī shied away from mentioning it expressly.
(Refer to : Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, Book of Nikāḥ, Chapter that addresses anal intercourse)
Not all gay people just have anal sex. Stephen Fry is gay and he's never done anal in his life.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 14 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 22 minutes ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 24 minutes ago
Kingston or Westminster university for architecture?Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1020
Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
