Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :lol:
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I support gay marriage, bisexual after all, I myself wouldn't get married though out of personal preference, a wedding is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere. Like a house. Or a dog. Or a brand spanking new s*x dungeon
    Offline

    18
    (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?
    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. :beard:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    You do realise that gay men can still have sex without doing anal, dont you? Not all gay men like anal sex.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :beard:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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. :beard:
    (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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    18
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yeah I guess the argument against anal can't be applied to lesbians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    #equalrights

    If the guys can't **** neither can the girls... :holmes:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (I know what your thinking, "but Islam is sexist! There are no equal rights! grrrrr...")

    Anyway "champ_mc99" is long if you're not gonna tag me so you can call me "champ" if you want coz I am one.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, if they truly love each other, then I see no problem whatsoever
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    #equalrights

    If the guys can't **** neither can the girls... :holmes:
    They can use strap-ons and such. :holmes:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    (I know what your thinking, "but Islam is sexist! There are no equal rights! grrrrr..."

    Anyway "champ_mc99" is long if you're not gonna tag me so you can call me "champ" if you want coz I am one.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Not exactly. The general consensus among the TSR sheikhs seems to be that men and women have different rights in Islam, but that this is compensated for by giving them different responsibilities, and that this is fair. You can argue that it's fair; you can't however argue that different rights can ever be squared with the notion of equal rights as commonly understood. The word 'equal' has an elastic limit, after all.

    See, I would do that, but then I'd have to capitalise the C in front because otherwise it wouldn't seem like a name to me, but I'm averse to that for some reason, hence writing it out in full.
    Also, I didn't know I was supposed to tag you, considering I was fairly sure you'd be following the conversation, having posted only minutes earlier.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Alright I admit, my research on the particular subject of sex in a homosexual relationship is probably next to nothing. I may need to watch some "educational videos" to catch up with the rest of you.

    But I'm still interested to whether he thinks homosexuals can have anal in Islam since I'm guessing that's what most homosexual men do. :holmes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Alright I admit, my research on the particular subject of sex in a homosexual relationship is probably next to nothing. I may need to watch some "educational videos" to catch up with the rest of you.

    But I'm still interested to whether he thinks homosexuals can have anal in Islam since I'm guessing that's what most homosexual men do. :holmes:
    Even if he doesn't, I'm pretty sure he thinks it's acceptable for homosexuals to do other sex acts. If I remember correctly Jhansen23 is a gay Muslim who's had gay sex and a boyfriend although he should correct me on this if I'm wrong
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    They can use strap-ons and such. :holmes:


    Spoiler:
    Show
    Not exactly. The general consensus among the TSR sheikhs seems to be that men and women have different rights in Islam, but that this is compensated for by giving them different responsibilities, and that this is fair. You can argue that it's fair; you can't however argue that different rights can ever be squared with the notion of equal rights as commonly understood. The word 'equal' has an elastic limit, after all.

    See, I would do that, but then I'd have to capitalise the C in front because otherwise it wouldn't seem like a name to me, but I'm averse to that for some reason, hence writing it out in full.
    Also, I didn't know I was supposed to tag you, considering I was fairly sure you'd be following the conversation, having posted only minutes earlier.
    No comment.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Lol "TSR Shiekhs".

    No I meant generally when you wouldn't tag me you don't have to write out my full username but if that's what you prefer fine by me.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.