Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dee.

What is your POV on theism and vice versa?

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

I'm a Catholic and readily admit that Catholicism is terrible scripturally in its treatments of gays.

>Supports a state and military establishment that slaughtered Catholics.

>Is a Catholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

I'm a Catholic and readily admit that Catholicism is terrible scripturally in its treatments of gays.

>Supports a state and military establishment that slaughtered Catholics.

>Is a Catholic.

 

MI+Tom+Selleck+Blue+Bloods+Irish+Voice.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's why I am getting so flustered with you when you are saying that Islam is less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuals.

I don't think I did. In fact, I just double checked and I definitely didn't say this at any point. What I actually said was:

 

Interestingly, the Koran is far less explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality than books of the Christian bible.

I never went into the reasons why the Koran is less explicit or alleged that Islam itself had a more lenient attitude to homosexuality; I was simply comparing the content of the Bible with that of the Koran. My point in doing this wasn't to insinuate that Islam was more accepting of homosexuslity but to dispute the common misconception that the Koran itself explicitly calls for, or directly implies stoning/executing homosexuals which I believe another poster had brought up.

 

The Quran says something, then you look to Hadith to understand it further and how to put it into practice. They do not operate independent of one another. That is what I'm trying to get at with you here.

I'm entirely aware of this. Hopefully the above explanation does a decent enough job of demonstrating that, whilst your completely right in your explanation if the relationships between the Hadiths and Koran itself, it still isn't actually relevant to the particular point I'm making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

 

 

 

Jeff-

 

 

 

 

You still don't understand do you? I already know that Islam condemns homosexuality, I already talked about this on the last page ffs. However, there is NOTHING in the Qur'an or hadith that tells you to go kill NON-MUSLIM homosexuals whether its stoning, beheading or any sort of killing at all. The punishments stated in specific hadiths are designed for Muslims and Muslims only, how stupid can you get? If you're not a Muslim, why the hell are you worried about this considering you aren't even a Muslim or believe in any deity at all? And lastly, the reason why its a sin in the religion is because of belief of men and women being naturally connected, as well as the incredibly high risk of diseases when being a homosexual.

 

This is purely backtracking on your part - some quotes from you on the last page

 

 

 

However, the Qur'an doesn't say anything that would make a Muslim be homophobic or violent to homosexuals

 

 

 

The Qur'an andthe religion suggests NOTHING to the Muslims to be homophobic in any shape or form in the first place, so there is nothing to be homophobic about.

 

 

 

NO hadith or quotes from the Qur'an tells you to go out and kill any homosexuals out there, but prohibits Muslims not to do it which makes sense, and punishments are in place for them,

 

You hadn't mentioned non-Muslims until later on in the discussion. You first claimed that there is no Hadith or Quranic verse that teaches Muslims to be homophobic (there are PLENTY), then you are now saying that there is nothing that tells them to treat non-Muslim homosexuals with disdain, which is debatable but nevertheless an arguable point, as opposed to what you've been saying, i.e. the Quran is not homophobic or violent to homosexuals (a direct quote from you), or that it suggests NOTHING to Muslims to be homophobic.

 

I was always talking about non-Muslims throughout the discussion because the religion isn't designed for people who don't believe in Islam and never will, that's common sense, you should have understood that in the first place. The Qur'an is a book sent down to Muslims to follow, it's not been sent down to instruct Muslims to kill non-Muslims otherwise NO one would be following the religion in the first place. Secondly, WHAT is homophobic about Islam condemning Muslims to be homosexuals? Its a belief, as well as scientific fact supporting the belief that man and women are natural partners, not to mention there are VALID points such as extremely high risk of disease between gay partners. And finally, the punishments that are put in place are only for Muslims, not non-muslims ffs, I don't understand why YOU, a catholic who has nothing to do with Islam is worrying about this.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

First off, while I can't give you statistics for it, there is two things to say. The first is that many muslims are part of religious organisations that do not allow samesex marriage. This is comparable to being a part of an organisation who does not allow marriage between black people. It is equally moral blame worthy.

Don't know about any organizations but it's been established that homosexuality is a sin in Islam as well as the other major religions, so what are you trying to point out here? And no, it's not the same thing as marriage between black people because marriage does not have a skin color. You're just like any other gay sympathizer that tries to prove a point by making the exact same statement and replacing gay/homo/same-sex/whatever term being used with black as if that will make you look smarter. Firstly, I've never heard of anyone who was against black marriage. If someone was against black people in any shape or form, then marriage would probably be one of the last things on their mind. Secondly, why do you keep bringing it up when it's totally unrelated to the subject? "It's like saying marriage is only for Christians", "it's like saying marriage is only for people with Down Syndrome"... sounds silly, just stop.

 

 

Your argument miss the goal post.

 

The point is not that marriage between people of the same sex is the same thing as marriage of people of diffrent skin colour.

 

This point of the argument is this: people who do not support samesex marriage are acting as equally morally reprehensible as people who do not support marriage between black people. The first group discriminate on the basis of sexuality and the latter group discriminate on the basis of skin colour. Regardless off which, it's still discrimination.

 

 

And why are you specifying muslims only? I bet there are atheists out there who believe marriage is between man and woman only. And you admitted it yourself, you have no statistics to prove anything you say so most of your statements are a load of garbage with no basis to them other than your biased prejudice.

 

First off, I have never said that there is no statistics to back up anything of what I say; I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a ’load of garbage’. You can still make arguments to support claims on how the reality is constituted. For example, there is no statistics of homophobia in Iran, but from that homophobia does not follow that the claim that homophobia is a problem in Iran is 'a load of garbage', and it does not prevent you from making assumptions on the case based on arguments. My assumption is for example that the majority of all muslims in Sweden have negative attitudes against gay people - and all negative attutides towards gay people is per se definied as homophobia.

 

 

No, "intolerance" in this context is the fact that you try to force people to change their opinions. If someone doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, it's their right. As long as they are not trying to actively cause any harm then it's a complete non-issue. Your totalitarian approach simply doesn't work. Racism was not foght against with dictatorship back in the day, it was a long progress and even with all of that, racism continues to exist. Same will be said for "homophobia". There will always be people who think less of homosexuals and you cannot do anything to change that. The most you can ask for is they don't actively harm gay people physically/mentally and that much progress has been made in most 1st world countries. And that's pretty nice, trying to stand up against racism! Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? You should start with looking in the mirror.

 

 

First off, the fact that I try to convince people to believe in certain values is not an act of ”intolerance”. It is an act of free speech. On the other hand, homophobia is indeed an act or a thought of intolerance, and if it's expressed in public it is an illegal act, and for a good reason; it harms people and its complete nonsense.

 

Secondly, I have never claimed that people should't have a right to express their opinion regarding on same-sex marriage. That is a strawman. Hence, your argument that I am acting totalitarian falls short as well.

 

Third, racism is not only fought with direct social change, it is fought with apprehension of those who express racist ideas in public.

 

Fourth, homophobia does hurt gay people both physically and mentally. The LGBT community concist of a group with overrepresentation of mental problem such as suicide attempts, and so forth. This is true in Sweden as well despite its progression with LGBT rights. To say that homophobic ideas – which muslims, among other hold – does not hurt people is simply false.

 

If gays had it so hard, I can guarantee you the slightest suspicion of hate crime would be posted all over the newspapers country-wide, so I will stand by what I said. Gay-hate is a problem in Saudi or Jamaica where you can get killed for merely being one. Over here in Sweden, you're allowed to be whatever you want and no one will bat an eye. "Homophobia" is only a problem if it causes legitimate safety concern. I couldn't care less if my neighbor thinks two men holding hands is disgusting and that they shouldn't be able to get married.

 

 

This statement is embarrassing and demostrate utter ignorance in the subject.

 

First off, homophobia is not only a problem in Saudi or Jamaica. It is a problem all over the world exactly like racism or misogyni.

 

Secondly, you seem not to understand neither the definition of homophobia or how common it is. ''Homophobia'' does not only mean direct physical abuse in terms of violence. Homophobia is all kinds of of negative attitudes derived because of someone sexual identity. These attitutes effect LGBT people both in the labour market, education, health care, religious institutions, sports, media, - all kinds of institutions and in the social life including the family.

 

I suggest you read The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights regarding this issue.http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/397-FRA_hdgso_report_part2_en.pdf

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

There's also the issue to consider of how you define homophobic. To a Muslim in Saudi Arabia homophobia is entirely different than what a Muslim in say, Jordan would think (and that's a big generalization in itself).

 

 

sivis

 

 

I never went into the reasons why the Koran is less explicit or alleged that Islam itself had a more lenient attitude to homosexuality; I was simply comparing the content of the Bible with that of the Koran. My point in doing this wasn't to insinuate that Islam was more accepting of homosexuslity but to dispute the common misconception that the Koran itself explicitly calls for, or directly implies stoning/executing homosexuals which I believe another poster had brought up.

Alright, but let me again reiterate my earlier point that comparing the two is a moot point, and again that is why I misunderstood what you were saying to mean Quran = Islam and went on a whole different argument with you for those few posts. The Bible versus the Quran is an irrelevant comparison insofar as what is taught scripturally. As I'm sure you know the Quran occupies a significantly higher place in Islam than the Bible does in Christianity. Scholars of religion say that as a rule of thumb, Christ himself = Quran. That being said, the fact that it is specifically not in the Quran is really once again an irrelevant argument because the Quran does not contain stuff like that. The example I posted earlier on, Salat, the Quran does not say how Muslims should pray, that is taught in Hadith. The Quran gives a general statement and then to apply and understand that statement in a Mulim's daily life, the Hadith is examined accordingly. So the issue I'm trying to get at here is essentially that, the fact that the Quran doesn't say "kill all gays" does not really mean anything in the grand scheme of things, because things like that are not what the Quran is designed to convey/teach. Quran says "homosexuality = bad". Hadith says what to do about that, can it be forgiven, etc etc. Quran says make a Hajj in your lifetime... Hadith says if you're poor/unable to do so, then you can give extra alms, etc.... Quran says Sawm, the fast, but Hadith says if you are physically unable due to old age, disease, then you have other ways to cover your Sawm obligation... sorry for the tangent but I think we understand each other better now this way.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communities

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communities

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

Again though for the umpteenth time now you haven't demonstrated why that's unique for Muslims. Devout Christians think that same stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

 

I'm a Catholic and readily admit that Catholicism is terrible scripturally in its treatments of gays.

>Supports a state and military establishment that slaughtered Catholics.

>Is a Catholic.

 

 

Does that state still slaughter Catholics? No.

 

 

 

Heck I strongly support the UK and British army despite the infamous White Paper which indirectly exacerbated the Holocaust by removing the option of return to Israel for many Jews in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Does that state still slaughter Catholics? No.

They slaughtered Catholic priests in Latin America right up until the 1980s, when the Catholics threw in the towel and abandoned Liberation Theology. They didn't have a change of heart regarding Catholicism, it's just that puddles of blood on the floor of a Catholic university couldn't' challenge state power.

 

The British invented the concentration camp during the Boer War, and they were the ones that left Germany destitute with their pointless war. Never mind exacerbating the Holocaust, there's as much blood on Britain's hands as Germany's!

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

...that's a bit if a stretch. Rather like blaming Julius Wilbrand for the death of any person killed by a bomb containing TNT (so pretty much any post-WWII). It's also worth noting that the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles didn't actually represent the British view on the subject of war reparations or disarmament; that was driven by French fears and a demand for recompense for the huge material damages of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communities

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

Again though for the umpteenth time now you haven't demonstrated why that's unique for Muslims. Devout Christians think that same stuff.

 

 

Homophobia is not a problem only among muslims - it is a problem world wide - including among secular swedes. The difference lays in the level of homophobia. For example, you can still hear antigay slurs in Swedish public schools, even though few people have anything against gay people.

 

You're right homophobia is also a huge problem among christians. My point of view however is from Swedish perspective. Swedish christians have adopted many secular values over time. The Swedish Church for example does not only allow gay marriage - it forbids anyone within the church to speak in a negative manner about homosexuality. In the same way you are not allowed to speak badly of someone because of their skin colour. The view on women have progressed as well.

 

I consider the traditional values that many muslims have a threat to the egalitarian project in my country. I am not a cultural relativist; I believe that some cultures are better than others, meaning, that I am willing to fight those cultures who do not accept the secular values society rest on. Unfortunately, some people look over intolerance that is based in religion. As a matter of fact the Swedish state actually give funds to Islamic organisations. With other words, when I'm out in the labor market I will pay my share of money in order to let muslims spread intolerance. I do not care where intolerance comes from and I have no problem to hurt the feelings of religious people if it is required.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

 

Does that state still slaughter Catholics? No.

 

They slaughtered Catholic priests in Latin America right up until the 1980s, when the Catholics threw in the towel and abandoned Liberation Theology. They didn't have a change of heart regarding Catholicism, it's just that puddles of blood on the floor of a Catholic university couldn't' challenge state power.

 

The British invented the concentration camp during the Boer War, and they were the ones that left Germany destitute with their pointless war. Never mind exacerbating the Holocaust, there's as much blood on Britain's hands as Germany's!

 

Britain certainly has blood on its hands, but here you're just being disingenuous. WW1 was inevitable and Britain's involvement was guaranteed by the treaty of London. War is pointless from a philosophical point of view but WW1 was not some war of aggression started by Britain as you imply. It's well known that Britain invented the idea of the concentration camp but that's neither here nor there. As for Versailles, as Sivis says, Lloyd George was opposed to the idea of excessively punishing Germany but he faced a great deal of pressure from Clemenceau (whose lands had been ravaged) and the British populace (whose sons faced the horror of mechanised warfare for the first time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

None of what you just posted is homophobic. Prohibition of homosexuality in religion isn't homophobic in anyway, in any case, you're the idiot trying to turn the whole world into a gay fest. The belief that gay people will go to hell is also applied to every single person in the world who doesn't believe in Islam, that's the catch to the religion in the first place, if you don't believe in Islam specifically, it's no problem, the religion says after you die you're not entering heaven, I don't see a problem with that. This shouldn't be affecting non-muslims because you aren't a Muslim in the first place. You don't believe in the religion, why are you suddenly worked up and sh*tting yourself? Homosexuality being a sin is not homophobic and Islam quoting man and women are natural sex partners is SCIENTIFIC FACT, you can't even argue with that. Islam is not homophobic in anyway because it does not refer to non-Muslim homosexuals in any shape or form. Fact.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

All you've just done is betray your limited understand of the biology of homosexuality I'm afraid. The idea that only heterosexual sex is biologically natural is empirically, demonstrably and entirely false. I'm also inclined to agree that prohibition of homosexuality is explicitly homophobic, the same way that prohibited sex between people of a particular ethnic heritage would be racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander

Homosexuality being a sin is not homophobic and Islam quoting man and women are natural sex partners is SCIENTIFIC FACT, you can't even argue with that.

 

...

 

What? Exactly how is that a scientific fact? Writing "SCIENTIFIC FACT" in uppercase all the time does not makes it a scientific fact, just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coin

Perhaps MyName'sJeff subscribes to the idea that the only purpose of sex is for reproduction. In that regard, I could see how he would arrive at men and women being natural partners with such decisiveness.

 

But despite that, it is still opinion and not scientific fact.

 

And an opinion I don't share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

I don't mean sex for pleasure. I meant for reproduction because Islam does not see sex as a pleasure thing as first choice but as an option. Reproduction in Islam represents man and women being natural partners, not homosexuals, so how can you argue this case when it's true? This is also vital when it comes to marriage in Islam. When it comes to pleasure, it's also only men and women due to that basis in the first place, I don't see the problem here. It would have been homophobic if the people were told to kill, abuse or completely oppose all non-muslim gays which in absolutely no way does not do. Just because it's a sin within the religion, doesn't mean it's homophobic, especially when majority or all of the Muslims are straight as it is and don't have any kind of thoughts in their minds that would make them gay or anything close to that, and also don't care about anyone else's sexuality either so the debate is over. Even if there are gay Muslims around the world, how many would that constitute? They would come out and admit it and I can guarantee you majority of the Muslims around the world won't care because it's not for them to judge nor to care, and Islam says that all sins will be forgiven eventually if they truly believe in the religion, and if they repent from the bottom of their heart, then it'll be forgiven straight away. I know someone is going to mention Saudi Arabia , but that's not even valid because the repressive regime are apparently planning to slaughter a 21 year old who is a son of an activist because he was opposing the government. They've even killed children and adults with mental disabilities for f*cks sake.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

You have a misunderstanding of Islam to be speaking in absolutes about the religion not condemning non-Muslim homosexuals. Salafi ideology derived from Hanbali school would not agree with the idea that non Muslims are spared from the Quran/Hadith condemnations on homosexuality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

I don't mean sex for pleasure. I meant for reproduction because Islam does not see sex as a pleasure thing as first choice but as an option.

How old was Muhammeds wife, Aisha, again? At 6 she was betrothed and married at 9 according to the Quran, not old enough to reproduce so where does that leave that argument?

 

Also means Mohammed was... Well, I'll let people make their own judgement.

Edited by CoreyDog2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

https://www.islamswomen.com/marriage/ayshah_and_muhammad.php

 

First of all, the Prophet didn't even want to marry Ayesha in the first place. Secondly, his first wife Khadija, was 15 years older than him when they were married. He was 25 and she was 40. She died later on and he had to marry another woman named Sawdah. The reason for his marriage was that he needed someone to care for his children (from Khadijah) so that he could concentrate on the heavy responsibilities of Prophethood. Thirdly, he rejected another marriage proposal to Ayesha proposed by Abu Bakr. I'm gonna post a quote below to prove than forced marriage is completely wrong because that's what it would be to marry a girl under 9 who wasn't even going through puberty.

 

"O you who believe, it is for not legal for you to inherit women against their will. And don't make it difficult for them so you can take from what you have given them (marriage dowry) unless they commit open immorality. And live with them in goodness (Al-Marufi). Because if you dislike them, it could be you dislike something and Allah makes in it a lot of "khair" (good)." [Noble Quran 4:19]

 

Anyway, Ayesha went through puberty at 9 years old at that time. Because she went through puberty at 9, Islam said that as soon as a girl hits puberty, she's acceptable for marriage and can bear children. Not only that, but Ayesha was incredibly happy when she got married and and when she was engaged at 6, because not only was the Prophet marrying her out of respect, but him and Abu Bakr were very good friends and he even wanted to get his daughter married to him. And finally, he never had a kid with Aisha anyway, nor sex, so if you're trying to imply he's a paedo, you couldn't lack anymore knowledge. Lastly, Qur'an or hadith doesnt imply you to marry a 9 year old girl.

 

Note that 1400 years later, we are nowhere near the same world as 1400 years ago, and no where would you see a man getting married to a 9 year old because nowadays, the culture and attitude has changed, there is no respect,, sex is being used like a toy, and thirdly, NHS says puberty ranges from 8-14 in most girls. http://http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Puberty/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Smaher.

 

Note that 1400 years later, we are nowhere near the same world as 1400 years ago, and no where would you see a ma getting married to a 9 year old because nowadays, there is no respect

Parts of the Middle East haven't even developed much regardless of how many years have transpired seeing as so many of them still abide by the Sharia Law. And even then, that law allows the marriage of adolescence.

 

And whether it'd be disrespect or not still doesn't change the fact we've still got identical scenarios.

 

 

Note. Yes, I know the rules vary depending on the location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

https://www.islamswomen.com/marriage/ayshah_and_muhammad.php

 

First of all, the Prophet didn't even want to marry Ayesha in the first place. He was 25 and she was 40. She died later on and he had to marry another woman named Sawdah. The reason for his marriage was that he needed someone to care for his children (from Khadijah) so that he could concentrate on the heavy responsibilities of Prophethood. Thirdly, he rejected another marriage proposal to Ayesha proposed by Abu Bakr. I'm gonna post a quote below to prove than forced marriage is completely wrong because that's what it would be to marry a girl under 9 who wasn't even going through puberty.

 

"O you who believe, it is for not legal for you to inherit women against their will. And don't make it difficult for them so you can take from what you have given them (marriage dowry) unless they commit open immorality. And live with them in goodness (Al-Marufi). Because if you dislike them, it could be you dislike something and Allah makes in it a lot of "khair" (good)." [Noble Quran 4:19]

 

Anyway, Ayesha went through puberty at 9 years old at that time. Because she went through puberty at 9, Islam said that as soon as a girl hits puberty, she's acceptable for marriage and can bear children. Not only that, but Ayesha was incredibly happy when she got married and and when she was engaged at 6, because not only was the Prophet marrying her out of respect, but him and Abu Bakr were very good friends and he even wanted to get his daughter married to him. And finally, he never had a kid with Aisha anyway, nor sex, so if you're trying to imply he's a paedo, you couldn't lack anymore knowledge. Lastly, Qur'an or hadith doesnt imply you to marry a 9 year old girl.

 

Note that 1400 years later, we are nowhere near the same world as 1400 years ago, and no where would you see a man getting married to a 9 year old because nowadays, the culture and attitude has changed, there is no respect,, sex is being used like a toy, and thirdly, NHS says puberty ranges from 8-14 in most girls. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Puberty/Pages/Introduction.aspx

I'm not implying it, I'm saying he was.

 

So you justify peadophila by saying that because she had hit puberty at 9, let's repeat that, 9! It's acceptable to marry? That's a rather twisted and dangerous view to have.

 

Basically, Islam is teaching that two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in sexual activity is wrong, but engaging in sex with a child is acceptable? No wonder I despise all Abrahamic religions.

 

PS - Doesn't Islam teach that Mohammed was the greatest person to ever live and to use him as a role model?.... The same 'man' who engaged to marry a 6 year old and married at 9?

Edited by CoreyDog2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

What? where does Islam say that engaging sex with a child is acceptable? I just posted NHS's website saying that girls from 8 years old start going through puberty, however there's no way that means you should be having sex with a 8 or 9 year old, f*ck me. That's one of the lowest things that you can do, and something that the prophet DID NOT do. He never ever had sex with her, never had the intention or even thoughts and evidently never had a kid with her which proves my point.

 

I also said that the prophet didn't WANT to marry Ayesha in the first place, he only married her out of respect due to people close to him pressuring him to marry as his first wife died, and that Abu Bakr wanted her daughter to be with the most respected person in Islam's history and learn things from him. Plus she even said that she was incredibly happy with him especially when there was absolutely nothing physical between them. He literally didn't marry her for any other reason than Abu Bakr requesting him kindly, and even then the first reason didn't have much effect on him because it didn't matter if other people wanted, he knew what was right and wrong. So even though he married her, it wasn't really a marriage, more like a responsibility to look after her until his death especially because it was his very very close friends daughter. She was kind of a student as well, because she was spreading the message of Islam and enlightening people 44 years after his death. The common misconception with this story is that people like you think he married her for the sake of marriage and his needs, when it's the farthest from the truth.

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

None of what you just posted is homophobic. Prohibition of homosexuality in religion isn't homophobic in anyway, in any case, you're the idiot trying to turn the whole world into a gay fest. The belief that gay people will go to hell is also applied to every single person in the world who doesn't believe in Islam, that's the catch to the religion in the first place, if you don't believe in Islam specifically, it's no problem, the religion says after you die you're not entering heaven, I don't see a problem with that.

 

Prohibition of samesex relationships within religious communities is homophobic because it is an expression of negative attitudes towards samesex relationships. That is homophobia by definition. The fact that the belief is based on religious faith does not make it less homophobic.

 

 

 

 

I have said that there is no statistics to support the claim that the majority of all muslims in Sweden are homophobic.

 

Secondly, the fact that there is no statistical grounds for a statement does not automatically mean that the statement is a load of garbage.

But the statistical figures suggest that the majority of Muslims demonstrably aren't homophobic, so in this instance the claim they are is a little bit nonsensical.

 

 

This is true.

 

I would not say my claim is nonsensical. If there was more studies venturing into this subject I am very certain that the muslim majority would demostrate high levels of homophobia. If you're looking at religious institutions in Sweden I expect the level to be much higher.

 

Take note though, that with homophobia I mean all kinds of negative attitudes or feeling towards gay people.

 

Homophobia is for example:

 

* The belief that sexual intercourse of people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that relationships with people of the same sex is a sin or something otherwise negative

* The belief that gay people will go to hell

* Exclusion of gay people from religious communities (this is a form of institutionalized homophobia).

* Prohibition of samesex relationships or acts within religious communitiesNo

 

 

Sorry to say, that I believe a great deal of muslims fall into the category of ''homophobic.'' While I do not know any studies or surveys that venture into this subject in Sweden there is other studies from other countries that demostrate that homophobia is common among muslims. There is no doubt that muslims have far more traditional values regarding sexuality, men and women.

 

(http://www.dw.com/en/homophobia-among-muslim-students-in-germany/a-15822192)

 

I do wonder why you think the case would be the opposite - except for the fact that there is no studies to directly prove it (yet).

 

Islam quoting man and women are natural sex partners is SCIENTIFIC FACT, you can't even argue with that. Islam is not homophobic in anyway because it does not refer to non-Muslim homosexuals in any shape or form. Fact.

 

 

First off, samesex relationships are natural. You are wrong plain and simple.

 

Secondly, science can't tell anything how relationships ought to be. This is what happens when you try:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/13/nigerian-student-science-prove-gay-marriage-wrong_n_3920879.html

 

Third, the fact that Islam does not refer to non-muslim homosexuals is completely irrelevant. With the same argument you could say that Ku Klux Klan is not racist because it does not refer black people. If you're acting homophobic or racist it does not matter what group you belong to - you are still responsible for your own behaviour.

 

The problem with it is that such a faith is that it cause both physical and mental harm to lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people, along with their friends and families. It is indeed a dangerous idea in itself exactly as with racism. It may even end do result in death of people. Those who preach such hatefull ideas are responsible for the harm it cause and there is no way to get around it. Simple as that.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

What? where does Islam say that engaging sex with a child is acceptable? I just posted NHS's website saying that girls from 8 years old start going through puberty, however there's no way that means you should be having sex with a 8 or 9 year old, f*ck me. That's one of the lowest things that you can do, and something that the prophet DID NOT do.

 

I also said that the prophet didn't WANT to marry Ayesha in the first place, he only married her out of respect due to people pressuring him to marry as his first wife died, and that Abu Bakr wanted her daughter to be with the most respected person in Islam's history and learn things from him. He literally didn't marry her for any other reason than those two, and even then the first reason didn't have much effect on him.

The supposed 'Prophet' married a child. I cannot believe any person would even attempt to justify that, very worrying to rational people.

 

Please show me where it says they did not have sex? Never heard that defence before.

 

So this supposed 'prophet' succumbed to peer pressure to marry a child? Not the kind of person I'd call a good or strong man. Sounds very weak and like a peadophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyName'sJeff

 

What? where does Islam say that engaging sex with a child is acceptable? I just posted NHS's website saying that girls from 8 years old start going through puberty, however there's no way that means you should be having sex with a 8 or 9 year old, f*ck me. That's one of the lowest things that you can do, and something that the prophet DID NOT do.

 

I also said that the prophet didn't WANT to marry Ayesha in the first place, he only married her out of respect due to people pressuring him to marry as his first wife died, and that Abu Bakr wanted her daughter to be with the most respected person in Islam's history and learn things from him. He literally didn't marry her for any other reason than those two, and even then the first reason didn't have much effect on him.

The supposed 'Prophet' married a child. I cannot believe any person would even attempt to justify that, very worrying to rational people.

 

Please show me where it says they did not have sex? Never heard that defence before.

 

So this supposed 'prophet' succumbed to peer pressure to marry a child? Not the kind of person I'd call a good or strong man. Sounds very weak and like a peadophile.

 

He married a 9 year old child going through puberty at a time 1400 years ago where laws were different you tool. Both secularly and religiously. You can search this up. Secondly, he had no choice but to marry her, you cant even call it a marriage if the relationship wasn't even marital. Secondly, he wasn't under pressure, you didn't read my whole paragraph. Thirdly, how can I show you that he didn't have sex when there is NO QUOTES in the Qur'an OR hadith that tells you otherwise? Therefore he didn't you tool, otherwise it would have been in the Qur'an or hadith. He had kids from his first marriage, was with his first wife till she died, had another wife because that time, he just became a prophet and needed someone to help him look after his kids, so why would he marry a 9 year old who he didn't want to marry and use her for sex as you suggest?

Edited by MyName'sJeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

https://www.islamswomen.com/marriage/ayshah_and_muhammad.php

 

First of all, the Prophet didn't even want to marry Ayesha in the first place. Secondly, his first wife Khadija, was 15 years older than him when they were married. He was 25 and she was 40. She died later on and he had to marry another woman named Sawdah. The reason for his marriage was that he needed someone to care for his children (from Khadijah) so that he could concentrate on the heavy responsibilities of Prophethood. Thirdly, he rejected another marriage proposal to Ayesha proposed by Abu Bakr. I'm gonna post a quote below to prove than forced marriage is completely wrong because that's what it would be to marry a girl under 9 who wasn't even going through puberty.

 

"O you who believe, it is for not legal for you to inherit women against their will. And don't make it difficult for them so you can take from what you have given them (marriage dowry) unless they commit open immorality. And live with them in goodness (Al-Marufi). Because if you dislike them, it could be you dislike something and Allah makes in it a lot of "khair" (good)." [Noble Quran 4:19]

 

Anyway, Ayesha went through puberty at 9 years old at that time. Because she went through puberty at 9, Islam said that as soon as a girl hits puberty, she's acceptable for marriage and can bear children. Not only that, but Ayesha was incredibly happy when she got married and and when she was engaged at 6, because not only was the Prophet marrying her out of respect, but him and Abu Bakr were very good friends and he even wanted to get his daughter married to him. And finally, he never had a kid with Aisha anyway, nor sex, so if you're trying to imply he's a paedo, you couldn't lack anymore knowledge. Lastly, Qur'an or hadith doesnt imply you to marry a 9 year old girl.

 

Note that 1400 years later, we are nowhere near the same world as 1400 years ago, and no where would you see a man getting married to a 9 year old because nowadays, the culture and attitude has changed, there is no respect,, sex is being used like a toy, and thirdly, NHS says puberty ranges from 8-14 in most girls. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Puberty/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

i) Whenever Muhammed wanted to marry Ayesha or not is completely irrelevant. Pedophilia does not become morally acceptable just because an invidual havent committed it earlier.

 

ii) Whenever his first wife Khadija was 15 years older is completely irrelevant. Pedophilia does not become morally acceptable just because the person have been together with someone older before.

 

iii) Whenever Muhammed rejected an earlier marriage proposal is completely irrelevant. Pedophilia does not become morally acceptable just because you avoided it earlier.

 

The fact still remains: Muhammed married a child. That is problematic regardless if the child have hit puberty or not. Children are not capable to take such decisions and they are dependent on adults. This is why pedophilia OR love relationships with children are not allowed.

 

Last, you claim that 'there is no respect now days'. For 1400 years ago the world was filled with diseases, life expectancy was lower, war over food, territory, women.. the morality, compared to todays standard, was nothing more than bankrupt. Few off us here can even imagine how the world looked during that timeperiod. We are living in a much better world on almost all accounts today. For what reason people have sex, or with who, seems rather trivial if you put it into context.

 

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexander

Jeff: I don't think you can prove he had or did not had sex with the girl, you know.

 

@Nutsack: Really dude?

Edited by AlexanderS4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.