Iranian lesbian denied asylum by Britain.

[Darkness]

There are two parts here Abu Rashid:

1) I'm not deciding here based on my wishes, i have no personal interest here whatsoever. I'm deciding based on the Quran and my personal logic, since these reported stories are not 100% assured to be true. Especially, when there are stories that say the exact opposite.

2)The only thing that made me come to the conclusion that public homosexual acts should be punished, is because they have a lot of the same damage as public heterosexual acts. But the act itself in private is completely different, because heterosexual sex can result in children, which is damage to someone else (to the child), but homosexual acts can't result in babies. So assuming that heterosexual sex in private is punishable, doesn't mean that private homosexual acts in private is punishable, because it doesn't hurt anybody else.



But they are not all one guy, they are not all alike. If some of them do as you say, which i trust that some indeed do because i believe you on this, that doesn't mean all of them do. I can't punish all homosexuals the same way because some of them do such things.



Let's differentiate between bad behavior and criminal acts, in other words not all bad things are punishable. So, if some of them go around advertising their acts, that's a bad behavior, not criminal. While i'm not sure of the appropriate reaction for someone who advises people to do bad things is, in my view the counter reaction is to advise people otherwise or to fight this phenomena in some way.

Whatever this reaction we do against homosexuals that advertise their behavior, if there is any, should include those who advertise it only, not homosexuals in general. In other words, none of this includes someone who is just being open about being a homosexual, because that is not advertising(by open i mean not hiding). Being open is a wrong thing in itself because he would be speaking about his sins, but that is not punishable, so it is up to him to do it or not, in other words he is free on this part.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. :yes:

 

[*Anne*]

You know, Abu, I accept that you don't like homosexuality. That's fine. I can't let this go though:

It occurs, whether you wish to accept it or not. Contrary to the commonly peddled line, people are not "born gay", it's simply an act they choose to commit.

If you lived in a society where they're allowed to freely practice their abomination, you'd know why I said this. They go around trying to recruit innocent young teenagers into their despicable way of life.

Tell that to my brother, who spent years wishing he wasn't gay. He had even considered killing himself, not because being gay itself is so bad, but because he feared society would never accept him.

He does nothing to "recruit" anyone. Neither do his gay friends and co-workers. I've lived with him for many years and have been friends with a gay couple for well over a decade. I'm still straight, as are many in our collective social circle. We haven't spiraled into some twisted, immoral life of debauchery and crime. We're all good, kind, decent people. The kind of people who would lend you a hand if you needed it. The kind of people who would give you the benefit of the doubt, even if someone said otherwise.

Who is telling you these things about gay people? What kind of experiences have led you to this very narrow view of the gay community? Disapprove of homosexuality if you must, but don't spread such terrible misinformation.

 

[Sahar]

2)The only thing that made me come to the conclusion that public homosexual acts should be punished, is because they have a lot of the same damage as public heterosexual acts. But the act itself in private is completely different, because heterosexual sex can result in children, which is damage to someone else (to the child), but homosexual acts can't result in babies. So assuming that heterosexual sex in private is punishable, doesn't mean that private homosexual acts in private is punishable, because it doesn't hurt anybody else.

Unfortunately, this is similar to the atheistic logic that as Muslims we shouldn't advocate. "If there is no direct physical harm, then nothing is wrong with it." Where are the spiritual and moral harms from this? So according to this logic, we shouldn't punish the adulterers unless the woman get pregnant? What if they had protected sex? What about incest? Do you apply the same logic? What if they had protected incest?

Whatever this reaction we do against homosexuals that advertise their behavior, if there is any, should include those who advertise it only, not homosexuals in general. In other words, none of this includes someone who is just being open about being a homosexual, because that is not advertising(by open i mean not hiding). Being open is a wrong thing in itself because he would be speaking about his sins, but that is not punishable, so it is up to him to do it or not, in other words he is free on this part.

Well if they talk about it openly, then it doesn't remain a private matter anymore. Just like a woman who talks about her sex adventures with her husband, this is forbidden because in Islam sexual relationship is supposed to be a private matter, talking about it gets it out of privacy. The immoral corruption in the Western societies started like this. By openly talking about indecency until it became a perfectly accepted behavior.

 

[Badran]

Unfortunately, this is the atheistic logic that as Muslim we shouldn't advocate. "If there is no direct physical harm, then nothing is wrong with it." Where are the spiritual and moral harms from this? So according to this logic, we shouldn't punish the adulterers unless the woman get pregnant? What if they had protected sex? What about incest? Do you apply the same logic? What if they had protected incest?

Of course i'm not using that argument like this in general, i'm using it here since in my belief there is no prescribed punishment in the first place. So, now i have to judge the sin logically in comparison with other sins, to explain why there isn't a punishment for it.

Adultery already have a punishment, so it is not up to me to measure it, it already has one. The part about making babies was the reason i think it is so wrong for, not the condition which must be met to punish adulterers. As for incest i don't know what is the Islamic verdict on it.

Well if they talk about it openly, then it doesn't become a private matter anymore. Just like a woman who talks about her sex adventures with her husband, this is forbidden because in Islam sexual relationship is supposed to be a private matter, talking about it gets it out of privacy. The immoral corruption in the Western societies started like this. By openly talking about indecency until it became a perfectly accepted behavior.

Yes, of course sex in general is a private matter. I'm not encouraging such behavior (talking about one's sexual life). I'm talking about in the case that someone does, there is no punishment, we don't have a right to stop him, therefore he is free on that part, it is up to him.

 

[Sahar]

Of course i'm not using that argument like this in general, i'm using it here since in my belief there is no prescribed punishment in the first place. So, now we have to judge the sin logically in comparison with other sins.

But isn't sodomy acts worse than heterosexual adultery from the Islamic view?

Adultery already have a punishment, so it is not up to me to measure it, it already has one. The part about making babies was the reason i think it is so wrong for, not the condition which must be met to punish adulterers. As for incest i don't know what is the Islamic verdict on it.

So if there are no babies involved, you think it's not wrong and not harmful in that case? Again, what if it was protected intercourse?

As for incest i don't know what is the Islamic verdict on it.

I didn't ask you about the Islamic verdict. You are now justifying why a certain act is wrong because it's harmful. I asked you, why would incest be wrong based on the harm justification, if one of the partners was infertile or they took protective measures?

 

[DeitySlayer]

But isn't sodomy acts worse than heterosexual adultery from the Islamic view?

I have not read through the entirety of the Qur'an or hadiths, so this may have come at a later point, but where is the exact phrase/phrases that condemns homosexuality and prescribes a specific punishment?

 

[Sahar]

btw Badran, I am re-quoting you because clearly you were talking about the punishment and the justification of the punishment in your thinking:

2)The only thing that made me come to the conclusion that public homosexual acts should be punished, is because they have a lot of the same damage as public heterosexual acts. But the act itself in private is completely different, because heterosexual sex can result in children, which is damage to someone else (to the child), but homosexual acts can't result in babies. So assuming that heterosexual sex in private is punishable, doesn't mean that private homosexual acts in private is punishable, because it doesn't hurt anybody else.

 

[Sahar]

I have not read through the entirety of the Qur'an or hadiths, so this may have come at a later point, but where is the exact phrase/phrases that condemns homosexuality and prescribes a specific punishment?

80. And (remember) Lout (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns)?
81. "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)."
82. And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!"
83. Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment). (Surah Al-Araf)

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Allah curses the one who does the actions of the people of Lut” repeating it three times.

He said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers”.
Another Hadith: "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses”.

As I said more than one time here, the specified penalty is controversial between the scholars.

Scholars of Islamic schools of jurisprudence have different views on the punishment to be inflicted for committing this sin: Some say that the punishment is the killing of the perpetrator, others say that it is the same as in the case of zina, and a third party are of the opinion that the judge may afflict a lower discretionary punishment, such as imprisonment.

Read more: IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
​

 

[Badran]

But isn't sodomy acts worse than heterosexual adultery from the Islamic view?

On what basis should i judge that? And what difference does it make?

So if there are no babies involved, you think it's not wrong and not harmful in that case? Again, what if it was protected intercourse?

As i understand, even in protected sex, it's not 100% safety. Also, i'm only guessing as to why is it wrong, but regardless there isn't in my belief a prescribed punishment, and it is not a new thing, and therefore all this assumptions we are making won't affect the outcome, it could only mean that my guesses were wrong. So, if adultery is wrong for a different reason, that still doesn't mean that there is a punishment for homosexuality.

One more thing, lets differentiate between wrong and punishable. All the stuff we are talking about here are in our belief wrong, so i'm not arguing wether it's right or wrong.

I didn't ask you about the Islamic verdict. You are now justifying why a certain act is wrong because it's harmful. I asked you, why would incest be wrong based on the harm justification, if one of the partners was infertile or they took protective measures?

Like i said i must know the Islamic verdict first, so to put in mind when i'm thinking about such matters, because as i already said i'm not relying on logic alone.

 

[Sahar]

Quoting you for the third time:

2)The only thing that made me come to the conclusion that public homosexual acts should be punished, is because they have a lot of the same damage as public heterosexual acts. But the act itself in private is completely different, because heterosexual sex can result in children, which is damage to someone else (to the child), but homosexual acts can't result in babies. So assuming that heterosexual sex in private is punishable, doesn't mean that private homosexual acts in private is punishable, because it doesn't hurt anybody else.

1. you are the one who justified why a certain act is not punishable based your own logic that there are no children involved.
2. But at the same time you refuse to apply your own same logic on similar issues.
3. You are the one who said why you think adultery is wrong based on the offspring justification.

Adultery already have a punishment, so it is not up to me to measure it, it already has one. The part about making babies was the reason i think it is so wrong for, not the condition which must be met to punish adulterers. As for incest i don't know what is the Islamic verdict on it.

You used the "babies" part to explain why it's wrong and why it's damaging and thus the punishment is more reasonable in that case. The three things together; wrong, damaging and punishable using the same justification. These are your own words.

 

[Badran]

Quoting you for the third time:
1. you are the one who justified why a certain act is not punishable based your own logic that there are no children involved.
2. But at the same time you refuse to apply your own same logic on similar issues.
3. You are the one who said why you think adultery is wrong based on the offspring justification.

You used the "babies" part to explain why it's wrong and why it's damaging and thus the punishment is more reasonable in that case. The three things together; wrong, damaging and punishable using the same justification. These are your own words.

My last reply answers this.

 

[Sahar]

As i understand, even in protected sex, it's not 100% safety.

Who don't you answer the questions directly? Phrasing it in other words; if a woman whose uterus is removed committed adultery with a man who had a castration operation, do you think adultery is wrong or harmful in this case? Yes or No?

Like i said i must know the Islamic verdict first, so to put in mind when i'm thinking about such matters, because as i already said i'm not relying on logic alone.

You compared two acts on your mere logic. I guess the children logic is not mentioned in a hadith or in a Quranic Ayah for why adultery is wrong, harmful and more reasonable to be punishable. Why do you refuse to do the same thing here? Why the double standards?

 

[Sahar]

My last reply answers this.

No, you are only contradicting yourself and changing your own arguments.

 

[Badran]

Who don't you answer the questions directly? Phrasing it in other words; if a woman whose uterus is removed committed adultery with a man who had a castration operation, do you think adultery is wrong or harmful in this case? Yes or No?

You compared two acts on your mere logic. I guess the children logic in not mentioned in a hadith or in a Quranic Ayah for why adultery is wrong, harmful and more reasonable to be punishable. Why do you refuse to do the same thing here? Why the double standards?

I see what you are saying, let me clarify the whole picture.

There isn't a prescribed punishment in my belief for homosexual acts. From here, i based my guess about the part of adultery being wrong for the babies thing, which was also based on the assumption that adultery is punishable even if it wasn't in public (4 people) which is something i don't believe in, i only started this guessing so Abu Rashid don't think that i'm discarding the stories he referred to, just because they don't meet my wishes. Which i said i don't believe in. So the second part was all just to address the possibility. So, since the baby thing doesn't apply, then sure yes it was a false argument. But it was based on assuming that adultery is punishable even if nobody sees you, which i don't agree with. So, again it doesn't have anything to do with the real argument at hand, of wether or not homosexuality is punishable.

 

[Kerr]

I am curious about how the whole homosexuality this applies to people who are not exclusively men or woman.

 

[Sahar]

I am curious about how the whole homosexuality this applies to people who are not exclusively men or woman.

What does this mean?

 

[Kerr]

What does this mean?

There are people who are not either man or woman.
Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hermaphrodite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Darkness]

No, you are only contradicting yourself and changing your own arguments.

You are the one who is telling Badran that he believes things that he does not believe.

 

[Aquitaine]

I still don't understand the irrationality of the view of homosexuality being some sort of bad disease that's corrupting everything. Yet it is believed even when no evidence to support it is presented.

You can always tell if someone is a fundamental theist, if they project a bizarre irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality.

It's like: Homosexuality is wrong, because it just is!!! (and God said so)

 

[Caladan]

I still don't understand the irrationality of the view of homosexuality being some sort of bad disease that's corrupting everything. Yet it is believed even when no evidence to support it is presented.

You can always tell if someone is a fundamental theist, if they project a bizarre irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality.

It's like: Homosexuality is wrong, because it just is!!! (and God said so)

I view this phenomenon as a closed social system where sexuality has never matured or has been expressed beyond the very traditional channels, of course this does not mean that the people do not explore their sexual needs out of this traditional frame, whether in the 'underground' or through other means. its not surprising that the mere thought that people explore their sexuality beyond the traditional channels receives calls for punishment.
this whole phenomenon breeds people who remain childish in their vision and experience of sexuality both in society and individually. and it's also manifested in the childish rants about how other societies out of this closed system are corrupted for not living to the very simple equation of boy+girl+match marriage+children.
its also not surprising that this line of thought breeds disturbing phenomena such as child brides, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and over population.