[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by Variable

in beastiality - the animal is not consenting.

Who made you Germaine Greer of the animal world? What happens between two consenting mammals is none of your business, don't be so judgemental.

[zzze]

asslamau alaykum

Are you the man who had to marry his goat after being caught molesting it...then probably killed it and ate it?

[sak01]

Originally Posted by zzze

asslamu alaykum

Yes to enormity No to comparing it to paedophilia. The difference is quite striking, I'd rather be a lesbian anyday.

Obviously the 2 are different but we're not talking about the act now so you can't use the consenting vs non-consenting argument.

I'm talking about dealing with someone afflicted with it. If you're saying stop hating on the celibate homos then also say stop hating on the celibate paedos. At the end of the day they're both unnatural attractions and sexual deviancies. One of them just disgusts us more than the other.

I'd rather be dead than either.

[Timbit]

Variable: is adultery wrong?

[shadha]

BluePhoenix: It would serve you right for being a bigot.

Was that directed towards me? A bigot against...who?

Oh wait, if you're going to randomly run your mouth about the illegal immigrant issue then just go **** yourself because that's just ignorant point blank.


shadha-

[Khairan]

One thing I would like to point out is that y'all who are saying the punishment for homosexuality is clearly and without question the death penalty are simply wrong. While it is certainly true that this opinion is well known and does exist among scholars, there are other opinions as well. None of them suggest that homosexuality is NOT illegal or immoral, but I take exception to an issue such as this (one which involves life and death for human beings) being presented as black and white when it is clearly not.

There are various different opinions that can all legitimately be held regarding homosexuality.

The first is as has been stated: that the act is punishable by death.
Another opinion is that it should be treated like adultery, requires 4 witnesses for a conviction, and that an unmarried person be given a lighter punishment than a married person (who would be sentenced to death).
Yet another opinion involves life imprisonment or some other form of permanent removal from society (such as exile).

Here's an article on the topic.

Some interesting excerpts relevant here:

As to the issue of how the homosexual person is judged in an Islamic State, the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him differed among themselves on this issue, and this led to different views maintained by Muslim Jurists.

It is true that some of the scholars disagreed with these punishments not because of doubt that these actions constitute a crime, but because of a lack of divine textual stipulation for a worldly punishment. But the actions of the Prophet’s Companions do indicate that in fact this crime has a worldly punishment, to be carried out by those in authority among the Muslims.

It goes on to discuss a story in which Hazrat Ali did in fact suggest that a man be executed for engaging in homosexuality.

The take-away point here is that while there is no doubt that the death penalty *can* legally be applied here, it is wrong to suggest that it must and without exception be applied, as too it is wrong to suggest that there has never been any legitimate debate regarding this within the realm of Islamic scholarship.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

Well you're right... I missed the bolded part... I don't know exactly what you're trying to say there. I do understand however that we'll forever disagree on this as long as we begin with our current set of assumptions. You begin with a set that draws morals from a specific religious belief that says homosexual acts are wrong. I begin with a set that says what's wrong is when one hurts another. Paedophilia, the child is not consenting, in beastiality - the animal is not consenting. Homosexual activities between two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's not hurting me or anyone else.

As for the definition of what is "normal human sexual nature" - well that's Islam's and many others, but it's not everybody's.

What about mutually consent between a man to eat another man? What about mutual consent for slavery? What about mutual consent for one man to torture a woman and then kill her?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Timbit

Variable: is adultery wrong?

Yes, because someone is getting hurt.

Obviously it's gonna be a little more complicated than simply stating that sex between consenting adults is fine and taking advantage of/hurting someone is not - because there are all of these little ifs and buts. But generally yeh, I don't think gay people are immoral for acting on their impulses. It has nothing to do with me, it's no one else's business... I don't see where it's my place or anyone else's place to judge.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

What about mutually consent between a man to eat another man? What about mutual consent for slavery? What about mutual consent for one man to torture a woman and then kill her?

We're not talking about killing people or enslaving them, we're talking about sex.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Variable

Homosexual activities between two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's not hurting me or anyone else.

The thing is homosexuality activity is not a "victimless" act. It does hurt the two people involved directly, and it also indirectly harms the general fabric of society.

Many gay men tend to be promiscuous, incidence of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are much higher in gay men than other groups.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

We're not talking about killing people or enslaving them, we're talking about sex.

Who gets hurt from engaging in a little necrophilia? The body's dead. It can't feel pain. Also, if animals can't feel pain, then why not also engage in bestiality? What about sex with a comatose person if they're in a vegetarian state?

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Variable

We're not talking about killing people or enslaving them, we're talking about sex.

You say that as if they are mutually exclusive.

"Bring out the gimp."

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

We're not talking about killing people or enslaving them, we're talking about sex.

No, the example is pertinent because it has to do with the limitations of 'rational' consent.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

The thing is homosexuality activity is not a "victimless" act. It does hurt the two people involved directly,

Within the value system of Islam I can see that as being a truth, which is why I said earlier that we'll just have to remain in disagreement as long as we hold our respective assumptions about the nature of our universe.

and it also indirectly harms the general fabric of society.

I disagree. Can you give any examples?

Many gay men tend to be promiscuous, incidence of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are much higher in gay men than other groups.

You know I haven't seen data on that, I heard in the 80's that was seen to be true but not so much anymore. Even if it were, the unsafe attitude of gay people wouldn't fundamentally make a homosexual act immoral.

[PhDGirl]

Originally Posted by Variable

You know I haven't seen data on that, I heard in the 80's that was seen to be true but not so much anymore.

Yeah you're right, that's a myth, but isn't actually true.