Marriage Referendum

Safehands

I was wondering what position the Islamic community in Ireland are taking on the forthcoming referendum. I know that the Catholic church are not in favour, so would I be right in assuming that Islamic leaders here are similarly inclined?

Spirogyra

Think I heard Ali Selim oppose it but supporting Civil Partnership.....

confusedquark

Safehands wrote: »

I was wondering what position the Islamic community in Ireland are taking on the forthcoming referendum. I know that the Catholic church are not in favour, so would I be right in assuming that Islamic leaders here are similarly inclined?

I can't speak on behalf of all Islamic leaders here, but I'd be pretty sure that they are all against it. There's little or no disagreement regarding this issue within Islam.

Safehands

confusedquark wrote: »

I can't speak on behalf of all Islamic leaders here, but I'd be pretty sure that they are all against it. There's little or no disagreement regarding this issue within Islam.

I thought I heard that some islamic leaders were not against it, just like some leaders of other churches, but I am not sure.

Spirogyra

confusedquark wrote: »

I can't speak on behalf of all Islamic leaders here, but I'd be pretty sure that they are all against it. There's little or no disagreement regarding this issue within Islam.

Well I think there should be disagreement regarding this issue in Islam, why is Islam not open to new scientific evidence around this issue? A lot more is known now that in 600 AD ? or is there any role for reason within Islam? . I don't mean this as an attack on Islam. But knowledge advances , the world changes, and should a Muslim not take this new knowledge into consideration when forming his or her views?.

Michael OBrien

Spirogyra wrote: »

Well I think there should be disagreement regarding this issue in Islam, why is Islam not open to new scientific evidence around this issue? A lot more is known now that in 600 AD ? or is there any role for reason within Islam? . I don't mean this as an attack on Islam. But knowledge advances , the world changes, and should a Muslim not take this new knowledge into consideration when forming his or her views?.

In much the same way christians can support the Yes vote, there is nothing to stop Muslims also supporting a Yes vote. Islam has beliefs that involved accepting new knowledge (depending on interpretation) and modifying past views as misunderstood. Of course conservative or fundamentalist holders will stick to older interpretations, but with a bit of thinking and compassion I would say many young muslims will support their fellow gays.
This is after all a civil referendum, so the religious part is not necessarily a stumbling block. Now if it was a matter of religious mandate then it might be harder to push through. But marriage is first and foremost a secular institute, with an optional religious ceremony in Ireland.
One line of reasoning might be that all muslims are equal in the eyes of their god, which helped to unite the original tribes, regardless of past differences. This could be viewed as another step in true equality for all people, including all gay muslims in Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

Michael OBrien wrote: »

In much the same way christians can support the Yes vote, there is nothing to stop Muslims also supporting a Yes vote. Islam has beliefs that involved accepting new knowledge (depending on interpretation) and modifying past views as misunderstood. Of course conservative or fundamentalist holders will stick to older interpretations, but with a bit of thinking and compassion I would say many young muslims will support their fellow gays.
This is after all a civil referendum, so the religious part is not necessarily a stumbling block. Now if it was a matter of religious mandate then it might be harder to push through. But marriage is first and foremost a secular institute, with an optional religious ceremony in Ireland.
One line of reasoning might be that all muslims are equal in the eyes of their god, which helped to unite the original tribes, regardless of past differences. This could be viewed as another step in true equality for all people, including all gay muslims in Ireland.

God is pretty clear in the Koran where he describes the destruction of the people of Sodom for homosexual practices: (7:80-84)

"And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?"

You lust after men rather than women. You are an excessive people.

And his people's only answer was to say, "Expel them from your town; they are purist people."

But We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who lagged behind.

And We rained down on them a rain; note the consequences for the sinners."

There are hadith also where Muhammad orders death to those who practice homosexuality.

Michael OBrien

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

God is pretty clear in the Koran where he describes the destruction of the people of Sodom for homosexual practices: (7:80-84)

"And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?"

You lust after men rather than women. You are an excessive people.

And his people's only answer was to say, "Expel them from your town; they are purist people."

But We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who lagged behind.

And We rained down on them a rain; note the consequences for the sinners."

There are hadith also where Muhammad orders death to those who practice homosexuality.

Ok, 1. The story is simply a cultural myth, don't let it rob about 10% of the human race from having CIVIL marriage rights. There is probably about 160 million muslims that are gay or lesbians in this world, based on that percentage. This referendum may be only in Ireland, but the views on Same Sex marriage is becoming a worldwide phenomena. Don't let your religion end up on the wrong side of history.
2. Hadiths are not the quran, muslims can dismiss parts or their entirety if they are viewed as weak. There are muslims that have dismissed ALL hadiths as man made, a product of their time, unreliable and irrelevant.

If you choose to find reasons to kill people, or discriminate against them, you can. However I do hear that most Irish muslims are peaceful, tolerant and loving people, so most will find ways to not focus on the negative and instead focus on the positive. You can find negative parts in ANY religious texts if you try hard enough after all. Why go looking for them.
This referendum is not about whether you can kill homosexuals, its about civil law that gives same sex couples equal rights and protections.
Most muslims will probably know gays, have kids that are gay, have friends that are gay. Are you going to repeat your post to them?

Iwasfrozen

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Ok, 1. The story is simply a cultural myth, don't let it rob about 10% of the human race from having CIVIL marriage rights. There is probably about 160 million muslims that are gay or lesbians in this world, based on that percentage. This referendum may be only in Ireland, but the views on Same Sex marriage is becoming a worldwide phenomena. Don't let your religion end up on the wrong side of history.
2. Hadiths are not the quran, muslims can dismiss parts or their entirety if they are viewed as weak. There are muslims that have dismissed ALL hadiths as man made, a product of their time, unreliable and irrelevant.

If you choose to find reasons to kill people, or discriminate against them, you can. However I do hear that most Irish muslims are peaceful, tolerant and loving people, so most will find ways to not focus on the negative and instead focus on the positive. You can find negative parts in ANY religious texts if you try hard enough after all. Why go looking for them.
This referendum is not about whether you can kill homosexuals, its about civil law that gives same sex couples equal rights and protections.
Most muslims will probably know gays, have kids that are gay, have friends that are gay. Are you going to repeat your post to them?

I'm in favor of gay marriage but I want to point out that Islam is crystal clear on the issue.

Some Muslims may support gay marriage, probably most in western countries (well the young ones anyway) but if they do they're not being true to their faith.

Spirogyra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm in favor of gay marriage but I want to point out that Islam is crystal clear on the issue.

Some Muslims may support gay marriage, probably most in western countries (well the young ones anyway) but if they do they're not being true to their faith.

An alternative, practicising Muslim perspective can be found here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homosexuality-Islam-Critical-Reflection-Transgender/dp/1851687017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432102313&sr=8-1&keywords=homosexuality+in+islam

and http://www.imaan.org.uk/about/about.htm

Michael OBrien

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm in favor of gay marriage but I want to point out that Islam is crystal clear on the issue.

Some Muslims may support gay marriage, probably most in western countries (well the young ones anyway) but if they do they're not being true to their faith.

Islam is what people make it. Islam has been very diverse over the centuries. It is a myth that there is one true islam, just as it is for any religion. Religion reflects cultural values, and it evolves to cope with changes in those values.
Also, for muslims, it is very dangerous to call other muslims not true muslims, as only their god can see the worth of a human being. There is a bounce back clause that many forget about, but it is there in the scriptures too.

You can find Hindus and Christians that play the No True Scotsman with others too. Their view is deemed the ONLY view, until it is shown to be spurious.
Heck even some fellow atheists try that with some (genuine) ex-atheists when they cannot understand why someone converted, and atheism is not even an ideology, let alone a religion. It is part of human nature to think you are right about your current mindset, but if openminded, it allows for one to learn new data and your mindset (might) evolve a bit.
Now I am a critic of all religions and of course I would not say that Islamic texts are all friendly to homosexuality. However I put human nature over religious dogma in an educated country like ours.
Most texts taken as a whole can leave room for a compassionate interpretation. Islam is no different. To think you know the 'truth' means you think you know, for absolute certainty, the mind of that religion's proposed god. Islam openly refutes that very claim by stating that their god is alike to no-one.

Iwasfrozen

Spirogyra wrote: »

An alternative, practicising Muslim perspective can be found here
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homosexuality-Islam-Critical-Reflection-Transgender/dp/1851687017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432102313&sr=8-1&keywords=homosexuality+in+islam

and http://www.imaan.org.uk/about/about.htm

I don't agree with their statement that the story of Lot can just as easily be about Sin in general, this line is pretty unambiguous

"And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?"

You lust after men rather than women. You are an excessive people."

Having said that, this is a translation, some of the Muslims here will be able to affirm whether this translation is accurate or not.

I'd also like to hear their opinions on the authenticity of the hadith in which Muhammad calls for homosexuals to be put to death.

Iwasfrozen

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Islam is what people make it. Islam has been very diverse over the centuries. It is a myth that there is one true islam, just as it is for any religion. Religion reflects cultural values, and it evolves to cope with changes in those values.
Also, for muslims, it is very dangerous to call other muslims not true muslims, as only their god can see the worth of a human being. There is a bounce back clause that many forget about, but it is there in the scriptures too.

You can find Hindus and Christians that play the No True Scotsman with others too. Their view is deemed the ONLY view, until it is shown to be spurious.
Heck even some fellow atheists try that with some (genuine) ex-atheists when they cannot understand why someone converted, and atheism is not even an ideology, let alone a religion. It is part of human nature to think you are right about your current mindset, but if openminded, it allows for one to learn new data and your mindset (might) evolve a bit.
Now I am a critic of all religions and of course I would not say that Islamic texts are all friendly to homosexuality. However I put human nature over religious dogma in an educated country like ours.
Most texts taken as a whole can leave room for a compassionate interpretation. Islam is no different. To think you know the 'truth' means you think you know, for absolute certainty, the mind of that religion's proposed god. Islam openly refutes that very claim by stating that their god is alike to no-one.

The thing is when a person starts to cherry pick the rules of a religion then they are by definition not being true to their religion.

I started reading the Koran after I read Malcolm X's autobiography not because I want to convert but because I wanted to get a feel for the religion.

I haven't found any direct rulings on homosexuality in the Koran and a google search confirms what I posted is the closest thing. But that quote from the story of Lot is fairly unambiguous to me.

I'd like to hear opinions from the Muslims here on the validity of the hadith in which Muhammad calls for death to practising homosexuals.

Michael OBrien

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't agree with their statement that the story of Lot can just as easily be about Sin in general, this line is pretty unambiguous

"And Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit lewdness no people anywhere have ever committed before you?"

You lust after men rather than women. You are an excessive people."

Having said that, this is a translation, some of the Muslims here will be able to affirm whether this translation is accurate or not.

I'd also like to hear their opinions on the authenticity of the hadith in which Muhammad calls for homosexuals to be put to death.

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk." (Quran: 7:80-81)
Since the quran is all that really matters, lets look at this passage from an Islamic source.
Well muslims are faced with a problem here, because if it is termed to refer to homosexuality then the quran is false, as homosexual acts are common in nature among many animals. So the "no creature ever did before you" would be wrong if referring to homosexuality. Therefore it must mean something else. Something to ponder on.

Michael OBrien

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The thing is when a person starts to cherry pick the rules of a religion then they are by definition not being true to their religion.

Every religious person cherry picks the rules of a religion. Many rules are ambiguous, some are contradictory, others are incredibly illegal in many countries, others yet are nonsensical in modern times. Language and custom change over time and in different places. You cannot take ancient writings and read them as if you are the ultimate authority on how they should work.
There are many levels in religion, overarching beliefs and smaller rules. All these need to be teased out, and muslims are no different than any other religious group in working on that.
Muslims have wildly different views on their religion, some views are extremely recent interpretations to cope with challenges in science, others are moral challenges. You cannot just ignore reality in favour of certain PAST interpretations by people living centuries ago, in totally different cultures and with radically different values.

Iwasfrozen

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk." (Quran: 7:80-81)
Since the quran is all that really matters, lets look at this passage from an Islamic source.
Well muslims are faced with a problem here, because if it is termed to refer to homosexuality then the quran is false, as homosexual acts are common in nature among many animals. So the "no creature ever did before you" would be wrong if referring to homosexuality. Therefore it must mean something else. Something to ponder on.

Who says the Koran is the only source that matters? I imagine most Muslims would disagree with that statement. Some hadith are very reliable.

Your question is interesting and I had to do some google fu to answer it but from what I can make out the word "الْعَالَمِينَ" donates mankind which is used in that statement. While " الأنعام " or "دَابَّةٍ "denotes animals at large.

I'l link you to the thread I found where I'm getting this information at the very bottom of the page: http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-and-support/134307870-respond-quran-7-80-question-origins-homosexuality.html

If there are any Muslims here who speak Arabic who could affirm this it would be great.

Spirogyra

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Every religious person cherry picks the rules of a religion. Many rules are ambiguous, some are contradictory, others are incredibly illegal in many countries, others yet are nonsensical in modern times. Language and custom change over time and in different places. You cannot take ancient writings and read them as if you are the ultimate authority on how they should work.
There are many levels in religion, overarching beliefs and smaller rules. All these need to be teased out, and muslims are no different than any other religious group in working on that.
Muslims have wildly different views on their religion, some views are extremely recent interpretations to cope with challenges in science, others are moral challenges. You cannot just ignore reality in favour of certain PAST interpretations by people living centuries ago, in totally different cultures and with radically different values.

The last paragraph is it in a nutshell. Texts written 1400 years ago are used as a manual to live in today's world. Recent 'scientific' (I am referring primarily to social science) discoveries are deemed irrelevant, reason is being ignored and hence we have what many refer to as a clash.

Michael OBrien

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who says the Koran is the only source that matters? I imagine most Muslims would disagree with that statement. Some hadith are very reliable.

Your question is interesting and I had to do some google fu to answer it but from what I can make out the word "الْعَالَمِينَ" donates mankind which is used in that statement. While " الأنعام " or "دَابَّةٍ "denotes animals at large.

I'l link you to the thread I found where I'm getting this information at the very bottom of the page: http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-and-support/134307870-respond-quran-7-80-question-origins-homosexuality.html

If there are any Muslims here who speak Arabic who could affirm this it would be great.

The word was dealing with all of creation, which at that time consisted of this world. The word refers to ALL of creation including Jinn and animals, hence all creatures. That link has some random poster changing the clarification to ONLY mean beasts, but that is not the case. That is dishonest of her. As stated in the context, all the creatures of this world, or all creatures. The second quote is also dubious by her, as the reference is NOT beasts but man viewed as the worst of gods creations. So it refers to all jews, christians, polytheists, atheists, etc. Hence the dumb and deaf statements about people not acknowledging the truth of islam.

Also on a side note, even if it was restricted to mankind, sodomn was not the first time mankind was involved in homosexuality. So its still wrong, unless you are going to go full hog and just dismiss science over faith.

Michael OBrien

Just to clarify what is actually going on here with SSM (again).
This ref has nothing to do with demanding Islam accepting certain sexual acts that are frowned on by their texts. These acts are irrelevant to the referendum. Since any act done by a homosexual is equally possible by a hetrosexual, and with a ratio of at least 9 to 1 in favour of hetros doing it, it is a bit discriminatory to link that act to homosexuals alone.
Secondly what is done in the privacy of ones own bedroom is not the business of other humans. If the god of islam does have a problem with non procreative sexual acts, then that is between it and the muslim involved (hetro or homo, male or female). That is why the islamic god is the judge, not humans.
Thirdly it is perfectly possible for homosexuals to live meaningful marriages and or relationships without resorting to the acts often viewed as sinful. Heck many irish marriages manage for YEARS to go on with any form of sexual contact between partners. Stephen Fry has stated, for example, that he does not engage in that activity at all, for his own reasons.
Fourthly the act of marriage promotes monogamy, which reduces the kind of dangers of the type of sex often frowned upon. Thus voting yes in every way is a boon to society and to any compassionate islamic reasoning.
I hope my post does not offend anyone, I am just trying to make sure people don't lose sight of what the referendum ACTUALLY addresses.

confusedquark

Spirogyra wrote: »

Well I think there should be disagreement regarding this issue in Islam, why is Islam not open to new scientific evidence around this issue? A lot more is known now that in 600 AD ? or is there any role for reason within Islam? . I don't mean this as an attack on Islam. But knowledge advances , the world changes, and should a Muslim not take this new knowledge into consideration when forming his or her views?.

Scientific evidence that what? That some people have natural homosexual tendencies? Scientific evidence will also tell us that some people can have natural psychopathic tendencies, incestuous tendencies, etc. But does that mean that those things are acceptable? Incest might well become acceptable in society in 100 years time once we have a few incest pride marches, a few high-profile celebrities campaigning for it and repeated rhetoric of allowing consenting adults to make their own choices and blaming backward thinking for ever batting an eyelid over it in the first place, and of course, voting yes to equality for all.

The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society. We believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and an all-knowing, all-powerful being is perfectly capable of foreseeing in which ways humanity will change (which isn't really a huge amount - the basic human needs and desires remain fairly constant throughout the centuries) and revealing a book which is every bit as relevant 1400 years later as it was on day one.

Michael OBrien

confusedquark wrote: »

Scientific evidence that what? That some people have natural homosexual tendencies? Scientific evidence will also tell us that some people can have natural psychopathic tendencies, incestuous tendencies, etc. But does that mean that those things are acceptable? Incest might well become acceptable in society in 100 years time once we have a few incest pride marches, a few high-profile celebrities campaigning for it and repeated rhetoric of allowing consenting adults to make their own choices and blaming backward thinking for ever batting an eyelid over it in the first place, and of course, voting yes to equality for all.

The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society. We believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and an all-knowing, all-powerful being is perfectly capable of foreseeing in which ways humanity will change (which isn't really a huge amount - the basic human needs and desires remain fairly constant throughout the centuries) and revealing a book which is every bit as relevant 1400 years later as it was on day one.

Slippery slope fallacy alert.
One change does not mean all change. Each circumstance has its own merits and detractors. There are elements of mutual consent, ability to harm, etc that must be discussed. Incest involves biological risks to offspring from close kinship, that is why it is forbidden in cultures. Blanket moral statements without regard to their PURPOSES and CONSEQUENCES of an ever evolving society is highly questionable.

Also not all muslims believe in the LITERAL word as you put it. Most muslims have never read the actual classical arabic texts in the first place, let alone understand the context of when they were written, who wrote them, edited them and the motives of those who translated them, hence the vastly different translations all around the world and the VASTLY different viewpoints and practices that result.

Even if the islamic god was all knowing and all powerful, that does not mean the texts written, edited and translated, in a vastly different culture and time, entirely by humans, reflects that. Pouring clean water through a dirthy filter will not produce clean water, no matter how pure it was at the beginning.

"The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society" Their application does however. This referendum is about civil marriage equality, not religious marriage equality. Ireland is not an Islamic state, thus muslims must acknowledge that too, and many gays are not part of your religion and thus do not believe as you do. This is about secular equal rights, not whether Islam endorses homosexuality.
If passed non-muslim gay marriage will not affect muslims at all and for gay muslims, they can decide for themselves if they wish to avail of it.
If not passed, ALL the disagreements against homosexuality will still be there, but instead of promoting stable family units protected by state law, you will have family units NOT protected fully by law.
Gays will still do everything else, including having children, getting Civil partnerships, having sex, etc.
This act also protects children in those marriages, whether they are gay or not, by giving them the same protections hetrosexuals currently enjoy.

Spirogyra

confusedquark wrote: »

Scientific evidence that what? That some people have natural homosexual tendencies? Scientific evidence will also tell us that some people can have natural psychopathic tendencies, incestuous tendencies, etc. But does that mean that those things are acceptable? Incest might well become acceptable in society in 100 years time once we have a few incest pride marches, a few high-profile celebrities campaigning for it and repeated rhetoric of allowing consenting adults to make their own choices and blaming backward thinking for ever batting an eyelid over it in the first place, and of course, voting yes to equality for all.

The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society. We believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and an all-knowing, all-powerful being is perfectly capable of foreseeing in which ways humanity will change (which isn't really a huge amount - the basic human needs and desires remain fairly constant throughout the centuries) and revealing a book which is every bit as relevant 1400 years later as it was on day one.

As another poster has said, you have are not comparing like with like. Incest damages families, whereas love between consenting adults leads to social stability. Failure to acknowledge to acknowledge the existence of lgbt people and lgbt Muslims will not mean they cease to be. It creates a culture where such identities are suppressed and such people are forced into heterosexual which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious.

silverharp

confusedquark wrote: »

The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society. We believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and an all-knowing, all-powerful being is perfectly capable of foreseeing in which ways humanity will change (which isn't really a huge amount - the basic human needs and desires remain fairly constant throughout the centuries) and revealing a book which is every bit as relevant 1400 years later as it was on day one.

only if "Allah" was a 7th century barbarian. Take an issue like slavery which is a good test of civility in my book and the Quran falls down one for not banning it and two for having rules about how to go about it. A "timeless" book would not endorse slavery ergo its local morality of the time

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

only if "Allah" was a 7th century barbarian. Take an issue like slavery which is a good test of civility in my book and the Quran falls down one for not banning it and two for having rules about how to go about it. A "timeless" book would not endorse slavery ergo its local morality of the time

This is off topic. This is not about whether Islam is true, or their god is good, it is about the referendum. Please respect that and don't derail it.

alwald

Here is a lesbian Muslim who is very open about her sexuality, she's the perfect example that any Muslim can be tolerant and accept a change towards a better world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji#Personal_life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tNRtyYFf24

confusedquark

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy alert.
One change does not mean all change. Each circumstance has its own merits and detractors. There are elements of mutual consent, ability to harm, etc that must be discussed. Incest involves biological risks to offspring from close kinship, that is why it is forbidden in cultures. Blanket moral statements without regard to their PURPOSES and CONSEQUENCES of an ever evolving society is highly questionable.

Also not all muslims believe in the LITERAL word as you put it. Most muslims have never read the actual classical arabic texts in the first place, let alone understand the context of when they were written, who wrote them, edited them and the motives of those who translated them, hence the vastly different translations all around the world and the VASTLY different viewpoints and practices that result.

Even if the islamic god was all knowing and all powerful, that does not mean the texts written, edited and translated, in a vastly different culture and time, entirely by humans, reflects that. Pouring clean water through a dirthy filter will not produce clean water, no matter how pure it was at the beginning.

"The morals of Islam are fixed - they don't wax and wane with the fashions of any given society" Their application does however. This referendum is about civil marriage equality, not religious marriage equality. Ireland is not an Islamic state, thus muslims must acknowledge that too, and many gays are not part of your religion and thus do not believe as you do. This is about secular equal rights, not whether Islam endorses homosexuality.
If passed non-muslim gay marriage will not affect muslims at all and for gay muslims, they can decide for themselves if they wish to avail of it.
If not passed, ALL the disagreements against homosexuality will still be there, but instead of promoting stable family units protected by state law, you will have family units NOT protected fully by law.
Gays will still do everything else, including having children, getting Civil partnerships, having sex, etc.
This act also protects children in those marriages, whether they are gay or not, by giving them the same protections hetrosexuals currently enjoy.

Fallacy? I'm simply highlighting that 'modern' society has no fixed benchmarks for right and wrong, and given enough people shouting loudly enough for something, there's a fair chance it'll become acceptable in that society. You can make considered arguments against incest, but there will be a retort to all of them, e.g. "the majority of biological diseases still occur in non-incestuous relationships", "what about the homosexual incestuous relationships who don't have to worry about offspring", "what about incestuous couples who go YEARS without having sex", "what about the couples who acknowledge that risk and are happy to be sterilised for the sake of their love" etc etc, and back that up with the rhetoric - "it's about equality", "it's about love", "it's about being fair" etc. etc. and you can see how the lay person may be tempted to leave them well alone in a secular country to do what they want. Of course there are purposes and consequences for Islamic morals as well - but as I said, they are fixed, and we trust in our creator to have made them relevant for the different generations of humanity (who's core needs and desires don't really change a huge amount, I'll stress again)

Not all Muslims believe in the literal word, and not all Muslims will always be right. Allah subhana wa'tala knows what is in our hearts and with how much sincerity (and for what reasons) we pursue our knowledge, and we will all be judged about every decision/opinion/action we make. The Quran has not been edited - but rather translated and interpreted with context. There are some grey areas in Islam which there can be different interpretations on, but there are a lot of areas which are pretty black and white, and rulings on homosexuality are certainly in the latter.

Moving onto this referendum - for Muslims it is about whether Islam endorses homosexuality, because even though Ireland isn't an Islamic state, there are many Irish values which overlap with Islamic values, and Muslims, by and large would prefer to live in societies which reflect as many of their values as is practical. If the majority of Irish people agree with that view, all good, and if they don't (which it looks like), it'll just be another thing on the list that Muslims will acknowledge as being out of keeping with our values, and we'll accept and deal with it.

confusedquark

Spirogyra wrote: »

As another poster has said, you have are not comparing like with like. Incest damages families, whereas love between consenting adults leads to social stability. Failure to acknowledge to acknowledge the existence of lgbt people and lgbt Muslims will not mean they cease to be. It creates a culture where such identities are suppressed and such people are forced into heterosexual which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious.

You've just contradicted yourself.

"Incest damages families, whereas love between consenting adults leads to social stability." Incest often is love between consenting adults - does that lead to social stability then?

"It creates a culture where such identities are suppressed and such people are forced into heterosexual which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious." So does suppressing people with incestuous tendencies force them into relationships which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious?

I'm not going to beat around the bush - I don't deny that some people have natural homosexual tendencies, or natural incestual tendencies, but in the same way that our society deems incestual relationships inappropriate and we encourage/force them (even by law) to suppress those tendencies and not act on them - even if it makes them feel discriminated and miserable, Islam considers homosexual tendencies equally inappropriate (albeit for slightly different reasons) and encourages people to not act on them. It's a question of defining what's right and what's wrong, and we believe that Allah subhana wa'tala has already set that bar for us. Of course lgbt people will not cease to be, but this life is but a drop in the ocean and we believe that we will all be accountable for our actions come the day of judgement - and hence the discussion on what is considered right and wrong in Islam.

confusedquark

silverharp wrote: »

only if "Allah" was a 7th century barbarian. Take an issue like slavery which is a good test of civility in my book and the Quran falls down one for not banning it and two for having rules about how to go about it. A "timeless" book would not endorse slavery ergo its local morality of the time

Slavery in Islam is a whole separate topic, but as you're bringing it up, please do reflect on how you contribute to slavery whenever you next go out shopping. It's not cool anymore to have slaves slaving about you're house, so we've become advanced enough to enslave people in their own countries and to have the goods shipped across instead - that gives us a clearer conscience. And we're also advanced enough to replace those slaves with appliances that run off electricity/oil in our lives, so we're content to destroy the planet instead. Big thumbs up for our uber-modern and responsible civilisation.

old_aussie

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Ok, 1. The story is simply a cultural myth, don't let it rob about 10% of the human race from having CIVIL marriage rights.

There is probably about 160 million muslims that are gay or lesbians in this world, based on that percentage.

Really?

Let me make up some crap stastics that suit my argument, no, let me actually do some logical thinking and do some research.

http://news.discovery.com/human/about-2-of-americans-are-gay-110411.htm


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html#ixzz3av9bcycp

Spirogyra

confusedquark wrote: »

You've just contradicted yourself.

"Incest damages families, whereas love between consenting adults leads to social stability." Incest often is love between consenting adults - does that lead to social stability then?

"It creates a culture where such identities are suppressed and such people are forced into heterosexual which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious." So does suppressing people with incestuous tendencies force them into relationships which are likely to be anything but stable or harmonious?

I'm not going to beat around the bush - I don't deny that some people have natural homosexual tendencies, or natural incestual tendencies, but in the same way that our society deems incestual relationships inappropriate and we encourage/force them (even by law) to suppress those tendencies and not act on them - even if it makes them feel discriminated and miserable, Islam considers homosexual tendencies equally inappropriate (albeit for slightly different reasons) and encourages people to not act on them. It's a question of defining what's right and what's wrong, and we believe that Allah subhana wa'tala has already set that bar for us. Of course lgbt people will not cease to be, but this life is but a drop in the ocean and we believe that we will all be accountable for our actions come the day of judgement - and hence the discussion on what is considered right and wrong in Islam.

Where is your evidence that there is any day of judgment or any hereafter? Why would a Creater choose to send his or her message to a 6th Century Arab? How do you know that there is any creator? Where is your evidence? This is the 'reason' that I refer to, isn't it a very illogical thing to do? send your commandments through a 6th century Arab and then punish those who disobey? A God who punishes people, for feelings which he or she gave them, that's not a God I could love or would want to obey.

It's been consistently documented that in the region of 10%, it could be 8 or 9 , have gay, bisexual or gender variant -tendencies- , which may or may not be expressed. This is how they are born, and any God who created people this way, but punishes them for acting upon them, who sanctions stoning of men and women, is a sadist, and not worthy or worship.

Adultery causes trauma, for the spouse and children . Loving relationships, are about love and stability. They harm nobody, the only aggrieve others when they are not accepted. However I don't believe it is the role of the state to punish people who behave this way, with flogging or execution, as many Islamic states do. Moral behaviour should be encouraged, but it's not the role of the state to punish.

Tom Dunne

Spirogyra wrote: »

Where is your evidence that there is any day of judgment or any hereafter? Why would a Creater choose to send his or her message to a 6th Century Arab? How do you know that there is any creator? Where is your evidence? This is the 'reason' that I refer to, isn't it a very illogical thing to do? send your commandments through a 6th century Arab and then punish those who disobey? A God who punishes people, for feelings which he or she gave them, that's not a God I could love or would want to obey.

It's been consistently documented that in the region of 10%, it could be 8 or 9 , have gay, bisexual or gender variant -tendencies- , which may or may not be expressed. This is how they are born, and any God who created people this way, but punishes them for acting upon them, who sanctions stoning of men and women, is a sadist, and not worthy or worship.

Adultery causes trauma, for the spouse and children . Loving relationships, are about love and stability. They harm nobody, the only aggrieve others when they are not accepted. However I don't believe it is the role of the state to punish people who behave this way, with flogging or execution, as many Islamic states do. Moral behaviour should be encouraged, but it's not the role of the state to punish.

Ok, we are veering off topic here.

Please stay on the topic of the marriage referendum in Ireland and leave other topics for another thread.

Thanks.