Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Marriage Referendum
Comments
-
Michael OBrien wrote: »Perhaps, I have no need for such things myself, so you are saying other people cannot control themselves?
You compared sexual expression in a loving relationship to binge drinking or gluttony. I'm sorry that you don't understand how the vast majority of loving relationships work. But, let's be honest, it's not normal. For the vast majority of couples, sexual expression is an integral part of the loving relationship.
I don't understand why you are suggesting people should "control themselves"?0 -
Michael OBrien wrote: »Well that is a very good question. Worthy of its own thread to be fair. I would be happy to discuss it with you on that thread if you desire.
Morality is often redefined by different viewpoints on our relationship with one another and, in the case of many religions, higher and lower beings. Perhaps a change of perspective is required to discuss morality within the new paradigm that we are beginning to see develop. I too worry about how this develops as the new system has not been given the support structure by our society it needs yet, while the old system falls into disuse, creating a bit of a vacuum.
I agree with you Michael. Actually, when I posed the question I considered starting a new thread. It's a topic which deserves its own thread.0 -
Please remember the context I am discussing this issue in.You compared sexual expression in a loving relationship to binge drinking or gluttony. I'm sorry that you don't understand how the vast majority of loving relationships work. But, let's be honest, it's not normal. For the vast majority of couples, sexual expression is an integral part of the loving relationship.
I don't understand why you are suggesting people should "control themselves"?
I have nothing against people doing whatever they like in their own home, as long as both parties consent. This is however dealing with Islam and homosexuality. I was referring to the issue of a gay muslim, who loves someone but also wishes to abide by their religious views. I was saying that they could 'control' their impulses to reach a compromise.
This is similar to the catholic teaching of abstinence before marriage, where it is not impossible for a pre-married couple to avoid certain types of sex, in order to abide by their beliefs.
I am dealing with hypothetical scenarios to see if a third viewpoint can be attained on THIS forum.0 -
Michael OBrien wrote: »Please remember the context I am discussing this issue in.
I have nothing against people doing whatever they like in their own home, as long as both parties consent. This is however dealing with Islam and homosexuality. I was referring to the issue of a gay muslim, who loves someone but also wishes to abide by their religious views. I was saying that they could 'control' their impulses to reach a compromise.
This is similar to the catholic teaching of abstinence before marriage, where it is not impossible for a pre-married couple to avoid certain types of sex, in order to abide by their beliefs.
I am dealing with hypothetical scenarios to see if a third viewpoint can be attained on THIS forum.
No, this discussion is about the marriage referendum. What Muslim homosexuals may wish to do in the privacy of their own home is their business.
Sure, if someone wants to control their sexual urges on religious grounds, that's fine. But your attitude seems to be one of bewilderment as to how a loving couple would find it hard not to express their love sexually, and you equated loving sexual expression to binge drinking or gluttony.0 -
No, this discussion is about the marriage referendum. What Muslim homosexuals may wish to do in the privacy of their own home is their business.
Sure, if someone wants to control their sexual urges on religious grounds, that's fine. But your attitude seems to be one of bewilderment as to how a loving couple would find it hard not to express their love sexually, and you equated loving sexual expression to binge drinking or gluttony.
Again, this is a muslim forum, where drinking to excess (or at all according to more fundamental views) is a sin. I was using that as an analogy in that one can take part in an activity without making it sinful.
Obviously I don't equate the two in all ways, only that, in some views, both are a sin.
I was discussing that a loving couple, while religiously devout, could both love each other, and keep their faith intact. I am trying to find a middle ground. Most of the issue within religious texts is certain ACTS, not inclinations or sexual preferences. Therefore, in the context of this thread, marriage can mean more than THAT kind of sex for loving partners.
While I may be hetrosexual, I cannot see how this is unrealistically possible.
I do not CONDONE such restrictions as fair, but in THIS forum, under the thread's mandate, it might be preferable to abstain from certain types of sex than to NOT being married if you are a gay muslim.0 -
Advertisement
-
You were discussing sexual love IN THE CONTEXT of the issue of the marriage referendum and same sex attraction.Michael OBrien wrote: »Again, this is a muslim forum, where drinking to excess (or at all according to more fundamental views) is a sin. I was using that as an analogy in that one can take part in an activity without making it sinful.
Obviously I don't equate the two in all ways, only that, in some views, both are a sin.
I was discussing that a loving couple, while religiously devout, could both love each other, and keep their faith intact. I am trying to find a middle ground. Most of the issue within religious texts is certain ACTS, not inclinations or sexual preferences. Therefore, in the context of this thread, marriage can mean more than THAT kind of sex for loving partners.
While I may be hetrosexual, I cannot see how this is unrealistically possible.
I do not CONDONE such restrictions as fair, but in THIS forum, under the thread's mandate, it might be preferable to abstain from certain types of sex than to NOT being married if you are a gay muslim.
You gave no indication that you were referring to the Muslim prohibition on alcohol in your argument. Firstly, Muslims are not just forbidden from excessive drinking, they are forbidden from drinking at all, so your comparison to binge drinking was not relevant. You also referred to gluttony - is that also a sin in Islam?
Whether you are a gay Muslim or Christian or Jew, you are free to decide to live a celibate life with the person you love, but that is not relevant to the issue of civil marriage.0 -
Once again, this is on a Islamic thread, I don't HAVE to labour on that point.You were discussing sexual love IN THE CONTEXT of the issue of the marriage referendum and same sex attraction.
You gave no indication that you were referring to the Muslim prohibition on alcohol in your argument. Firstly, Muslims are not just forbidden from excessive drinking, they are forbidden from drinking at all, so your comparison to binge drinking was not relevant. You also referred to gluttony - is that also a sin in Islam?
Whether you are a gay Muslim or Christian or Jew, you are free to decide to live a celibate life with the person you love, but that is not relevant to the issue of civil marriage.
Secondly while some muslims take the extreme view of not drinking alcohol at all, such actions are NOT part of the quran, which deals instead with the intoxication effects of drinking affecting behaviour. So moderate drinking where you are not losing control could, quite easily, be accepted in practice, and there are plenty of muslims that can take that view. I just listened to a pure quranic scholar stating that very point yesterday.
Yes, gluttony is eating to excess, that damages the body, so that is a sin in Islam.
Finally, I have stated multiple times that civil marriage is not religious marriage, BUT for some muslims (on this thread), accepting rights for homosexuals, whether civil or religious, is affected by their religious beliefs. So I was trying to find a middle path where a muslim can accept that a homosexual couple can live together, in marriage, while still respecting their beliefs by abstaining from certain sexual acts, if they wish to be good muslims.
I have also stated, on this thread, that muslims must respect non-muslim choices as they don't share the same beliefs.
Seriously, how can I be more fair in my posts. Give me a break.0 -
-
Michael OBrien wrote: »Once again, this is on a Islamic thread, I don't HAVE to labour on that point.
Secondly while some muslims take the extreme view of not drinking alcohol at all, such actions are NOT part of the quran, which deals instead with the intoxication effects of drinking affecting behaviour. So moderate drinking where you are not losing control could, quite easily, be accepted in practice, and there are plenty of muslims that can take that view. I just listened to a pure quranic scholar stating that very point yesterday.
Yes, gluttony is eating to excess, that damages the body, so that is a sin in Islam.
Finally, I have stated multiple times that civil marriage is not religious marriage, BUT for some muslims (on this thread), accepting rights for homosexuals, whether civil or religious, is affected by their religious beliefs. So I was trying to find a middle path where a muslim can accept that a homosexual couple can live together, in marriage, while still respecting their beliefs by abstaining from certain sexual acts, if they wish to be good muslims.
I have also stated, on this thread, that muslims must respect non-muslim choices as they don't share the same beliefs.
Seriously, how can I be more fair in my posts. Give me a break.
Ok, so all this that you're going on about has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the tread title.
Muslims not accepting the law of the land because of their religious beliefs is a whole different debate - the one I thought we were actually having. There is no middle ground. Individual Muslims can choose to do whatever they want in their own private lives, but they can't refuse to accept the law of the land because it goes against their beliefs. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
Hmm, I think I can be forgiven for being confused...0 -
Muslims not accepting the law of the land because of their religious beliefs is a whole different debate - the one I thought we were actually having. There is no middle ground. Individual Muslims can choose to do whatever they want in their own private lives, but they can't refuse to accept the law of the land because it goes against their beliefs. This is a democracy, not a theocracy.
This thread isn't about Muslims not accepting the law of the land. This thread was about the Islamic viewpoint on the referendum - and was started before the referendum took place, i.e. before this specific law of the land actually became a law of the land.
Yes, this is a democracy - and that's precisely why there was a referendum held on the issue. Muslims, along with the 38% of the population who were No voters, were perfectly entitled to express their views on what they consider appropriate for the society they live in. Earlier in the thread I already stated that if the referendum is passed, 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 - but that doesn't mean that we have to change our opinions/beliefs and consider gay marriage morally acceptable to be good Irish citizens.But no one is asking any Muslim or Christian to support gay marriage or anything to do with homosexuality for themselves. They were being asked to give people who wished to avail of marriage to be able to do so - why would you deny something to someone just because YOU disagree with it?
If there was a referendum to allow incest marriages tomorrow, would you vote yes?0 -
Advertisement
-
Michael OBrien wrote: »Secondly while some muslims take the extreme view of not drinking alcohol at all, such actions are NOT part of the quran, which deals instead with the intoxication effects of drinking affecting behaviour. So moderate drinking where you are not losing control could, quite easily, be accepted in practice, and there are plenty of muslims that can take that view. I just listened to a pure quranic scholar stating that very point yesterday.
Even though this thread isn't about alcohol, the Quran does prohibit alcohol in the following verse.
5:90 "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful".
Alcohol is an intoxicant. Whether or not you take enough of it to actually become fully intoxicated is irrelevant, and very few Muslims will dispute that (but you'll always get your chancers). It's not an "extreme" view - it's an almost unanimous view held by the vast vast majority of Muslims and scholars across the world.
Your other point about a supposed non-physical variant of homosexuality being something which technically could be acceptable in Islam is also something which I very much doubt would be permissible (aside from the fact that I'd imagine such relationships would be few and far between), and in particular if it was a matter of two such men wanting to actually marry. Such matters can only be properly judged on by scholars with extensive knowledge of the Quran (in its correct context) and Hadith, but from what I know, it's a non runner.0 -
Yes, and why not? Why not polygamy too? In fact I believe your Prophet was polygamous after the death of his first wife.confusedquark wrote: »If there was a referendum to allow incest marriages tomorrow, would you vote yes?0 -
confusedquark wrote: »This thread isn't about Muslims not accepting the law of the land. This thread was about the Islamic viewpoint on the referendum - and was started before the referendum took place, i.e. before this specific law of the land actually became a law of the land.
Yes, this is a democracy - and that's precisely why there was a referendum held on the issue. Muslims, along with the 38% of the population who were No voters, were perfectly entitled to express their views on what they consider appropriate for the society they live in. Earlier in the thread I already stated that if the referendum is passed, 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 - but that doesn't mean that we have to change our opinions/beliefs and consider gay marriage morally acceptable to be good Irish citizens.
If there was a referendum to allow incest marriages tomorrow, would you vote yes?
Well, it's about how to vote in the referendum, isn't it? Why should a Muslim or a Roman Catholic or anyone of any faith vote according to their religious beliefs, when they are voting for something that has nothing to do with religion? That, surely, is the bottom line? One doesn't have to change one's beliefs in order to allow other people to do something you may not personally agree with.
Incest is something that is taboo for good reason in our society; for emotional, mental and physical welfare reasons. In the unlikely event of there being a referendum on the issue, I would vote against it for those reasons. I don't see the link, to be honest. You are comparing something that makes no difference to anyone but the two people involved to something unhealthy and dangerous to society.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »Even though this thread isn't about alcohol, the Quran does prohibit alcohol in the following verse.
5:90 "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful".
Alcohol is an intoxicant. Whether or not you take enough of it to actually become fully intoxicated is irrelevant, and very few Muslims will dispute that (but you'll always get your chancers). It's not an "extreme" view - it's an almost unanimous view held by the vast vast majority of Muslims and scholars across the world.
Your other point about a supposed non-physical variant of homosexuality being something which technically could be acceptable in Islam is also something which I very much doubt would be permissible (aside from the fact that I'd imagine such relationships would be few and far between), and in particular if it was a matter of two such men wanting to actually marry. Such matters can only be properly judged on by scholars with extensive knowledge of the Quran (in its correct context) and Hadith, but from what I know, it's a non runner.
Well of course you are entitled to that opinion and I accept that perhaps I understated how widespread that belief is in my post, for that I am sorry. That verse only states it is to be avoided that you may be successful not that it is forbidden entirely.
I am not seeking to convince any muslim to take up drinking alcohol, only that it is not necessarily forbidden, according only to the quran, and other passages warn about praying when intoxicated. However medically intoxication only occurs during excess consumption, not any consumption, that is not the issue. Other passages deal with recognising that it has its benefits to humans too, but views the negative to be greater, however (again) that only applies to getting drunk, not any consumption, as mild consumption is actually good for people.
But I don't want to go too far off topic here on that point. It is interesting however.0 -
Well, it's about how to vote in the referendum, isn't it? Why should a Muslim or a Roman Catholic or anyone of any faith vote according to their religious beliefs, when they are voting for something that has nothing to do with religion? That, surely, is the bottom line? One doesn't have to change one's beliefs in order to allow other people to do something you may not personally agree with.
Incest is something that is taboo for good reason in our society; for emotional, mental and physical welfare reasons. In the unlikely event of there being a referendum on the issue, I would vote against it for those reasons. I don't see the link, to be honest. You are comparing something that makes no difference to anyone but the two people involved to something unhealthy and dangerous to society.
Why wouldn't anyone of any faith vote according to their religious beliefs? The matter may not have to do with my religion directly, but the matter has to do with the society I live in. My religion informs my beliefs and values, and I would like to live in a society which reflects as many of my beliefs as is possible/practical. In the same way that you consider incest "unhealthy and dangerous to society" - even though it "makes no difference to anyone but the two people involved", homosexuality is considered morally unhealthy for society in Islam, and that's why Muslims (and people of other faiths) would vote against gay marriage.0 -
If you recognise that a society is not just about your values, but should reflect the values of others as well, and where there was no conflict between the two, why would you try to impose your values on others?confusedquark wrote: »Why wouldn't anyone of any faith vote according to their religious beliefs? The matter may not have to do with my religion directly, but the matter has to do with the society I live in. My religion informs my beliefs and values, and I would like to live in a society which reflects as many of my beliefs as is possible/practical. In the same way that you consider incest "unhealthy and dangerous to society" - even though it "makes no difference to anyone but the two people involved", homosexuality is considered morally unhealthy for society in Islam, and that's why Muslims (and people of other faiths) would vote against gay marriage.
Nobody was suggesting forcing those who don't believe in same sex marriage to participate in such a union. And other people in a same sex marriage would not be harming society or the religious believer in any way.
So why begrudge others what's not harming society or you personally?0 -
If you recognise that a society is not just about your values, but should reflect the values of others as well, and where there was no conflict between the two, why would you try to impose your values on others?
Agreed, society is not just about my values - society is about the values of the majority. We allow the majority to impose its values on the minority of society - even if it doesn't directly affect the majority of individuals themselves. People impose their values on others when they believe a certain issue would harm society - in the same way that you would impose your values of not permitting incest marriages on others.And other people in a same sex marriage would not be harming society or the religious believer in any way.
So why begrudge others what's not harming society or you personally?
This is the crux of the matter. YOU do not think that gay marriage harms society in any way - that is your opinion based on your beliefs and what you consider right and wrong. I, along with the 38% of the population, do believe that gay marriage is something which harms society (be it morally or otherwise), and that's why those people voted No.
The next generation of liberals may well support incest marriages and they'll make the exact same arguments you are doing - "right" and "wrong" become very relative matters, and all it takes is a few incest-pride parades, repeated rhetoric and a some high-profile celebrities campaigning for the cause to "enlighten" the masses and free our minds of medieval thinking.0 -
confusedquark wrote: »Agreed, society is not just about my values - society is about the values of the majority. We allow the majority to impose its values on the minority of society - even if it doesn't directly affect the majority of individuals themselves. People impose their values on others when they believe a certain issue would harm society - in the same way that you would impose your values of not permitting incest marriages on others.
This is the crux of the matter. YOU do not think that gay marriage harms society in any way - that is your opinion based on your beliefs and what you consider right and wrong. I, along with the 38% of the population, do believe that gay marriage is something which harms society (be it morally or otherwise), and that's why those people voted No.
The next generation of liberals may well support incest marriages and they'll make the exact same arguments you are doing - "right" and "wrong" become very relative matters, and all it takes is a few incest-pride parades, repeated rhetoric and a some high-profile celebrities campaigning for the cause to "enlighten" the masses and free our minds of medieval thinking.
Why do you seem so obsessed with incest? What has incest got to do with homosexuals having equal rights?
Each argument for rights is based on the set of facts about the implications of implementation of those rights to society and those involved in that union.
These are not necessarily the majority OPINION, unless you are referring to religious faith, where factual evidence is optional.
Facts are facts, they can be discussed objectively.
Rights in a society like Ireland is not always based on majority rule either. Minorities gain rights despite majorities too, it depends on what the issue is.
It depends on the goal of that society, whether it wants to be inclusive, and provide equal rights to as many as possible, in as fair a way as possible or whether it wants to persecute certain minorities unfairly.
Past prohibitions have many reasons for them, some can be time limited and thus outdated. Some can be enshrined bigotry of the era they were written in and some have valid concerns that seem currently to be worth upholding.
Incest is a problem due to the genetic inbreeding risk involved. That is the core reason it is banned in countries as the children suffer genetic problems due to the similarity of genetics between both parents. This is not a majority opinion, its a scientific fact.
Now, hypothetically, if in the future that risk was eliminated or reduced to the same level as non incest partnerships, then CONSENSUAL incest (between two closely related adults) would not harm society. Therefore there might be a case to allow it.
What you are doing, which is your right, due to free speech, is allow your religious interpretations to override the rational reasons for such prohibitions and seek to use emotive trigger words as the sole vehicle for putting across your argument.0 -
It does, maybe not in the short run, but definitely in the long run. Of course many well educated and enlightened thinkers brought up in religious households and societies will continue to compartmentalize, but the numbers will consistently fall - Ireland is an excellent example.Being educated and learning to think doesn't conflict with religious belief, so I'm not sure why anyone would think it would lead to the disappearance of religion.0 -
It does, maybe not in the short run, but definitely in the long run. Of course many well educated and enlightened thinkers brought up in religious households and societies will continue to compartmentalize, but the numbers will consistently fall - Ireland is an excellent example.
There have always been intelligent and open-minded people who have no problem reconciling the basics of religion with their understanding of the world. It has been so for two thousand years, where Christianity is concerned.
What those who don't believe in religion don't understand is that religion is not incompatible with intelligent thought.0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course, which is why I acknowledged as much. However, in advanced western countries, where education and enlightenment is spread more equally throughout society, the numbers holding onto religious belief in such places, never mind practicing it, are consistently diminishing.There have always been intelligent and open-minded people who have no problem reconciling the basics of religion with their understanding of the world. It has been so for two thousand years, where Christianity is concerned.
What those who don't believe in religion don't understand is that religion is not incompatible with intelligent thought.
Religion is incompatible with intelligent thought, if you define intelligent thought as the use of logic and rational thinking - which is exactly why the intelligent believers mostly compartmentalize their thoughts, and only hold religious views in the first place due to social conditioning and the cultural pervasiveness of religion.
And as this social conditioning and cultural pervasiveness declines, so too will the membership and subsequent power of the religion - See Ireland: Catholicism 1950-20150 -
You contract in the second paragraph what you said in your first. Religion certainly is NOT incompatible with intelligent thought; certain forms of religious belief and practice are, but not religion per se. Religious belief and practice is changing in line with the fact that thinking people reconcileOf course, which is why I acknowledged as much. However, in advanced western countries, where education and enlightenment is spread more equally throughout society, the numbers holding onto religious belief in such places, never mind practicing it, are consistently diminishing.
Religion is incompatible with intelligent thought, if you define intelligent thought as the use of logic and rational thinking - which is exactly why the intelligent believers mostly compartmentalize their thoughts, and only hold religious views in the first place due to social conditioning and the cultural pervasiveness of religion.
And as this social conditioning and cultural pervasiveness declines, so too will the membership and subsequent power of the religion - See Ireland: Catholicism 1950-2015
scientific advances, human rights issues and other factors with their beliefs, but different forms of belief don't mean lesser belief.
Much of the drop off in belief in today's world is by those who don't think. Who followed religion over the generations unthinkingly because of societal pressure, and who are only too happy to drop it now the pressure is off.0 -
It certainly is, which is why intelligent thinking people compartmentalize and leave their rational, inquiring mind at the door when it comes to their religion.You contract in the second paragraph what you said in your first. Religion certainly is NOT incompatible with intelligent thought; certain forms of religious belief and practice are, but not religion per se. Religious belief and practice is changing in line with the fact that thinking people reconcile
scientific advances, human rights issues and other factors with their beliefs, but different forms of belief don't mean lesser belief.
Much of the drop off in belief in today's world is by those who don't think. Who followed religion over the generations unthinkingly because of societal pressure, and who are only too happy to drop it now the pressure is off.
Bizzare analysis tbh. Those people you accuse of not thinking in the past now have the tools to think for themselves, and can see the sham that religion is. It's fairly simple really. Religion needs people far more than people need it. It truly is the great con.0 -
hIt certainly is, which is why intelligent thinking people compartmentalize and leave their rational, inquiring mind at the door when it comes to their religion.
Bizzare analysis tbh. Those people you accuse of not thinking in the past now have the tools to think for themselves, and can see the sham that religion is. It's fairly simple really. Religion needs people far more than people need it. It truly is the great con.
You're looking at this from totally the wrong angle. Accepting that religious belief is not rational is not a bad thing; not everything to be rational to have a value. Can you rationally explain your love for your partner/kids? The divine is beyond our comprehension, but it doesn't mean you are stupid, or compartmentalising if you accept this. It just means you accept that not everything can be explained with rational thought.
It's also wrong to assume that the people who didn't think in the past suddenly developed a deep theological consciousness, and knowingly rejected religion. A hell of a lot of people just don't think, and go along with the status quo to make life easier. And it's easy not to commit to or subscribe to a religious belief.0
Advertisement