Homosexuality

[ShamsB]

Dear nargis ya aly madad,

It is mentioned in the Quran with reference to Prophet Lut.

Unless you're talking about a different David/Daud, who was after the time of Nabi Musa...(the revelation to him was Zabur/Psalms)...Lot/Lut was at the time of Abraham, centuries prior to David/Daud...
the towns were sodom and gomorrah..it is from sodom we get the word sodomy...

my thoughts on this are that I am in no position to judge anyone else for their actions because I myself am not perfect..and am not god...It is upto God/Allah to judge each according to his sins...
Speaking of homosexuality..we have youths in our jamat that are promiscous..and practise premarital sex..or do drugs..aren't those issues we should also be discussing..

I'd rather have a good gay ismaili/person than a bad human being....

Shams

[ONiazi]

Assalam aleikum min Mowla Hazir Imam!

I had to reply to ShamsB's post. I very much appreciate what he wrote.

(Sidenote: It may be interesting to note that according to the Hebrew Bible and even certain verses of the New Testament, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrha was not homosexuality but, instead, inhospitality and pride. The same is not transmitted by the Qur'an. And even then, verses against idolators and other major sinners far outnumber references to homosexuality.)

The issue of homosexuality is a vexing one for almost all religious people in all religious movements. Ismailism is no exception. However, people tend to lose focus on what's important.

In clarifying and correcting homosexuality, people gloss over other very serious sins. Promiscuity of any sort is harmful and must be spoken against with strong words. It would be safe to say that incidents of heterosexual promiscuity are far more rampant than incidents of homosexual promiscuity (if only because there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals). They must feel equally condemned and ashamed of their sins as homosexuals - it is too often that people tend to gloss over this. The energy devoted to homosexuality exceeds the practical impact of this issue, especially when considering other more serious issues.

Is everyone paying dasond? Is everyone attending the jamaat regularly? Is everyone extending compassion and good-will to those around them? Is everyone obeying the dietary laws of Islam? Is everyone honoring their parents, spouse, siblings, and children? Are heterosexual members keeping within the clear boundaries established for them? Is everyone applying himself/herself to learning and education in matters spiritual and secular? Are our children receving the education (spiritual and secular) that they need and deserve?

A second concern is compassion. Whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal, approved by the Imam or condemned by Him, tolerable or intolerable - this all shrinks to nothingness when the issue of compassion comes into play. We are all sinners in that we cannot be perfect. This is why we have constant need for the Imam's forgiveness. We cannot say to one sinner, "You are a great sinner! Repent!" while ignoring other sinners. Furthermore, everyone is worthy of compassion, respect, and due regard. Even if they engage in bad habits, these must be extended to them. Too often we slight the sinner while slighting the sin. It is okay, I believe, to let someone know that we do not agree with their ideas or approve of their behavior; at the same time we must assure them that we love and respect them and hold them in high regard.

In today's world filled with hatred and scorn, with people committing all sorts of sins, any person of good character or attitude should be welcomed. We need to stop looking at a person's behavior and start looking into their heart. Just as God and the Imam looks our our hearts, we should be so merciful as to do the same for those around us. Then these issues, significant as they are, will begin to come into focus.

(As far as the issue itself, I hope and pray that the day will come when Mowla Hazir Imam will grace us with more explicit directions regarding this issue. Much has changed regarding our understanding and awareness of this phenomenon, and so new guidance, even if it is to uphold old directives, would be appreciated.)

Mowla hafiz,
ON

[kmaherali]

The following is an article that appeared in today's Calgary Herald which underscores the Christian view of the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Marriage a union between one man, one woman

Ron Leech
Calgary Herald


Sunday, December 19, 2004


Let me say first that I believe all sin is equally reprehensible to God, and He does not identify "levels of sin."

Second, I do not hate homosexuals, lesbians, adulterers or, for that matter, rapists. What I do hate is sin and its devastating effects on people's lives.

Third, I do strive to love and support everyone, whether I agree with their lifestyle choices or not.

Now, in our great nation, we have many opinions about marriage. But my dictionary says opinions are "beliefs or judgments, based on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." We all have different opinions, but our opinions can be wrong.

A fact of life, in contrast, is "any aspect of human existence that must be acknowledged or regarded as unalterable." And the fact is, marriage between one man and one woman is ordained and maintained in its integrity by God and His Word.

Marriage is not my idea or yours; it was God's design from the beginning.

Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female? And said 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and he shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'. So, they are no longer two, but one flesh; therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Marriage is the foundational institution of all human society, always and everywhere. It is a promise reaching across all cultures, beyond all borders, over all creeds, standing all tests of time. No war can defeat it, no pestilence can destroy it, no invention can replace it.

Though the world changes, there are some things we can't afford to change. If we try, we will bury only ourselves as a country, and the family will live on elsewhere after we are gone.

Gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose, but they don't have the right to redefine marriage. And it is outrageous that our prime minister, courts or Parliament might violate our political rights in this crucial matter. If anyone can change marriage, let it be the Canadian people. Then at least those who will suffer the results will have been responsible for them.

Marriage is God's own standard and it has been entrusted to all humanity. Marriage affirms God's ideal of a loving creation. When it comes to raising children, the Bible, science and common sense all agree that mothers and fathers together benefit them in every possible dimension.

Redefining marriage to allow the deliberate exclusion of either a father or mother sends a terrible message to the next generation. It says children don't deserve both parents, and it will further demoralize their own efforts to become parents themselves.

Teachers and parents will be gravely affected by this decision; they will be open to all sorts of social engineering.

And it will set a precedent for lawyers to bring litigation on polygamy and even worse distortions, undermining what is left of our social consensus.

It is biblically, morally and practically reprehensible for the government to pretend that two men or two women engaged in mutual stimulation are the same as a husband and wife, as potential parents. Marriage is not about equal rights; it isn't a special-interest group. It is a repository for the future of humanity.

All Canadians -- including childless homosexuals -- benefit from a healthy marriage culture. All Canadians pay the price in increased taxes, mental illness, crime and human suffering when mothers and fathers choose to divorce or not marry. Adding same-sex marriages to a hodgepodge of family groupings will only worsen the confusion.

So I am against same-sex marriage for four reasons:

First, were homosexuality at all legitimate, the Bible would include options other than natural heterosexuality; yet homosexuality is only ever condemned.

So, second, homosexuality, like every other sin, is a conscious rebellion against divinely created order. Scriptures (like Romans 1:26-32) clearly call homosexual behaviour sinful. To deliberately choose to practise a sin is intentional rebellion.

Third, deliberately sterile homosexuality violates God's intention for human creation itself. The Bible says, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. So God blessed them and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.' " (Genesis 1:27-28)

Fourth, homosexuality distorts the image of God. The image of God comprises both male and female, a complementarity eternal and everlasting.

To affirm homosexuality is to distort the image of God, to insult the nature and being of God.

I urge all citizens of Canada to pray and do all they can to contact their Member of Parliament and uphold the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

[email protected] and cell 836-7748.

© The Calgary Herald 2004

[kmaherali]

The following article that appeared in today's Calgary Herald discusses the possibility that our sexual orientation could be a hereditary factor determined by the configuration of our genes. If that turns out to be the case then it does not become a moral issue any more. Interesting!

Gay genes found: scientist


Tom Spears
CanWest News Service

Saturday, January 29, 2005

A Chicago genome researcher says he has found a group of genes that strongly influence whether a man is homosexual -- not a single "gay gene," but a group of genes acting together.

If confirmed, it would provide at least part of the explanation for what makes men gay, a question which gene scientists have sought to solve for more than a decade.

The University of Illinois at Chicago and U.S. National Institutes of Health searched through the genes of 456 men from 146 families -- each of which has at least two gay brothers.

The finding that a whole variety of genes are common to the majority of the gay men echoes other recent gene findings: traits from body shape to heart disease are all caused by a complex mix of genes, combined with non-genetic influences such as diet.

But there's no single "gay gene" found only in gay men. And the team says that environment likely also plays some role.

The discovery also raises the prospect of aborting fetuses that carry these genes, or creating drugs to counteract the genes.

While genes are unlikely to decide everything in sexual orientation, being gay or heterosexual "is probably largely determined before birth. How you acted as a parent probably doesn't play much role," said the main researcher, Brian Mustanski, a behavioural geneticist.

"Our best guess is that genes explain about half the variability, and that other (half) is probably explained by other non-genetic biological influences" that are still unknown.

In 1993, National Institutes of Health researcher Dean Hamer published a controversial study suggesting that gay and heterosexual men had different forms of one gene on the X chromosome -- one of two sex chromosomes.

That study left many doubters, and the search went on.

Now, Mustanski has expanded the search to the 22 pairs of chromosomes shared equally by men and women, which often aren't considered important in matters of sex.

His study in a journal called Human Genetics says gay men share genes from widely scattered chromosomes.

One bioethicist says this discovery, if true, would counter the argument that being gay is a matter of choice and therefore morality.

But Maxwell Mehlman, a bioethics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, warns that finding such genes would also raise difficult questions.

Some parents will want to test fetuses and abort them if they carry genes that suggest a child could be gay.
© The Calgary Herald 2005

[kmaherali]

The following article that appeared in today's Calgary Herald, reinforces the view that sexual orientation is not a behavorial issue but rather the way we are made up.

Gay men's sex response like women's


The Associated Press


Tuesday, May 10, 2005








Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found.

The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence . . . that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones -- molecules known to trigger responses such as defence and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

© The Calgary Herald 2005

[nagib]

Changing laws....

For a long time rules of law were based in the Western World on judeo-christian values. These even though flawed in some aspect, gave a complete system of reference to people living there.

Now that system base has been abandonned bit by bit without anyone proposing a whole system to replace this old value system that seems not acceptable to some portion of the Western world population...

On this issue, on some part of Canada [and the world] guay marriage has become legal. In some countries, wedding performed in Jamatkhana have a legal value also.

Laws in some countries may change to allow marriage with one's own family member or even with an animal [in some countries animals have more rights then people and they also have the right of inheritence.]

In some country a person can leave all his money to his dog and yet leave nothing to his son and it is perfectly legal and accepted by their legal system.

One of the ethical question is that in such circumstances, when a person comes for wedding in Jamatkhana with a demand of performing marriage with animals or family or whatever how would the mukhi have to react without being accused of not respecting the law.

Would it not be better if the legal marriage and the blessings in JK were independant rather as the same as it is performed for example in Ontario...

[kmaherali]

Changing laws....

One of the ethical question is that in such circumstances, when a person comes for wedding in Jamatkhana with a demand of performing marriage with animals or family or whatever how would the mukhi have to react without being accused of not respecting the law.

Would it not be better if the legal marriage and the blessings in JK were independant rather as the same as it is performed for example in Ontario...

You have raised interesting questions...

These are the predicaments one is bound to face once you begin to dismantle and question time tested traditions and values. I hope and pray that Canada and other western countries will have the wisdom to retain the values and ethics which have underpinned their progress and prosperity. As MHI mentioned in his interview conducted in Canada ethics are an important aspect for the future of Islamic states. He stated:

"So I think the answer is most of them are going towards a secular state, but I would want to avoid the notion of a secular state without faith. What we are talking about are states that want to have modern forms of government but where the ethics of Islam remain the premises on which civil society is built. And I think that's where we see this -- to me very exciting -- effort to maintain the ethics of Islam, but in a modern state. And I think when we're talking about the ethics of Islam, it's easier to have civil society institutions built on the ethics of the faith, than a theocratic state in the full form"

On the issue of conducting marriage ceremony in JK, I think Mukhi/Kamadias have the ability to decide which marriages they can perform and which they cannot. Are they legally bound to perform a marriage if requested?

[Chimmed]

Yasmin Ratansi, Ismaili MP, voted for the same sex marriage legislation in the Canadian Parliament. Why she voted against her faith? Being a Muslim, she should defend her faith. She was not bound to vote with her party because in this particular Bill it was a free vote

[me12121]

MPs are supposed to vote in the way that the majority of people in their riding would vote.  So if the majority of people in her riding are in favour of same sex marriage, then she should vote for it.  Religion is not a factor because of seperation of church and state.  MPs are not supposed to vote according to their personal beliefs, they are representing the people in their riding in parliament.

[Chimmed]

In her riding, there are many new immigrants who are Muslims, Chinese, and Catholics. Do you think they all believe in same sex marriage?

[kmaherali]

The following article that appeared in today's Calgary Herald discusses the plight of the institution of marriage in the wake of same sex marriage becoming law in Canada.

Marriage now just about the sex

Father Raymond J. de Souza
CanWest News Service


Thursday, June 30, 2005


1 | 2 | NEXT >>





All in all, it is an impressive bit of work for a mere 38 years. The same-sex marriage bill that passed the House of Commons Tuesday was the final chapter in a story that began in 1967, when then-Justice minister Pierre Trudeau introduced his Omnibus Bill. Famous for its decriminalizing of homosexual acts (". . . the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"), it was the liberalization of divorce laws that led more directly to where we are today.

And where we are is that civil marriage in Canada is simply the conferring of legal recognition and benefits upon a conjugal relationship, with no reference in principle to permanence, progeny or public benefit. We have achieved, with the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual partners, the reduction of marriage to a mere sexual relationship.

That is an astonishing accomplishment in less than four decades. Mobilizing the resources of the state behind sex seems rather superfluous; there has never been a lack of interest. An older wisdom sought to mobilize the state behind marriage, which at its core was about bridling unruly passions for the purposes of social stability and the upbringing of children.

What happened back in 1967? Trudeau's Omnibus Bill made divorce easier, which would in due course flower into full no-fault divorce, which renders marriage the only contract unilaterally breakable by either party, at any time, for any reason.

It was from there a short step to the conferring of spousal benefits on those who weren't married, but in conjugal relationships. Common-law "spouses" get the benefits without the commitment. When civil marriage is thus stripped of its permanence and its commitment, what is left to distinguish a married relationship from any friendship? Sex. Hetero or homo, it doesn't matter. Ergo, same-sex marriage.

So, we have arrived at the curious position that the state doesn't much care about what goes on in the rest of the house, but is mightily interested in what goes on in the bedroom. Civil marriage is now not about anything else.

One of the incongruities of debate over homosexual marriage is that advocates argued it would encourage monogamy and stability. As my colleague, Andrew Coyne, has put it: "The conservative case for gay marriage expresses itself in the hope that marriage may have the same civilizing effect on homosexuals that it does on heterosexuals, encouraging stable, monogamous relationships and the social values that go with them."

It was an incongruous argument because we have been, post-1967, busily undermining all that makes marriage stable and monogamous.

Now, barring a reversal in a future Parliament, we have same-sex marriage. How about we start shoring up those civilizing effects in law, on the principle that what is good for two ganders might be good for the goose and gander, too?

A good place to start might be the treatment of common-law spouses. The research data show that cohabiting couples split up more often than married ones do, and married couples who were cohabiting before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who were not. Cohabitation is a recipe for social instability, exposing women and children in particular to the insecurity of sequential polygamy.

What public good is served by encouraging cohabitation? The principle that state benefits should be available wherever there is regular sex is not conducive to social stability. Now that homosexuals have the ability to contract civil marriage, and no vestige of "discrimination" holds, why shouldn't the government insist that marital benefits require marital promises?

And while we're at it, why shouldn't those marital promises mean what they say? Namely, that the bond of permanence cannot be broken unless the terms of the (civil) marriage contract have themselves been broken, or that the parties mutually agree to break the contract? Why shouldn't marital contracts be at least as strong as, say, the contract to renovate the kitchen, where one party cannot unilaterally break it?

Such reforms are hardly on the political agenda, but they should have the support of those who argued so passionately that marriage needed to be radically changed to accommodate homosexuals. If that support is not there, it will be clear that the same-sex marriage debate had little to do with marriage, and everything to do with state-sanctioned homosexual sex -- a long road since 1967.

But the burden of carrying this debate forward does not lie principally with the advocates of same-sex marriage. It was not they who dismantled marriage these past four decades. That was done long beforehand, and now we will see if there is any constituency for reversing that trend. If not, Tuesday definitively marked the consummation of the decline of marriage.

National Post

© The Calgary Herald 2005

[logical]

Marriage now just about the sex

© The Calgary Herald 2005

Is not the islamic NIKKAH a contract to have sex?

[ShamsB]

Marriage now just about the sex

© The Calgary Herald 2005

Is not the islamic NIKKAH a contract to have sex?

I think what you are referring to is Mutah marraige...
Ismailies don't practise Mutah..


Shams

[nagib]

Nikkah Marriage or Mutaa Marriage is the same except for the lenght of the marriage.

They both come with the same obligations towards the spouse and the kids from these marriages.

Nagib

[nagib]

Countries are now changing the fundamentals like laws that relied on firmely established systems [Judaisme, Christianity], rules of morals that prevalled for centuries and worked well for centuries.

New concepts are coming which promote more liberties but they come one at a time, not as a complete system. They are bound to fail..

How for example will society sustain its population if guay marriage is encouraged? Will it still pay pension to them knowing that they have not contributed in the development of the upcoming population whose tax will sustain the pension plans.

Where does one stop when bringing new rules in regards to the definition of the family?

I remember a time when I was very young, the students were making fun of the "Muslims having 4 wives", I guess at that time someone should have told them that their society was in a clear path to allow things that they would have thought impossible.

maybe one day marriage with animals will be officialised, already they have in some countries the right of inheritence which in many civilisations women got only recently. [Muslim were far in advance for women's inheritence rights].

Maybe these same law-makers will allow brothers and sisters to marry [like they do in Sweeden with half brothers/half sisters].

And the court will be officialising that a dog of a person gets his inheritence but not his child.

I am not saying this is wrong, I am saying this can not work as it does not contribute in any way into building strong societies on firm ground like many of the old systems designed by uneducated people did.

[me12121]

How for example will society sustain its population if guay marriage is encouraged? Will it still pay pension to them knowing that they have not contributed in the development of the upcoming population whose tax will sustain the pension plans.

so infertile couples shouldn't be able to marry either then? also, the populations in first world countries are expected to decline anyway. look up the demographic transition model. the last stage of it is where first world countries are headed, gay marriage or not. its because having kids is so expensive these days. nothing to do with gay marriage.

[nagib]

Please don't take it personaly. I was just giving examples of questions that will be arising in the future.

[s786]

Please excuse me for being a bit blunt, but I believe:

Gay marriages and being gay is wrong - Period.

I personally feel if God wanted people to be gay, it would have been maybe Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve. It's fairly simple.

Not to mention two gay people cannot reproduce, whether they are both male or female or what not.

Taking science and biologically modifying the human body so that they can implant a fetus in a male body is completely wrong. It is not the way humans were born.

Moving further, being gay is a simple mind manipulation, it is up to the human being to a maximum extent to choose whether being gay is right or wrong. If they feel being attracted to the same sex is normal, then they are lead to believe so. However, if society, religion and their upbringing forbid gayism, they themselves would too.

Whether or not all religious texts, holy books or religion itself does not always say being gay is wrong... it is more than obvious it is. There would be no issue of it whatsoever.

I await the day Hazar Imam attacks the issue of homosexuality in his farmans. I am more than firm that he will say it is wrong. Forgive me, but I don’t think it is acceptable for two male human beings to be evolved in sodomy and think it’s normal. Furthermore, a marriage takes place between a male and female, not a male and a male or a female and a female… so please do not refer to it as a marriage or divorce when referring to homosexuals.

S786

---
PS: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
"husband and wife" not husband and husband or wife and wife.

[kmaherali]

The following is an editorial article that appeared in Calgary Herald today discussing the state-church ramifications of the legality of homo sexual unions. It also states the Islamic view on this issue which is highlighted in bold letters.

Time to get out of marriage business
Alberta should stick to civil unions and leave matrimony to the church


Calgary Herald


July 4, 2005



There is marriage, and there is holy matrimony. And, to protect freedom of religious conscience, it is time for the province of Alberta to get out of the business of licensing either.

Instead, it should license civil unions -- yes, for homosexuals, as well as for opposite-sex partnerships -- and let newly conjoined couples subsequently seek the blessing of churches, synagogues and mosques prepared to offer it, if they so choose.

In this way, the contractual aspects of marriage are provided for on a completely non-discriminatory basis.

Meanwhile, with the state no longer having an interest in a religious ceremony, there should be no legal obligation upon a pastor, (or rabbi, or mullah,) to perform a wedding inconsistent with the rules and practices of his or her faith.

Holy matrimony would be just that, a marriage upon which the participants have sought the blessing of God, as they understand Him.

All else would be a civil contract between two people, end of story.

Severing the link between church and state in this matter should be conclusive.

The fear of religious bodies is that, despite all the protections promised by Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, pastors would be vulnerable to prosecution before human rights tribunals, should they refuse to marry homosexual couples.

Their concerns are valid.

First, homosexual activists have already proposed attacking churches that refuse to perform gay marriages, by eliminating their ability to offer tax receipts on tithes and offerings.

No doubt, the churches would survive.

However, such threats suggest the ultimate goals of truly militant gay activists go beyond tolerance, equal treatment before the law, the right to adopt children, societal acceptance of homosexual activity, and the right to marry each other.

Rather, having made ample use of Canada's free-speech culture to further their cause, they now seek to cut off criticism, and further debate. Those parts of the Christian church favouring a literal use of the Bible are their most articulate opponents -- and, as long as they are, they will continue to draw fire from extreme gay advocates.

Should Canada's Islamic community go public with the teachings of the Koran -- which refers to those who "approach men in (their) lusts rather than women," as "ignorant" and "transgressing" -- so too, will it.

Second, while Ottawa can say who may marry, the administration of marriage is a provincial function. So, federal ministers who say churches will not be sued for refusing to marry gays, and that marriage commissioners will not have to do so over their conscience, promise what they cannot deliver: This all rests with the provinces, and to these concerns, there are no reliable reassurances.

How concerned over religious freedoms a provincial government may be today is no guide to its future disposition. Those caught in that particular trap could appeal to the nation's Supreme Court. However, the Court believes the Canadian constitution is "a living tree." Sadly, their tree is all leaves and no roots. It cannot be depended upon as liberty's guarantor.

Let church and state be put asunder, therefore. And, let pastors cease to be commissioners for civil marriage.

In the mechanics of marriage, the church then becomes like a private club, open equally to all who will subscribe to its beliefs, and agree to be bound by its code of practices, but under no obligation to others.

In other words, religious conscience will be best protected when pastors are under no more compulsion to marry people whose unions they cannot approve, than is the president of a golf club to perform a wedding for members who want to play the holes in reverse order.

The Alberta government should look to it, and soon.

© The Calgary Herald 2005

[finni]

I am writing as an Ismaili who happens to be gay. I can tell you it is not a choice nor is it a lust.

Why would we endure all the ridicules and hostily towards us if we made this a choice?

Some of the prominent scientists, artist and philosophers of the past were gays.

There are many wonderful men and women that are single who volunteer countless hours and resources all over the world that are gay and lesbians.

I for one simply ask that one should be respect a person that is different from you.

If Mandela, Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa were all accepting of gay and lesbians why cant we all be like that?


When I came out to my family, their initial reaction was of shock and concern then acceptance. They had never thought that someone from their family could be gay.

I like any person am spiritual, love my family and my friends and neighbours. I have plenty of straight friends who I respect their tolerance
and would never want them to "choose" to be gay simply because it is not a choice nor would I ever want them to be in my shoes.

[s786]

I am writing as an Ismaili who happens to be gay. I can tell you it is not a choice nor is it a lust.
Why would we endure all the ridicules and hostily towards us if we made this a choice?
Some of the prominent scientists, artist and philosophers of the past were gays.
There are many wonderful men and women that are single who volunteer countless hours and resources all over the world that are gay and lesbians.
I for one simply ask that one should be respect a person that is different from you.
If Mandela, Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa were all accepting of gay and lesbians why cant we all be like that?
When I came out to my family, their initial reaction was of shock and concern then acceptance. They had never thought that someone from their family could be gay.
I like any person am spiritual, love my family and my friends and neighbours. I have plenty of straight friends who I respect their tolerance
and would never want them to "choose" to be gay simply because it is not a choice nor would I ever want them to be in my shoes.

Finni,

This might upset you, but I suppose it's just apart of getting use to. Regardles of how you would like to convince others, or what you are made to believe. Being gay is a choice. It is a choice and not something that is decided from birth. You are very well able to choose whether you are going to be or would like to be gay or not. Sure it is possible that influence may drift you towards gayness, but again, that has to do with the mind. It is wrong, it should be illegal, and stopped at all causes.

Your family accepted the fact that you are gay, and I am shocked. Very frankly if that ever happened to anyone in my family, I would probably dis own them. Sad to say, but it's the truth. Just because scientists or artists were gay, does not mean it is right. If you come and tell me that God made Adam and Steve and being straight is wrong AND it is mentioned in holy scriptures such as the Quran and Bible, then I will be settled upon gayism being right (or not wrong).

Until then it is something I would never agree with, I would never tolerate, and I would never encourage. I am shocked that Canada is allowing it, and am in support of the US not allowing it.

I personally feel (bluntly) you being gay has to do with your upbringing, your friends and influence and you having a weakmind.

There are people that can help you become straight. There are classes you can attend. What is wrong is wrong... You cannot be gay and say you are religious... because being a homo(sexual) is against religion...

S786

[ShamsB]

I am writing as an Ismaili who happens to be gay. I can tell you it is not a choice nor is it a lust.
Why would we endure all the ridicules and hostily towards us if we made this a choice?
Some of the prominent scientists, artist and philosophers of the past were gays.
There are many wonderful men and women that are single who volunteer countless hours and resources all over the world that are gay and lesbians.
I for one simply ask that one should be respect a person that is different from you.
If Mandela, Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa were all accepting of gay and lesbians why cant we all be like that?
When I came out to my family, their initial reaction was of shock and concern then acceptance. They had never thought that someone from their family could be gay.
I like any person am spiritual, love my family and my friends and neighbours. I have plenty of straight friends who I respect their tolerance
and would never want them to "choose" to be gay simply because it is not a choice nor would I ever want them to be in my shoes.

Finni,

This might upset you, but I suppose it's just apart of getting use to. Regardles of how you would like to convince others, or what you are made to believe. Being gay is a choice. It is a choice and not something that is decided from birth. You are very well able to choose whether you are going to be or would like to be gay or not. Sure it is possible that influence may drift you towards gayness, but again, that has to do with the mind. It is wrong, it should be illegal, and stopped at all causes.

Your family accepted the fact that you are gay, and I am shocked. Very frankly if that ever happened to anyone in my family, I would probably dis own them. Sad to say, but it's the truth. Just because scientists or artists were gay, does not mean it is right. If you come and tell me that God made Adam and Steve and being straight is wrong AND it is mentioned in holy scriptures such as the Quran and Bible, then I will be settled upon gayism being right (or not wrong).

Until then it is something I would never agree with, I would never tolerate, and I would never encourage. I am shocked that Canada is allowing it, and am in support of the US not allowing it.

I personally feel (bluntly) you being gay has to do with your upbringing, your friends and influence and you having a weakmind.

There are people that can help you become straight. There are classes you can attend. What is wrong is wrong... You cannot be gay and say you are religious... because being a homo(sexual) is against religion...

S786

S786..
I am not believing what i am typing ..
I agree with you in the sense that homosexuality and being gay and gay marraige..are all sins..
But so is Ninda..so is smoking..so is drinking..so is premarital sex..so is a tonne of other unethical things that we ismailies do...how about addressing those..
As i have stated before..what finni and others do behind closed doors..is none of my business...if he's a good person..and a good ismaili....that is enough for me..
i probably commit enough sins of my own during the day..that i am not..or will not stand in judgement of him...

Finni..i don't agree with homosexuality..however..whatever you do behind closed doors..is your business..and none of mine..i will not stand in judgement over you because i myself am sinful..
as christ said in the bible...let he who has no sin cast the first stone..."

When it comes to equal right..i am a firm believer that each one of us has a right to the same freedoms and benefits that each other do..
All men/women are created equal..all created by god..
whether it's Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, Eve and Eva..you all deserve equal rights..in the form of Civil Unions..not Gay marraige..as marraige is a religious act mandated by the faith..not by the state.

Shams

[finni]

Thanks for your post. While I disagree with you, I still respect you for your opinion. I do hope only time will shed the light on this matter and I truly believe ten or twenty years from today, we will not be debating this issue. At this point, all I can say is do not hurt a person who has done no harm to you.

[s786]

Shams

I agree with you on certain points. However, the part of doing things behind closed doors is also what I am speaking about. There are gay people all over. Whether they decide to hold hands in public, or kiss, or confess they are gay, or whether it be the news making headlines about gay marriages and what not. That, clearly is not behind closed doors. If gay human beings were in the closet, and now are coming out, I would say to put them back in the closet.

Surely enough we commit sins in our daily life, but something like being gay is far from it. Drinking, smoking, premarital sex, they are all up there as well.

finni

You are free to believe what you will. But I am ready to dispute this with you. Being a homo(sexual) is wrong. PERIOD. Whether you like it or not. Sure maybe 10, 20 or 30 years down the road we won't be talking about this... but rather making love to an animal, or trying to legalize the "marriage" between a horse and a human. Come on finni call it something else... it is NOT a "gay marriage", it is not a marriage!

I am not being immature or blowing things up, I am just telling you what I feel. Whether it be 10 years or a 100 years, I will never come to accept that being gay is right and should be allowed. It is wrong, it is illegal in many countries, it is against religion, and it is disgusting.

You are born pure as a human being, and then are taught by either your friends, your family, or TV shows, or books or whatever, that being straight and being attracted the opposite sex is right. Apparently you were taught wrong. Now today you feel that you were born gay and that being gay is not a choice. Well if it is not a choice, then why are people suddenly turning gay and vice versa? It is a simple problem with the mind... it is a PSYCHOLOGICAL problem. Yes psychological and yes problem!

God forbid the day the entire world agrees to homosexuality as being a "correct" or "normal" thing. Your analogy of scientists and artists being gay and therefore making it okay for you being gay, does not mean anything. Yesterday rapists went and raped people, today someone jumped off a cliff and tomorrow someone will shoot another... so what? does that make it okay to do the same?

God created Adam and Eve... not Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva. You need to understand that.

Unless Mowlana Hazar Imam comes and says in a farman that Adam had a gay counterpart called Steve, and it is okay to be gay... I am still going to be firm on what I feel and believe.

Finally, I am not trying to hurt you. Rather you are hurting religion and faith. Reflect on reality and the truth. Reflect on the possibilities of the mind. Reflect... that is all

S786

[nagib]

Lets forget the religious point of vue for a moment and come to a practical point of view. I think the same reasoning about abortion applies to guay people:

Once i had a debate on abortion with a frined and I told him that if his parents were thinking like him, he would never be born

Now I am thinking that if both parents of a guay would have been guay, that guay person would never be born? So the logical question would be, would you approve of both your parents be guay? And if they were would you still be there to approve of it?

[s786]

On a religious view. Lets say... anything that goes against religion (God) is bad, right?

Okay and similarily Satan opposes God (Evil Vs. Good or Good Vs. Evil).

The way I see it is being Gay is Satanic. I think it's a sense or form of being Evil.

Clearly if you are going against religion and God, it's not a good thing and not considered heavenly or godly.

Just my interpretation. Don't mean to upset anyone, but too bad if I do.

[nagib]

I think we should not judge from the religious point of vue. As per Maputo Farman, that is forbidden to us as only Allah can judge.

I think finni has had the courage to discuss this issue here and though that does not make him right, we should recognise that it is very difficult in our society to come forward with this issue.

What I was saying is that even logically, the stand for homosexulaity is difficult to defend. This is like you go in the past and you kill your father and therefore you can not be born to kill him and you can turn in circles a long time. Any person's existence depend on the fact that his parents choose not to be guay.

There are people who are trapped in a wrong body, we all are. At the level of the soul, there is no male or femelle. But once a body is given to us, I think we better respect it as it is. After all the body is the temple of God.

[kmaherali]

The following are some interesting views that I came across in another forum.

Homosexuality is the result of immaturity, underdevelopment of one's
mind and inferiority complex. In order to understand my point of
view may I ask you to consider the following senarios:

1. When children are growing up, at the toddler stage girls do not
like boys and vice versa. Girls will play with girls only and boys
with boys only. At about the age of eight, children with normal
development of their minds begin to be attracted to the opposite
sex, at the same time keeping alive their bonds with their own sex.
Mature, well developed minds cause teens to be facinated by the
opposite sex and lose their attraction to 'same sex'. Homosexuals
have not grown out of the toddler stage. Hence my view: immaturity
and underdevelopment of the mind.

2. Nervousness at the prospect of being with a person of the
opposite sex, at any age (at toddler stage it is dislike) can build
into stressful situations. Rather than risk being rejected by
ladies, some men are overcome by inferiority complex and find it
easier to hook up with men. Similarly, some women suffering from
similar inferiority complex will hook up with other women rather
than risk rejection by men.

What is required is counselling and education to help the immature,
underdeveloped minds grow up. Yes, homosexuals must have equal
rights but that does not mean they can marry and adopt children. By
allowing same-sex marriages and allowing adoptions by homosexuals
the society is doing a dis-service similar to withholding medical
treatment from individuals who are physically ill. Immature and
underdeveloped minds require as much treatment as physically sick
individuals require.

Religions teach humanbeings the art of distinguishing between
appropriate and inappropriate, safe and unsafe behaviours. Perhaps
that is why homosexuality has not been encouraged by any religion.
For despite its existence for the past '5,000 years' (as an earlier
posting here has indicated) homosexuality was never considered to be
appropriate of safe behaviour.

But then we have some modern-day preachers who not only encourage
homosexuality but indulge in that undesirable habit themselves. And
then there are the politicians, who hide behind expressions such
as "In a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-
pick rights. A right is a right". Obviously, a politician will do
whatever is necessary, right or not, to hang on to the seat.

[tryingtounderstandyou]

In response to last post:
Your assumption that every human being must follow your understanding of human development needs rethinking. The same science that you try to quote is recognising that there is not just one form of human sexuality. While it has taken thousands of years to "discover" this, and we as humans have accepted the established as the only way, we must now be open to evolving universal truths. Truth that is ever becoming clearer and brighter. One skin color is not "better or more intellectual" than another, the world is not flat, men and women are not as different as once thought, and so forth. There has always been resistance to change, even when proven to be a non disputable truth.
If your argument is religious stick to religious teaching. If it is scientific, be open to ever-changing scientific truths. Do not use dated scientific material, or worse yet, assume that all humans should only develop the way you have. If the way the majority develop should be the only way would we not have all the same personalities,interests, physical attributes?
There are many examples that are exempt from your statements about toddlers,age "8" attractions, as well as teen attractions, and well developed minds. You choose to label them as "under-developed". Until you are open to learning from the contributions of so many of this world's learned, geniuses, you will always see us as "under-developed" therefore "not normal, and at some point, in need of curing, cleansing or eradication . An excuse for genocide to someone that may allow thoughts similar to yours to take them there. Now those types of people have "under-developed" minds.
If you think that nervousness about approaching the opposite sex can change a persons sexuality, then you would have to agree that the opposite can have the same effects!!! Imagine the nervousness about approaching someone that you may be interested in and not knowing whether that person will feel the same or want to kill you for you approaching them. How's that for nervousness and stress? if sexuality could change that easily......

[finni]

Like I had stated in my previous post, it is just a matter of time when we would not be discussing this topic..

I am happy that Canada has ok'd gay marriages. A progressive move indeed...a true example of a pluralistic society in play..

For those who have difficulty understading this , talk to a professional that deals with this issue everyday....

For those of you who have stated that they would throw their kids out if they find out about them, I suggest seeking professional help...

For those of you who read "Memoirs of Aga khan" may I suggest you read a bit about the person who wrote the foreword to it....

And for those of you who simply hate homosexuals what if you found out your waiter or a cook is gay, the designer clothes you wear were designed by a gay man..