Why is there so much violence against LGBTQ coming from islam?

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry man, I'm out, I can't take anyone who gets their 'facts' of wiki seriously. Have a good 'un.
I once read a wiki page about hamburgers. It said that they got their name because people in WWII were starving and well....they ate the dead people from Hamburg. :oops:

I decided it was true, because well, I don't eat meat and it's a much better story.




Oh, also, about LGBT....Florida has been deemed unsafe for LGBT people. Is Florida a Muslim country too? :unsure:
 
Sigh, if you don't have any arguments start ridiculing reliable sources.
Cite made up stories to 'prove' your point.
I thought the level of intelligence was a bit higher here, but I guess I overestimated you all.
 
in defense of wikipedia ... sometimes pages are hacked and vandalized (if you can talk about hacking when anyone is allowed to modify an article) ... also it's ranking among top 5 sites of the whole internet along with giants like google and youtube ... it is the greatest free universal project ever made by man
 
I never thought of it that way, I must say.
Love is love only only applies to consenting adults, of course.
So two cousins, if one of them is a minor would not apply as "love is love".
But if they are adults and both male, then I guess the issues with the gene pool would not apply.

The disgust for that sexual relationship I guess is something we were taught as a child.
For heterosexual relationships there is some logic in that, the gene pool issue.
This is the issue. When a line cannot be drawn then the whole concept is going to be deemed wrong. If two consenting adults are homosexual then they should be allowed to have an incestuous relationship…? shows that the most immoral acts can coat tail on these movements using the same arguments. Thus even if you think okay let grown adults do what grown adults want to do, if the only stipulation is that they are adults then there would be nothing wrong with father and son whom are both adults and so on.

In terms of the original argument. Why would having children strictly in wedlock make sure the children are muslim? Children outside of wedlock can also be muslim, additionally why so much strict rules on multiple wives then? Why limit the number a man can have if its about reproduction to further the religion ? These points seem to contradict the argument…

Truth is religions have rules on how we are supposed to use our bodies. The rules make sense, as when you use them how the religion says you create life in controlled environments. However, should everyone have to follow those rules or face violence, no. But the reason why the LGBTQ community is faced with violence has little to do with reproduction and more to do with going against the rules written in scriptures. It’s not just them, these countries are violent towards all sexual activity that is not in line with the religions rules. It’s really that simple.
 
This is the issue. When a line cannot be drawn then the whole concept is going to be deemed wrong. If two consenting adults are homosexual then they should be allowed to have an incestuous relationship…? shows that the most immoral acts can coat tail on these movements using the same arguments. Thus even if you think okay let grown adults do what grown adults want to do, if the only stipulation is that they are adults then there would be nothing wrong with father and son whom are both adults and so on.
If there is no logical argument why something is wrong, then it must be that it isn't wrong, even if we feel uneasy about it (I can't think of one, but maybe there are arguments against it).
Otherwise you risk being the hostage of the most prude and most narrow-minded people.
So maybe some laws need to be changed there, but that is the difference between a civilian society and a theocracy, in which religion decides all.
We can think about these issues, debate them, laws can be changed, such as when gay marriages were introduced.
In islam, which wants to dominate every aspect of life, with its own shariah courts, there is little room for evolution.

In terms of the original argument. Why would having children strictly in wedlock make sure the children are muslim? Children outside of wedlock can also be muslim, additionally why so much strict rules on multiple wives then? Why limit the number a man can have if its about reproduction to further the religion ? These points seem to contradict the argument…
I think islam is very unequal in sexual terms.
Women need to cover themselves 'so that they don't tempt men'.
Men can have many wives, but the opposite is not true.
So no equality whatsoever, and men are treated like helpless creatures with no responsibility whatsoever.
The limitation I think is to make sure that offspring survives and has a decent life.
The wedlock seems to have the same purpose.
But you are asking me about the logic of those rules.
I didn't make them, and I am not sure they are always logical.
I heard one theory that as muhammad started having more wives as his power grew, he became more and more jealous of other men, and that that is why he wanted his women to cover themselves.
So that theory says that he did this just for selfish purposes.

The rules make sense, as when you use them how the religion says you create life in controlled environments.
The rules are often there to control people.
Just think about it, being able to decide who you can have sex with, is one of the greatest controls you have over someone's life.

Do the rules that women need to cover themselves make sense?
I don't think so, like I said above it treats men as some kind of sexual predators, with no responsibility whatsoever.
It is enough that the woman is not covered 'adequately' (this varies from one country to another), and these women can be called whores, or when a man rapes them, the woman can be blamed for adultery.

However, should everyone have to follow those rules or face violence, no. But the reason why the LGBTQ community is faced with violence has little to do with reproduction and more to do with going against the rules written in scriptures. It’s not just them, these countries are violent towards all sexual activity that is not in line with the religions rules. It’s really that simple.
That doesn't make it OK.
It is like saying that if you kill blacks it 's wrong, but if you kill people of all races then there is no problem.
Remember that you also see this violence -to a lesser extent- in countries that are not (yet) predominantly muslim, such as my own, Belgium.
That is why I am saying that our authorities should make sure that civil law always takes precedence over religion.
If we are 'tolerant towards intolerance' as someone else puts it, we are actually betraying our own principles, we are letting one minority down, not defending their rights, in order to please another.
That is simply wrong.
 
in defense of wikipedia ... sometimes pages are hacked and vandalized (if you can talk about hacking when anyone is allowed to modify an article) ... also it's ranking among top 5 sites of the whole internet along with giants like google and youtube ... it is the greatest free universal project ever made by man
I think Wiki is an okay place to START, but actual facts should never be quoted from Wiki. That's why most schools and colleges in the US won't allow Wiki to be used as a source.
 
If there is no logical argument why something is wrong, then it must be that it isn't wrong, even if we feel uneasy about it (I can't think of one, but maybe there are arguments against it).
Otherwise you risk being the hostage of the most prude and most narrow-minded people.
So maybe some laws need to be changed there, but that is the difference between a civilian society and a theocracy, in which religion decides all.
We can think about these issues, debate them, laws can be changed, such as when gay marriages were introduced.
In islam, which wants to dominate every aspect of life, with its own shariah courts, there is little room for evolution.


I think islam is very unequal in sexual terms.
Women need to cover themselves 'so that they don't tempt men'.
Men can have many wives, but the opposite is not true.
So no equality whatsoever, and men are treated like helpless creatures with no responsibility whatsoever.
The limitation I think is to make sure that offspring survives and has a decent life.
The wedlock seems to have the same purpose.
But you are asking me about the logic of those rules.
I didn't make them, and I am not sure they are always logical.
I heard one theory that as muhammad started having more wives as his power grew, he became more and more jealous of other men, and that that is why he wanted his women to cover themselves.
So that theory says that he did this just for selfish purposes.


The rules are often there to control people.
Just think about it, being able to decide who you can have sex with, is one of the greatest controls you have over someone's life.

Do the rules that women need to cover themselves make sense?
I don't think so, like I said above it treats men as some kind of sexual predators, with no responsibility whatsoever.
It is enough that the woman is not covered 'adequately' (this varies from one country to another), and these women can be called whores, or when a man rapes them, the woman can be blamed for adultery.


That doesn't make it OK.
It is like saying that if you kill blacks it 's wrong, but if you kill people of all races then there is no problem.
Remember that you also see this violence -to a lesser extent- in countries that are not (yet) predominantly muslim, such as my own, Belgium.
That is why I am saying that our authorities should make sure that civil law always takes precedence over religion.
If we are 'tolerant towards intolerance' as someone else puts it, we are actually betraying our own principles, we are letting one minority down, not defending their rights, in order to please another.
That is simply wrong.
Okay so put it this way, if we remove morals from everything then we are left with a society that is completely lacking in morals. A world in which most people wouldnt want to live in. If the idea of a progressive society is one that has no concept of right and wrong based on our biology and instincts and behaviours of other closely related animals then I dont think the world will work. Then it will be okay for children to come into the picture as long as you are only “child attracted” and keep everything “pure” until legal consent.. then whats the harm? No one was hurt? thats where society would be heading.

Rules that women need to cover themselves makes sense in a world where police departments have not been readily established. Its a privilege to be able to wear what we want, afforded to us by a modern society.

Men are not seen as having no control they are seen (as they rightly should be) as the person with all the control. If a man doesn't attack a woman its simply because he doesnt want to, what the woman wants has little to nothing to do with that. Thus, it makes sense to task women with as much of the responsibility she can possibly bare to protect herself from this. As much as we want to believe we are far advanced from this mind set the first thing a woman is asked in the west is “what was you wearing”. This is real life, you attract men, you run the risk that he will use his control and hurt you.

I’m not saying it makes it okay, I was answering the question, the question was why do the LGBTQ face violence in islamic countries. The answer is because all sexual acts that go against the scriptures is met with violence. If the question is, is it okay, the answer is no.

I have to disagree, authorities making law or going over religious texts is completely over stepping the fundamentals of religion. Also I find it offensive when people equate being a homosexual to being a different race typically black, sexuality and ethnicity are different, and it also implies the only homosexuals are caucasian which is exclusive within itself.
 
Sigh, if you don't have any arguments start ridiculing reliable sources.
Cite made up stories to 'prove' your point.
I thought the level of intelligence was a bit higher here, but I guess I overestimated you all.
We're just shocked and in awe of yours. It's obviously much greater than all of ours combined.
I'm thinking I should change my line of thinking, make up a sign and go picket in front of the Ottawa Parlement, something along the lines of "Kick all Muslims out, because Insecure says so"
I'm sure everyone will agree. It's not like Shariah law is actually applied in certain parts of Canada without people dying, after all.
 
It's in their foundational principles. As I understand, the Islamic community thus has a schism about it. While many of them adhere to it, many of them also acknowledge that it's time for a modern sanitization and update just as the schism between the evolution of Christianity also happened. The Abrahamic Faiths are called that, because the three of them all hark back to Abraham and the beginning of Monotheism. Anything in extremism, particularly of ideological beliefs, is bad. However, just because there are some extremists does not mean that all of it is bad. If that were indeed the case, Christianity would have never survived past the fall of The Crusades. Mfs, just keep trying to manipulate the field for their own. Monotheism to me is, well, Monotheism. If a Tabby cat fights a Siamese cat, I just call it a cat fight, rather than trying to differentiate.
 
I think Wiki is an okay place to START, but actual facts should never be quoted from Wiki. That's why most schools and colleges in the US won't allow Wiki to be used as a source.
It is a tactic though to discredit any resource that does not conform with what one believes.
Often muslims will only accept muslim sources, and only supposedly enlightened, in that case it is pointless to say anything that doesn't confirm what they believe.
If you say that wikipedia is lying, then maybe you can start by saying which of the battles mentioned on wikipedia never happened.
I have heard very few counterarguments, what I read were mostly personal attacks on me, some of them coming from people who sent me private messages insulting me.
 
Okay so put it this way, if we remove morals from everything then we are left with a society that is completely lacking in morals. A world in which most people wouldnt want to live in.
Exactly, but morals don't come from religion, for the reason you just gave.
Can you imagine a society in which no one can be trusted, and everyone can steal and kill as much as they like?
That is of course not a society, because no one could trust anyone.

If the idea of a progressive society is one that has no concept of right and wrong based on our biology and instincts and behaviours of other closely related animals then I dont think the world will work.
I am not pleading for a society without any morals.
Some people think that only religious people have morals, that is of course of true.
The difference for me is that instead of blindly following a doctrine laid out by some belief, I have to make my own choices.
That is a lot harder than simply listening what some committee of 'wise men' decided is the absolute truth (for now...).
It makes you think for yourself about things such as abortion, euthanasia, LGBTQ things, you name it.
The concept of right and wrong will always exist because if you think about what it means 'good' or 'bad', the only way to really define it is by saying that what is good is what makes society stronger, and bad is what makes it weaker.
Instincts can be helpful, for instance, we may feel it is wrong to have sex with a sibling of the opposite sex, because it could result in genetically defect children.
Before we knew about genetics, our instincts already protected us from that.

Then it will be okay for children to come into the picture as long as you are only “child attracted” and keep everything “pure” until legal consent.. then whats the harm? No one was hurt? thats where society would be heading.
Consenting adults, that is the lines that is drawn by almost everyone.
It comes from the fact that we know children can be very gullible, not to forget the bodily harm that would be done to an underage boy/girl.
I don't know about the US, but here in Belgium there are like 2 types of age of consent.
One is for youngsters who are starting to experiment, if they have sex with someone a couple of years older than themselves, there will not be a problem, but if say a 30 year old would have sex with such a girl it would be a problem if anyone filed a complaint.
This is done in order to avoid the abuse of power by the older party.
Then there is the age of full consent, from that age onwards, the two can have sex if both parties want it.

Note that there is much discussion in the muslim world as to the age of Aisha, the third wife of muhammad.
According to some she was only nine or ten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Rules that women need to cover themselves makes sense in a world where police departments have not been readily established. Its a privilege to be able to wear what we want, afforded to us by a modern society.
That is a bit naïve, as islamic law did have laws for stoning women (but not men, who are allowed to have several wives...) who were performing adultery.
If you can stone a woman for adultery, you can also punish a rapist.
The way that law was done is to blame the women, they get all the responsibility for the bad behaviour of some men.

Men are not seen as having no control they are seen (as they rightly should be) as the person with all the control.
That doesn't make sense.
Think about it, the murderer also has the control over who he/she is going to murder.
Shall we blame the victim then for giving the murderer a reason to murder him/her?
This is simply victim blaming.
As much as we want to believe we are far advanced from this mind set the first thing a woman is asked in the west is “what was you wearing”. This is real life, you attract men, you run the risk that he will use his control and hurt you.
That excuse has not been accepted for a long time.
Though in some cities where there are lots of influences from this type of countries, women do feel threatened.
Not because our laws are the way you describe, but because of other cultures that put all the blame and responsibility on women.
I actually find it strange to see you as a woman accepting all the blame and all the responsibility, and me as a man defending women's rights...

I’m not saying it makes it okay, I was answering the question, the question was why do the LGBTQ face violence in islamic countries. The answer is because all sexual acts that go against the scriptures is met with violence.
It does confirm what I said though, that islam leaves little room for modernisation or reinterpretation.

I have to disagree, authorities making law or going over religious texts is completely over stepping the fundamentals of religion.
I don't know if I understand this sentence correctly.
So in your opinion, anyone who can find some rule in their religious book that is completely against the law (example: if a woman is found to be adulterous she can be stoned"), can just follow those rules of his holy book, and we as a society should accept that?
That is horribly wrong.
In that case there is no longer the rule of law, you live in a theocracy then.

Also I find it offensive when people equate being a homosexual to being a different race typically black, sexuality and ethnicity are different, and it also implies the only homosexuals are caucasian which is exclusive within itself.
There is a logical connection between these things.
You cannot choose your skin colour, but people can discriminate against it.
You cannot choose which gender you are attracted to, but again, people can discriminate against it.
I don't understand the conclusion you draw from it that only caucasians could be homosexuals.
I never said that.
 
Last edited:
We're just shocked and in awe of yours. It's obviously much greater than all of ours combined.
I'm thinking I should change my line of thinking, make up a sign and go picket in front of the Ottawa Parlement, something along the lines of "Kick all Muslims out, because Insecure says so"
I'm sure everyone will agree. It's not like Shariah law is actually applied in certain parts of Canada without people dying, after all.
Wow, what a way to twist my words.
But I'm not surprised, given the fact that you sent me those personal insults in my mailbox here.
 
You remind me a lot about my younger self. I'd debate anyone on the topic of religion in youtube's comment section. I'm personnaly ashamed of my time back then, but it's part of my weirdness growing up I guess. I didn't read a lot of what you wrote but I just hope you're not writing all of this with some sort of anguish or anxiety behind it...

I'm not a fan of Islam either, but I've learned to control my urges to debate it everytime it is mentionned. it wasn't making me happy or made my life fulfilling. it also was a big time waster (for me). Nonetheless the debate is clearly needed as more and more muslims live in our european cities, and their intolerance towards LGBT+ is troublesome to say the least.

anyway d:
 
I'm not a fan of Islam either, but I've learned to control my urges to debate it everytime it is mentionned. it wasn't making me happy or made my life fulfilling. it also was a big time waster (for me). Nonetheless the debate is clearly needed as more and more muslims live in our european cities, and their intolerance towards LGBT+ is troublesome to say the least.

anyway d:
Well, I don't know why it would be wrong to raise these issues once in a while, especially as you say, more and more muslims living in European cities.
There is nothing childish about defending the rights of a minority either.
If our law makers and judges would simply defend civil law over religious beliefs, there would not be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Wow, what a way to twist my words.
But I'm not surprised, given the fact that you sent me those personal insults in my mailbox here.
Oh come on. I called you an idiot by pm, that was it, for getting the previous thread closed. Report me, it was still against the rules and I know it, if you don't like it. I've moved on and as I told you, I've spoken my piece. You aren't that much better, what with "I thought the level of intelligence was a bit higher here, but I guess I overestimated you all.". Which is a polite way to call everyone idiots. I'm just more direct with it.
If it makes you feel any better, I apologize for offending you. But that doesn't change what I think. We actually have laws protecting freedom of religion here in Canada and I stand by those, including Islam. Anything else is violating a principle that's an integral part of western civilization. I'll never advocate for, or against any religion and will call out anyone who does so, whether I agree with the concept or not. There's plenty I don't agree with, too.
 
Last edited:
It is a tactic though to discredit any resource that does not conform with what one believes.
Often muslims will only accept muslim sources, and only supposedly enlightened, in that case it is pointless to say anything that doesn't confirm what they believe.
If you say that wikipedia is lying, then maybe you can start by saying which of the battles mentioned on wikipedia never happened.
I have heard very few counterarguments, what I read were mostly personal attacks on me, some of them coming from people who sent me private messages insulting me.
No, you don't get it. Wiki is not a good source because every single article on Wiki can literally be changed by anyone at any time. It is NOT a reliable source, which is why colleges and high schools in America don't allow it to be used as a source.
Case in point, the hamburger Wiki I once read. Yes, it was actually on there. Doesn't matter for how long. Even the simplest sentence could be changed and it could ruin factual information. And yes, I know how Wiki works behind the scenes, doesn't matter that it's monitored. What matters is that it can be done, like I said, by anyone at any time.
 
I have a good question for you, insecure. Why do muslims living in Europe receive lower wages compared to Christians and even atheists/agnostics? and since we're at it, why do muslims in Europe oftentimes live in the worst neighborhoods, while Christians, atheists and agnostics seem to generally live in nicer places? Also, why do so many muslim people in Europe speak of discrimination, when Europe is supposedly about tolerance and rainbows and tree-hugging and all of that? In fact, I find these questions so pressing I may start my own thread about them.
 
Let me put it simply, in my honest opinion morals exist because of religion. As society falls away from
religion the more immorality is pushed. Its the reason more people are suicidal than ever before, families dont work and people transmit STDs at the highest rates of all time.

Telling a woman its safer to cover up and not being alone late at night is not blaming her, its protecting her, pretending we dont live in a society where that advice might just save her life… is naive. A murderer has all the control hence why you lock your doors before you sleep. If you left the door wide open it would be rational for people to wonder why… in fact every night my mum calls me to make sure my backdoor is locked… guess its victim blaming by your logic?

Now on to colour my least favourite subject. Being black and being homosexual have no parallels. You can be discriminated against for anything… Being a homosexual is an act by any law or religions interpretation and actually most peoples interpretation even within the LGBTQIA community. An ethnicity is not an act its just a pigment. Put it this way you are curious about your sexuality as is most, but im 100% sure you arent curious about your race its just completely different and tiring to keep hearing black peoples discrimination brought up in matters that it shouldnt be, try bringing up the jews in that manner, it would never fly.

On another note I will not engage anymore if you feel you are getting ganged up on or receiving personal attacks as I respect your ability to debate this topic peacefully and I dont want to be dragged into a gang up on you for simply having a debate on here. However, I worry it may be slipping into religious debate territory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top