Who's Afraid of Shariah ?

[TheLionsHunter]

What's the Tabari? That's where that verse is.........Tabari IX:113, not the Koran.

there is no such a verse called tabari? and what does this word mean ?

[Stellar]

that? homosexuel is an abnormal act and can be dangerous for the whole society and it can bring a new diseases those can kill innocent people and make others misrable so, it is a crime too, but the punishement is stoning to death

Then I oppose it whether the majority of the population wants it or not. I mean... would it be right to elect a government that kills people for, say, simply being jewish? No, it wouldnt... and whether the majority of the population want to or not, its wrong and should not be allowed.

that? homosexuel is an abnormal act and can be dangerous for the whole society and it can bring a new diseases those can kill innocent people and make others misrable so, it is a crime too, but the punishement is stoning to death

Didnt you say it was acceptable to beat women in certain situations? I distinctly remember you saying that in a previous topic.

[shadowhive]

This is beyond your mind, you will not understand why does shari'a tell us to stone for adultery and by the way this law can not be valid if you don't bring four witnesses, so this law is no longer valid because people lie and can be corrupted easily, the punishment can be applicable only if you will provide 4 witnesses or caught by caps practicing adultery. And there are no law in shari'a said that we must hang homosexuels, where did you find that? homosexuel is an abnormal act and can be dangerous for the whole society and it can bring a new diseases those can kill innocent people and make others misrable so, it is a crime too, but the punishement is stoning to death (again it's a law has nothing to do with human rights) and it is only applicable if you see both of men doing this act which is a sin and it can be forgotten if the both of men who have been caught repent and the punishment will not proceed. treating women as cattle, that was rude, shari'a have never said that in any way, and this subject is beyond your mind and you will not understand even if I explain to you how women should be treated, the only thing I can say to you, is that Islam or shari'a has gave laws to women more than any system in the world or laws have ever did.

God is beyond your mind. If he/she/it exists it is beyond the minds of us all. To belief you know what a higher power wants is arrougant and self serving.

Homosexuality is not damaging or immoral and it is CERTAINLY not dangerous to society. How can you justify that? It has everything to do with human rights. I did not choose to be bisexual and I will not repent for if because it is a part of who I am, not something I can change or will surpress just because someone else says I should. Death is a barbaric punishment for homosexuality. It is a human right because ppeople don't chose to be gay. Think about it logically for a second. If you are in a country with shariah and the punishment is death why would you CHOOSE it?

[Lion6969]

Saudi Arabia.

Lol you think Saudi is in abbreviation for Saudi arabia. This just proves my point about the lack intelligence you have. Lol. Saudi is an abbreviation, me and friends are splitting ribs over this. It's so sad to see such ignorance and blatant thickness. Saudiarab. Is the true way to say it but just because English is unable determine that it's one word they split in to two Saudi Arabia. Saudi is not abbreviated that isthe word.

[ChloeB]

there is no such a verse called tabari? and what does this word mean ?

I'm not exactly sure. That verse IX:113 is not in the Koran. This is:

IX: 113 It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the

forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin [to them] after it

hath become clear that they are people of hell-fire.

But when I googled that verse, it's coming up on sites like this: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Women.Islam

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/islam/tabari

I'm not sure if it's in that or not, all you really see if those kinds of sites quoting it.

[Druidus-Logos]

Any laws which infringe on the rights of other human beings to act in ways that do not cause harm are unethical. If a person is not hurting anyone, and is not directly infringing on the rights of others should be allowed to do whatever they want. Since Sharia in many cases does infringe on people who have done no logical wrong, nothing that can be called wrong EXCEPT through the fallacious and ignorant argument "Allah/God doesnt like this so you can't do it and have to be punished", then I cannot agree with it.

We should be moving more towards a logic and science based criminal justice system, not backsliding into our vestigial and outdated religious "laws" (more like dictator's decrees than laws).

If you want to voluntarily follow a set of laws like that, fine. But you have NO RIGHT to impose it on ANYONE else. That's intensely unethical. Completely immoral. Unless they, without coercion, voluntarily accept those laws.

[Lion6969]

Hmmm it's gettin hot in here! Loads of misleading info and misconceptions. Most of the info being supplied against Islam is coming from Christian missionary and apologetic websites, but that don't bother me. Because those authors like the some contributors on here have never read the Quran or Hadith, maybe bits but not fully. If you want knowledge about something, you gain it from the experts in this case dismissing Islamic sources for a Christian perspective on Islam is naive. I will enjoy this thread now, I enjoy correcting misconceptions, but please let's deal with one thing at a time. Just a humble request.

Thanks

[shadowhive]

Hmmm it's gettin hot in here! Loads of misleading info and misconceptions. Most of the info being supplied against Islam is coming from Christian missionary and apologetic websites, but that don't bother me. Because those authors like the some contributors on here have never read the Quran or Hadith, maybe bits but not fully. If you want knowledge about something, you gain it from the experts in this case dismissing Islamic sources for a Christian perspective on Islam is naive. I will enjoy this thread now, I enjoy correcting misconceptions, but please let's deal with one thing at a time. Just a humble request.

Thanks

No religion should persecute another person based on: race, religion, sexuality, age, gender or physical appearence. The hard-line muslims are more then willing to do that. Much like there's hardline Christians that do the same thing. They don't represent the majority of the people of their religion.

All religions are capable of being a force for good, Islam being no exception, ist's just hard when the dictators of these countries use their religion as an excuse to cause others suffering. It's hard for people not to think negatively of Muslims when there's dictatorships like that.

[Lion6969]

Just to add to the alleged abbreviation of Saudi.

Saudi

from Sa'ud, family name of the rulers of Nejd from 18c. and of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia since 1932.

So to correct you and myself mark, saud is the family name of the monarchs who put in place by the Brits who allied with saud family and allied tribes to defeat the Turkish ottoman caliphate in the Mideast. They have been there ever since. The above is from etymology online.

[Lion6969]

No religion should persecute another person based on: race, religion, sexuality, age, gender or physical appearence. The hard-line muslims are more then willing to do that. Much like there's hardline Christians that do the same thing. They don't represent the majority of the people of their religion.

All religions are capable of being a force for good, Islam being no exception, ist's just hard when the dictators of these countries use their religion as an excuse to cause others suffering. It's hard for people not to think negatively of Muslims when there's dictatorships like that.

I agree totally that religion of any kind can be twisted by individuals and states for selfish reasons, I also agree that dictators do this too and give their respective religions a bad name. Add to this the constant misinformation presented by the media to serve an agenda, and you get a truly bad image. What I find amazing is that after all the negativity and maligning of Islam it's growing rapidly in those very places. The more hate the more come to it maybe initailly out of curiosity.

However, one should not judge any religion with understanding know it and having studied it objectively. Religions should be judged on it's scripture and claims of divinie inspiration. But never by it's followers who are human and fallible and corruptble a true message from god cannot be any of the latter.

[Lion6969]

Right now, any.

I understand that its against the law to be publicly homosexual in Shariah? What is the punishment?

What other laws are there and their punishments?

First I like to make it clear that homosexuality is not compatible with any religion in the world and nearly all prescribe a punishment!

In Islamic state homosexuality, fornication, adultery and sexual promiscuity is forbidden. If someone is caught in either act and was witnessed by credible witness who have no blemish on their record and are known socially as reliable and honest, then that person would face a trial for his action, if guilty he is given the choice to abstain and repent, leave the state or face the punishment. Now when they are told to repent they are also informed the reasons it's wrong in Islam etc, if after this point the person rejects abstaining then he must leave the state if he still rejects, he is rejecting the word of god thus rebelling against god and the state. Only then they are punished!

Now you need to understand that in an Islamic state there are no national boundaries but within that state the majority will be Muslim otherwise it would not be an Islamic state, the only exception was India where Islamic rule was by the minority Muslim but even this law was compatible with Hinduism. So there are is less likely to be homosexuality the way it is in a secular society, in an Islamic state it islikely to be mainly Muslim, with a minority of people of the book, Jews and Christians who have historically lived in Islamic states side by side in peace. So it would not be a problem for them too. Basically what I'm saying shariah applies in an Islamic state where majority are Muslim and majority are against homosexuality, thus the law is in place to keep homosexuality out of society like sexual promiscuity too whether hetro or homo.

[Lion6969]

Once again, you dodge the question. But you don't need to answer it; it's clear to everyone how you really feel. I just wanted you to be honest for once.

Lol. Dodged what can you make it clear please!

[Thalassa]

I think once Israel defends itself against Iran then Islam will probably just become a byword. Of course, that is just my opinion. Muslims are to be treated as human beings and not as subhuman creatures, and that is the more pressing issue.

[shadowhive]

First I like to make it clear that homosexuality is not compatible with any religion in the world and nearly all prescribe a punishment!

In Islamic state homosexuality, fornication, adultery and sexual promiscuity is forbidden. If someone is caught in either act and was witnessed by credible witness who have no blemish on their record and are known socially as reliable and honest, then that person would face a trial for his action, if guilty he is given the choice to abstain and repent, leave the state or face the punishment. Now when they are told to repent they are also informed the reasons it's wrong in Islam etc, if after this point the person rejects abstaining then he must leave the state if he still rejects, he is rejecting the word of god thus rebelling against god and the state. Only then they are punished!

Now you need to understand that in an Islamic state there are no national boundaries but within that state the majority will be Muslim otherwise it would not be an Islamic state, the only exception was India where Islamic rule was by the minority Muslim but even this law was compatible with Hinduism. So there are is less likely to be homosexuality the way it is in a secular society, in an Islamic state it islikely to be mainly Muslim, with a minority of people of the book, Jews and Christians who have historically lived in Islamic states side by side in peace. So it would not be a problem for them too. Basically what I'm saying shariah applies in an Islamic state where majority are Muslim and majority are against homosexuality, thus the law is in place to keep homosexuality out of society like sexual promiscuity too whether hetro or homo.

I still disagree that homosexuality is not compartible with religion. You can be Muslim/Christian etc and still be a homosexual. It's ironic because religion is a choice, but homosexuality isn't.

If there's supposed to be the option to leave the state why do so many of the governments seem to ignore it? Surely no one would choose death over being exhiled.

[Druidus-Logos]

Firstly, you need to understand that you are a ridiculous caricature of a truly tolerant, accepting, and loving individual. You're just wrong. Many religions accept homosexuality.

Grow up. Do some research. I recommend university level psychology.

Until then, I'm too disgusted to even finish your posts, Lion. I won't pretend I can.

Just because you hold a particular misguided belief doesn't mean the facts promote that belief. You see, the universe isn't designed for you. It doesn't adapt to you. You HAVE TO adapt to it. And in this case, you've got a lot more adapting to do.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Druidus-Logos

[Thalassa]

Hmm... interesting. Christianity says homosexuality is okay? The Bible says to repent of sexual immorality. It is better to represent a religion rightly than to make things up.

Yes, I do believe homosexuals deserve to be treated as human beings too. There is no reason to treat them as second-class citizens. This is wrong and they have a right to life. I am completely against lopping off their heads as a punishment; something which certain religions have a tendency to do. This is wrong and there are better ways of dealing with the situation.

[Lion6969]

God is beyond your mind. If he/she/it exists it is beyond the minds of us all. To belief you know what a higher power wants is arrougant and self serving.

God is beyond our comprehension in the physical sense because there is nothing equal to him or like him in the whole of creation and our limited brain can only comprehend as far as the creation not beyond it. However, we can know him and understand him through his attributes, which he has revealed in his scriptures such as all mighty etc. Things we can comprehend and understand.

Homosexuality is not damaging or immoral and it is CERTAINLY not dangerous to society. How can you justify that? It has everything to do with human rights. I did not choose to be bisexual and I will not repent for if because it is a part of who I am, not something I can change or will surpress just because someone else says I should. Death is a barbaric punishment for homosexuality. It is a human right because ppeople don't chose to be gay. Think about it logically for a second. If you are in a country with shariah and the punishment is death why would you CHOOSE it?

homosexuality, fornication, adultery and sexual promiscuity are dangerous to society, Islam does not separate between them although out of them homosexuality is seen as an abomination by all religions and Islam. They are dangerous to society because of the negative effect they have, not just increase in sexual disease but defragmentation of society , diminishment of responsibility, prostitution, depravity, teenage mothers , single mothers etc I could go on. Once the nucleus of society is destroyed ( the family ) the rest of society rots too! Shariah and Islam looks to protect and the betterment of society as a whole even if a small minority may not agree. What is good for the whole society has precedence.

[Lion6969]

I still disagree that homosexuality is not compartible with religion. You can be Muslim/Christian etc and still be a homosexual. It's ironic because religion is a choice, but homosexuality isn't.

If homosexuality is not a choice can you prove it, is there a gay gene, no! But that's a different debate. Show me a gay baby some one born gay, a child gay who is born and predisposed towards homosexuality, you can't! Why, because no one is born gay, it's a lifestyle choice but that a different debate. There is no religion in the world which accepts homosexuality, maybe some pagan and new age religions, but none of the others.

If there's supposed to be the option to leave the state why do so many of the governments seem to ignore it? Surely no one would choose death over being exhiled.

because those are cruel tyrannies. Gay people would naturally not choose to live in a state which does recognise their orientation and life choice.

[shadowhive]

God is beyond our comprehension in the physical sense because there is nothing equal to him or like him in the whole of creation and our limited brain can only comprehend as far as the creation not beyond it. However, we can know him and understand him through his attributes, which he has revealed in his scriptures such as all mighty etc. Things we can comprehend and understand.

homosexuality, fornication, adultery and sexual promiscuity are dangerous to society, Islam does not separate between them although out of them homosexuality is seen as an abomination by all religions and Islam. They are dangerous to society because of the negative effect they have, not just increase in sexual disease but defragmentation of society , diminishment of responsibility, prostitution, depravity, teenage mothers , single mothers etc I could go on. Once the nucleus of society is destroyed ( the family ) the rest of society rots too! Shariah and Islam looks to protect and the betterment of society as a whole even if a small minority may not agree. What is good for the whole society has precedence.

None of the scriptures reveal anything about god. They do, however, reveal the ideas and beliefs of man and how man sees the world. The Egyptians (for example) believed that the sun was on a chariot and was carried across the sky by it. We don't belief that now, because we know better. Every religious text is how the men that wrote them percieved god. You admit yourself that we can't comprehend god, so what makes you so certain that a few men 2000 years ago could comprehend him SO WELL that they knew what god wanted? They didn't.

Homosexuality isn't seen as an abomination in all religions. As I have said you can be Christian and gay. You can be Muslim and gay. Religion IS a choice. Homosexuality isn't. Nor is it dangerous. Society is not so fragile that homosexuality destroys it.

As for the family, that is BS. Homosexuals are as much of a part of the family as you are to yours. Sure, some cast a gay relative out (and that's their loss), but a great deal are now accepting.

Research into homosexuality is in it's infancy but there is great evidence that it is natural. However, since it is in it's infancy there's nothing definiate yet. Of course, that means you'll say that there isn't one. That's not true. It's like saying there's not a cure for a disease. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there.

If you found out someone you knew, (a co-worker, relative, friend) was a homosexual would that change the way you saw them? Would they cease to be the person you used to know just because they're gay?

Islam, like any religion needs to evolve. Every religion 1000s of years old has things not applicable to society now. You yourself said a woman doesn't need 4 witnesses to prove rape in Islam because now we have the ability to DNA test.

The world is full of indiduals of all religions, sexualities, genders and races. We are ALL different and we, as a society... no, as a species, must not be held back by people that want to punish others for being different.

And as I wass raised in a single parent family, I will try not to be insulted by your comments.

Edited September 11, 2010 by shadowhive

[shadowhive]

If homosexuality is not a choice can you prove it, is there a gay gene, no! But that's a different debate. Show me a gay baby some one born gay, a child gay who is born and predisposed towards homosexuality, you can't! Why, because no one is born gay, it's a lifestyle choice but that a different debate. There is no religion in the world which accepts homosexuality, maybe some pagan and new age religions, but none of the others.

because those are cruel tyrannies. Gay people would naturally not choose to live in a state which does recognise their orientation and life choice.

I have answer the first bit in my last comment.

The last part proves my point though.

[Lion6969]

Firstly, you need to understand that you are a ridiculous caricature of a truly tolerant, accepting, and loving individual. You're just wrong. Many religions accept homosexuality.

[\quote]

Thanks I don't expect anything else from most here! Some religions may do but most don't!

Grow up. Do some research. I recommend university level psychology.

[\quote]

I have plenty of research and qualifications behind me thankyou. But I respect your opinion and recommendation. Although I have studied it at A/level, I find it very subjective science.

Until then, I'm too disgusted to even finish your posts, Lion. I won't pretend I can.

[\quote]

Pls do finish them I am not offended easily and very open to any scrutiny.

Just because you hold a particular misguided belief doesn't mean the facts promote that belief.

[\quote]

I could allege you of the exact same.

You see, the universe isn't designed for you. It doesn't adapt to you. You HAVE TO adapt to it. And in this case, you've got a lot more adapting to do.

[\quote]

I agree but you need to aswell. And this thread is nothing to do with universe evolving round anyone.

[markprice]

Lol you think Saudi is in abbreviation for Saudi arabia. This just proves my point about the lack intelligence you have. Lol. Saudi is an abbreviation, me and friends are splitting ribs over this. It's so sad to see such ignorance and blatant thickness. Saudiarab. Is the true way to say it but just because English is unable determine that it's one word they split in to two Saudi Arabia. Saudi is not abbreviated that isthe word.

Wow, you are a true master of semantics.

(get over it)

[Fluffybunny]

Shari'a is a law like any law has made by human, the only difference is that shari'a came from God and from his prophet and no one has the right to eliminate some laws in it because it is from God and his prophet but nowadays a lot of muslims countries have eliminated a lot of shari'a laws because of what they called "human rights" without understaning first that shari'a is a law and has nothing to do with "human rights" like killing a serial killer, we will not say let him alive, this is a human right, while he can kill every day people like chicken.

Please understand that shari'a is a law wheather you like it or not.

No it isn't a law...it a barbaric way of life for people who refuse to advance forward 1400 years to the current time. Unfortunately there are enough barbaric people who are so isolated that they think it is a good thing.

You make the HUGE assumption that YOUR god is the same as everyone else. Wrong. Your god is no different than the belief in Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or Pan; just a myth that was once assumed to be the absolute truth and has since fallen into history as a pointless charade of power and manipulation. Soon enough other religions seen today will do the same, and people will look back at islam with the same regard as they do the ancient romans...without the quaint charm.

[maca02]

No it isn't a law...it a barbaric way of life for people who refuse to advance forward 1400 years to the current time. Unfortunately there are enough barbaric people who are so isolated that they think it is a good thing.

You make the HUGE assumption that YOUR god is the same as everyone else. Wrong. Your god is no different than the belief in Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or Pan; just a myth that was once assumed to be the absolute truth and has since fallen into history as a pointless charade of power and manipulation. Soon enough other religions seen today will do the same, and people will look back at islam with the same regard as they do the ancient romans...without the quaint charm.

Fluffy, have you read, Among the believers (an islamist journey) by V S Naipaul, if not i would strongly recomend,

also perhaps Lion 6969 may give it a read.

from the Blurb"An astonishing piece of travel writing and a timely and insightful analysis of Islamic fundamentalism Among the Believers is V. S. Naipaul's classic account of his journeys through Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia; 'the believers' are the Muslims he met on those journeys, young men and women battling to regain the original purity of their faith in the hope of restoring order to a chaotic world. It is a uniquely valuable insight into modern Islam, and the comforting simplifications of religious fanaticism."

[Lion6969]

None of the scriptures reveal anything about god. They do, however, reveal the ideas and beliefs of man and how man sees the world. The Egyptians (for example) believed that the sun was on a chariot and was carried across the sky by it. We don't belief that now, because we know better.

I don't agree if you study the world religions they reveal a great deal about god and his nature. Scriptures do also relay to man about their world but also the next life heaven hell and the nature of god. Your example about the Egyptian god is good, because from the description you know it's ridiculous as a notion because we now know better, that's why the Quran calls such gods false gods, just a like statue is a false god, man god is also false. You see Islam views and uses science to eliminate such gods because their intrinsically false in nature. Allah or the true god, his nature attributes etc are in the Quran Torah bible Vedas geetas Shintoism etc etc etc.

Every religious text is how the men that wrote them percieved god. You admit yourself that we can't comprehend god, so what makes you so certain that a few men 2000 years ago could comprehend him SO WELL that they knew what god wanted? They didn't.

for me it's about the scripture it has to meet certain criteria to prove itself to be from god. Once that is established then the description god gives of himself not a man perspective but gods own words describe certain attributes of himself. What none of us can comprehend him is in a physical sense because when you try you will naturally associate creation with him, the moment you do that, it's not god, it's false just like pictures of god depicting an old bearded man.

Homosexuality isn't seen as an abomination in all religions. As I have said you can be Christian and gay. You can be Muslim and gay. Religion IS a choice. Homosexuality isn't. Nor is it dangerous. Society is not so fragile that homosexuality destroys it.

I believe all of the worlds major religions don't agree with it. You can be Christian or muslim and gay, but neither religion accept it as correct but rather a deviation from the natural. Although Christianity has given them concession due to external pressures that's their choice but their scripture suggests otherwise as it does about a number of things. Homosexuality is a choice no one is born gay full stop! So it's a choice you can't equate to race or something similar which is genetic. Homosexuality is not!

As for the family, that is BS. Homosexuals are as much of a part of the family as you are to yours. Sure, some cast a gay relative out (and that's their loss), but a great deal are now accepting.

I never they can't have families but the default position of nature and society regarding family is mother father separate sexes. The family does form the nucleus of society, more broken families cause damage in the long run, society is not fragile but neither is immune for moral, spiritual and ethical decay, it does take time and effects are visible.

Research into homosexuality is in it's infancy but there is great evidence that it is natural. However, since it is in it's infancy there's nothing definiate yet. Of course, that means you'll say that there isn't one. That's not true. It's like saying there's not a cure for a disease. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there.

I agree research is it in it's infancy but those who propose it's natural and people are born have the burden of proof on them to show it is so. But research so far suggests otherwise, there are few studies in favour too, but some of those are flawed and not definitive. Another analogy like yours is that there is no god just because we have not found him it does not mean he does not exist!

If you found out someone you knew, (a co-worker, relative, friend) was a homosexual would that change the way you saw them? Would they cease to be the person you used to know just because they're gay?

I do have friends at work from uni from other social activities who are gay. They know my views but are also mature enough to respect them as I respect their view and freedom to be gay.

Islam, like any religion needs to evolve. Every religion 1000s of years old has things not applicable to society now. You yourself said a woman doesn't need 4 witnesses to prove rape in Islam because now we have the ability to DNA test.

Shariah does evolve with time as your example above, but the initial framework set by god is applicable for all time. You see as humans we have only progressed technologically, but problems such as fornication, adultery and homosexuality have been around for centuries. So human behaviour has not changed much in reality those shariah is applicable today to social problems as it was back then. People still kill, rape, steal and other things.

The world is full of indiduals of all religions, sexualities, genders and races. We are ALL different and we, as a society... no, as a species, must not be held back by people that want to punish others for being different.

It's punishment for being different it's for punishment for illegal actions. World is full of individuals but we are a global community too.

And as I wass raised in a single parent family, I will try not to be insulted by your comments.

I have huge respect for single parent families majority of them are women. I have a problem with men who fornicate but don't take responsibility for their actions. I don't mean offence at all!