maryam مريم ’s Comments (group member since Nov 15, 2025)

maryam مريم ’s comments from the The Debate Club group.

soph ₊˚ෆ (semi-ia) 🍉 wrote: "@Kacper i'm not sure what you mean by that, do you mean Muslims are right leaning?"

i dont think it's the political term.

Alina wrote: "Ophelia ˚࿔ wrote: "Alina wrote: "Hey, y’all! I just wanted to answer this one real quick.
No. As a Muslim, in our religion, it is forbidden to by part of the lgbtq community.
My father told me if ..."

'support' in what sense?

Khadijah ੈ✩‧₊˚ wrote: "I do not want to discuss this with you."

okay. thanks. but i would like you to at least acknowledge that a verse exists in the quran and that it is clearly saying the opposite of what you were claiming

i left this group because i didn't like debating when it doesn't bring any benefit. but i have a mutual who is in this group so discussions from this group came up on my feed, and out of curiosity i just looked in. @khadija if you want, we can have a civil discussion about this here or over pms. i'd have to leave again soon after that

أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ ٱلرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةًۭ مِّن دُونِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌۭ تَجْهَلُونَ



Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly." (An-Naml 27:55)

how clearer can you get? there’s nothing wrong with translation. please click on that reference and check the meaning of each word.

dear sister, have you read the quran in its entirety? if you have, what do you think about this verse?

you know, in islam, there are laws about marriage and who you marry. we have terms that differentiate between people you can (non-mahram) marry and those you cannot (mahram). women are asked to observe the veil before non-mahram men. if women can marry other women, wouldn’t we be asked to observe the veil in front of them, too?

and in islam pre-marital relationships are prohibited as well.

dear sister, i’m not responding to hurt you or force you. what you do is between you and Allah, but it becomes a responsibility upon me, as a fellow muslim, to respond to public claims about something that’s not part of our religion. what you do is between you and Allah, but you cannot twist the religion and make haram into halal. that’s a red line. may Allah guide you and me.

D1bs(summer's version)୧ wrote: "once again its WITH context 😍"

Lets look into context. Provide it

GRIFFIN wrote: "˚₊‧Melvin‧₊˚꒰The Menace꒱ wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "kitcantspell wrote: "tbh i font understand how this topic is even up for debate cause what the helly youre tellin me you wanna have kids with yo..."

Cousin marriages shouldnt be overtly accepted? Is that what you are saying?

rayner wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "Are you seriously comparing lgbt relationships to incest, fitst off lgbt relationships dont permanently mentally/phsically disable their children, in a incest re..."

No. I just want to prove that you are inconsistent with your values and beliefs.

rayner wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "wow, you all just twisted my argument around. i was arguing the holes in your logic. calmly go through that again and try to see what exactly i'm saying. if anything, if you wan..."

It's mostly used as a single slogan and is used to stop any debates. No one provides with the context. It doesnt have terms and conditions section below it as far as i know

rayner wrote: "and then ya’ll complain that lgbt is talked about too much and this group is “too woke” yet ya’ll won’t stop bringing it up like it’s some freaky obsession every conservative here has"

I simply brought it up because it was certainly amusing to see people who are lgbtq were calling incest and cousin marriages gross and weird when they could have argued as long as necessary precautions are in place, and they are both consensenting adults, they can do whatever they want without resorting to insults and emotional arguments

rayner wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "Are you seriously comparing lgbt relationships to incest, fitst off lgbt relationships dont permanently mentally/phsically disable their children, in a incest re..."

I dont know what you are respondimg this to

rayner wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "Are you seriously comparing lgbt relationships to incest, fitst off lgbt relationships dont permanently mentally/phsically disable their children, in a incest re..."

well, let's say two consenting adults, with all the necessary precautions engage in incest. What is the difference then? Isn't deeming it all weird under a blanket term of weird very much hateful or some kind of phobia? Because, you all easily would be offended if someone call lgbt as weird. That is the double standard. If anyone can accept incest, it should be the lgbtq people because the people who want to argue that incest is okay can very well use all the premises and arguments of this community

GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "if you say lgbtq is fine, you cannot really argue against sibling marriages logically. there's always technology"

I know I said I was done, ..."

that's the common slogan

GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "if you say lgbtq is fine, you cannot really argue against sibling marriages logically. there's always technology"

I know I said I was done, ..."

if that is not an accepted slogan of yours, on what premise do you say that it is objectively moral to have a homosexual relationship?

˚₊‧Melvin‧₊˚꒰The Menace꒱ wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "if you say lgbtq is fine, you cannot really argue against sibling marriages logically. there's always technology"

I know I said I was done, ..."

i'm done. then the term shouldn't be used. someone could argue it could all be prevented. then what?

kitcantspell wrote: "tbh i font understand how this topic is even up for debate cause what the helly youre tellin me you wanna have kids with your brother/sister or cousin and then have to explain to your kids, your ki..."

i know plenty of people who are married to their cousins and leading normal lives. it's very offensive to team it up with incest, too. it is culturally accepted in south asia

GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "if you say lgbtq is fine, you cannot really argue against sibling marriages logically. there's always technology"

I know I said I was done, but are you mentally ok? Are you crazy?"

your premise is 'love is love' right? then it just says the answer for you. it's your slogan, not mine.

wow, you all just twisted my argument around. i was arguing the holes in your logic. calmly go through that again and try to see what exactly i'm saying. if anything, if you want your logic to hold up, then you are the ones who should accept incest
Coming to my perspective, i consider it weird. but it is so weird you all consider it weird too

if you say lgbtq is fine, you cannot really argue against sibling marriages logically. there's always technology

GRIFFIN wrote: "maryam مريم wrote: "˚₊‧Melvin‧₊˚꒰The Menace꒱ wrote: "No, now that's just messed up. You're against sibling marriages, but here you are calling out on lgbtq+ relationships. There's a big difference ..."

ok so you say that objective morality exists? then why do laws change from time to time? is common sense something that changes over time?