The issue is more psychological than anything else (men behaving like women and vice versa which contradicts the main role of either party when placed in a family structure). It also flies in the face of evolution and thus science as a whole but oh well.
Without getting into the 'ethics' of it (let's face it, muslims and non-muslims will always have a different idea on what is to be considered morally correct), nature itself has a lot to say on the purpose of homosexuals.
Men and women have different but complementary genitalia and are able to advance the human race via procreational intercourse.
Humans do not have the natural ability to procreate in a homo setting. Homosexuals cannot procreate and cannot advance the human race by themselves.
A homosexually inclined person is about as useful to advancing the human race as somebody who has intercourse with a fair-ground ride (does happen).
Ultimately, such acts can be done, but the practitioners have deviated from what is to be considered natural.
Humans only have one option if they want to survive and that is hetero. This implies homosexuality is a flaw or disease.
Usually, effort is spent curing diseases. Homosexuality should be treated no different.
You know, I lived in Taiwan for years (born there), and in some districts, if someone is gay, they get fingers chopped off
Homosexuality is corrupt and IMMORAL and it should be banned with maximum offenses if caught...
Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.
Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.The inability of ethicists to define what is wrong and right, in ANY scenario, not only homosexuality, highlights the futile nature of subjective morality. There is no absolute standard for ethicists to to work on, compared to lets say scientists ..
should address all that is wrong with the homosexual picture, if you'd bother read it, should take care of the 'logic'!
all the best
1. I did not deny that. However, choosing not to have children is not a 'disease'. People aren't born predisposed into wanting to not have children (or remain celibate for that matter). However, apparently humans can be born homosexual. That is remarkable because now we have something nature produces that wants to challenge nature's very future existence. Why wouldn't that be a cause for investigation and sufficient grounds for assuming it as an illness?You should consider a few things: 1) it is the right of people to have kids if they want or don't want it. 2) 'advancing' the human race does not necessarily mean pro-create i.e., scientific advacement. 3) there are conditions where people should probably not have kids i.e., if they are living in slums in Africa and are HIV positive and 4) if someone is 'sick' but their sickness is not harming anyone or effecting their standard of living then why would you treat them any different?
2. Irrelevant. I'm talking about advancement in the specific sense of human population growth. Homosexuals can potentially extinct all humans. The issue is of how the disease of homosexuality can affect population growth.
3. Again, irrelevant. See answer 1.
4. If somebody is sick, it is the duty of the medical and/or psychological community to investigate. That is the whole purpose of their field.
Al Jazeera live | al jazeera arabic | aljazeera.net | 3ArabTV | Fomny Arabic TV | justin tv arabic | al arabiya | al jazeera arabic live | bbc arabic live | aljazeera live arabic | fomny tv | al jazeera live arabic | Justin tv sports | geo news live | mbc live | al jazeera live tv | hijab| hijabs | hijab styles | hijab shop | earphones