Science has even shown genetic predisposition of homosexuality, along with hormonal influences during the prenatal stages of life which plays a significant role in determining sexuality. It also exists in nature as testified by the (documented) queer behaviour of bonobo apes, dolphins, birds, spotted hyenas, sheep and even fruit flies. Besides, only someone very delusional would think a person would ‘choose’ to break the biggest taboo that unfortunately exists by professing love for individuals of the same sex. Think about the adversity that they have to face, the disappointment of kin, the hardship of being looked down upon and vilified by both religion and society for as long as attitudes remain this intolerant.

LINKS REMOVED BY ADMIN-----SEE POST BELOW

The subject matter is a worth while topic of discussion. The links to the references were removed to avoid any misconceptions about the Islamic views of homosexuality.

I am not a scholar, all I can say is what I have personally read. I have not seen anything that condemns a person for being homosexual. However any sexual act outside of marriage is forbidden.

I disagree; the links provided were scientific findings of the matter, but I respect your candor

Hi it's a very difficult matter, and I'd like to point out that just as Woodrow, I hold that no person can judge another person. All we can do is state our opinion. And also repeat that as far as Islam is concerned, having homosexual urges is not a sin, only indulging those urges is.

Last I checked there is no evidence for predisposition, but If you can refer me to some new scientific articles that prove me wrong, I'd be very interested to read them. Secondly, at best if any such evidence would exist it would only show that certain people might have an inclination. Inclinations are different to predisposition in the sense that they don't undermine free will. Just because people are more inclined to it, doesn't mean they have no choice in it.

As for proving that it is indeed a matter of choice, that is very easy. There are many people with homosexual inclination who have chosen to fight their urges and live a heterosexual life. Of course I wouldn't be surprised if you'd reply to this argument that this is unnatural, and that they are fighting against their true nature. But then again I might reply that their urge to fight is just as natural as their urge to homosexuality! So by the same logic I could say that someone who indulges his homosexual urges and denies his urges to fight it is just as natural or unnatural as the one who does the opposite. So we'd be back at square one. I guess the problem we encounter here is defining what "natural" means. If you ask me, the most "natural" way would be the way that is biologically compatible. Of course non of this changes the fact that some people do choose to fight these inclinations, whether or not you judge that as natural.

The bonobo apes is a very peculiar example, and I'm glad that you brought it up yourself. See advanced studies have showed that bonobo's use sex as currency. The weak perform sexual favors to the strong in return for food or protection. This social behavior doesn't only bring forth homosexuality, but also incest and pedophilia amongst bonobo apes. Now I take it I don't have to take this argument any further and you will see the flaw in justifying human actions by comparing it to animals. Another important flaw with comparing humans to animals is that humans have free will, which animals don't.

Yes there are many more to add to that row, and there are many important things to take into account for each one of them. Some thoughts on the top of my mind: Some animals for example only show this behavior when kept imprisoned with only male partners. Some animals would even attempt sex with different species when they have no other alternative.

Well I understand your argument, and while I do empathise with the hardships, the argument doesn't hold ground for the following possibilities.

1. A person can be convinced that he has no choice in the matter while he in fact does have one afterall. In that scenario his fatalistic attitude will be sufficient to surpass the mentioned sociological barrier.
2. A person can be indifferent to opinions of the world and reason that as long as the people close to him accept him, that is sufficient to him.
3. A person might have an inclination not to be intimidated, or an inclination to respond rebellious to any threat. In this case taboo and judgment will only fortify his dormant urges.
4. A person might get so frustrated and wound up by his desires that all other things seem irrelevant. After having secretly experimented, the barrier to come out of the closet might be lower.
5. A person might be in love, and his love might blind him to the consequences of his actions.

In other words, no I don't think it's delusional to state that people have a choice in the matter.

On a final note, I would like to bring your attention to the fact that there's a big difference between what people can choose and what they want to choose.

It is normal that I am attracted to women. It is a natural instinct over which I have no control.

It is normal that gays attracted to each other. It is a natural instinct over which they have no control.

I hate being anywhere near gays but it is inbuilt - it is not learned.

k

no dont believe them they tryna get to ur minds and make it be legal forever

u should see how ppl think thesse days..mostly stupid. but usually devils work

It's also normal for a kleptomaniac to steal and it's normal for a pyromaniac to start fires. It's normal for a person with obsessive compulsive behavior to clean a lot, more then normal. You missed the whole point of the thread. The question was is it a matter of choice. And just because it happens instinctively doesn't mean it can't be learned trough nurture. Pavlov's dogs instinctively drooled every time the person that fed him came by. Is that normal? Yes it's normal it's called instinctive conditioning. It's been proven to exist in humans to and it's just one of many examples how someone can "learn" something from circumstances and environments.

I agree with Woodrow on this one. Homosexuality as a physical urge isn't considered a sin as far as I'm aware...it is the homosexual act that is sinful. Perhaps some might not understand or accept the difference.

As for whether homosexuality is genetic or "chosen"...I have no idea. I'm not sure it really matters in the context of sin, which seems to be the topic here. There are many human tendencies that are natural and/or "chosen", and both types can be sinful.

gays do not choose to be gay, maybe they are being tested by God and their hardship was to conceal their ‘sinful tendencies’ (and lead a life of self-deceit). we can equated this to the heterosexual temptation of lust saying we (meaning straight folk) were being similarly tested. To me this is like comparing the crossing of a vast canyon on a suspension bridge to crossing the same canyon on a suspended needle. Religion teaches us that this is apparently the will of God, the immaculately just!

I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. That is not the issue. The conflict comes in the issue of rights as to what activities can be allowed.

homosexuality like heterosexuality, sexual preference (redhead, brunetter, skinny , fat, zaftig.. ect.) are a combination of nurture and nature.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. Dangit ranma, you beat me to the punch!

Only thing I'd add is: The act is chosen. The thought-process is not.

That's too narrow minded - perhaps the test of being gay is harder than the test of controlling ones lust, but test are not limited to that and so maybe a gay person has a hard test in relation to his sexuality, but the rest of his tests might be easy, whereas the straight person might have different more difficult tests (non-lust related), which would add up to be the same as the gays tests.

For example, the straight person who had cancer, was orphaned and lives in poverty, as opposed to the gay person who is perfectly healthy, rich and has loving family and friends.

as muchas eating, or sex in it self is chosen.

not mucha of a choice.

I do believe the act of sodomy requires intent far greater than eating .

But I suppose we could be arguing this point for many days...