Islam = logic + ethics + morality.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Recently I read some criticisms of Islamic teachings on this forum. One of those was rather specific: the member stated words to the effect of a lack of ethics in Islamic teaching is what puts them off Islam.

Let us now look at some common Islamic teachings, starting with theft.
Now most of you who will be reading this will be aware of the sharia punishment towards theft; the cutting of hands.

What is the logic in that? Simple, it is a preventative method; that person cannot steal again with that hand.

What is the ethic behind that? First of all, to be applicable for the theft punishment, the item being sold must not be food. Secondly, the item must have a value of over approximately 3 dollars - which is around £2 (I have put this value in today's context so that you may obtain a clearer understanding). To answer the ethics behind the punishment:
A) Is it ethical to steal (an item over the value of 3 dollars and something that is not food) in the first place?
B) It is the ultimate deterrence towards theivery. Combined with the logistics behind it (cut of the limb they stole the item with) and it is rather simple. SO simple in fact that in all the western countries, theft is a crime. What changes between countries is the punishment but as I have already explained there is logic in doing this in accordance to Sharia (certainly more than imprisonment)

Let us take another example. Homosexuality.
What is the logic of this being a crime? It is actually very interesting since the answer should be well known amongst evolutionists.

Can the human species propogate via homosexuality? The answer is no. Infact, homosexuality is a huge door to diseases. Now one can argue, well so can eating food - and yes this is true. But here we are talking about something that is not neccessary for mankind to do - heck, it is actually something counterproductive towards the species as a whole. It prevents (any) species from reproducing. So given that information, we have clear reason to see this as a crime against humanity and oneself.

So from the above examples we see that there is no lack of ethic, logic or morality in any of those. Certainly no more so than there is within the acts themselves

I would now like to present the following question to all members of this forum: is there any teaching of Islam that you feel lacks ethic, logic, morality or a combination of the three?

If yes, please ask on this thread and I shall prove to you that it does.

[Keltoi]

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

This verse always troubled me. Basically it is saying be ruthless to those who do not believe like you do, but be nice to each other. Perhaps it is troubling to me because it is the opposite of what Christ spoke about.

I would appreciate any added context to this verse that might shed a more positive light on what seems a straightforward statement.

[Trumble]

:
Let us take another example. Homosexuality.
What is the logic of this being a crime? It is actually very interesting since the answer should be well known amongst evolutionists.

Can the human species propogate via homosexuality? The answer is no. Infact, homosexuality is a huge door to diseases. Now one can argue, well so can eating food - and yes this is true. But here we are talking about something that is not necessary for mankind to do - heck, it is actually something counterproductive towards the species as a whole. It prevents (any) species from reproducing. So given that information, we have clear reason to see this as a crime against humanity and oneself.

As always, I find the presentation of such bigoted garbage as something to do with logic, ethics OR morality utterly depressing.

I really shouldn't have to point out the absurdity of claiming that anything should be a "crime against humanity" because it is not necessary for mankind to do it.

If the majority of the species suddenly switched from heterosexual to homosexual behaviour that wouldn't do much for its chances of reproducing itself, true. But do you seriously expect us to believe that is a credible scenario? Homosexuals have always been a minority, and with plenty of those pesky gays about the population of the planet is currently doubling every fifty years or so. When that actually starts being a problem, and people start to starve you might just find your 'logic' comes back and bites you on the backside.

The 'door to diseases' is relevant not to homosexuality per se, but to promiscuous sexual behavior in general. I would also point out that the one particular act most relevant to this is actually practicised by considerable numbers of heterosexual couples as well, albeit usually on an infrequent basis. I'm afraid if one is going to parade 'logic' without appearing foolish, one needs to remain focussed.

All we have "clear reason to see" is that your case is laughable.

[Pygoscelis]

Homosexuals have always been a minority, and with plenty of those pesky gays about the population of the planet is currently doubling every fifty years or so. When that actually starts being a problem, and people start to starve you might just find your 'logic' comes back and bites you on the backside.

Indeed. Homosexuality will be seen as a great virtue, a way to discharge the sexual drive while not contributing to the over poplulation and resource scarcity problem. :D

As to the threat title, I say Islam = Obedience. And thats all there is to it. No morality involved, just obedience. When obedience is seen AS morality, that is where these religions (christianity included) go off the rails.

Don't be good to please God. Be good for the sake of being good.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Whatsthepoint]

Ok, I'd like to know why 1 male witness equals 2 female or non-Muslim witnesses. Haven't seen a satisfactory reply yet.

[aamirsaab]

...All we have "clear reason to see" is that your case is laughable.

Tell me then, is it logical to commit sodomy today?

Indeed. Homosexuality will be seen as a great virtue, a way to discharge the sexual drive while not contributing to the over poplulation and resource scarcity problem. :D

We are not living in a time where resource scarcit is a problem. Nor are we living in a time were over population is. Even in such cases, homosexeuality is not the only way to 'discharge the sexual drive'
Let us look at china for example - it has an extraordinary population yet is homosexuality high? No. There are numerous ways around it without commiting sodomy. One of them is contraception, another is abstinance. Both of those cases exist today.

As to the threat title, I say Islam = Obedience. And thats all there is to it. No morality involved, just obedience. When obedience is seen AS morality, that is where these religions (christianity included) go off the rails.

Not all the time. My point is there is a lot of logic, ethics and morality within the teachings of Islam (so much so that almost every society that exists contains similar teachings - I wonder why that is?)

In any case, I believe your argument is fundementally flawed. Take for example the UK: it is illegal to marry more than one woman yet you can commit adultery (with as many people) as you please. This is not a law of any religion - rather this is a law made up of ''secularists''

Don't be good to please God. Be good for the sake of being good.

I do both.

Ok, I'd like to know why 1 male witness equals 2 female or non-Muslim witnesses. Haven't seen a satisfactory reply yet.

I do not know why this is. I've consulted my sharia law text book but it has no mention of this. I'll look into it.

[Whatsthepoint]

One more thing, what do you do with the person whom you've just cut off a hand? Are you required to care care of him or her?

['Abd al-Baari]

:sl:

Ok, I'd like to know why 1 male witness equals 2 female or non-Muslim witnesses. Haven't seen a satisfactory reply yet.

http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...y-one-man.html

Hope it's a satisfactory answer :D

:w:

[aamirsaab]

One more thing, what do you do with the person whom you've just cut off a hand? Are you required to care care of him or her?

Once they've had their punishment, end of. It works similar to the way after a theft would have received his/her punishment in any other country; you go to court - if the verdict finds you guilty and the judge is convinced then you get your punishment (whatever it is) then you go home.

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

One of them is contraception, another is abstinance. Both of those cases exist today.

You said homosexuality is a crime against humanity because it prevents reproducing, why not claim the same for contraception and abstinence?

[Whatsthepoint]

Once they've had their punishment, end of. It works similar to the way after a theft would have received his/her punishment in any other country; you go to court - if the verdict finds you guilty and the judge is convinced then you get your punishment (whatever it is) then you go home.

Yeah, but the person would most probably be bleeding heavily, are you required to help him or her?

[aamirsaab]

You said homosexuality is a crime against humanity because it prevents reproducing, why not claim the same for contraception and abstinence?

We are dealing with seperate issues - that particular comment was referring to extreme circumstances (i.e overpopulation). Secondly, I would make the same complaint but I was dealing with just two at the time. I then asked you guys to provide examples where logic, ethics or morality didn't exist.

Yeah, but the person would most probably be bleeding heavily, are you required to help him or her?

Lol. Obviously you'd have to ''tend'' to the wound - that goes without saying. It's not even an issue.

Woops sorry keltoi, I forgot about your post:

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

This verse always troubled me. Basically it is saying be ruthless to those who do not believe like you do, but be nice to each other. Perhaps it is troubling to me because it is the opposite of what Christ spoke about.

I would appreciate any added context to this verse that might shed a more positive light on what seems a straightforward statement.

I will look into this tonight. My initial assumption is that it is contextual based but will definitely look tonight.

[Whatsthepoint]

:sl:



http://www.islamicboard.com/miscella...y-one-man.html

Hope it's a satisfactory answer :D

:w:

It's not, keep trying.:D
If I were a feminist, I'd get furious after reading that.
And besides, it doesn't cover non-muslim.

[Tornado]

I'm glad I don't live in a world where the only acceptable relationship would be to be with another guy and have to force myself to be something I'm just not. Especially considering that same-sex marriage would be between two consenting parties and would not hurt anyone at all. (Is this off-topic?)

[Whatsthepoint]

We are dealing with seperate issues - that particular comment was referring to extreme circumstances (i.e overpopulation). Secondly, I would make the same complaint but I was dealing with just two at the time. I then asked you guys to provide examples where logic, ethics or morality didn't exist.

I don't think it exists in the case of homosexuality, the logic you described is flawed. Trumble's repmly sums it all up, I wish you'd took time to reply all of his points.

Lol. Obviously you'd have to ''tend'' to the wound - that goes without saying. It's not even an issue.

Ok.

[aamirsaab]

I'm glad I don't live in a world where the only acceptable relationship would be to be with another guy and have to force myself to be something I'm just not.

But why stop there? What happens when you get bored with the same gender? Maybe move on to animals? Cus that's what some guys are doing.

Can you not see the logic behind these rulings? Can you not see why these barriers are there? THis is the point I am making with Islam - there IS logic, there IS morality, there IS ethics. All of which HELP society!

Especially considering that same-sex marriage would be between two consenting parties and would not hurt anyone at all.

Consent does not negate the crime. If I consent to being shot in the head with a real bullet and someone does it and I get killed, would you trial that person for manslaughter (or murder depending on how you interpret it)?

I don't think it exists in the case of homosexuality, the logic you described is flawed. Trumble's repmly sums it all up, I wish you'd took time to reply all of his points.

What doesn't exist in the case of homosexuality?

[Whatsthepoint]

The cutting of the hand again.
What would be the case of a drug-addict, stealing drugs the value of more than 3 dollars? Or a diagnosed kleptomaniac? Or a woman desperately trying to finance her little boy's education which is why she stole over 3 dollars?
What I'm trying to find out is whether the Islamic law deals with each case of theft individually, on a trial?

[Tornado]

But why stop there? What happens when you get bored with the same gender? Maybe move on to animals? Cus that's what some guys are doing.

Clearly the animal doesn't have a say in this so I'd be against it.

Consent does not negate the crime. If I consent to being shot in the head with a real bullet and someone does it and I get killed, would you trial that person for manslaughter (or murder depending on how you interpret it)?

Euthanasia?
No one is harmed when it comes to homosexuality.

[Whatsthepoint]

What doesn't exist in the case of homosexuality?

Logic, ethics morality.
Your' question was this:

I then asked you guys to provide examples where logic, ethics or morality didn't exist.

But why stop there? What happens when you get bored with the same gender? Maybe move on to animals? Cus that's what some guys are doing.

Animals cannot consent.

Consent does not negate the crime. If I consent to being shot in the head with a real bullet and someone does it and I get killed, would you trial that person for manslaughter (or murder depending on how you interpret it)?

You have to prove homosexuality is a crime (using logic).
If it were proven you were sane at the time of the request, I personally wouldn't prosecute the person who shot you. Of course, proving the sanity of a dead person is very hard, but not so hard with living adults (homosexuals in this case)

Can you not see the logic behind these rulings? Can you not see why these barriers are there? THis is the point I am making with Islam - there IS logic, there IS morality, there IS ethics. All of which HELP society!

Some of us hold individual liberty in higher esteem then the well being of society, which the legalization of homosexuality would not change drastically.

tornado, sorry for replying to a post meant for you.

[aamirsaab]

What would be the case of a drug-addict, stealing drugs the value of more than 3 dollars?

First of all we are not to go anywhere near anything that is harmful to us (such as intoxicants or drugs). Secondly, if it is in the case of medicine then obviously it's not a crime. Lastly, it would depend on the case. I gave the general rule of thumb.

Or a diagnosed kleptomaniac?

Having such a disorder would negate the cutting of hand punishment.

Or a woman desperately trying to finance her little boy's education which is why she stole over 3 dollars?

The ruler would be held accountable; if a mother is not able to finance her own son's education, then there is something wrong with that country. In the event that this is not the case it would ultimately reside into the hands of the court.

What I'm trying to find out is whether the Islamic law deals with each case of theft individually, on a trial?

Most of the laws are general but there is always room for common sense. Infact, one of the requirements to be the judge in an Islamic state is to have common sense (since they are dealing with PEOPLE'S LIVES). It is also for this reason the judge carries so much weight in the courtroom.

[Whatsthepoint]

First of all we are not to go anywhere near anything that is harmful to us (such as intoxicants or drugs). Secondly, if it is in the case of medicine then obviously it's not a crime. Lastly, it would depend on the case. I gave the general rule of thumb.

I was talking about a drug addict going trough the abstinence crisis, so all he or she thinks about is drugs and how to get them.

[aamirsaab]

Euthanasia?
Clearly someone gets hurt in this case. Homosexuality? No one gets hurt.

No, but it is illogical for mankind to do it. There is no logic behind it other than ''oh it is pleasurable''. So is eating. Do that instead.

....You have to prove homosexuality is a crime (using logic).

What do all of the crimes so far have in common? The actual act (sodomy, theft, w/e) itself PREVENTS society from working. So surely such an act would be deemed a crime, no?
Let me examplify it for you even simpler: a watch uses cogs. If you have cogs that turn the wrong way, then you will end up with a watch that doesn't do its function properly. So what do you have to do? Either remove that cog from the watch or replace it.

If it were proven you were sane at the time of the request, I personally wouldn't prosecute the person who shot you. Of course, proving the sanity of a dead person is very hard, but not so hard with living adults (homosexuals in this case)

Ah but who decides what is sane and what is insane? Humans do. Humans are fickle and subject to change (and thus they contradict themselves, as I have shown with the polygamy/adultery example earlier on)

Some of us hold individual liberty in higher esteem then the well being of society, which the legalization of homosexuality would not change drastically.

That is the problem - individual liberty is bull. Humans are not consistant, we like change. What suits us one day doesn't suit us the next. Any thriving society is so because it meets the needs of the majority of its people not the needs of one.

I was talking about a drug addict going trough the abstinence crisis, so all he or she thinks about is drugs and how to get them.

Case by case scenario.

[Eeman]

salam alaikum,
are there any quranic references to the punishment of theft being having your hands chopped off? :o$

[crayon]

As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. (Qur'an 5:38)

[Tornado]

No, but it is illogical for mankind to do it. There is no logic behind it other than ''oh it is pleasurable''. So is eating. Do that instead.

If it's illogical to do it, it's a crime? There is no logical reason behind me wanting to watch/play sports except that it's pleasurable as well. Surely that isn't a crime?

[Whatsthepoint]

No, but it is illogical for mankind to do it. There is no logic behind it other than ''oh it is pleasurable''. So is eating. Do that instead.

there's lots of logic behind it. Primarily it's letting people be who they are and love whom they want to love. And that's about it, besides that its pleasurable and desired by consenting adults.

What do all of the crimes so far have in common? The actual act (sodomy, theft, w/e) itself PREVENTS society from working. So surely such an act would be deemed a crime, no?
Let me examplify it for you even simpler: a watch uses cogs. If you have cogs that turn the wrong way, then you will end up with a watch that doesn't do its function properly. So what do you have to do? Either remove that cog from the watch or replace it.

Homosexuals do not prevent the society from working. They do not prevent heterosexuals from reproducing, unless of course you wanna argue the bad influence public expression of homosexuality has on the rest, but you haven't mentioned it so far.

Ah but who decides what is sane and what is insane? Humans do. Humans are fickle and subject to change (and thus they contradict themselves, as I have shown with the polygamy/adultery example earlier on)
That is the problem - individual liberty is bull. Humans are not consistant, we like change. What suits us one day doesn't suit us the next. Any thriving society is so because it meets the needs of the majority of its people.

Indeed, and if the majority feel homosexuality is ok, we legalize it. That's how democracy works.
Though I know that's not what you were saying.
I see nothing bad in change, change is usually a good thing, and morals are not exempt from it, at least imho.
As for polygamy, I'm not against it, though it should be available for everyone, unlike the islamic version.

[Eeman]

As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. (Qur'an 5:38)

is that taken literally???
i read somewhere i dont remeber where that Allah swt is referring to cutting off their means hmmm Allahu alam

[crayon]

is that taken literally???
i read somewhere i dont remeber where that Allah swt is referring to cutting off their means hmmm Allahu alam

As literal as it gets, yes.

[Eeman]

OHhhhhhhhhhh Dear!!!
ummmm that is a bit extreme.

Jazak'Allah khair for that sis :)

oh but what if they repent? then do you still chop their hands off cos that is just something that i would not make sense of coming from Allah swt i mean Allahu alam, who the hell am i to say anything against His words? but He is the most merciful!

[Tornado]

oh but what if they repent? then do you still chop their hands off cos that is just something that i would not make sense of coming from Allah swt i mean Allahu alam, who the hell am i to say anything against His words? but He is the most merciful!
[/I][/B]

I think the decision is in the hands of the victim (forgiveness).

[aamirsaab]

If it's illogical to do it, it's a crime? There is no logical reason behind me wanting to watch/play sports except that it's pleasurable as well. Surely that isn't a crime?

Illogical and harmful to society. This is why I gave the example of theft. Only time sports ticks those boxes is when it is excessive - so far, it is not!

there's lots of logic behind it. Primarily it's letting people be who they are and love whom they want to love. And that's about it, besides that its pleasurable and desired by consenting adults.

It is emotional - not logical. Reproduction is logical - sodomy is not!

Homosexuals do not prevent the society from working.

Sodomy prevents the species from reproducing - just like murder.

They do not prevent heterosexuals from reproducing, unless of course you wanna argue the bad influence public expression of homosexuality has on the rest, but you haven't mentioned it so far.

I'm dealing with the act itself (of sodomy).

Indeed, and if the majority feel homosexuality is ok, we legalize it. That's how democracy works.

Again though, we are talking about what is emotionally ok. This takes us on a very very slippery slope.

I see nothing bad in change, change is usually a good thing, and morals are not exempt from it, at least imho.

Indeed CHANGE is usually a good thing but it depends on what that change is. Look at how the UK decided to deal with it's debt problem: buil 100 (or so) super casinos. Look how all both the UK and US fund the military by its government but cancer research is a charity. Surely you can see the points I am making.

As for polygamy, I'm not against it, though it should be available for everyone, unlike the islamic version.

The problem I have is not whether polygamy is allowed or disallowed - it is the fact that ADULTERY is allowed and POLYGAMY isn't. Do you see the stupidity in this ruling?

....
oh but what if they repent? then do you still chop their hands off cos that is just something that i would not make sense of coming from Allah swt i mean Allahu alam, who the hell am i to say anything against His words? but He is the most merciful!

It is upto the judge (in the courtroom)

[Trumble]

Sodomy prevents the species from reproducing - just like murder.

I am amazed to see such utter drivel coming from a moderator, of all people. You have just ignored my shooting down this rubbish earlier.

How does sodomy 'prevent the species from reproducing' any more than, say, oral sex does? Or vaginal sex if contraceptives are being used? Are they 'just like murder' too? Or maybe going to a football match instead of staying home for a 'romantic' pro-creative evening with the wife is 'just like murder'?!

[KAding]

Thou shalt not be homosexual, it is only logical

aamirsaab:

[KAding]

Sodomy prevents the species from reproducing - just like murder.

:crickey:

So then you think staying childless is 'like murder' also. And should then logically have the same punishment? Despite the fact that overall mankind is having too many children for us all to sustain, rather than too few?

[czgibson]

Greetings aamirsaab,

Normally your posts are full of good sense, but you've said some truly horrible things in this thread. I think Trumble said it best: "bigoted garbage". The fact that you have yet to respond to any of his points shows the weakness of your case.

Peace

[Whatsthepoint]

The way I see it, for atheists, the issue of homosexuality is acceptable because they see it as an act between two consenting individuals that ultimately doesn't do any harm to society.

This is just an aside from the actual subject of the thread, but I wonder what the atheists on this forum would think about consented acts of necrophilia (perhaps via a signed letter prior to death)? Do they find it disgusting? Abominable? Damaging to society if such a thing were to happen widespread and be paraded all over the television programs and taught in classrooms as a 'life-style' choice?

The difference between homosexuality/heterosexuality and other sexual acts is that the first two are a relationship between two living consenting adults. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have more in common than homosexuality and say necrophilia, only a relationship between living adults can result in love, fullness of a relationship and all that.
Homosexuality is no longer classified as a disease, necrophilia, pedophilia etc are, though this isn't really an argument.
I'm not sure about the scenario you described... I guess we'd have to allow it.. And anyway, the percentage of necrophiliacs is probably so minute, that they'd have a hard time organizing parades or winding their way into textbooks.

[aamirsaab]

How does sodomy 'prevent the species from reproducing' any more than, say, oral sex does? Or vaginal sex if contraceptives are being used? Are they 'just like murder' too? Or maybe going to a football match instead of staying home for a 'romantic' pro-creative evening with the wife is 'just like murder'?!

My point was, there are alternatives to sodomy. You gave an example in your post when homosexuality would make sense - in an extreme case. I'm giving general statements (relating to logic, ethic and morality)

Thou shalt not be homosexual, it is only logical

LOL at that pic.

:crickey:

So then you think staying childless is 'like murder' also. And should then logically have the same punishment?

No no no not at all. I'm saying the act of commiting sodomy deals more harm than it does good for society (just as murder, theft etc does). Perhaps my example is flawed.

Despite the fact that overall mankind is having too many children for us all to sustain, rather than too few?

Yet homosexuality is low in general?

Greetings aamirsaab,

Normally your posts are full of good sense, but you've said some truly horrible things in this thread. I think Trumble said it best: "bigoted garbage". The fact that you have yet to respond to any of his points shows the weakness of your case.

The intention of this thread was to highlight logic ethic and morality and how those three are infused in almost every law (in any society). As such, they ALLOW society to run properly. This is my core point.

My intention is not to offend anyone but to show that for society to run properly, the laws must contain logic, ethic and morality. In hindsight, perhaps my approach was too heavy handed and perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post.

I also apologise if I come across as some sort of homophobic jerk. I'm not saying kill all these homos or prevent them from having rights etc - just saying that for society to do its job properly (end result is expansion) homosexuality (or rather sodomy) gets in the way of this ergo it is illogical, unethical and contains little moral and thus it is considered a crime (in Islam)

p.s; Keltoi, I have decided not to give out interpretations of the Quranic ayats (this is a job for scholars). From the two translations I have at home, both word that ayat differently.

[Whatsthepoint]

If a person consents while he/she is alive and in full sanity, to have his/her body donated for the cause of necrophilia, how would that be any different to one who wishes to donate his/her organs etc for scientific research and stuff?

So what if there's only a minority? Give them their rights, man. How bigoted and oh so evil of you to consider necrophilia a disease. :rollseyes

I've already said why I personally think necrophilia is a disease and why heterosexuality and homosexuality are not.
Anyway, I said I'd probably give them rights if there was a verified document..

[Whatsthepoint]

My point was, there are alternatives to sodomy. You gave an example in your post when homosexuality would make sense - in an extreme case. I'm giving general statements (relating to logic, ethic and morality)

The reasons why homosexuality should be allowed have nothing to do with overpopulation, the same as reasons against it speaking of reproduction don't make sense.

No no no not at all. I'm saying the act of commiting sodomy deals more harm than it does good for society (just as murder, theft etc does). Perhaps my example is flawed.

What are the bads besides slightly lover birth rates?

Yet homosexuality is low in general?

Whats your point here?

The intention of this thread was to highlight logic ethic and morality and how those three are infused in almost every law (in any society). As such, they ALLOW society to run properly. This is my core point.
My intention is not to offend anyone but to show that for society to run properly, the laws must contain logic, ethic and morality. In hindsight, perhaps my approach was too heavy handed and perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post.
I also apologise if I come across as some sort of homophobic jerk. I'm not saying kill all these homos or prevent them from having rights etc - just saying that for society to do its job properly (end result is expansion) homosexuality (or rather sodomy) gets in the way of this ergo it is illogical, unethical and contains little moral.

What problems is the acceptance of homosexuality causing in nordic countries, The Netherlands, Belgium etc?
Why do you think the end result of a society is expansion?

[Whatsthepoint]

Hypothetically speaking, say there was a sizable amount of necrophiles in the world and they were in the textbooks and TV programs.

Say they had donation centres, where people can choose to donate their bodies after death for the enjoyment of necrophiles.

Say it was as common and widespread as homosexuality.

Say it was promoted as a life-stlyle choice.

Would you, or would you not find it a bad thing for society as a whole? Would you look down upon such a society that allows and promotes this practice in such a manner?

I probably would.
Anyway, I said I don't approve of analogies comparing homosexuality to necrophilia.

[aamirsaab]

The reasons why homosexuality should be allowed have nothing to do with overpopulation, the same as reasons against it speaking of reproduction don't make sense.

I was talking in refferrence to some members who gave the example of overpopulation. The very fact we cannot produce via sodomy indicates this act DOESN'T aid reproduction (rather, it is counteproductive)

What are the bads besides slightly lover birth rates?

What are the goods, besides pleasure?

Whats your point here?

Please see this:

Despite the fact that overall mankind is having too many children for us all to sustain, rather than too few?

Again, referring to the fact that sodomy could be useful in relation to times/places regarding overpopulation. There are existing alternatives to sodomy/homosexuality in relation to overpopulation (e.g contraceptives)

Why do you think the end result of a society is expansion?

Ultimately, that is what a society does: expand (flourish).

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't understand why you don't approve of such analogies. IMO, it's perfectly comparable.

But okay, thanks anway. I appreciate you reply. I hope you're not just saying you would just to prove you're 'fair'. :p jk

It's not comparable, read my first reply to you.

[Keltoi]

At the core we are talking about very different understandings of what is moral, ethical, and logical. As is usually the case in these types of threads.

[Whatsthepoint]

I was talking in refferrence to some members who gave the example of overpopulation. The very fact we cannot produce via sodomy indicates this act DOESN'T aid reproduction (rather, it is counteproductive)

Who says reproduction is the ultimate goal of humanity? IMHO the ultimate goal should be making the world a better place, which includes tolerance to minorities such as homosexuals or Muslims.

What are the goods, besides pleasure?

As I said, people can be who they are and live with people they love, I'm sure people are more productive that way than "in the closet". So, see, the acceptance homosexuality can be productive.
Anyway, what are the goods of art, good food, other pleasurable things?

Again, referring to the fact that sodomy could be useful in relation to times/places regarding overpopulation.

Yeah, but what was the point of this:

Yet homosexuality is low in general?

Its not like homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation..

Ultimately, that is what a society does: expand.

Yeah, but is that its ultimate goal?

[aamirsaab]

Who says reproduction is the ultimate goal of humanity? IMHO the ultimate goal should be making the world a better place, which includes tolerance to minorities such as homosexuals or Muslims.

I'm not claiming reproduction is the ultimate goal - I'm saying why perform an act that counters the act of reproduction. I agree that yes the ultimate goal should be to make the world a better place (where we are tolerant of those things you mentioned) but crucially that the foundation is built on logic, ethic and morality.

As I said, people can be who they are and live with people they love, I'm sure people are more productive that way than "in the closet". So, see, the acceptance homosexuality can be productive.

Again, I'm not saying I don't accept homosexuality. Rather that since it contains less good than bad (just as theft, murder etc) it would be illogical, imoral and unethical in a society...

Anyway, what are the goods of art, good food, other pleasurable things?

In those cases, more good is done than harm. I'd usually call it a social BS but here I am dealing with how ethics, morality and logic helps society run (in terms of laws!)

Yeah, but what was the point of this:

Its not like homosexuality is a natural response to overpopulation..

Like I said, some members were viewing it as a response to overpopulation.

Yeah, but is that its ultimate goal?

Maybe, maybe not. The point I am making is for society to run, the laws have to contain logic, morality and ethics.

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

This is your first reply:
Yeah, but if a consenting and living person were to sign a document... perhaps even videotape him/herself giving consent to people to use his/her body for such a purpose, wouldn't it amount to the same thing anyway? If not, why not? Why not consider it consent, if you can accept the consent of a person to donate his organs once he/she's dead, in the same manner?

I said I'd probably allow it, I'm not sure about this, I still think necrophilia is incomparable to homosexuality, even if there's consent.

Hello? We're living in the 21st century here lol. Since when does one need "love" to have intimate relationship? It's all about the sex these days. So, this point doesnt stand. It's all about the actual act, not the "love" and emotional feelings part of it.

I personally think one does require love and affection for a relationship to work, that is if they want to have a relationship. I guess I'm somewhat conservative on this one...
Hetero-and-homosexuality can produce a loving two-people relationship. necrophilia cannot.

Why is necrophilia a disease and homosexuality not? How bigoted.

I explained my opinion about it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The intention of this thread was to highlight logic ethic and morality and how those three are infused in almost every law (in any society). As such, they ALLOW society to run properly. This is my core point.

Yes, and many posters have shown how the rules you describe have very little to do with logic, ethics or morality. I think we are perhaps understanding very different things by those words. As Pygoscelis said, morality is not simply obedience. If the only thing preventing a person from going on a kiling spree was their belief in Islam, then, I would argue, they are seriously unhinged, and very far from being moral.

My intention is not to offend anyone but to show that for society to run properly, the laws must contain logic, ethic and morality. In hindsight, perhaps my approach was too heavy handed and perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post.

For myself, I'm not offended, just shocked.

I also apologise if I come across as some sort of homophobic jerk. I'm not saying kill all these homos or prevent them from having rights etc - just saying that for society to do its job properly (end result is expansion) homosexuality (or rather sodomy) gets in the way of this ergo it is illogical, unethical and contains little moral.

To the "logical" part of your argument:

Who says the desired end result of society is always expansion? You've made that assumption and used it as a premise, so the success of your case partly rests on it, whereas others might disagree with that premise. It isn't the view of the Chinese government, for instance.

I'm saying why perform an act that counters the act of reproduction.

Why use contraception? Why go to the cinema instead of having procreative sex? There are countless activities that prevent reproduction, but that doesn't make them ethically wrong.

Peace

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

I'm not claiming reproduction is the ultimate goal - I'm saying why perform an act that counters the act of reproduction. I agree that yes the ultimate goal should be to make the world a better place (where we are tolerant of those things you mentioned) but crucially that the foundation is built on logic, ethic and morality.

You keep mentioning logic, ethics and morality, but so far you haven't proved homosexuality is unethical, illogical or immoral. All you're saying is that its counterproductive, that's not a reason enough for it to be illogical etc.

Again, I'm not saying I don't accept homosexuality. Rather that since it contains less good than bad (just as theft, murder etc) it would be illogical, imoral and unethical in a society...

So far You've only managed to come up with one bad (that's not even a bad...), I wanna hear some more.

In those cases, more good is done than harm. I'd usually call it a social BS but here I am dealing with how ethics, morality and logic helps society run (in terms of laws!)

IMHO more good is done when society accept homosexuality, so far you haven't proven the opposite.
You haven't answered what harm is the acceptance of homosexuality causing in gay tolerant countries.

Like I said, some members were viewing it as a response to overpopulation.

I guess they were trying that if people were open about their homosexuality rather than suppressing it and have kids, the world would be slightly less populated.

Maybe, maybe not. The point I am making is for society to run, the laws have to contain logic, morality and ethics.

Indeed.