Islam = logic + ethics + morality.

[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'. 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]

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]

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.