Homosexuality

[Alpha Dude]

Greetings,

So is someone who is celibate. Should celibacy be banned too?

Peace

Actually, celibacy is discouraged in Islam. Marriage is always favoured.

 

[deepfreeze66]

Greetings,


So is someone who is celibate. Should celibacy be banned too?

Peace

That is two completely different things.

Homosexuality is corrupt and perverse. Remaining celibate is fine, as long as you can support yourself.

Homosexuality devolves us as humans and the entire practice should be outlawed.

 

[CosmicPathos]

What makes you think that all men will become homosexuals?

Statistics suggest that no more of 10% of the UK population are gays or lesbians, and that that figure has been fairly constant (as best as people can tell - obviously in the past people would have been much more reluctant to admit to being homosexual than they would be nowadays).

There is no suggestion that homosexuality will 'infect' the whole population.

There is also no suggestion that it will not spread. But if it does have genetic basis, it would be interesting to see how genes, which do not have any morality, spread down vertically and control the ratios of these sexual phenotypes. And if something is to be learned from the behavior of genes, humans might have to give away their morality and do with homosexuality what genes do: restrict it and probably take it one step further by eliminating it.

 

[Lynx]

when religion guides your morality it isn't difficult ti see where and how it is wrong, the same way you know that sex outside of marriage or abortion as birth control is wrong (yet people do it anyway).. the fact of the matter if you'll have a hard time proving anything is wrong depending very well in your baseline. If you have nothing to define right from wrong for you, your views are bound to be askew, and you are bound to ask ridiculous questions of people.

Religion defines the finite details of morality the way pathology defines specimen and frozen sections for the surgeons.

Personally I think they only humiliate themselves by their acts, I don't care what they do in their private time, I don't want it in my face around the clock!

all the best!

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 ..

Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.

 

[Lynx]

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 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?

 

[The Ruler]

'advancing' the human race does not necessarily mean pro-create i.e., scientific advacement.

Actually, you'll find that it does. Scientific advancement did not occur over the course of one generation, but many.

 

[Lynx]

Actually, you'll find that it does. Scientific advancement did not occur over the course of one generation, but many.

Key word was 'necessarily'. We could have an infinite amount of human generations and all live in jungles doing the same thing over and over. So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'

 

[جوري]

Yup, so you agree it's a matter of religion and has nothing to do with logic or reasonable belief.

No, I don't in fact, the rather large article give you here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134293001-homosexuality.html#post1282268

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

 

[Alpha Dude]

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?

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?

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.

 

[Alpha Dude]

So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'

Just to make it clear: by 'human advancement', I meant the future continuation of the human population. Survival. Sorry for the confusion, I should have worded it better.

 

[Dagless]

It isn't in conformity with the 'norm' what is decreed by religion or 'Nature' if we were strict naturalists.

in fact up to the 1970's this was classified in the DSM-II as an act of deviance. And it really is no different than other deviant and 'abnormal' sexual acts. I won't get into the trail of other problems that concern homosexuals exclusively (for instance their highest rate of anal cancer) or kaposi's sarcoma etc. but strictly from a religious/ or naturalistic point of view, it is actually worthless to be homosexual. If we are to ignore religion and think of what good homosexuality brings, it brings nothing.. futile cycles aren't inspired by 'nature' but by a sick psychology, and that is in fact what it is-- a psychological rather than a biological aberrancy!
I can't believe we are even discussing this like it is normal status quo!

all the best

Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.

 

[The Ruler]

Key word was 'necessarily'. We could have an infinite amount of human generations and all live in jungles doing the same thing over and over. So I was arguing that you cannot take the fact that a person isnt going to procreate and call him 'useless for human advancement'

Pum pa-pum.

 

[cat eyes]

I strongly believe anybody can give up there desires.. all they need is taqwa and Allah can give this to anybody. i have heard of many people who have completely turned there life around subhanAllah its hard i am not saying it isent hard but once we get knowledge and Allah swt blesses knowledge on whom he wills. opportunities come for him to seek more knowledge and meet others who went through the same things but left all these worldly desires purely for the love of Allah. subhanAllah

 

[جوري]

Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.

Natural denotes in concordance with nature.. nature dictates survival, propagation, extensions, genesis and a property practiced by most of what is in creation.
Now, I don't know how animals come into the picture, we are not animals, but if we were, monogamy is also an aberration in 'nature' and amongst animals:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/opinion/la-oe-barash22-2009nov22

so I question by that logic, why homosexuality which leads to certain psychosocial problems and a halt to genesis is 'OK' and not particularly at odds with today's social mores but bigamy isn't?

also, why pederasty is a crime while homosexuality isn't? do we not have 13 year olds fathering children? we even have birth control pills passed to 11 year olds
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=140910

so in your mind what makes it a crime if under a certain age but legal and encouraged and even paraded and applauded otherwise when the standards aren't practiced all throughout.. i.e defending an 11 year old against a sexual act, but by the same token handing her hormones to halt pregnancies?

We really need to question the measuring stick that makes people incongruously appalled but at the same time very allowing of the same acts.

 

[Lynx]

No, I don't in fact, the rather large article give you here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134293001-homosexuality.html#post1282268

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

Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how homosexuals practice unsafe sex. It says nothing about homosexuality in of itself. No one would disagree that unsafe sex = bad. It's a red herring fallacy.


Alpha Male:

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?

I don't get why you think homosexuality is an illness. Homosexual couples can still have children; lesbians for instance can have artificial insemination and other various methods. Even if they didn't want to have children why would that matter? Just because we are naturally disposed to continuing the survival of our genes, does not mean we ought to. But your real mistake is your definition of an illness. I guess this isn't your fault since illnesses in psychology are somewhat subjective. I mean there is no REAL reason why OCD is an illness. but as far as I can tell from psychology something is an illness if it stops a person from living a functioning life or if it harms others. Can you think of a psychological illness that does not cause harm to the person or others?

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.

Slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality isn't contagious and there is no potential to do what you think will happen. Homosexuality has been around for a very very long time and in many different species.


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.
[/quote]

Agreed.

 

[Rabi Mansur]

Everything is allowed in Christianity, worshiping men and getting bent!

Hardly. Catholicism certainly opposes homosexuality. Look at the recent prop 8 battle in California. The mormons, catholics and other christian groups all banded together to raise millions to fund the initiative. Evangelical christians are also very opposed to homosexuality.
The more conservative christian sects along with the catholics, continue to oppose it.

:wa:

 

[جوري]

Did you read the article? The entire thing is about how homosexuals practice unsafe sex. It says nothing about homosexuality in of itself. No one would disagree that unsafe sex = bad. It's a red herring fallacy.

.

Question is did you?

that at least a quarter of all homosexuals had over 100 partners?
that few of their relationships last over two years, that the exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. That HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the
homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of
Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal
among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men
carried HPV."[17] and that Kaposi's sarcoma is almost exclusive to homosexuals? In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research
found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they
had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently
indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and
combined physical-psychological abuse."[70]
· In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay
Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in
the heterosexual population."[71]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are
traditional married households:
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports
that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of
violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]

etc. etc. etc.


I rather think you didn't get past two lines and made up your mind that sticking a condom on is all that is needed and then you are good to go.

Pls. don't waste my time if you wish to waste yours with platitudes and selective reading!

 

[جوري]

Hardly. Catholicism certainly opposes homosexuality. Look at the recent prop 8 battle in California. The mormons, catholics and other christian groups all banded together to raise millions to fund the initiative. Evangelical christians are also very opposed to homosexuality.
The more conservative christian sects along with the catholics, continue to oppose it.

:wa:

Question is why the majority of Christians on board are very allowing, are they afraid that the religion will become even less attractive if it stood for any principles that all they want now are sodomites to tally up the number? Yes, homosexuality was punishable by law even in the west not a few decades ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

peace

 

[CosmicPathos]

Depends how you are looking at it. From a purely religious point of view it is wrong full stop, but...

How can you say its abnormal or unnatural from a perspective without religious guidance? How do you define natural? Animals do it, humans do it and it is not something which is taught... therefore it must be naturally occuring, what else can it be?

As for deviant - what is and is not deviant is forever changing but there are 2 main points to homosexuality - 1) It is not learnt, 2) The individuals concerned are consenting. Someone mentioned other socially unacceptable acts like beastiality, but these differ because the animal would probably not be a consenting participant.

some animals also kill their partner after mating with them. Black widow spider comes to my mind. Dont stoop humans to the lower degradations of animalism.

 

[Dagless]

Natural denotes in concordance with nature.. nature dictates survival, propagation, extensions, genesis and a property practiced by most of what is in creation.

Being gay does not inhibit any of those things. Gay people can survive, and they can propagate.

Now, I don't know how animals come into the picture, we are not animals, but if we were, monogamy is also an aberration in 'nature' and amongst animals:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/opinion/la-oe-barash22-2009nov22


so I question by that logic, why homosexuality which leads to certain psychosocial problems and a halt to genesis is 'OK' and not particularly at odds with today's social mores but bigamy isn't?

We are part of nature. Animals come into the picture because they are also part of nature. A bigger part than us.

I don't know why you keep calling these things aberrations in nature. Gay people exist and make up a percentage of the population, straight people exist and make up a percentage of the population, some animals stick to 1 mate, other animals don't. You cannot say one is correct and the other is wrong; only that both types exist in nature.

Psychosocial problems are created due to attitudes of society at the time. In 50 years there may not be, in 100 years there maybe more; it doesn't make something wrong or right.

I also don't know about a 'halt to genesis'. There are many answers to this.
1) People who are gay sometimes still have sex early in life and so do procreate.
2) People may be married but still have gay tendencies (bisexual?). In this case they still procreate.
3) Bottom line is that we are a smart race. We know we need to continue. If the percentage of gay people suddenly shot up I'm sure women would still get pregnant... just by other means.

also, why pederasty is a crime while homosexuality isn't? do we not have 13 year olds fathering children? we even have birth control pills passed to 11 year olds
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=140910

so in your mind what makes it a crime if under a certain age but legal and encouraged and even paraded and applauded otherwise when the standards aren't practiced all throughout.. i.e defending an 11 year old against a sexual act, but by the same token handing her hormones to halt pregnancies?

We really need to question the measuring stick that makes people incongruously appalled but at the same time very allowing of the same acts.

You don't need me to tell you why kids shouldn't have sex. I'm not even sure what this cultural issue has to do with the gay argument.
Animal cruelty was down in the UK in 2007 but I'm not going to use it as a key point to support my argument... or maybe I am... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6924818.stm