Is homosexuality chosen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nerd
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 119
  • Views Views 22K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Greetings,

Duncan Ferguson said:
You may say that it's a sin, but the idea of sin doesn't truly reflect a state of morality, except in the special sense of a relationship with God. If a homosexual act harms no-one, then how can it be condemned as immoral?
Click to expand...
I thought I would respond to this comment, as I believe it is wrong to say that "a homosexual act harm no-one". Going back to the question, 'what is so wrong about homosexuality?', the following was written as a reply in a much older discussion by our brother Ansar al-'Adl:
Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

Now I know you made a point about 'animals doing it' somehwere in the thread in response to it being unnatural, I just can't find your statement. Anyway, my respone would be that, since when are animals practices the source for what is natural for human beings? I should hope that everyone would regard it as unnatural if a human female should happen to eat her mate during copulation, yet this is exactly what spiders do!

​
Hence we can realise that the action has consequences which affect the surrounding people too. If the homosexual happens to be a married man with a family, he has just torn apart his family structure if he leaves them for another man. What would the mother explain to her children? Furthermore, people who come out with such acts openly are supporting others like them and encouraging those with such inclinations to do the same. If an increasing proportion of society did this, quite clearly it would destroy social order, leaving women without partners and hindering the whole cycle of procreation to name just a couple of examples.

I think they deserve respect.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They deserve disapproval. By giving them respect, we are encouraging more and more people to go down that road, when they could easily fight their inclinations if given appropriate support and guidance. If we care for the society in which we and our children grow up, then we should take an active part in voicing what is acceptable and what isn't based upon what we know to be good and what we know to be evil. If nobody said anything, people may take it as silent approval. But if those with a sense of right and wrong speak out, only then can it cause change.

However, I don't think God gives us any authority to inflict harm on these people in any way whatsoever. Speaking as a Christian of course. Give them warnings, show them mercy, and the rest is up to God.
Click to expand...
To clarify again, if someone is a homosexual, that doesn't mean we kill them. If that person does homosexual acts publically, then they do need to be punished, and that is an expiation for their sins as I mentioned earlier: http://www.islamicboard.com/928771-post60.html


Some useful links:
Ansar Al-'Adl said:
Click to expand...
For the punishment of homosexuality, one can refer to this article:
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=38622&ln=eng&
 
Another good point a brother made was that since some people like being called animals so much, then would it be moral to have sex with an animal, especially if the animal gives consent - by approaching the human sexually?


Just something to think about...
 
The Ayatolla Khomeni made a fatwa in the seventies that If a Man was to have intercourse with an animal from outside his own village, then he was to pay that village for the animal.
 
barney said:
The Ayatolla Khomeni made a fatwa in the seventies that If a Man was to have intercourse with an animal from outside his own village, then he was to pay that village for the animal.
Click to expand...


Khomeini isn't a part of mainstream Islam, this forum doesn't promote his beliefs, since his beliefs even contradict clear Qur'an.
 
can i quickly ask whats the islamic penalty to homosexuality?

I strictly think it should be banned/stopped! Afterall Allah did create adam and eve, and not adam nd steve!

A question, if a baby is born gay, can it be identified as being gay in the stage when its first born?
 
Hamada said:
can i quickly ask whats the islamic penalty to homosexuality?

I strictly think it should be banned/stopped! Afterall Allah did create adam and eve, and not adam nd steve!

A question, if a baby is born gay, can it be identified as being gay in the stage when its first born?
Click to expand...

bro read the thread and we don't beleive a baby can be born gay, just with slighlty girly characteristics eg: high voice, tendency to play with girl toys etc
if thats what you mean
 
aadil77 said:
bro read the thread and we don't beleive a baby can be born gay, just with slighlty girly characteristics eg: high voice, tendency to play with girl toys etc
if thats what you mean
Click to expand...

salam, ye i believe so to!:)

So if that is the case, then i don't understand why people keep saying a person is born gay....

If you can't indentify a baby as being gay or not than how can you accusethe poor thing as being born gay..?
 
Hamada said:
salam, ye i believe so to!:)

So if that is the case, then i don't understand why people keep saying a person is born gay....

If you can't indentify a baby as being gay or not than how can you accusethe poor thing as being born gay..?
Click to expand...

people just want to create a special category for some people to fit into and associate all the filthy practices with it as a result of being 'gay',
its Fact that when the baby reaches puberty it WILL be attracted to the opposite sex not same, the acceptance of homsexuality has lead to people beleivng that they're actully 'gay'

sad just how things are goin out of hand
 
aadil77 said:
people just want to create a special category for some people to fit into and associate all the filthy practices with it as a result of being 'gay',
its Fact that when the baby reaches puberty it WILL be attracted to the opposite sex not same, the acceptance of homsexuality has lead to people beleivng that they're actully 'gay'

sad just how things are goin out of hand
Click to expand...


Thats not a fact at all. All evidence and testimonys point in the opposite direction.


The interesting thing for me is the common ground Islam and Christianity have on this.
In modern times the mantra is "Hate the act not the person".
The two are indivisable. Gay people have sex. Thats an intrinsic part of being gay! Ignoring this as an excuse not to have to go around stoning the heck out of them is a cop-out.
 
Homosexuality is a desease; simple as.

We cannot really trust in all the biased 'scientific support' for homosexuality as we know that many such scientists could well be ideologically biased or they could have a conflict of interest; the only scientist who claimed that homosexuality is in the genes, was a homosexual himself and this is an example of the conflict of interest some scientists have.

Peace
 
Greetings,

barney said:
The two are indivisable. Gay people have sex. Thats an intrinsic part of being gay! Ignoring this as an excuse not to have to go around stoning the heck out of them is a cop-out.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that every person with such inclinations must definitely have commited the act aswell? How can you say with such certainty that this is "an intrinsic part of being gay"?
 
I wasn’t comparing us to spotted hyenas or fruit flies or spiders or any other animal/insects for that matter. All I did was to merely suggest that such behavior exists in the animal kingdom and should not be considered ‘unnatural’. How you made that connection is beyond me.

What about men suffering from Klinefelter's syndrome??? who tend to appear, a bit feminine due to their genetic make-up (the way indeed God made them) .... is it his test on earth to try and appear more masculine and hide his true nature?
 
- Qatada - said:
Another good point a brother made was that since some people like being called animals so much, then would it be moral to have sex with an animal, especially if the animal gives consent - by approaching the human sexually?


Just something to think about...
Click to expand...

now your being silly, humans being animals is a scientific fact. sex with other animals go into (in my opinion) that animals arenot mentally fit. (similarly i would not think an adult should have sex with someone that is mentally unable to understand their desisions.)

now if you can find a dolphin that can talk and can clearly show it understands what it is doing then feel free ( i may think your sick but hey) if not i would consider it similar to statutory rape.
 
In summary:

So it is inherited?
No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.

But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"?
Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!

So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?
No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do-a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.

But doesn't homosexuality run in families?
Yes.

So you get it from your parents, right?
You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.

But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is the associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.

Refer: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
 
Last edited:
tomtomsmom said:
I think they deserve respect. I don't really care one way or another who someone decides to sleep with. Not my business. What is my business however are my children. At 7 years old, I don't want my son seeing two men kissing on what is supposed to be a children's video. Which by the way happened a few weeks ago. I just wish that respect would be given to the parents raising kids that don't want them exposed to it.
Click to expand...

shouldnt you as a parent screen whats going on?
 
- Qatada - said:
.Just to end, i want to state to ranma that if sex with consent is allowed, then why is it forbidden in many countries, including UK and in many states of the US to get married to brothers/sisters, mothers/fathers etc?
....
Click to expand...

It depends from society to society. Many have religious backgrounds in the laws. It just varies, im not sure what your point is. Are there potential health problems with inbreeding ? Yes. Is it morally wrong if two mentally fit adults decide to have sex. No. In my opinion. (are there ifs and or buts, yes.)

Also it use to be that interacial marriage/sex ect was not allowed. (did it make it immoral to do that?)

Women were not allowed to vote. (would it be immoral for htem to vote?)

Now lets go with anothe scenario, lets say this married couple discovers due to some freak mix up at birht thatthey are actually brother and sister.
They have had no undue influence on each other they are both mentally fit, should they be halled away to jail?

Inbreeding is also completely natural. ( i jsut dont recommend doing it.)
 
Muhammad said:
Greetings,

Are you saying that every person with such inclinations must definitely have commited the act aswell? How can you say with such certainty that this is "an intrinsic part of being gay"?
Click to expand...

Nope, there are Gay preists who bottle it up all their lives, theres gay Women who are so darned ugly they cant get a willing partner.

Im saying that being gay and the desire to have gay sex are indivisable.

I understand what your getting at. In a really bad analogy , its like saying "thou shalt not murder-for the penalty is jail" and a Psychopath bent on murder manages to restrain his emotions and not kill anyone, so he dosnt get jailed for it.

Problem is, I imagine the vast vast proportion of gays do have sex.
A religion that says "stone the Sodomites with stones(as opposed to cheesecakes) until they are dead" cant claim its a Gay freindly religion. I know Islam has never claimed it's gay freindly, like christianity is doing.
Christianity only jumps through these theological hoops because they can see the total hypocrisy with the message of a loving tolerant religion.
 
:sl:
Azy said:
It's an interesting point about sources of morality. If you look to people who were racist against blacks, took slaves, had sex with 9 year olds and forbade people drinking water whilst standing up then I suppose you can justify anything.
Click to expand...

Finally, you crack and it all comes out.
1) Muhammad [saw] was not racist to blacks. Here's a youtube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Fb5NZ89R8
2) You really do know nothing about slavery - I've also given an explanation to this (click me
3) Social context - and has been explained on this site. Use the search function. The following links are additional reading material:
part 1
part 2
4) Drinking whilst standing up is HARMFUL to your body (ask your doctor)

There is innate morality and there is morality that is learned (though I prefer to call that ethics or cultural norms).

Gosh, I expected a whole lot more from you, not this anti-islamic trash. Really poor points on your behalf.
 
Last edited:
aamirsaab said:
1) Muhammad [saw] was not racist to blacks. Here's a youtube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Fb5NZ89R8
Click to expand...
Is Tafsir al-Tabari not an authorative history according to muslims? What does Noah mean when he wishes Ham's descendants to become black and be slaves for the arabs?
aamirsaab said:
2) You really do know nothing about slavery - I've also given an explanation to this
Click to expand...
Yeah but this explanation seems unfinished. The abolition of slavery being a progression, but what happened to the next step? We've given slaves better rights, the next step would be to stop anyone being enslaved... someone seems to have forgotten to mention this bit.
aamirsaab said:
3) Social context - and has been explained on this site.
Click to expand...
Oh I am sorry for thinking that a man in his 40s is wrong should take a wife of 6 years old. It's ok if he waits until she's 9, so long as she's had her first period she's fair game. Would you marry off your own daughter at 6? Think about sitting down with a 6 year old girl, asking her father for her hand when she doesn't even yet fully understand the concept of marriage.

As for social context, I thought the messenger was sent to supercede the pagan rituals of the early arabs, not pander to them and reinforce them with his own actions. Keep your slaves, marry children, but be nice to them.
aamirsaab said:
4) Drinking whilst standing up is HARMFUL to your body (ask your doctor)
Click to expand...
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543524
Even this group of muftis don't have a definitive answer, if anything the outcome is that it's ok.
But when the messenger says "None of you should drink..." it sounds pretty definitive. Then he's seen doing it, and some of his companions. Sends a bit of a mixed message wouldn't you say?
aamirsaab said:
Gosh, I expected a whole lot more from you, not this anti-islamic trash. Really poor points on your behalf.
Click to expand...
My opinion would be the same if these things were written in the Bible, Torah or the Daily Telegraph.
If thinking it is wrong to marry off a girl of 6 to a man in his 40s is anti-Islamic, then yes I must be.
If thinking that people who are born a certain way should not be persecuted for actions which are the business of noone but the consenting parties and cause no harm to others is anti-Islamic, then yes I must be. Obviously I'm not taking into account the 'gayness' rubbing off on the rest of society and infecting them.
If I seem to have 'cracked', then the issue of human rights and persecution is the thing that would do it.
 
Azy said:
Is Tafsir al-Tabari not an authorative history according to muslims? What does Noah mean when he wishes Ham's descendants to become black and be slaves for the arabs?
Click to expand...


Did you know that al-tabari has weak narrations in his collection? Did you know that at-tabari's tareekh even has fabricated ahadith in? It is upto later scholars to verify the chains of narration to check their authenticity.



Yeah but this explanation seems unfinished. The abolition of slavery being a progression, but what happened to the next step? We've given slaves better rights, the next step would be to stop anyone being enslaved... someone seems to have forgotten to mention this bit.
Click to expand...


The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
" Those slaves are your brothers, only God gave you an upper hand over them. So let that who has his brother (i.e. slave) under him give him the same food he himself eats, and the same clothing as he himself wears. The master may not give his brother a task that is beyond his ability. If he does give him such task, let him lend him a hand."

Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29
​
Oh I am sorry for thinking that a man in his 40s is wrong should take a wife of 6 years old. It's ok if he waits until she's 9, so long as she's had her first period she's fair game. Would you marry off your own daughter at 6? Think about sitting down with a 6 year old girl, asking her father for her hand when she doesn't even yet fully understand the concept of marriage.
Click to expand...


Do you even have proof for this statement? infact, your statement is so false, since abu bakr had already arranged a marriage (for the future) with Mut‘im ibn ‘Adi's son. But this marriage did not take place because mu'tim did not like the fact that abu bakr became muslim.

They were taught about marriage from an early age, since death was an easy factor amongst the harsh desert life there. The girls would be with their women and were prepared to enter marriage when they reached puberty.


For generations after generations through out human history people have been marrying at the age of 9 and 10. By 16 they were old enough to lead an entire battalion! For thousands and thousands of years human beings did not regard early marriages to be hazardous. If early pregnancies were hazardous, surely the human civilisation across the planet and through out the history should have noticed a pattern. Something like that cannot be missed out or ignored for thousands upon thousands of years so easily.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top