Re: Where in the Quran or other Islamic text is Homosexuality talked about as being a
Let me copy and paste from another site where I talked about this recently, I'm too weary of the subject to write any more:
The actual condemnations in the Abrahamic rules spoken of here are not against homosexuality *itself* but against the *practice* of it. I don't know why so few people understand this. Any other genetic condition which is unhealthy to the progression of the species as a whole is seen as an evolutionary imperfection or genetic anomaly, but once make a cultural hot topic out of it and suddenly not only is every dissenting party to the majority seen as an automatic absolute monster by everyone, but also nobody even acknowledges what they really believe about it in the first place. Homosexuality isn't unique; there are all kinds of flaws or difficulties in mother nature which it is one's moral obligation to work around or against instead of simply embracing them. I, for instance, am not a sinner just for being born with a lack of empathy but that doesn't mean that I should say I'm proud of it either; it's just a problem I have to work with, and that requires accepting that *is* a problem. In the end it doesn't make any difference to me since even practicing gays are the same as everyone else; we all have our sinful tendencies. I'm probably worse than most of them. It's just a part of being human.
[Regarding the] cultural hot topic [thing:] People form the same views their peers do out of terror of being different and then keep reassuring them out of nowhere ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!") so as not to be thought different. And should anyone believe something that *is* different from the majority, they're a monster, no matter how tolerant about the subject they are (especially compared to the rest branding them a monster). It gets talked about a lot because the media exists to sell itself and they know that feeding on these awful tendencies will get them more money, and everybody defines everything by the media.
I never advocated that [homosexuals] should pretend to do anything. I think it probably better that they not have any sex at all. The concept may blow one's mind in the sex-obsessed zeitgeist of the modern western world but any number of people from history have been able to have extremely full and productive lives while dying virgins. I've never used my birth with a lack of empathy as an excuse for behaving uncompassionately. The whole thing is just—as it is called in the lingo of logic—"the fallacy of appeal to inherent nature". Nor would I *pretend* to feel pity for someone when I don't. What matters is how I conduct myself. So it is with gays. I reiterate: if this subject were not such a cultural hotbed then nobody would consider homosexuality to be anything other than what every other example of evolutionary flaws against the grain of the species' development is: a birth defect, a genetic anomaly. Fortunately, though, one that doesn't have to hinder one's abilities or make their body any harder to use. They should count their blessings.
Let me quote this definition of the Fallacy of Appeal to Inherent Nature from Wikipedia:
Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy, nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition. Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First, the word 'natural' is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. Second, 'nature' and 'natural' have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as 'all-natural' wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection. Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives).
It's not about what's "natural". There is good natural and bad natural. You have to judge things by more than just what makes you feel good or gives you the chance to form an extra relationship. Experience teaches that when we're born with a condition that defies basic evolutionary logic and would doom the species if acted on much more frequently, that is IN ALL OTHER CASES an activity to be avoided. Why isn't it here? Because people don't think, they just absorb cultural biases automatically and unquestioningly. There's nothing wrong with *having* the condition; you can't help the way you're born. But see how telling it is about modern western culture that everyone so unthinkingly leaps the gap from having a tendency to acting on it! They don't even notice the gap is there, and if you point it out they just ignore you! If someone had murderous tendencies for psychological reasons that are not their own fault then nobody would be saying, "Oh well, it's in your own nature, just kill away." No, the only sin now is doing what doesn't feel good, so long as it doesn't inflict harm upon someone (many people would even go so far as to say "if it doesn't inflict harm upon someone other than yourself"). Nobody ever sees anything wrong with anything that "doesn't hurt anyone" anymore because nobody bothers to develop a moral philosophy more advanced than a kindergartner's--and of course, they let the zeitgeist form their opinions for them and never think for themselves, and brand anyone who disagrees with the majority as a bigoted demon—WOW is that ironic.
