Verses on Homosexuality
-
Johnny K
Many thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately this is where the problem lies. Each person on this Forum and Movement seems to become an expert in Arabic overnight and starts to interperate the Qur'an according their own reasoning and starts slating Sunnis, Shias, Salafis, Wahabis and God knows who else as the main culprits for hoodwinking mankind into their evil ways of thinking in order to control the masses etc etc.. thus the mistranslation of the Qur'an claims. 1400 years of history and knowledge are disclaimed by sitting behind the computer. How about people start studying themselves and learning the Arabic language fluently in the first instance. This would be a very good pre cursor.
Secondly, some science also says that we evolved from apes! Do you also agree to this?
Science also has made numerous claims over the centuries and then reversed it's position. So which position would you accept? First or Second?
As far as the claims regarding being born gay , in May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues," which includes this statement
"Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
Furthermore, in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes
We will see later the falsity of activists' repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.
The fact is no single study can be regarded as definitive, no person is born 'gay'.
You may have changed your way of thinking in order to appease and accept homosexuality, but for the billions of us Muslim, Jews and Christians. This isn't going to happen.
It is imperative that we seek knowledge and better ourselves with empowerment, but we use due diligence, critical examination, reason, logic and evidence. Not the flow of the wind or the direction of the band wagon.
Peace
-
I agree that the government shouldn?t meddle in people?s lives, and that includes not telling them who they can and can?t marry.
Indeed, and nor should they change the definition of marriage.
Only if you think that the god is a na?ve simpleton whose list of prohibitions is incomplete. Only if you think that the god needs us to come up with amusing reasons to add to the prohibitions stated in the great reading which don?t include a prohibition of same-sex marriage.
I don't believe in any prohibitions. I think God gives human beings complete autonomy over their actions. But that doesn't mean there isn't such thing as right and wrong, and reason is the best way to decipher truth.
Your questions seem irrelevant. I don?t see what you?re trying to get at. Your questions sound ?powerful?, ?awe-inspiring? and all that, but I don?t see how they?re relevant to this discussion and I think they?re just rhetoric.
Have faith and believe, comrade! I'm trying to emphasize that morality is not something separate from human nature. The conventional wisdom today is that not only does sexuality not matter, but parentage does not matter. It's politically incorrect to mention evolution at all in the context of human welfare. But this is just cultural ignorance.
And how is any of that relevant to this discussion? Are you trying to argue that homosexuality is wrong because it impedes human evolution? Please explain how homosexuality impedes human evolution if that is indeed what you?re arguing. And if it is, then it?s clear that you think having kids is the only way humans can evolve. It seems you don?t think that teaching, writing books and other things that help disseminate knowledge contribute to human evolution.
Now let's see, how does choosing not having children impede evolution? You know about the birds and the bees, right?
You should take up responsibilities, but having kids isn?t taking up responsibilities; having kids is creating responsibilities. You can?t hurt the kids you decide not to have by not having them.
Again you're assuming there is no a priori purpose to human life. I think human life is valuable regardless of the opinions of people who think they aren't responsible enough to have children. Yes - the human race is not going to die out because of homosexuals not reproducing. But it will be poorer for the loss.
And that's the sin. There's a saying I heard. If a person spends their entire life praying, repeating 'Allah, Allah, Allah', counting beads etc, never lifting a finger to work, when they die, God will send this person straight to hell, because they have been lazy. When we have been created with the capacity to do things, choosing not to take any risks, not to exersise your abilities, is a rejection of God's gifts. Doing nothing is not the same and doing something.
They make a solitude and call it peace. Galgacus, in Tacitus 'Agricola'
-
Peace "zulu",
Johnny K
Many thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately this is where the problem lies. Each person on this Forum and Movement seems to become an expert in Arabic overnight and starts to interperate the Qur'an according their own reasoning and starts slating Sunnis, Shias, Salafis, Wahabis and God knows who else as the main culprits for hoodwinking mankind into their evil ways of thinking in order to control the masses etc etc.. thus the mistranslation of the Qur'an claims. 1400 years of history and knowledge are disclaimed by sitting behind the computer. How about people start studying themselves and learning the Arabic language fluently in the first instance. This would be a very good pre cursor.
JK- Bro Arnold Yasin has studied classical Arabic and has Dr. Shabbir(www.ourbeacon.com) the latter one EXTENSIVELY.
Secondly, some science also says that we evolved from apes! Do you also agree to this?
JK- OFCOURSE I DO and so does the Quran and so did Ibn-e-Khaldoon. Here check out the irrefutbale eveidence for us sharing common ancetors with apelike creatures
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA (ERVS also irrefutable evidence)
Also visit www.taoarchives.org for mroe exxposition on creationists literature. Read bro Arnold's article on how evo is completely compatible with the Quran
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,415,0,0,1,0
My own evolution out of creationism to be found at
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13378.0Science also has made numerous claims over the centuries and then reversed it's position. So which position would you accept? First or Second?
JK- The latest scientific research is ALWAYS THE BEST KNOWLEDGE WED EVER HAVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME about the real world. The toe has more evidence to support it than even the atomic theory or the big bang.
As far as the claims regarding being born gay , in May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues," which includes this statement
"Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
Furthermore, in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes
We will see later the falsity of activists' repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.
The fact is no single study can be regarded as definitive, no person is born 'gay'.
You may have changed your way of thinking in order to appease and accept homosexuality, but for the billions of us Muslim, Jews and Christians. This isn't going to happen.
JK- Wiki Note Discard anything where reference is not provided!
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_orientation#Genetic_explanations
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_orientation#Physiological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_orientation
You should also read alll the various term links regarding this topic to get a better insight into the matter.It is imperative that we seek knowledge and better ourselves with empowerment, but we use due diligence, critical examination, reason, logic and evidence. Not the flow of the wind or the direction of the band wagon.
Peace
JK. Thats true and is exactly why i arrived at the aforementioned conclusions. GOD Bless!
-
Jonny, you should post extracts relavent to the conversation rather than simply linking to wikipedia articles.
God Bless.
-
Wikipedia gives a good overview of homosexuality and scientific studies as to why this happens
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientationI believe that the evidence shows that homosexuality is not a choice; however, what is popularly called 'the homosexual lifestyle' (flagrant promiscuity with same-sex partners). I believe in a merciful, forgiving God. I am heterosexual so this is not a personal issue for me. I believe that homosexuals are under the same mandates as heterosexuals when it comes to modesty of dress and chastity (no sex outside of marriage). I don't know if there are sheikhs or imams willing to marry homosexual (same-sex) couples. If a homosexual couple can find a way to legally marry, they should do so. If they cannot, then they should make a commitment to their partner and remain faithful to their partner. If one or both partners want to separate then they should follow the same Qur'anic policies for divorce that are applied to heterosexuals. It is important to honor commitments to one another and to try to make a marriage or partnership work. I don't know if God will honor such a marriage. Before marrying my husband and I individually asked God if we were making the right decision. We both cleared our minds (as best we could) of the answer we wanted to receive and we both got the answer to marry the other. I do this for other important decisions. I have to believe that when my intentions are good/pure, God will give me the answer that best fulfills His plan for me. This is true for everyone.
I am sorry whenever anyone is burdened with an extra hardship in life. We all have challenges and burdens. We are meant to share our life with other people and the Qur'an guides us towards marriage. I wish that I had an answer for all of the homosexuals out there, but I have to believe that God made you this way for a reason. Please dedicate your life (as we all should) to Allah and seek His forgiveness and mercy if you have done anything wrong.Peace be upon you!
-
Indeed, and nor should they change the definition of marriage.
What is the definition of marriage?
I don't believe in any prohibitions. I think God gives human beings complete autonomy over their actions. But that doesn't mean there isn't such thing as right and wrong, and reason is the best way to decipher truth.
I wasn't disputing that.
Now let's see, how does choosing not having children impede evolution? You know about the birds and the bees, right?
Huh?
Again you're assuming there is no a priori purpose to human life.
It's not human life if it doesn't exist!
I think human life is valuable regardless of the opinions of people who think they aren't responsible enough to have children.
And making babies is valuing and cherishing human life? No, not necessarily. You can only value human life by being good to humans. Bringing more humans into this world is just bringing more humans into this world.
Yes - the human race is not going to die out because of homosexuals not reproducing. But it will be poorer for the loss.
What loss? Babies don't die when people decide not to have babies and the world would be a better place if people decided not to have too many kids, but that's immaterial to this discussion.
If a person spends their entire life praying, repeating 'Allah, Allah, Allah', counting beads etc, never lifting a finger to work, when they die, God will send this person straight to hell, because they have been lazy. When we have been created with the capacity to do things, choosing not to take any risks, not to exersise your abilities, is a rejection of God's gifts. Doing nothing is not the same and doing something.
Straw man argument. I'm not saying you should be a useless git, but you shouldn't create responsibilities if you don't want to. You should make yourself useful by helping people who need your help but you shouldn't bring more people into this world if you can't look after them.
-
Again you're assuming there is no a priori purpose to human life.
It's not human life if it doesn't exist!
I'm not going to let you go on this point. If you believe human life has value in and of itself you cannot believe that not existing is as good as existing. That's just nihilism.
-
Peace
Again, sorry for the delay in replying.
Erogenous zones are parts of the body that, when stimulated, elicit sexual arousal. Precisely which body parts are sources of sexual arousal is a very individual experience.
The genitals are the most obvious erogenous zones, but many parts of the body not involved in reproduction are sensitive to sexual touch. The largest sensory organ for both men and women is the skin itself, especially the inner thigh area, the neck, the breasts and nipples, and the perineum.Other erogenous zones include the eyelids, the ears, and the shoulders. Many people also find that having their feet stroked is arousing. Stroking, caressing and massaging of erogenous zones can be titillating forms of sensual pleasure in and of themselves, or they can be invitations to further sexual activity.
The mouth, including the lips and tongue, for most people, is an area of high erotic potential. Kissing is one act that uses the sensitivity of this region in a sexually stimulating way.
The anus, rectum and buttocks are also potentially erogenous zones. The anus is highly sensitive to touch and the insertion of a finger, object or penis in the anus and rectum is part of some people's sexual activitThe buttocks are sometimes a target for spanking and stroking, which can feel very arousing to some people.
I begin to see your point. Your point is that anything that causes 'sexual stimulation' can be called sex. Well, I agree the Quran never specifically states that 'sex' involves the insertion of one man's penis into the vagina of a woman, however it clearly does imply sex is between men and women (enjoy your women after fasting etc.). 2223 also describes women as being a tilth and to go to your tilth.
In chapter 4 the Quran clearly condems same sex perversion. For a long time I was uncomfortable with the verse, but after finally understanding what it meant (my understanding prior had been that of the Sunnis) I comprehend the issues in the verse. No word that means prostitute is used, but you choose to believe this because of your already pre-determined views and your attempt to fit the Quran around them. One of the most ridiculous things you have done is to deny that one of the sins of the people of Sodom was same sex perversion! This is categorically stated in the Quran (they practised their lusts on men instead of women). And yes I have read Arnold Yasin's topic and my opinion of him was lessened after reading it. His opinion that because the Quran requires 4 witnesses to convict someone of sex outside of marriage that therefore the Quran is only anti orgies and not anti fornication is ridiculous to the extreme (why would people in an orgy testify against each other, in any issue you need an amount of proof - requiring witnesses does not mean that the Quran only deems the act wrong if committed with more than two people)! On this issue he, like you, seeks to make his own opinion fit with the Quran which clearly condemns all sex outside of marriage (of course another flaw in your argument is the fact that sex in Islam in within marriage and marriage is between men and women)!
As for your issue on variuous parts of the body can be stimulated through touch - so what. Most people already know this. Sexual arousal can even occur through thinking. So, it is clear that sexual intercourse involves the insertion of a man's penis into a woman's vagina. It is this which also dictates that normal sexual behaviour is between a man and a woman. This is clear from a biological and religious perspective. Anything outside of this is a perversion, by it's very definition. You understood this issue from an intellectual perspective when I gave the example of anal 'eating' and compared this to 'anal sex'. The fact that, despite this, you equate sodomy with sexual intercourse suggests that your argument is based on emotion rather than fact.
As for 415-16
415 mentions a group of women (lesbians don?t always engage in group sex) and the word alazani can also refer to a man and woman instead of just two men. It is my humble understanding that the above verses command muslims to put prostitutes (male or female) who willingly come under islamic jurisdiction under protective custody till the god makes it safe for them to come out of their homes. Prostitutes are vulnerable people (pimps and slave traders are sometimes very violent towards their prostitutes, and some punters are very abusive too) and they?re also a health risk to society.
Sorry, but what word refes to a man?
Waallatee And those whom ya/teena those whom commit - feminine alfahishatamin perversion nisa-ikumof the women faistashhidoo AAalayhinna arbaAAatanminkum fa-in shahidoo faamsikoohunna fee albuyooti hattayatawaffahunna almawtu aw yajAAala Allahu lahunnasabeelan
What you said isn?t true for all homosexuals. Your argument is similar to saying that since a few Mexicans are drug dealers, Mexicans in general are bad people who deal in drugs an ugly and bigoted fallacious argument.
Again a completely flawed argument where you compare an ethnic group to a behaviour. You are also probably unaware that sodomites and women same sex perverts ARE at higher risk of drug abuse and mental health issues
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19072677?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19042906?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Also look at this very good webiste
http//www.narth.com/index.html
-
Summary
-
Anal sex is an equivalent and as legitimate practise as penile-vaginal sex Refuted through comparison of anal eating - a point which you accepted but could accept with regards to sex. Also refuted through basic biology. You countered by saying that many parts of the body are erogenous. I said this is irrelevent to the discussion as to whether homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.
-
The Quran is not anti homosexual Refuted through 415-16, the story of Sodom and the fact that marriage is between men and women and sex only occurs within marriage.
Same sex perversion is unhealthy from a biological and mental health standpoint. I believe it to be, to some extent, a mental disorder or dysfunction. It is not equivalent to normal sexual practise. These perverts have higher rates of drug abuse and higher rates of mental illness. The acts they engage in are disgusting and cannot be compared to normal people.
I base this on clinical medical practise where it is acknowledged that they have a higher number of sexual partners (and hence in a GUM clinic you try to encourage testing of all sodomites for HIV/AIDS). Also journals do accept this and also show they have higher rates of mental health issues and drug abuse. I also base this on 'gay langauge', eg. terms like cottaging, rimming, cruising. I lived by a park frequented by sodomites which was know to be littered with needles and other paraphernalia. When you understand this point you will understand what Sodom was all about. And I do believe that this applies to almost all of them.
Hence I believe that the promotion of this peversion as equivalent to 'heterosexuality' is dangerous as more people are recruited to it believing it to be acceptable. One of the beauties of the Quran is that it is so clear on this issue and understands same sex perversion, adultery and fornication for what they are. Of course people have always and will always engage in such behaviours but there is a difference in societies which accept them as normal and those which believe them to be wrong.
Roshan
-
-
Peace,
Sorry it?s taken me this long to respond, I?ve been busy.
I begin to see your point. Your point is that anything that causes 'sexual stimulation' can be called sex. Well, I agree the Quran never specifically states that 'sex' involves the insertion of one man's penis into the vagina of a woman, however it clearly does imply sex is between men and women (enjoy your women after fasting etc.). 2223 also describes women as being a tilth and to go to your tilth.
That?s a superficial argument and it?s one that?s based on a big assumption. You?re assuming that the god prohibits homosexuality because the great reading only mentions sex between men and women. Now maybe I?m being unreasonable, but I think if the god really had a problem with homosexuality, It would be a bit more explicit. Using your logic, I could argue that we can?t eat bananas, cherries and oranges because 699 doesn?t mention them as the fruits that the god causes to grow.
In chapter 4 the Quran clearly condems same sex perversion. For a long time I was uncomfortable with the verse, but after finally understanding what it meant (my understanding prior had been that of the Sunnis) I comprehend the issues in the verse. No word that means prostitute is used, but you choose to believe this because of your already pre-determined views and your attempt to fit the Quran around them.
Similarly, no word that means ?Homosexual? is used and if the absence of a word that means ?Prostitute? is the only reason why you think 415-16 can?t be about prostitutes, I?m afraid your argument against my understanding of those verses is a very weak one. Anyone can talk about just about anything without mentioning that thing itself. ?Sources of vitamin C are essential to good health and they prevent scurvy?. That sentence is obviously about citrus fruits and other types of food rich in vitamin C even though I?ve not mentioned citrus fruits or other kinds of food rich in vitamin C.
One of the most ridiculous things you have done is to deny that one of the sins of the people of Sodom was same sex perversion! This is categorically stated in the Quran (they practised their lusts on men instead of women).
You?re taking that verse out of context. The great reading also says ?Kill them wherever you find them?, but that doesn?t mean the great reading allows senseless killing. And why is it ridiculous to say that the story of Lot isn?t about homosexuals? If you want to argue that it is, you?ll need to show how the verses related to Lot?s people are about homosexuality. Simply taking part of one verse out of context can?t convince an unbiased and sensible person of anything.
His opinion that because the Quran requires 4 witnesses to convict someone of sex outside of marriage that therefore the Quran is only anti orgies and not anti fornication is ridiculous to the extreme
That?s not only a straw man argument; it?s also slander as far as I know.
On this issue he, like you, seeks to make his own opinion fit with the Quran
That is the second time you?ve attacked me, your opponent, instead of my ideas. This tactic is a favourite of people who have no real argument.
As for your issue on variuous parts of the body can be stimulated through touch - so what. Most people already know this. Sexual arousal can even occur through thinking. So, it is clear that sexual intercourse involves the insertion of a man's penis into a woman's vagina.
Huh? How!?
It is this which also dictates that normal sexual behaviour is between a man and a woman.
How exactly?
This is clear from a biological and religious perspective. Anything outside of this is a perversion, by it's very definition.
?Clear from biological and religious perspective?? Pray tell how and how is anything other than coitus ?perversion by definition??
You understood this issue from an intellectual perspective when I gave the example of anal 'eating' and compared this to 'anal sex'.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you don?t like that I understood the issue from an intellectual perspective. From what other perspective would you like me to understand the issue?
The fact that, despite this, you equate sodomy with sexual intercourse suggests that your argument is based on emotion rather than fact.
Alright, what?s your definition of sodomy? Is sodomy anything other than from coitus? Where do you get your definition of sodomy from? And why is anything apart from coitus wrong?
Sorry, but what word refes to a man?
Alazani in 416.
Again a completely flawed argument where you compare an ethnic group to a behaviour.
I?m comparing racism with homophobia, but I get what you mean and the only reason why I compared homosexuals to Blacks is that neither skin colour nor sexuality can be chosen.
You are also probably unaware that sodomites and women same sex perverts ARE at higher risk of drug abuse and mental health issues
Hmm, I wonder why? Groups that are discriminated against always exhibit anti-social behaviour more than groups that aren?t.
Oh and ?conversion therapy? has been shown to often be detrimental to homosexual people?s health and it?s also been proven to be largely useless so NARTH is a joke.
Anal sex is an equivalent and as legitimate practise as penile-vaginal sex Refuted through comparison of anal eating - a point which you accepted
No, I don?t think I did. I never accepted that ?anal eating? is similar to anal sex.
but could accept with regards to sex. Also refuted through basic biology.
And according to ?basic biology?, anal sex really is sex.
You countered by saying that many parts of the body are erogenous. I said this is irrelevent to the discussion as to whether homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.
No, it?s very relevant since I was proving that anal sex is sex because it?s pleasurable. You?re argument against homosexuality was based on the ridiculous idea that anal sex isn?t sex.
The Quran is not anti homosexual Refuted through 415-16, the story of Sodom and the fact that marriage is between men and women and sex only occurs within marriage.
You never showed us how the story of Sodom and 415-16 are about homosexuals. Yes, you did say they were, but that?s all you did.
Same sex perversion is unhealthy from a biological and mental health standpoint.
Please try to validate these extraordinary claims.
I believe it to be, to some extent, a mental disorder or dysfunction.
What you believe is immaterial if you can?t provide any tenable evidence for it.
It is not equivalent to normal sexual practise.
Because you say so?
These perverts have higher rates of drug abuse and higher rates of mental illness.
The reason why these ?perverts? dope more than heterosexual people and have a higher rate of mental illness than heterosexuals is most likely that they?re discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. Groups that are discriminated against always exhibit anti-social behaviour more than groups that aren?t.
The acts they engage in are disgusting and cannot be compared to normal people.
Define ?disgusting acts? and ?normality?.
I base this on clinical medical practise where it is acknowledged that they have a higher number of sexual partners (and hence in a GUM clinic you try to encourage testing of all sodomites for HIV/AIDS).
It has been shown that legalizing gay marriage lowers promiscuity among gay people. Maybe same-sex marriage should be legalized if you want gays and lesbians to be less promiscuous, don?t you think so? To simply look at the problems of homosexuals and condemn them for it while completely ignoring the causes of those problems is reductionistic and rather callous too.
Also journals do accept this and also show they have higher rates of mental health issues and drug abuse. I also base this on 'gay langauge', eg. terms like cottaging, rimming, cruising.
There?s nothing wrong with rimming and the reason why cottaging and cruising are common among gays is probably because gays can?t marry. There?s evidence that legalizing gay marriage encourages monogamy among gays. I?ll look for the study and link you to it when I can. My internet isn?t working too properly right now so I can?t look for it right now, but you can be certain that I?ll find a review of that study.
I lived by a park frequented by sodomites which was know to be littered with needles and other paraphernalia.
Anecdotal evidence.
When you understand this point you will understand what Sodom was all about. And I do believe that this applies to almost all of them.
Yes, you ?believe? it applies to all of them, but you can?t show how it?s inherent to homosexuality.
-
If you believe human life has value in and of itself you cannot believe that not existing is as good as existing. That's just nihilism.
You're not making any sense at all and I never said that not existing is as good as existing. Not existing is neither good nor bad. It's of no importance.
-
You're not making any sense at all and I never said that not existing is as good as existing. Not existing is neither good nor bad. It's of no importance.
Wasted potential is of importance. The original meaning of the word 'sin' is different in different languages. But one meaning is that of failing to realise your potential, falling short of what you could be, missing the target. That's what failing to reproduce, failing to form a family, comprises.
-
liquiddharma,
Well then everyone is a sinner all the time and nothing we do is ever enough because everyone of us has the potential to be an astronaut, geneticist, psychologist, painter, rock star, etc., but not everyone of us is any of those things let alone all of them. Do you now see how unreasonable and unkind your god would have to be to begrudge us not realizing our full potential? Yes, many of us are potential parents but some of us choose not to be because we've other priorities, just like a painter who likes painting more than genetics.
-
It isn't God who begrudges anything. God isn't affected by what we do. We are all accountable to our own selves for our failings. Human beings punish themselves.
-
I'll rephrase what I said then
Well then everyone is a failure all the time and nothing we do is ever enough because everyone of us has the potential to be an astronaut, geneticist, psychologist, painter, rock star, etc., but not everyone of us is any of those things let alone all of them. Do you now see how unreasonable it is to expect humans to do everything they have the potential to do? Yes, many of us are potential parents but some of us choose not to be because we've other priorities, just like a painter who likes painting more than genetics.
-
Nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean you have to be completely imperfect or wallow in your own crapulence. It is still good to do good things and bad to do bad things. Giving life to a human being and raising them in a happy family is a good thing, and much more possible than being an astronaut or running for president. Therefore choosing not to do the good things that are most possible is a serious failure - hence a sin.
Think of Mr Bush. What is he going to be remembered for, and what will he be blamed for. Will people say "how disappointing, he didn't send up more astronauts"? Will they say "How disappointing, there weren't enough Olympic athletes trained"? I think not - his legacy is the war, the bodies - because avoiding pointless wars is really a very important aspect of being a head of state. Likewise, for an ordinary human being, creating and protecting life - propagating and perpetuating the species, is really a very important aspect of human existence. Choosing to neglect this duty is an abrogation of human nature.
-
Nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean you have to be completely imperfect or wallow in your own crapulence.
I wasn?t saying you shouldn?t even try to be good because you can?t be perfect. Please don't put words in my mouth.
It is still good to do good things and bad to do bad things. Giving life to a human being and raising them in a happy family is a good thing,
True, but so is becoming an astronaut, doctor and so on. Why choose having kids over a career in astronomy or helping the poor, helping orphans, etc.?
and much more possible than being an astronaut or running for president.
Alright, having kids is easier than becoming an astronaut or president, but adopting homeless orphans is way easier than conceiving, pregnancy, labour and raising a newborn baby.
Therefore choosing not to do the good things that are most possible is a serious failure - hence a sin.
Using that illogic, one could argue that you should adopt kids instead of having kids of your own.
Think of Mr Bush. What is he going to be remembered for, and what will he be blamed for. Will people say "how disappointing, he didn't send up more astronauts"? Will they say "How disappointing, there weren't enough Olympic athletes trained"? I think not - his legacy is the war, the bodies - because avoiding pointless wars is really a very important aspect of being a head of state. Likewise, for an ordinary human being, creating and protecting life - propagating and perpetuating the species, is really a very important aspect of human existence. Choosing to neglect this duty is an abrogation of human nature.
Ridiculous and deceptive analogy! You?re comparing going to war to not having kids! You see, a country at war kills people, but a couple that decides not to have kids doesn?t kill anyone at all. Please don't give me that "If you believe in the sanctity of human life, then you must believe that the lives of unborn people are also sacred" claptrap. How can it be sacred when human life that doesn't exist isn't even human life to begin with!? If it was, then everyone's a killer because everyone is capable of having many, many kids. A man produces thousands of sperms every minute and many of those are potential humans. You keep saying it?s a duty to perpetuate the species, but you?ve not told us why. Why should every individual have to reproduce? What danger will humans be in if some people decide not to have kids? I?ve asked you several questions which you?ve conveniently ignored. Thus far all you've done is use the same argument against homosexuality in different words and compare homosexuality to awful things like war.
-
The reason why killing is bad is because human life is valuable.
And do you want to know the difference between having children and trying to be an astronaut?
If you try and be an astronaut but fail, that's it. You've failed.
If you both have children and try and be an astronaut - if you fail, your children can later go on to succeed. You can indeed adopt, and that is a worthy thing to do - but your children will be happier if you are their real parent. It's still the issue of wasted potential. It isn't the sperm that are wasted. It's the wholeness of your identity - the combination of DNA, biology and upbringing.