gay people and islam
-
Well if you were saying %100 of people TAKE PART in either I would say %100 of people being homosexual would not fair well (unless you facto in petri dish babies) But as for everyone accepting everyone? Well that would be fanfuckingtastic no? If people could live and let live (in this situation) without judgement, fear or hatred, think how nice the village in NYC could be.
Acceptance of eachother's differences is not going to be a BAD thing
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
Well if you were saying %100 of people TAKE PART in either I would say %100 of people being homosexual would not fair well
Why not?
But as for everyone accepting everyone? Well that would be fan****tastic no?
I know the language on this thread has been very graphic, but please do not exceed the boundaries, respectfully.
My question was not about everyone accpeting everyone, it was comparing 100% hetero to 100% homo
If people could live and let live (in this situation) without judgement, fear or hatred, think how nice the village in NYC could be.
Why just that situation?
Acceptance of eachother's differences is not going to be a BAD thing
There is no compulsion, but the right way is clear from the wrong way.
-
Peace be upon you all,
In my opinion homosexuality is an immoral ACT, this however, does not mean the person is immoral. The reason I believe it is immoral is because of the fact that its only purpose is for pleasure, or to satisfy lust. With this line of reasoning though, people will say, that we shouldn't then go on roller coaster rides (they serve no purpose except excitement), we shouldn't watch a show like seinfeld, and on and on. Therefore, this argument won't stand ground, unless we decide that anything which only fulfills the purpose of pleasure or entertainment is something we shouldn't do. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee any arguments then that will work to discredit homosexuality, unless we simply say that its a test that some people have to overcome, just like we say eating pig meat is prohibited. This however, is one of the shittiest arguments, and doesn't sit well with logic. It's like saying "cause God said so". Since, I cannot come up with a good argument for why homosexuality is immoral, I will stop believing that it is so. I'll try to remain neutral on the subject.Lotetree made the argument that these days sex is for pleasure first, and procreation second. I agree with this view; today sex is foremost for pleasure, unfortunately this doesnt mean it is right. Simply because this view is in the majority, doesn't make it the right view. I think society has to turn this around, and make sex first for procreation and second for pleasure. People having sex just for pleasure, has led to a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and single parent families that pervade society today.
Another argument that has been made is that if nature does it (we are nature too I guess, but I mean the animal kingdom), then it's alright. This doesn't stand up to reason because animals do a lot of things that we've agreed aren't right. Should we run around killing our enemies children because animals in the wild do it? I doubt you'll say yes. We cannot therefore, rely on what animals do, to guide our actions as humans.
I think we have to analyze where we get our morals from, before we'll make any headway on this discussion. If it's from the book that people have titled the Quran, then we have to decide whether or not the Quran actually prohibits homosexuality. If it's from the conscience we all say we're born with, then we have to decide where we got this conscience, and can it be wrong (seems to create a lot of problems, and arguments that lead no where). Before we can decide why homosexuality is wrong, we must decide what wrong is, if we are going to be able to use reason and logic to solve this problem.
I hope I've made some sense,
Peace -
Peace
In my opinion homosexuality is an immoral ACT, this however, does not mean the person is immoral.
To me this statement is contradictory. How do you explain it? The person who sins is a sinner right? The one who abstains is an abstainer correct?
Joe
-
Peace Icephren,
I think Lote tree has adressed ur post quite well. I would have written similar.
These days sex is not only about conception. If every person in the world has unprotected sex every time like people of the past, we would have a population explosion.
Now a days, we pretty much pre decide the maximum number of children we want to have and then accordingly allow unprotected sex for the purpose. But otherwise, one has protected sex, is it not?
How many times do u think an adult has sexual intercourse with the intent of conception as compared to the number of times he has it for pleasure?
Peace!
-
Peace idolfree1,
Lets for a moment imagine a scenario here.
U r heterosexual, right? So u r naturally attracted to the opposite sex. Now lets say, homosexuality was what's considered right & moral and so, u r forced(by ur community) to feel attracted to a man instead of a woman. What would u do? How would u feel?
Peace!
-
Peace
The reading does not tell us to force people to do anything. There is a no compulsion clause. However, if YOU adhere to the reading you will not go against its knowledge lectures. So in your scenerio, if the reading said homosexuality was the way, then those who adhere to it are practicing homosexuals who do not force heterosexuals to be the same due to the clause of no compulsion.
O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person (female), created, of like nature, Her mate (the female), and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you) for Allah ever watches over you.
Edited to fit new scenerio.
Joe
-
Peace
Peace
In my opinion homosexuality is an immoral ACT, this however, does not mean the person is immoral.
To me this statement is contradictory. How do you explain it? The person who sins is a sinner right? The one who abstains is an abstainer correct?
Joe
sure. The same contradiction when we say perversion - pervert - nothing against you though
-
Peace Nabi,
Can anyone(heterosexual) get turned on by a member of the same sex just becoz some charachter in tv does?
It may be possible with the thought implanted in one's head, "I can do this, and look, it's okay". I do not think anyone is stating that tv makes people do things, however it influences one's considerations. Keep in mind how God speaks of the power of suggestion.I agree there is something called power of suggestion. But not to the extent of turning one into a homosexual against his wishes.
We dont do things just becoz "I can do this, and look, it's okay", do we? Propably it is , ''I want to do this and look its okay''? And 'want to' comes from one's own decission(feelings) and not through tv.
And moreover, What do shows such as will & grace convey about homosexuality? The message I get from the show is that there might be some men who are gay and they are just normal people with a different sexual orientation. I dont see it promoting or suggesting homosexuality to viewers as such. We see all kind of things on tv. If u take all that as suggestions that every human being will act on without analysing it in their heads, then we would be a sorry lot.
Peace!
-
Peace Zenje,
Peace Elena,
It is not direct violence but I find it intolerant, as much time it is repeated 'we are not against the person'
This is true. Atleast with most I've seen are people who are against the act. Sure, those opposing equate the act (not the person) to other acts, like child molestation, because they believe both are a matter of choice, not that both do the same thing or interchange in any way. While some may be disgusted at the thought of abuse or public indecency or any other "crime"... others see it in the same light.Following the first lines underlined, I understand better them, just they compare both things based on they think both things are a matter of choice.
Why do they see it in the same light? Is it the same or it is not?Peace idolfree,
I still don't understand your use of the word perversion. You call perversion many things, even blindness, joined twins, homosexuality, hermafrodites, chilldren molestation and bestiality, all together and all those people are to blame for their condition you said in another thread where you and I discussed this.
-
Peace be upon you Peace,
In my opinion homosexuality is an immoral ACT
Well said! D
this however, does not mean the person is immoral
Correct, they are only immoral when the are performing sex with teh same gender, otherwise they could be very moral when it comes t other aspects of life, annd for this reason we do not attack the person, but we speak out against immorality.
The reason I believe it is immoral is because of the fact that its only purpose is for pleasure, or to satisfy lust.
Let me add to this, it is blind following of the emotional nature. It is not just that the person is seeking to satisfy an incorrect emotional urge, but the act itself leads to the end of mankind.
With this line of reasoning though, people will say, that we shouldn't then go on roller coaster rides (they serve no purpose except excitement), we shouldn't watch a show like seinfeld, and on and on.
Riding roller coasters and watching Seinfeld do not prevent the species from continuing. We reason first, if there is no harm in the action, hen we ALLOW pleasure to follow. This is the proper sequence, however, the majority of mankind FOLLOW emotions.
Therefore, this argument won't stand ground, unless we decide that anything which only fulfills the purpose of pleasure or entertainment is something we shouldn't do.
Pleasure is an emotional state, just like jealousy, envy, etc. Lets talk for a moment about what happens in the body when we get into an emotional state, our blood leaves teh vital organs and is moved to the organs of "fight or flight", and if this is maintained for too long, we starve our vital organs (brain for example). This is the OBJECTIVITY behind the statement "stress is deadly". So pleasure should not be maintained for long periods eaith, instead we should remain at PEACE, allowing pleasure in the proper amounts. So its not that we should avoid situations that cause pleasure, if the action is healthy and does not effect society, we can allow the pleasure to follow, but should soon get back to peace.
One should follow up and look at the statistics of lottery winners and thier death and illness rate.
Unfortunately, I cannot foresee any arguments then that will work to discredit homosexuality, unless we simply say that its a test that some people have to overcome, just like we say eating pig meat is prohibited. This however, is one of the shittiest arguments, and doesn't sit well with logic. It's like saying "cause God said so". Since, I cannot come up with a good argument for why homosexuality is immoral, I will stop believing that it is so. I'll try to remain neutral on the subject.
Please see my argument above. Also, please refrain from the foul language, respectfully.
Lotetree made the argument that these days sex is for pleasure first, and procreation second. I agree with this view; today sex is foremost for pleasure, unfortunately this doesnt mean it is right. Simply because this view is in the majority, doesn't make it the right view. I think society has to turn this around, and make sex first for procreation and second for pleasure. People having sex just for pleasure, has led to a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and single parent families that pervade society today.
Well said.
Another argument that has been made is that if nature does it (we are nature too I guess, but I mean the animal kingdom), then it's alright. This doesn't stand up to reason because animals do a lot of things that we've agreed aren't right. Should we run around killing our enemies children because animals in the wild do it? I doubt you'll say yes. We cannot therefore, rely on what animals do, to guide our actions as humans.
well said.
I think we have to analyze where we get our morals from, before we'll make any headway on this discussion. If it's from the book that people have titled the Quran, then we have to decide whether or not the Quran actually prohibits homosexuality. If it's from the conscience we all say we're born with, then we have to decide where we got this conscience, and can it be wrong (seems to create a lot of problems, and arguments that lead no where). Before we can decide why homosexuality is wrong, we must decide what wrong is, if we are going to be able to use reason and logic to solve this problem.
Universal law clarifies this all for us, but we have to leave emotions out to see it
I hope I've made some sense
Very much so.
-
Peace be upon you Peaceful Muslim,
Lets for a moment imagine a scenario here.
U r heterosexual, right?
Yes.
So u r naturally attracted to the opposite sex.
Yes.
Now lets say, homosexuality was what's considered right & moral
Your scenario is based on opinion, I am not basing my argument on opinion, I am basing it on form and function. But I will follow your test..
and so, u r forced(by ur community) to feel attracted to a man instead of a woman. What would u do? How would u feel?
If someone is trying to force me, that would be foolish, instead they should reason with me to see how life follows a set ORDER and that I should not follow Emotions/sesualism, but instead that should follow.
You see, it boils down to "likes" and "dislikes", attraction! D Your emotions are what "draw you" to things and "repel you" from other things, and guess what? These can be changed. For example, you meet a person and they are very attractive, so you are "attracted" to them, but then you meet them and they are very rude and ignorant, next thing you know, you are NOT "attracted" to them.
There are things you "like" or "dislike" when you were little which has changed now.
This whole issue stems from most of mankinds ignorance of the "Self", so they identify with the personality (host of complexes that change).
-
Peace Elena
The same contradiction when we say perversion - pervert
I do not see the contradiction. Perversion is the act of corrupting or some aberrant behavior. A pervert is one who debases or corrupts.
But not to the extent of turning one into a homosexual against his wishes.
Of course not. I think we have all stated this.
We dont do things just becoz "I can do this, and look, it's okay", do we?
You talk because you can or write to me because you can. If your scruples denounce bad language you do not curse. If you're in doubt about your scruples because of the suggestion that cursing is acceptable and okay you do them, well at least I do.
And 'want to' comes from one's own decission(feelings) and not through tv.
I agree. Again, I think everyone here has agreed that television does not make people do things, but still people are bringing up this point that it does not when it is and has been agreed upon from the fore. What people want can change. I used to want only article 2a in division A, but now I want articles 2a-2e in division A.
I dont see it promoting or suggesting homosexuality to viewers as such.
You have already suggested it is okay, but I'm looking for you to show me where God states that it is okay for a follower of the reading to practice homosexuality. It is clear from your opponents on this issue that people can practice homosexuality, but it is deviant behavior in the reading, therefore a muslim cannot and should not be practicing homosexuality.
If u take all that as suggestions that every human being will act on without analysing it in their heads, then we would be a sorry lot.
I at least am not suggesting this, nor do I think your opponents are. Still, not everyone is forethoughtful.
Joe
-
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
you deleted the last part 'nothing against you though'
there is where I see the contradiction.If you reprimand your child for doing something wrong, are you against your children? If your problem is with the word "pervert", then chose whatever word you like that fits to explain incorrect behavior, but the ISSUE will be the same.
My oldest sister is bi sexual and on drugs, I do not "care" for her any less, nor "love' her any less, but her actions regarding sex and drugs is wrong and that does not prevent me from letting her know that when she tries to tell me some story about it. You see, we have the ability to control our emotions, to take on any personality we need for a certain situation, so when my sister turns back to correct conversation, we talk as normal, laugh and joke, whatever. I will not entertain foolish BEHAVIOR, because thats what it is, and I dont expect anyone to entertain any behavior I have not yet transcended. Thats how we maintain a moral culture, otherwise we sink into hell, like the world is doing now by adopting this western mentality of "freedom to do what you like". That means free to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. One is only truly free when they are restricted by the Universal Laws.
-
Lotetree
PostPosted Fri Feb 10, 2006 103 pm Post subject
ichephren wrote1.I don't know where anyone said that TV will turn a person straight person gay. What I do remember saying is that it in addition to societal acceptance of homosexuality may influence the emotions of young children who don't yet have a concept of their own sexuality. Please rebut that point.
What are you saing here? Sexuality is a learned behaviour?
As for as I know Sexuality is wired in the Brain from Birth. This is what research points to.
Here is a interesting case. An American boy due to a terrible circumcision accident lost his penis completely. The parents decided to raise him as a girl. The doctors gave the boy hormone treatments to make him more feminine. The boy grew up looking like a girl and behaving like a girl. But in his teenage years his masculinity re-asserted itself and he stopped taking hormone treatments and lived the life of man.
So Sexuality is NOT a conditioned response as far as I can see.
The example of the American boy is one of biological sex, not sexuality. For example, the scenario says nothing about who the person has sex with, it just proves that without hormonal treatment, his body readjusted to the hormonal balance that a man should have, thus he would be a man. Now, he could end up being a man who has sex with men or one who has sex with women. This example does not say anything about his sexuality. It only proves that without treatement, the body has a specific hormonal balance that is harwired into our genes.
Homosexaulity have been observed in the Animal world. There seems to be a certain percentage of the population that show homosexual behaviour in all societies in past and now. Why? This question has not been resolved yet. And the comparison between homosexuality and incest is not correct because incest is NOT usually between two consenting adults. And this goes for bestiality too.
Actually homosexuality is not evident in the animal kingdom. Usually what people point to are monkeys who exhibit homosexual behavior. However, animal sexuality is very different from human sexuality. When a male monkey cannot find a suitable female partner, it might release its sexual heat with another male. The sexuality of animals is controlled seasonally, so the monkey must have release before it can go about its normal business. Human beings are the only animals who can have sex anytime they want to and feel the desire all the time.
Also, I have already explained that I am not comparing unconsentual sexual conduct with homosexuality. I have already said that even if incest was consentual, it would still be wrong. I also gace the example of peanut butter on a penis in order to establish consent between the dog and the male. There is consent there, yet it is still wrong, whether or not it is evident in nature.Yes, that is what it is in the Animal World. But we are human beings. We are much more than an animal. Humanity exeptionally is a different Species than the Animal Species. Sex is more pleasureable for us. Procreation follows if we want to. Sexual Pleasure first, procreation second. We have left behind our REPRODUCTION instinct long time ago. So reproduction argument is no longer tenable.
Ok, human beings are different than animals, I think that we can all agree to that. But answer these questions 1)why do two women who are really close often fall into synch with their menstrual cycle? 2) why do women who are close tend to get preganant around the same time? Both occurences have been shown to be true. There is a part of human sexuality that is simply unconscious and animanlistic. It has nothing to do with our level of intelligence and civilization...but a pure biological program.
How do you know that sex is more pleasureable for human beings?
I have not reduced human beings to their reproductory capabilities. It is a vital aspect of human relationships. Ok, we can have orgasms in our sleeps, but the point of having a sexual orgasm is purely to make reproduction more efficient.I disagree. Beauty has it's own standard and is nothing to do with reproduction.
Please give an example of this.
If it is mistake then hey WHAT A GREAT MISTAKE IT IS. Sex is for pleasure now. That's why there are 10,000 different never endings at the tip of the female clitoris!!! and what a thing it is too Wink Baby making is now is a matter of choice.
You seem to rely on the notion of "now" but the purpose of sex must be true now as it was before the advent of condoms and BC pills. The purpose of sex does not change just b/c we invent ways to get around the consequence. For example, the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies. Just b/c food happens to be delicious does not erase the sheer purpose of nourishing our bodies. The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste. So, we are more likely to have sex and procreate if it feels good than if it feels like electric shocks through your genitalia. Now, if you remove the nourishment from food and eat only junk food, your body will suffer and you can't complain if you become diseased since we all know that the point of eating is to feed the body with nourishing food. In the same regard, if you continue to have sex for pleasure, you cannot be surprised if you get pregnant b/c we all realize that the supposed end goal of sex is to procreate.
-
Peace be upon you Icheprhen,
Now I 'm getting emotional, because I wish I could have said this!
You seem to rely on the notion of "now" but the purpose of sex must be true now as it was before the advent of condoms and BC pills. The purpose of sex does not change just b/c we invent ways to get around the consequence. For example, the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies. Just b/c food happens to be delicious does not erase the sheer purpose of nourishing our bodies. The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste. So, we are more likely to have sex and procreate if it feels good than if it feels like electric shocks through your genitalia. Now, if you remove the nourishment from food and eat only junk food, your body will suffer and you can't complain if you become diseased since we all know that the point of eating is to feed the body with nourishing food. In the same regard, if you continue to have sex for pleasure, you cannot be surprised if you get pregnant b/c we all realize that the supposed end goal of sex is to procreate.
Fantastic!
I wanted to add to just one part
The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste.
If we do something we dont like, like drink carrot juice as an example for some, with the understanding that it is good for us, we will soon begin to get "pleasure" from i, it wll soon be "good". So yes, it makes it easier to nourish my body.
I have experienced this first hand.
Again, great post.
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
Well if you were saying %100 of people TAKE PART in either I would say %100 of people being homosexual would not fair well
Why not?
But as for everyone accepting everyone? Well that would be fan****tastic no?
I know the language on this thread has been very graphic, but please do not exceed the boundaries, respectfully.
My question was not about everyone accpeting everyone, it was comparing 100% hetero to 100% homo
If people could live and let live (in this situation) without judgement, fear or hatred, think how nice the village in NYC could be.
Why just that situation?
Acceptance of eachother's differences is not going to be a BAD thing
There is no compulsion, but the right way is clear from the wrong way.
Let's see, if %100 of people were homosexual then the species would last about 80 years or so. but you did not ask what if everyone WAS homosexual. You asked about acceptance. what is wrong with accepting someone else for the choices they make for themself, or for being who they are? It does not mean you have to do it, love it, or even agree with it. It just means accepting someone else for who they are, perceived faults and all. It means not disliking or writing off someone for a singel facet of their person.
As for the situation, that would be the situation of sexuality as opposed to someone who say, enjoys eating human flesh off of live humans.
I apologize for the language I did not intent to offend, just a little funny is all.
Anyway, lets take the most extreme example of this and see how it plays out
100% of people accept heterosexuality
100% of people accept homosexuality
just remember, you question was of acceptance, not practice
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
I think you've misunderstood what Idolfree has been trying to say. He accepts the people for who they are, but if they come to him and ask what his opinion is on Homosexuality he will simply state the reasons he disagrees with it. I hope he doesnt mind me replying on his behalf, I just think you need to take another look at what his view is on this topic.You asked about acceptance. what is wrong with accepting someone else for the choices they make for themself, or for being who they are? It does not mean you have to do it, love it, or even agree with it
Accepting the person has nothing to do with accepting the act. We can disagree with homosexuality and still be accepting of that person. Anything wrong with that?
Peacce