The Lack of Science in Gay Debates
-
Peace All,
Just some points
1- Verse 780... "such as none of the worlds had done before."
I think this verse is mistranslated. "al-?lameene" in this verse is translated as "the worlds", it should be translated as "the knowledgeables" to conform to the language of the quran.
So in the verse 780 it means that none of the knowledgeable people had done before. Meaning only the ignorant ones do such acts of lewdness.
I can't find your translation anywhere, so if it exists please present evidence. As I don't speak Arabic, the most I could find pertaining to your statement as it stands, is that another word is used in the Quran for "those of knowledge", l-limna.
2- The homosexual act has NO benefit to the community, it doesn't give any outcome. Compared to heterosexual acts which can give offspring to enlarge the community and make it stronger. (I am not considering the recent possibilities to have children without sexual interaction)
This is based on a view that a human's worth is solely based on their ability to reproduce. Also, I don't consider "enlarging the community" to be a benefit to society when we're currently facing world-wide hunger issues. You completely ignored the point I already made about how the observed function of homosexuals in animal societies and human societies that don't engage in bigotry is to care for orphans.
Further, there is some evidence that a gene that causes females to be more fertile than usual, may cause their male relatives to be gay. The observed effect of this in human societies is what's called the "gay uncle" phenomenon. A woman will have more than the standard number of children, and she will have a brother who is not reproducing on his own. Since his resources are not being spent on his own offspring, he has more to give to his sister's children as this is his only way of seeing his lineage continue.
It's one thing to claim that there is no evidence you're willing to consider, but quite another to claim that there is NO evidence, whatsoever.
3- The Bonobo's example
From WIKIPEDIA
The bonobo ( /bnobo/ or /bnbo/), Pan paniscus, previously called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee, is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan; the other is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee. Although the name "chimpanzee" is sometimes used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the common chimpanzee, while Pan paniscus is usually referred to as the bonobo. It is distinguished by relatively long legs, pink lips, dark face and tail-tuft through adulthood, and parted long hair on its head. The bonobo is found in a 500,000 km2 (190,000 sq mi) area of the Congo Basin in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central Africa. The species is omnivorous and inhabits primary and secondary forests, including seasonally inundated swamp forests.
The bonobo is popularly known for its high levels of sexual behavior. Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. This is a factor in the lower levels of aggression seen in the bonobo when compared to the common chimpanzee and other apes. Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal; females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances and use sexuality to control males. A male's rank in the social hierarchy is often determined by his mother's rank.
Along with the common chimpanzee, the bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans. Because the two species are not proficient swimmers, the formation of the Congo River 1.5?2 million years ago possibly led to the speciation of the bonobo. They live south of the river, and thereby were separated from the ancestors of the common chimpanzee, which live north of the river. There are no concrete data on population numbers, but the estimate is between 29,500 and 50,000 individuals. The species is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is threatened by habitat destruction and human population growth and movement, though commercial poaching is the most prominent threat. It typically lives 40 years in captivity, though its lifespan in the wild is unknown.
As one can see from the Bonobos, sex occurs in all combinations including with young bonobos (kids). One can argue that it has many benefits for the community of Bonobos since it reduces the level of aggression between individuals. Now let's try to imagine a community of humans adopting the same behavior, pedophilia would be considered as normal because everyone does it and was brought up in such conditions.
All this is to say that we "humans" are distinct from the animal world because of our knowledge. We don't do things just because animals do it. We have our minds to discern right from wrong.
That was a long-winded way of saying "humans are not bonobos". If humans even tried to "ape" the behavior of bonobos in their societies on a large scale, it would be abandoned as a failed experiment on day one. Our brains are different, therefore, our behavioral responses are different, so there would be NO benefit for humans to act like bonobos in this regard. Considering how heated the debate on polygamy can get, I can't even see how you could bring this up as a valid argument. If I have to say this to you, then you're failing to use your logic in your refutation.
4- The case of Hermaphrodites This is falsely attached with the homosexual issue; Once a hermaphrodite chooses his orientation (because of physical or psychological reasons), he/she should be recognized as such (male or female) and allowed to get into a (heterosexual) relation. So no homosexuality is involved.
I never attached hermaphrodites to the issue of homosexuality as I agree with you that it isn't related. Your misunderstanding could stem from confusing hermaphrodites with transgenders or transsexuals. They are not the same things. Hermaphrodites are people who have the reproductive organs of both sex. Transgender is an umbrella term that includes people who have the brain of one sex and the body of the other.
5- In the cases of male-male or female-female relations, it can be seen as masturbation with no expected outcome besides the lust. And like masturbation, nobody will complain about homosexuality if it is done in private; but if done in public, even if nobody is harmed, ....
What's with the ellipses?
Anyway, if same-sex relations are just masturbation with no expected outcome, then what is protected hetero sex? When a man and a woman who are married have sex when the woman is not ovulating is this then just lust? Or could it maybe, just maybe, be an expression of love?You'll have to define what you mean by "done in public", also. As far as I know, every civilized country in the world has laws against public sex. So, if you're referring to that, then sure! But, if you're referring to choosing not to hide in the shadows for fear of what the ignorant will do to you, then I just thank God I live in a country that at least tries to punish the ignorant instead of the people minding their own business.
6- Many males after many years in a heterosexual couple, and even after having children, they choose to change their sexual orientation. This is a proof that changing one's orientation is possible, and I think in both ways.
Are you unfamiliar with what's called "the down-low". It's an extremely common occurence where a gay male will try to suppress his nature by living the way his society is forcing him to. In societies where the threat to his life isn't too strong, this is usually followed by a "coming out", where he rejects the life forced upon him and pursues his own happiness. I strongly suggest you google this so you can see why it's so ridiculous to bend their struggle with oppression and bigotry to use it as a tool against them.
7- What about compulsive liars, thefts, murderers or cannibals that would argue that their condition is innate, that they didn't choose to be that way... in these cases, we have victims for such acts; But what to do when both are consenting adults (masochists)? should it then be considered as normal?
As you already stated yourself, there are victims for those acts. In the case of masochism, what happened to your earlier view that what people do in private is their business?
If you're referring to masochism in the case where one party is not mentally healthy enough to consent, then we're back to square one. Consent cannot be given by someone who isn't of sound mind.
Also, for the sake of argument, I'd like to point out that pedophilia is seen as a mental disorder. A currently uncurable one at that. But do you see any psychiatrists or psychologists arguing that we should just leave them be to harm children? No, you don't because that doesn't make any sense to anyone who thinks about for longer than it takes to find a way to link it to gays.
8- Sex in general, heterosexual or homosexual, is a private thing and should not be done in public. If everybody keep it private, there would be no one to argue about the sexual habits of the others.
Finally! I agree with you 100%. The only thing is that since I don't know anyone who wants to have sex in public, I'm not concerned with those who do. My concern is with people who want others to stop sticking their noses in their bedrooms, uninvited.
9- Teens or kids claiming to be homosexuals should be checked for previous physical or psychological traumas that would have induced such behavior, and should be helped out of it. Hermaphrodites should also be helped to find their orientation and place in the community.
You say "claim" as though it's debatable. It isn't. Also, there is already a mountain of evidence that any link to homosexuality and mental illness is false, so checking them for it, anyway, would just be a pointless waste of resources at best and an unwarranted insult at worst. Further, there is proof that conversion therapy or "helping them out of it" can actually CAUSE the mental illness you say you're so worried about, not to mention the fact that it doesn't work, anyway. Last September a major victory was won in the States against this practice when a court in California ruled it's illegal to force something on children that's PROVEN to not work with so much evidence of the harm.
Like you, some of this is just my opinion but all of it is backed up by credible sources who have dedicated their time to study of their fields a.k.a "those with knowledge". As far as I know, nowhere in the Quran are we told to dismiss any science that conflicts with opinions but we are warned against following conjecture.
-
The same visceral response I get at the thought of kissing a woman is the same as the response of a gay man. How can I in good conscience force him to do it, anyway?
Nonononono...you got it wrong.....kissing a woman is the best ever.......
I cannot tell you how happy I am to read what you are writing. Many share your view but not many including yours truly have either the writing skill or academic background you possess.
So from a RAGING straight man to a FLAMING straight woman.............You go girl hail
-
Anybody can be attracted by someone of the same sex if one allows oneself for it to be so. And anybody can be repelled by persons of the same or of the opposite sex if one tells oneself for it to be so.
To divide people into homo and hetero is completely arbitrary. I am puzzled as to how something so unfounded on a real premise can procure such heated debates. One should always for this or for anything else ask oneself about motive. Why we do this rather than that, why we feel guilty for this and not for that. On this que question seems wholly to consist on giving a rubber stamp to a label that has been sacralised as having a meaning or deny it to that label. Does not serve any purpose nor makes us any wiser.
Sex is a good sewage to redirect to it many other sources of trauma and stress of human beings. Some even say that art is a sublimation of sex. That I do not know, but many things in sex, are not sexual per se but adaptations to pressures and condititioning by society not necessarily conscious or logical. Everyone swims as best one can in troubled waters. And, of course, many times sex is just plain and simple vice or perversion or whatever and which sex is preferred for that does not change a thing to the content.
Salaam
-
Nonononono...you got it wrong.....kissing a woman is the best ever.......
I cannot tell you how happy I am to read what you are writing. Many share your view but not many including yours truly have either the writing skill or academic background you possess.
So from a RAGING straight man to a FLAMING straight woman.............You go girl hail
lol & Thank you for the compliment! sun
I should mention, though, that I'm only a student. I don't have my degree, yet.
-
Peace neb87,
I have some questions for you if I may, and please do not answer them if you don't want to; they are only meant to help define the boundaries of the subject at hand.
1- Have you been in a regular sexual companionship? Did you have such experience in life? I am asking you just to know if you are a "swimmer" or you have only read about "swimming" laugh Because there is a big difference between reading about swimming in the ocean and practicing the thing. (I am sorry for any rudeness that may be felt from my question... It is not meant that way -[ )
2- If you did have such relation, have you made some sort of mutual consensus about the accepted sexual practices? or was open to any and every desire of the other partner?
3- If you had some limits? Was the reason for limitation a moral one or sort of personal likes and dislikes or for pleasing the partner?
As per your reasoning, scientifically there is no reason to limit oneself in sexual activities, even polygamy can be defended as it is more close to nature; Well since we are at it, free sex for all yay and everybody is happy as it seems that it keeps one healthier.
Sorry again for the sarcasm, for not everything that is scientific is necessarily "moral", whatever morality is defined.
It all comes again to where one wants to put his own boundaries; if there are no victims of such acts, no problem. But I feel compelled when homosexual couples talk about adopting kids, because I see it as destabilizing for the children, and furthermore they didn't choose it, it was imposed on them to have homosexual parents. they are the victims.
Regards
-
But I feel compelled when homosexual couples talk about adopting kids, because I see it as destabilizing for the children, and furthermore they didn't choose it, it was imposed on them to have homosexual parents. they are the victims.
Well which children choose their parents? I recently read an interview in a German magazine with children of gay/lesbian couples, and all of them were quite happy with them (of course, this may be selected ones, but you would have to prove they are less happy than children of heterosexual couples).I believe indeed there might be several models for a stable society. I have read abiut the Mosuo in south-western China where both sexes stay in the houses of their mothers, and the men visit the women for the night. The children are raised by their mothers and uncles. As long as this works - why not? Morals is not an abstract codex but should serve society.
The problem of "free sex" occurs if no one feels responsibe for the "results" of sex, that is the children. Coming back to gay couples, I see the limit crossed when they rent a woman to give birth tio their child, as I read in a notice some time ago. This is putting your own egoistic interest of having "your own" child above everything.
-
Peace neb87,
I have some questions for you if I may, and please do not answer them if you don't want to; they are only meant to help define the boundaries of the subject at hand.
1- Have you been in a regular sexual companionship? Did you have such experience in life? I am asking you just to know if you are a "swimmer" or you have only read about "swimming" laugh Because there is a big difference between reading about swimming in the ocean and practicing the thing. (I am sorry for any rudeness that may be felt from my question... It is not meant that way -[ )
Maybe it's cultural difference, but I don't see your question as rude, just odd, it actually made me laugh! laugh
I'm a 26 year old American, so yes, I've had long-term relationships before.2- If you did have such relation, have you made some sort of mutual consensus about the accepted sexual practices? or was open to any and every desire of the other partner?
3- If you had some limits? Was the reason for limitation a moral one or sort of personal likes and dislikes or for pleasing the partner?
Again, maybe it's cultural difference, but this never came up for me. I've only been in two relationships, and both were with long-term friends turned boyfriends. The idea of having to actually set limits is foreign to me. I didn't consider my relationships from a moral standpoint other than monogamy, as I never saw any moral issues. As for setting sexual limits based on personal likes and dislikes, that was automatic and needed no discussion. "No" means no, "not interested" means not interested, and "maybe later" means "I'll think about it."
As per your reasoning, scientifically there is no reason to limit oneself in sexual activities, even polygamy can be defended as it is more close to nature; Well since we are at it, free sex for all yay and everybody is happy as it seems that it keeps one healthier.
Sorry again for the sarcasm, for not everything that is scientific is necessarily "moral", whatever morality is defined.
I don't mind sarcasm, so no need to apologize. I think it helps to keep things light and civil when serious issues are being discussed. ;D
This is incorrect. Scientifically, there are many reasons to limit yourself, sexually.
-
Psychologically. People who don't set their own boundaries and go along with whatever their partner wants are likely to suffer from self-esteem issues, anxiety, and depression.
-
Infidelity can lead to many mental health issues.
-
STD's do not make one healthier.
-
People who engage in promiscuity, even willing, have MUCH higher rates of mental health issues than people who don't. Monogamy has been PROVEN to make one healthier both physically and mentally.
-
Traditional marriage adds between 5 and 10 years to the average male's lifespan. Married couples also report a higher level of general satisfaction with life.
-
Children from two-parent households have higher IQ's, are more emotionally stable, and are more likely to go to college.
-
Polygamy has had a detrimental effect on just about every society that practices it. This is a good place to start if you want to see some research on the matter. Some brief points;
-Polygamous societies and democratic societies are for the most part, mutually exclusive, in practice.
-Women in polygamous marriage suffer much lower self-esteem, have a higher rate of depression, and have a lot of trust issues.
-The children of polygamous marriage have higher rates of mental illness, particularly anti-social behavior issues. More of their daughters are depressed and more of their sons are depressed AND overly aggressive/hostile.
-Crime rates are higher in polygamous communities as there are far too many angry young men walking around with a good reason to be anti-social.
-Birth rates are much lower in polygamous communities. Here in the States, we're actually seeing a negative birth rate in these communities.
-Education levels are much, much lower than average in polygamous communities, across the board.
-Polygamous families are typically a drain on society. They're more likely to use a much larger share of public social welfare services, and less likely to raise children who will be a benefit to society. Not to mention, the women in these families are also not contributing to society in any meaningful way.It all comes again to where one wants to put his own boundaries; if there are no victims of such acts, no problem. But I feel compelled when homosexual couples talk about adopting kids, because I see it as destabilizing for the children, and furthermore they didn't choose it, it was imposed on them to have homosexual parents. they are the victims.
Another misconception. This is why we have scientists and researchers who actually study the issue, so that we don't have to rely on gut feelings and anecdotes.
Start here.
-
-
Peace neb87,
Thank you for answering my questions.
You are referring to "social science" to provide evidence for your claims, but I would like to point that social science is not an Exact science, as it is subject to interpretations. One can always find some pros and cons on any social issue, but everybody would agree that 2+2=4.
...As for setting sexual limits based on personal likes and dislikes, that was automatic and needed no discussion. "No" means no, "not interested" means not interested, and "maybe later" means "I'll think about it."
1- Here, are you basing your choice on science?
2- Would you agree that male homosexuals are most probably practicing sex that falls in your ""No" means no" category or at least in the "not interested" one? What would be the proportions?
Do you want to promote such acts?
-
Peace neb87,
Thank you for answering my questions.
You are referring to "social science" to provide evidence for your claims, but I would like to point that social science is not an Exact science, as it is subject to interpretations. One can always find some pros and cons on any social issue, but everybody would agree that 2+2=4.
1- Here, are you basing your choice on science?
2- Would you agree that male homosexuals are most probably practicing sex that falls in your ""No" means no" category or at least in the "not interested" one? What would be the proportions?
Do you want to promote such acts?
Social science is not an exact science but researching and studying a subject to find out how things work is much more valid than taking anyone's uninformed opinion as fact. We can study human behavior and reach conclusions on how people interact with each other and what effects certain interactions have on individuals and societies. This is superior to just blindly following any opinion that wasn't researched.
The fact that some data may be open to interpretation does not negate the validity of the data, itself. In ANY situation where there are both pros and cons to something, an intelligent person will weigh both sides and see which course of action is superior.
This topic is discussing the equal treatment of gays. In this case, the only known con is that it would anger homophobes. When weighed against the many pros both for individuals and society at large, this con is insignificant.
To answer your questions
-
If you're asking me if I broke out a textbook before deciding whether or not I was comfortable with my partner, no, I did not. As a sane, rational, free human being I don't need any outside sources to analyze my own desires. As a person who likes to read I can incorporate the things I've learned into my personality which may effect what I do and don't desire, or it may not.
-
As am I not a gay male, I'm sure there are plenty of things I'm not interested in doing that a gay male would be. Just as I'm sure there are many things a straight male would be interested in doing that don't appeal to me, at all. Just as I'm sure that there are many things another straight female may like that I wouldn't.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make by questioning the obvious.
-
-
Peace All,
2- The homosexual act has NO benefit to the community, it doesn't give any outcome. Compared to heterosexual acts which can give offspring to enlarge the community and make it stronger. (I am not considering the recent possibilities to have children without sexual interaction)We humans have a desire to continue our blood lines, and that predates human history,
and that which is a threat to its continuation is frowned upon. If we do not reproduce
we simply die out. Many of us also have a natural desire towards the opposite sex.
These two positions together create "the societal" or social point of view that
homosexuality is one of the things that are unacceptable. Having a family can give one
the security of not being alone, and in old age many people are cared for by their
children. Family gatherings are desired all over the world by all cultures. The debate
is not about should there be homosexuality, for it exists, and will be with us, but about
acceptence. Gay men and women should be accepted into society and allowed to live
as everyone else, as long as they live as law abiding citizens, for
oppression is worst than murder.Will you be the oppressor? I want no part of oppression because I fear my lord.
Peace
-
IMPORTANT!
When Science is Context Three Questions Show
The Men of the Quranic Lot Story
Are Heterosexual men not Homosexual menIntroduction
Today, there are many studies showing sexual orientation is not environmentally influenced, but rather individuals are born with a sexual orientation.
See Parts I-IX Below
Applying these studies as an element of context within the Quranic Lot story, the story shows a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men, and not a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men. In other words, and the thesis of this short article, the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men not homosexual men. To support this thesis, I will share three commonsensical questions that must be asked about the Quranic Lot story when these studies become part of the story's context.
First Question
The first question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 781. The verse states,
". . . with lust you approach men instead of women . . ."
(Quran 781, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse uses ?instead of.? This usage shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Can homosexual men approach women ?instead of? men?
Second Question
The second question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 1178. The verse states,
". . . Said "O my people! these daughters of mine they are purer for you ! . . ."
(Quran 1178, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states that Lot offered his daughters to these men. This offering shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would Lot offer homosexual men his daughters?
Third Question
The third question that must be asked when these studies become part of the context is found in the Quran verse 26166. The verse states,
"keeping yourselves aloof from all the spouses whom your Sustainer has created for you? . . ."
(Quran 26166, M. Asad)
As seen, this verse states God created spouses for these men. This creating of spouses for these men shows the men of the Quranic Lot story are heterosexual men. How? Because the question that must be asked with science as context Would God create women for homosexual men?
Conclusion
When science is context, these three questions are enough to rightly question the long held belief that the Quranic Lot story is a condemnation of homosexual acts of homosexual men rather than a condemnation of lustful homosexual acts of heterosexual men.
Watch the videos and read.
The source
http//www.godists.com/articles/islam_when_science_is_context_three_questions_show_the_men_of_the_quranic_lot_story_are_heterosexual_men_not_homosexual_men -
"gay" is used for the kind of people who adhere to the "lgbt" movement
that movement is definitely not following what's int he quran, so i would say to avoid using that word as not only is it a diversion of the initial meaning of the word (being happy), but people who have no problems engaging in public sexual acts call themselves "gay""accepting" is one thing, researching is another more important issue on this subject
here i'm going to show you a passage of a documentary on this subject, which shows the dysfunctional nature of people who adhere to the typical liberal views in the west
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTF_XVspfDM&feature=youtu.be&t=8m41s
from 841 to 1220
another example http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq1c4TYi4#t=98we know that every individual is considered the same under the law, and the question here is really to know if homosexuality is inherently a sin or not in the quran
we also know there's no such thing as a gay gene (not found yet if exists), and that more research needs to be done on the subject
the "lgbt" movement has used every argument possible to make homosexuality acceptable in the west, like appeal to nature, rewriting or twisting ancient history, arguments about orphans, and those are the result of christianity's strong resentment of homosexuality in the west
even though it's the case it does not justifies what the "lgbt" group is doing -
IMPORTANT!
...but the videos clearly display that heterosexual men have strictly no attraction to other men
if we are to conclude that the men in lot's story are heterosexual, then we have to take into consideration that they're infact bisexual and not heterosexual
the videos show clearly that there is a normal distribution of sexual attractions
so is the people that was punished bisexuals? why would we make a difference between bisexuals and homosexuals? and why would heterosexuals indulge in something that do not arouse them? what about homosexual men who go after heterosexual women? -
Peace All,
What an excellent debate! I would simply like to throw into the pot the question why did Lot offer up his daughters? What lewdness was going on that would be better served by women than men? Surely Lot wasn't offering up his daughters to be raped instead of men?
When the Koran says such lewdness had not been seen before, does it simply mean 'on such a scale'? Yes, homosexuality has been around forever, but practised by a whole community of men and unchallenged by its women?
Why was Lot's wife not saved? Because she endorsed the lifestyle? You can be tolerant without endorsing or forbidding.
As an aside, I don't think African Americans will appreciate the comparison between them and gays. There is no debate about being black. If you are black you are black. There is still a debate about being gay.
Dawn
-
If there's anything that has really made me question the Koran, it is this. I find it a bit disturbing that God should be biased against homosexuals. Most people are not homosexuals so I can accept their intolerance, but God knows everything right?
I have also felt inclined to think sometimes that the people mentioned in the Koran were bisexual...or as someone mentioned...perhaps straight. Come to think of it...homosexuals are a minority...so how is it possible for an entire town to be homosexual? Unless we assume that Sodom was a popular town where homosexual men from different towns migrated to...which is certainly a possibility.
One important thing that does not get noticed is that Lot's statement "no one in the worlds has committed before you" is Lot's opinion. And messengers are human beings. We can safely assume that Lot didn't have enough knowledge about homosexuality. The same can be said about his act of offering his daughters to them. Maybe he thought they will accept the offer. Most people have wrong ideas about homoseuality. Maybe Lot was one of them? Just my 2 cents...although I could be wrong.
Secondly, I find this reasoning a bit flawed Koran is from God. God knows everything. So the Koran can't prohibit homosexuality.
How about this Koran claims to be from God. God knows everything. God will not prohibit homosexuality. So the Koran can't be from God.We can also conclude that homosexuality is a test.....just as some people who are extremely stingy, for them their stinginess is a test. Nevertheless, the idea of homosexuality being absent in the world before Lot is definitely wrong. I've no idea why the Koran mentioned this in the first place.
Homosexuality is also not a matter of choice. Don't give me stupid links from religious freaks to prove it. I'm gay and I can tell you it's NOT a matter of choice. Is it genes or the environment? Sorry I don't know...perhaps a mix....because my 3 brothers are straight. And one of them is my fraternal twin. There's a very simple way to understand homosexuality. If you are straight, can you make yourself gay? You can't...no matter how hard you try. So what makes you think others can change their orientation? If only some religious freaks used their minds...but you can't blame them either. They aren't gay. So it's difficult for them to understand. How I wish the Koran had mentioned something favorable about gays - it would have saved SO MANY people from persecution and social boycott.
But if I leave the Koran, I have no other scripture to go to. Koran is perhaps the most consistent scripture that I've read. And the 19 pattern of the initials is also extremely impressive, even if not perfect. Had Mohammed written the Koran, you would expect that he would want to take credit for such mathematical achievements during his lifetime. There are several other things which make the Koran seem likely to have come from God.
Except perhaps the issue of homosexuality....
At the end of the day, I have decided to refrain from homosexual activity as far as I can....and repress my desire. I can try convincing myself that God will accept a monogamous gay relationship...but that will be too great a risk...that I would rather avoid. I know it would not give me peace...that little bit of doubt that I could be wrong would always be there.
To argue that the Koran prohibits homosexual acts will ALWAYS be easier than to argue it otherwise. To prove anything else, you will need to have a bag of assumptions ready with no support from the Koran.
The only thing that gives me solace is the faith that God is Just and Kind....and will perhaps show us greater mercy and acceptance on the Last Day than what the society gives us today.
Peace
-
Peace Bookish,
I hear your pain. My daughter has decided she is bisexual and I am having trouble trying to come to terms with this. Trust me, I am looking at the Koran from every angle to try to make homosexuality fit. Unfortunately, there are no signs of God supporting homosexuality. There are too many references to pairs Adam and Eve, animals and humans going two by two into the ark. God giving the male the woman as his comforter and mate, all couples being heterosexual, procreation.
The best the Koran offers us is to not judge others and not to hurt others except in self-defence.
Peace.
-
Peace Bookish.
As far as I know ,there is no exception with Qoran. When GOD says something He means it,but He is fair and just.
It is only our lack of understanding that creates the contradictions and confusions.
For example, there are over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world who read the same Qoran that you and I read ,but most of us get different meanings or get a distorted meaning and understanding supported by corrupted scholars who are misguided because they chose to ignore God's teaching in the Quran ( Of patience,being tested ,true conviction brought out...etc)and go after man-made books/ explanations...
God points out the PATHS, including the wrong ones. If He willed, He could have guided all of you.
We showed him the two PATHS, then, he is either appreciative, or unappreciative.
God does not shy away from citing any kind of allegory, from the tiny MOSQUITO and greater. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did God mean by such an allegory?" He misleads many thereby, and guides many thereby. But He never misleads thereby except the wicked,
Once you make your choice to believe. Be patient, keep your trust in God,keep studying and wait for God s decision to accept you.There is most definitely going to be a trial period?
Is what I am saying relevant? Only time will tell.
I hope you get your answers.
God bless you.
Peace.
-
Peace Good Logic,
A comforting and apt response.
Dawn.
-
but the videos clearly display that heterosexual men have strictly no attraction to other men
if we are to conclude that the men in lot's story are heterosexual, then we have to take into consideration that they're infact bisexual and not heterosexual
the videos show clearly that there is a normal distribution of sexual attractions
so is the people that was punished bisexuals? why would we make a difference between bisexuals and homosexuals? and why would heterosexuals indulge in something that do not arouse them? what about homosexual men who go after heterosexual women?maybe because that kind of behavior is to subjugate another man by sodomizing him, a way of humiliating another man and that is way it is sanctioned as "abominable" in the Bible, so the same in the Qur'an.
-
If there's anything that has really made me question the Koran, it is this. I find it a bit disturbing that God should be biased against homosexuals. Most people are not homosexuals so I can accept their intolerance, but God knows everything right?
I have also felt inclined to think sometimes that the people mentioned in the Koran were bisexual...or as someone mentioned...perhaps straight. Come to think of it...homosexuals are a minority...so how is it possible for an entire town to be homosexual? Unless we assume that Sodom was a popular town where homosexual men from different towns migrated to...which is certainly a possibility.
One important thing that does not get noticed is that Lot's statement "no one in the worlds has committed before you" is Lot's opinion. And messengers are human beings. We can safely assume that Lot didn't have enough knowledge about homosexuality. The same can be said about his act of offering his daughters to them. Maybe he thought they will accept the offer. Most people have wrong ideas about homoseuality. Maybe Lot was one of them? Just my 2 cents...although I could be wrong.
Secondly, I find this reasoning a bit flawed Koran is from God. God knows everything. So the Koran can't prohibit homosexuality.
How about this Koran claims to be from God. God knows everything. God will not prohibit homosexuality. So the Koran can't be from God.We can also conclude that homosexuality is a test.....just as some people who are extremely stingy, for them their stinginess is a test. Nevertheless, the idea of homosexuality being absent in the world before Lot is definitely wrong. I've no idea why the Koran mentioned this in the first place.
Homosexuality is also not a matter of choice. Don't give me stupid links from religious freaks to prove it. I'm gay and I can tell you it's NOT a matter of choice. Is it genes or the environment? Sorry I don't know...perhaps a mix....because my 3 brothers are straight. And one of them is my fraternal twin. There's a very simple way to understand homosexuality. If you are straight, can you make yourself gay? You can't...no matter how hard you try. So what makes you think others can change their orientation? If only some religious freaks used their minds...but you can't blame them either. They aren't gay. So it's difficult for them to understand. How I wish the Koran had mentioned something favorable about gays - it would have saved SO MANY people from persecution and social boycott.
But if I leave the Koran, I have no other scripture to go to. Koran is perhaps the most consistent scripture that I've read. And the 19 pattern of the initials is also extremely impressive, even if not perfect. Had Mohammed written the Koran, you would expect that he would want to take credit for such mathematical achievements during his lifetime. There are several other things which make the Koran seem likely to have come from God.
Except perhaps the issue of homosexuality....
At the end of the day, I have decided to refrain from homosexual activity as far as I can....and repress my desire. I can try convincing myself that God will accept a monogamous gay relationship...but that will be too great a risk...that I would rather avoid. I know it would not give me peace...that little bit of doubt that I could be wrong would always be there.
To argue that the Koran prohibits homosexual acts will ALWAYS be easier than to argue it otherwise. To prove anything else, you will need to have a bag of assumptions ready with no support from the Koran.
The only thing that gives me solace is the faith that God is Just and Kind....and will perhaps show us greater mercy and acceptance on the Last Day than what the society gives us today.
Peace
Hi!
I like your post(s)!
This is for you
http//rlv.zcache.com/i_didnt_choose_to_be_gay_i_just_got_lucky_plate-rc9b755cbf496404da7f7c3effbac8e80_ambb0_8byvr_324.jpgPS
I do nto thing it is a good idea to repress ANY wish or desire!
God does not write books and He certainly has no religion!PEACE!!!
http//2.bp.blogspot.com/-f1lpFdRbdsc/UT0ucMiaVLI/AAAAAAAAACI/oafeetaD53s/s320/god-has-no-religion.jpgPEACE TO ALL