The Lack of Science in Gay Debates
-
If the people of Sodom were inti gang rapes, it is disturbing to think that Lot would offer them his daughters. The Koran would have mentioned gangrape if it wanted to.
Still, there is a hint though that the men of Sodom were interested into forced sex. Because they storm into Lot's place to get the two men who have come to visit Lot. I don't think they knew their orientation or that they would be interested. But in that case they would have even wanted to rape Lot? But perhaps Lot was too old for them? And the messengers were young men.
The only case which can be argued powerfully is that the Koran prohibits gay sex. To prove anything else requires several assumptions...
-
I can see that this topic has been done already, but I haven't seen anyone presenting their case against gays in a way that I think is convincing and acknowledges current scientific facts. Here are some of the anti-gay issues I feel haven't been adequately addressed with reason, logic, and facts.
- The story of Lot shows that God forbids homosexuality.
(QXP)
780 Lot told them, ?You commit such an abomination that no one in the worlds has done
before you.?7 81 You approach men with lust in preference to women. Nay, but you are a people crossing
all bounds.?As a student of social anthropology and a believer in the Divine origin of the Quran, I can't see 780 as referring to homosexuality or even acceptance of homosexuality because there is ample evidence that gays and social acceptance of them predates recorded history. There are ancient cave drawings that depict male/male and female/female sex acts. Since there are no contradictions or mistakes in the Quran, how can these verses refer to consensual gay sex when we know and can prove that it was practiced and socially accepted pre-Sodom?
With that in mind, I'm of the opinion that it is referring to socially accepted gang rape. This view doesn't conflict with what I know of human history because there is no known society in history that was widely accepting of gang rape. The Romans practiced same-sex pedophilia, but even in this ugly practice, force was frowned upon (they used courtship and persuasion).
This also doesn't conflict with 781, as there is no evidence that any society pre-Sodom had a widespread instance of straight married men having any kind of sex with other men and outside of war crimes there's no evidence of widespread societal acceptance of rape in general. As far as I know, Sodom is still the only example of this behavior aside from American "prison culture".
- Homosexuality goes against "natural law".
Homosexuality has been observed in 1500 different species. Exclusive, permanent homosexuality is thought to be universal in social species that engage in pair-bonding, like humans. The most common refutation to this fact that I've heard is that while it's natural in nature, humans should be held to a different standard. Keeping in mind the fact that exclusive homosexuality is found in human history, too, my question is when did this universally natural occuring phenomenon become illegal in human "natural law" and says who?
- "Everyone" knows homosexuality is wrong, therefore, it is.
Unless, by "everyone" you mean "everyone I choose to acknowledge", attitudes towards sexuality and gender are cultural. If you were raised in a culture that is accepting towards gays or a culture that recognizes more than two genders then you're unlikely to be included in that "everyone". Moreover, it's been proven that with any oppressed group, including gays, acceptance grows and prejudicial attitudes diminish when the majority group interacts with the oppressed group more. Negative sterotypes and prejudices drop away in favor of personal real-life experience.
I believe that this phenomenon explains the growing acceptance of gays in the Christian community. Hands-on social work is highly encouraged in Christian culture, so more and more Christians are interacting directly with disenfranchised gays and seeing for themselves that the negative stereotypes are false.
- Only sex outside marriage is forbidden and the Quran says marriage is between a man and a woman.
This is the only argument I feel has any merit, whatsoever. I still disagree with it, though, for a myraid of reasons, but I'm willing to cede that it is at least debateable within the known facts of reality. Here are some of the reasons I disagree
-First we'd have to define "man" and "woman" and then decide which society's definition to go with. While "sex" (male/female/hermaphrodite) is biologically determined, "gender" is a social construct. A society of humans will recognize as many genders as they have words for, and anything that goes outside those bounds is usually just lumped into whatever existing category is closest. Arabic only has a word for 2 genders, feminine and masculine. Some may argue that, today, we should pigeonhole whatever our current societal understanding of those 2 genders is onto ancient Arabic, but this stance is just plain wrong to anyone who studies anthropology or linguistic evolution. There is evidence that there were "men" living in early Muslim societies with the social roles of "women". The Arabs didn't have a word for "gay", so, it is believed that Europeans who didn't understand what they were seeing erroneously labelled these men as "eunuchs" in their historical accounts, another category that didn't exist in the Prophet's time.
-I think the existence of transgendered people speaks for itself. It has been proven that in transgenders, the brain develops as one sex while the body develops as the other. While no peer-accepted scientist would claim that being gay is a choice in this day and age with so much scientific evidence to the contrary, NO ONE can say that being transgender is a choice. They're literally locked inside a body that their mind tells them is wrong. If we're going with man=male/woman=female, then which group does a female brain/male body fall under?
An interesting fact is that the rate of homosexuality within transgenders is the same as the rate for people born normally. There are people who have the brain of a male, the body of a female, and are sexually attracted to males. To me, this is further proof that homosexuality is natural, as even when things clearly go wrong with the body, orientation remains intact and unchangeable.
-Throughout human history, "gender" was usually chosen by the individual. Most people think it's always been automatically assigned by society, but this is untrue. In most ancient cultures (and in some cultures that still exist in modern times), an individual would pick which gender they most identified with as a child and society would recognize them as whatever they chose to present. Since this was the norm for humans for so long, I don't see any reason to abandon it now, just because people have recently been locked in an authoritarian approach. There are a lot of things modern people do differently than ancient societies and not all of them are improvements.
So, if a female wants to take on the role of "man" as described in the Quran, and marries another female who prefers the role of "wife" as described in the Quran, I don't see why this should be seen as wrong.
-Lastly, the most important reason to me, and probably the least important to people who dislike gays, is the effect ostracization and persecution has on gays. When surrounded by people who hold homophobic beliefs, gays have a higher rate of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Even when they're "accepted" as long as they don't act on their nature, the higher risk of depression and suicide still holds. The only approach that has been proven to lessen these risks is true acceptance. As I can't knowingly drive a person to suicide and still call myself a "believer" in anything good, I can't believe that God wants me to not only ignore their suffering but pile on with more.
Further, there is evidence that it's the ostracization that leads to what's called "gay culture". In societies that are truly accepting of gays and don't engage in persecution, "gay culture" doesn't exist. Gays in these societies follow the social norms of monogamy and sexual discretion. It's only those who were kicked out of regular society who engage in promiscuous sexual behavior, and only because that's the accepted social norm for "gay culture", the only society that will accept them. When given a chance to function in normal society, gays flock to monogamy at the same rate as straight people. You can see the exact same scenario played out in African-American communities. As discrimination against Blacks lessens in the States, the opportunity to function in normal society increases and you then see a decrease in people choosing to participate in the negative behavior that used to be so prevalent before better options became available.
If anyone wants to refute any part of this, I only ask that you stick to proveable facts and honest interpretations of the Quran. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but everything I've said here is based on studying the scientific facts about sexual orientation and human history, my real-life experience with gays and compassion for their suffering, and an honest attempt to reconcile science with my belief in the Divine origin of the Quran. BUT, I've had much more experience in one than the others, so I am very interested in any divergent opinions that aren't based in cultural bigotry but in proveable facts or personal interpretations of the Quran.
Also, I hope that I didn't come off as too hostile. I've done some volunteer work with teens who've been disowned by their religious parents, so I've seen first-hand what kind of damage religious zealotry can do to vulnerable youth. If I offend, please forgive, it's only out of concern for people who I see as suffering unfairly and a desire to see the truth.
handshake An excellent post
-
Peace Lena,
I agree this is a good post, however, it does not answer the all important question, why did Lot offer up his daughters? God only writes what he needs to - and he wrote that Lot offered up his daughters to be gang-raped?
Dawn.
-
by the way i doubt you can come to the conclusion that "lgbt" was widely accepted in ancient times based on a few relics
there has always been people producing porn, and this includes any kinds of sexual acts
while homosexuals have always existed, the recent "lgbt" movement has an obvious agenda to push by attempting to make the movement as acceptable as possible for society
counter arguments seem to be stifled by the movement, even though the research is done academically by historians
example here http//fr.scribd.com/doc/103899573/Homosexuality-in-Ancient-Greece-The-Myth-is-Collapsing
so i wouldn't draw hazardous conclusions based on that wikipedia article -
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.
it does clearly say men approaching other men with lust, it doesn't talk about rape
either the men were homosexuals, or they were bisexuals and they go after men and women
problem is, if they're all homosexuals, wouldn't the population diminish as time goes? is it the act of sodomy that's punished? is it the act of two men having a go at it together? does it also include women? it can't be because they're just homos otherwise it would be written as such
and i doubt that homosexuals is the sole reason for the destruction of an entire people, as apparently the entire population was wallowing in sin, and there's no reason that populations of ancient times display different repartition of sexual attraction as displayed in the conference you posted here
i don't know how accurate the bible story is, i doubt it's very accurate, but if there's a group of people spontaneously knocking at your door to have some fun with new comers, then i could say sexual acts became a public event
but then i would be speculating and making assumptions, as in the quran the sinful acts so atrocious are not describedbottom line we know how to avoid getting into that situation and i would say that's enough
the western "lgbt" group doesn't seem to follow that guideline too much (likewise for the majority of "modern" western people)
-
Peace Lena,
I agree this is a good post, however, it does not answer the all important question, why did Lot offer up his daughters? God only writes what he needs to - and he wrote that Lot offered up his daughters to be gang-raped?
Dawn.
If the people of Sodom were inti gang rapes, it is disturbing to think that Lot would offer them his daughters. The Koran would have mentioned gangrape if it wanted to.
Still, there is a hint though that the men of Sodom were interested into forced sex. Because they storm into Lot's place to get the two men who have come to visit Lot. I don't think they knew their orientation or that they would be interested. But in that case they would have even wanted to rape Lot? But perhaps Lot was too old for them? And the messengers were young men.
The only case which can be argued powerfully is that the Koran prohibits gay sex. To prove anything else requires several assumptions...
Please look further into the Wording of the Story, there are details which are easily overlooked
-
Lot addresses his people as a community and group (i.e He talks to them as the first community of people, to commit homosexuality, not just isolated cases. They were the first group of people to completely forsake women and live in a community with thriving homosexuality) (781)
-
Lot offers his daughters while knowing that they would not accept them. He was trying to make a point, and that point was that "they are purer for you" (117.
This is derived from his people's answer to his statement, which was, "YOU KNOW, that we have no right with your daughters, and YOU KNOW what WE want ". (1179). Thus, Lot was trying to make a point to them again, that his daughters (women), are purer for them than men, and he knew They were going to refuse. Thus, he wasn't really offering up his daughters, he was making a point that women are for men. -
In the Quran there are limitations on whom we can and can't marry. We can't marry two sister, or the wives of our fathers, or the wives of our sons. (423).
Marrying the wives of our fathers (even if not our mothers) is also deemed "Lewed", hated, and bad/evil (422). So the limitations are not just about same-sex intimacy.
It is hard to support same-sex couples from the Quran, as There are no examples or citations of Same-Sex couples, and neither can same-sex intimacy be supported from any of the other Abrahamic scriptures. I say so because Lot's story is included in them all.
P.S I'm in no way a homophobe. I myself am Bisexual by attraction. I went through different phases of Sexuality, from Straight to Gay to asexuality/Celibacy. I am still attracted to the same gender but I cope with that, rather than act upon it. Also, I am working on a therapy of coping with SSA. I'm hoping to make a video about it soon, and write an article.
-
-
Peace Lena,
I agree this is a good post, however, it does not answer the all important question, why did Lot offer up his daughters? God only writes what he needs to - and he wrote that Lot offered up his daughters to be gang-raped?
Dawn.
rotfl
Good question @dawngoregeous, thanx
-
Please look further into the Wording of the Story, there are details which are easily overlooked
-
Lot addresses his people as a community and group (i.e He talks to them as the first community of people, to commit homosexuality, not just isolated cases. They were the first group of people to completely forsake women and live in a community with thriving homosexuality) (781)
-
Lot offers his daughters while knowing that they would not accept them. He was trying to make a point, and that point was that "they are purer for you" (117.
This is derived from his people's answer to his statement, which was, "YOU KNOW, that we have no right with your daughters, and YOU KNOW what WE want ". (1179). Thus, Lot was trying to make a point to them again, that his daughters (women), are purer for them than men, and he knew They were going to refuse. Thus, he wasn't really offering up his daughters, he was making a point that women are for men. -
In the Quran there are limitations on whom we can and can't marry. We can't marry two sister, or the wives of our fathers, or the wives of our sons. (423).
Marrying the wives of our fathers (even if not our mothers) is also deemed "Lewed", hated, and bad/evil (422). So the limitations are not just about same-sex intimacy.
It is hard to support same-sex couples from the Quran, as There are no examples or citations of Same-Sex couples, and neither can same-sex intimacy be supported from any of the other Abrahamic scriptures. I say so because Lot's story is included in them all.
P.S I'm in no way a homophobic. I myself am Bisexual by attraction. I went through different phases of Sexuality, from Straight to Gay to asexuality/Celibacy. I am still attracted to the same gender but I cope with that, rather than act upon it. Also, I am working on a therapy of coping with SSA. I'm hoping to make a video about it soon, and write an article.
Nice post with a personal touch, thank you.
Blessed be God the uncreated One
-
-
Idk if this will help but this is a black Muslim Imam talking about Homosexuality because he himself is homosexual Please listen to what he says
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu0S0aNTOFU
-
I found something in surah {2431}
2431 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those committed to them by oath, or the male servants who are without sexual desire, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
can this refer about a men without sexual desire for women which in that case means a gay men
-
It can also refer to "Eunuchs" (men who are physically castrated) and Mukhannathan. In the not-so-distant past there were many eunuchs in Arabia. Although Islam forbade Muslims to castrate young boys, they were not forbidden from owning them as slaves. They were considered prized possessions, and huge sums were paid for them. They supervised women?s quarters, and helped at mosques where they were assigned to separate women from men.
Wikipedia says
Mukhannathun (Arabic "effeminate ones", "men who resemble women", singular mukhannath) is classical Arabic for people who would now be called transgender women, perhaps poorly distinguished from eunuchs. Various "mukhannathun" appear in several hadith. In one hadith the prophet Muhammad banishes a mukhannath to a region near Medina, but prohibits people from killing them. They could be said to be Muslim transwomen accepted as they are "within the boundaries of Medina and Mecca". Outside of the religious text they are strongly associated with music and entertainment.Gender/sexualityThe mukhannathun as a group do not fit neatly into any one of the prevailing categories of gender or sexuality used in the West at this time. While they were certainly not straight, it cannot be said that they were simply homosexual males. While they are gender variant, it seems that the intensity differs from one mukhannath to the next.SexualityIn "The Effeminates of Early Medina" Everett K. Rowson describes the very same Mukhannathun who appear in the Hadith, and who were companions of the prophet Muhammad. Rowson describes several other Mukhannathun who were contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad, in particular Tuways and Al-Dalal. Tuways was a talented musician and singer who lived to the age of 82. Tuways is known to have married and fathered children. From what is written, Al-Dalal clearly preferred men. Specifically it is written that though "Al-Dalal enjoyed women's social company any sexual demand made of her was in vain". Al-Dalal is said to have had a sexual encounter with a woman on her wedding night. Al-Dalal then later that same night had sexual relations with the groom. Similar stories exist about the other Mukhannathun of Medina.
According to Imam Muhsin Hendricks
Muhammad did deal with a group of effeminate men in Medina called "Mukhannathun". However, while this group of Mukhannathun did possess qualities of modern gay men, it cannot be said that the Mukhannathun fully represent modern gay men, as they were involved in practices not common to contemporary gay men.
-
Wikipedia says
Mukhannathun (Arabic "effeminate ones", "men who resemble women", singular mukhannath) is classical Arabic for people who would now be called transgender women,Can A Mukhannathun also mean a gay male not just transgender because gay man can resemble a women by there action but not by there looks
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Can A Mukhannathun also mean a gay male not just transgender because gay man can resemble a women by there action but not by there looks
http//cavemancircus.com/2010/02/11/test-your-power-of-deduction-man-or-woman/
That is all.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
I found something in surah {2431}
2431 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women, or those committed to them by oath, or the male servants who are without sexual desire, or the child who has not yet understood the composition of women. And let them not strike with their feet in a manner that reveals what they are keeping hidden of their beauty. And repent to God, all of you believers, that you may succeed.
can this refer about a men without sexual desire for women which in that case means a gay men
Very good find!
Definitively so!Peace
-
The very word "gay" is in itself wholly unscientifical and the whole debate on human sexuality such as it is going on is completely devoid of science and full por political indoctrination and correction of every colour. Right now I find that it does not contribute much to make light of anything. Too many ideological encumbrances.
Salaam
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
http//cavemancircus.com/2010/02/11/test-your-power-of-deduction-man-or-woman/
That is all.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
yes those are transgender im not talking about a trans guy im talking about a guy that looks normal without cosmetic surgery that can resemble how a female act not by look wise but by personality
-
Rational Ex-Gay Therapy (Explained)
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTi823CM2-Y