The Lack of Science in Gay Debates

[neb87]

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.

1. 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".

2. 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?

3. "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.

4. 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.

[Bigmo]

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.

1. 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".

2. 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?

3. "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.

4. 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.

Good point. There is a difference between saying the Quran already talked about who can marry who and never mentioned male to male and saying that something contradicts the Quran which can only happen when it specifically forbids something.

The other issue is whether this issue affects salvation or not. If it did than the Quran would have been specific about it. The reality homosexuality does not tell us about a faith of a person or his charachter or his deeds so it can not be a major issue even for those who might opposse it. A homsexual can be a believer or a non believer or a righteous person or not like anybody else.

[Borakk]

I will try to address your points. I won't address the Quranic issue because Quranic interpretation is always subjective. To me, the verses you quoted clearly shows homosexuality is forbidden.

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?

A lot of species consider it normal to kill and eat their offspring. Does that mean we should start killing our babies?

Just because something is common in animal kingdom, does not mean it should be so for us.

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.

Again, the basic premise of your argument is invalid. Everyone also knows pedophilia and bestiality is wrong. I'm sure there are "some" who considers them to be acceptable. Doesn't mean they should be acceptable at large.

.......everything I've said here is based on studying the scientific facts about sexual orientation .....

Nope. That is a common myth. Here is an impartial journal looking at both sides of the story http//www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

[Abdul-Hadi]

Greetings and Peace, all group

This HAS been discussed before...but no problem.

Counterargument to species eating their young

226 GOD does not shy away from putting forth the example of a mosquito, or anything above it. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for the rejecters, they say "What does GOD intend with this example?" He strays many by it, and He guides many by it; but He only strays by it the wicked.

Wouldn't you know it? There are homosexual mosquitos!

Not only this but

"... No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

source http//www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

What does this example have to do with AQ? This

2164 Surely, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the differences between the night and the day, and the ships that sail in the sea for the benefit of the people, and what GOD has sent down of water from the sky so He brings the earth back to life after it had died, and He sent forth from it every creature, and the dispatching of the winds and the clouds that have been designated between the earth and the sky are signs for a people who comprehend.

3022 And from His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your tongues and your colors. In that are signs for the world.

There is also the matter of AQ 2221.

2221 And do not marry the female polytheists until they believe. For a believing female servant is better than a polytheist even if she attracts you. And do not marry the male polytheists until they believe. For a believing male servant is better than a polytheist even if he attracts you. Those invite to the Fire, while GOD is inviting to the Paradise and forgiveness by His consent. He clarifies His revelations for the people that they may remember.

Links to previous discussions

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601872.msg269936#msg269936

Entire counterargument

Acknowledge that AQ is not ridiculous.

Acknowledge that physical evidence is not ridiculous.

Refute that ALLAH created people differently, as is stated in AQ 3022.

Refute that ALLAH gave us signs in nature, as is stated in AQ 226 and 2164.

Refute that ALLAH created homosexual animals, as are found in nature.

Refute that AQ 2929 lists reasons aside from male homosexuality that the people of Lot might have been destroyed.

Refute that the women among the people of Lot were innocent of male-male sex.

Refute that the women among the people of Lot were destroyed alongside the men among the people of Lot.

Refute that AQ 2221 is addressed to males.

Refute that there is no compulsion in the deen, as is stated in AQ 2256.

Refute that homosexuality is depicted in cave paintings that physically exist that have been dated to be around 12,000 years old.

Refute that homosexuality existed at least 5,000 years ago among humans in Mesopotamia, as is found among physical existing evidence.

Refute that the people of Lot were destroyed around 1953 BCE.

Refute that circa 3000 BCE is before 1953 BCE.

Refute that over a thousand years span the time between the recorded homosexual acts in Mesopotamia and the time that the people of Lot were destroyed.

Refute that AQ 780 refers to lewdness "such as none of the worlds had done before."

Acknowledge that no person alive was present among the people of Lot.

Refute that AQ 1736 states not to uphold what one has no knowledge of.

Acknowledge that physical evidence can comprise knowledge.

Acknowledge that knowledge is better than conjecture.

Refute that AQ 1059 and 16116 state that it is wrong to forbid what ALLAH has not forbidden, that doing so is a lie, and that those who invent lies about ALLAH will not succeed.

There is also the "problem" of homosexuality being attraction towards the same sex--whether acted upon or not.

Homosexuality seems to be a non-issue, at least for the Deen.

ALLAH knows best.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

[neb87]

A lot of species consider it normal to kill and eat their offspring. Does that mean we should start killing our babies?

This behavior is not observed in mammals with social structures, a group which humans are part of. So no, it doesn't make sense to look at the behavior of animals that we have very little in common with and try to come up with rules for how we should live. You primarily only see infanticide and cannibalism in non-social, lower life forms that are driven more by instinct and have fewer higher functions. The lower you go on the totem pole of life, the more you see this kind of behavior.

One could then infer that this is something that life forms abandon as they develop higher functioning. There are clear and obvious disadvantages to eating your offspring when the primary focus of lower life is reproduction. The same cannot be said of homosexuality. It's present in many higher species, and has clear benefits in social animal societies. In many social animal species, homosexual animals are used by the group as surrogate parents when heterosexual parents die. Pretty much the same approach that is used by human societies that don't oppress their gay members.

Again, the basic premise of your argument is invalid. Everyone also knows pedophilia and bestiality is wrong. I'm sure there are "some" who considers them to be acceptable. Doesn't mean they should be acceptable at large.

As far as I know, the only people who consider pedophilia and bestiality as acceptable are pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. Using logic, you can easily dismiss their claim that their behavior is acceptable by the glaringly obvious fact that there is a victim in these scenarios. Children cannot consent to sex, so any sexual contact between an adult and a child is automatically rape. There is a mountain of evidence that children prematurely exposed to sex have many, many mental health issues. As for bestiality, it's wrong for partially the same reasons; animals are lower life forms than humans, so they can't consent to anything. Bestiality is just as wrong as other forms of animal cruelty and I don't know anyone who needs a book to tell them that.

Again, the same cannot be said of homosexuality when using logic instead of emotions. You have two sane, consenting adults who say that they love each other and wish to live together in monogomay. All of the credible experts on the subject say that they would both be mentally healthier and happier in life if left alone. There is no victim in this scenario, no one is taking advantage of anyone's lack of mental faculties, and there's proof that their pairing is beneficial to both of them.

I don't understand the tendency some people have to try and lump homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality all into the same cart, when common sense dictates that they have very little in common and science has proven that one of those 3 is a perfectly normal variation of human sexuality.

Nope. That is a common myth. Here is an impartial journal looking at both sides of the story http//www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html

You and I clearly have different definitions of the words "impartial" and "myth". Instead of dissecting the misinformation in that article point by point, I'll ask you this What is the difference between an oil baron attacking the established fact of climate change with pseudoscience and a religious zealot attacking the established fact that orientation is unchangeable with psuedoscience?

Another question Are YOU, specifically, able to change your orientation, at will? If so, you should clap yourself on the back because you're an exceptional specimen of human. Are you sure even from the planet Earth? Most earthlings can't change their orientation no matter how much they may want to for whatever reason.

[neb87]

@Abdul-Hadi Thank you for the link, I thought I'd found most of the debates on the topic here, but I guess I overlooked the title of that one. ;D

Also, I think the counter-argument in your post is a much cleaner and concise summary of the issues present. I have a tendency to ramble and go all over the place even when simplicity would be the much better option.

God willing, I hope I learn to get straight to the point with fewer words, too.

[Zulf]

From 780... "such as none of the worlds had done before."

I wonder what this actually means. Does it mean that nobody in human history has done it before, or could it mean that "nobody has done it until you, humans, did it"? Just a thought. Never mind.

Also, homosexuality is not equal to same gender sex. Homosexuality is same gender attraction... with sex as one of the expressions of this attraction. As far as I have understood, this attraction to the same gender, is something you are born with. It seems to be something that might be distributed across the population as per that bell curve (standard deviation) and therefore something "built in" into nature.
I personally find it hard to judge someone as sinful or wrong who is just being him/herself. And how can a heterosexual ever understand how, what and why a homosexual person feels the way he or she does? It's not possible! This is why it is very tricky to pass judgement. Allah knows what we don't know. Who are we to judge other people when we clearly don't have to capacity? We can evaluate actions that affect other people, but that's something totally different.

I also wonder why there is so much focus on sex when it comes to homosexuality. Is homosexuality all about sex?? No! But is sure seems like that in much of main stream media. I also wonder why homosexual people define themselves so strongly with this inclination. But I guess this goes for all kinds of minorities... it has much to do with identity. I think this is unnecessary since it creates useless divisions and groupings. We are all human being after all. Why is unity so hard for us?

Peace

[Reee]

Thank you for bringing up the topic again. I recently read the mentioned verse again and thought that the negation at the beginning of the second sentence might indeed be a negation, that is, negating the first part that says they are (just) approaching men with lust in preference to women. So the issue is not this, but that they are crossing all bounds. Or to put it otherwise the problem with you is not that you are approaching men instead of women, but that you are going beyond any limit.

I hope you understand what I mean.

[neb87]

From 780... "such as none of the worlds had done before."

I wonder what this actually means. Does it mean that nobody in human history has done it before, or could it mean that "nobody has done it until you, humans, did it"? Just a thought. Never mind.

Also, homosexuality is not equal to same gender sex. Homosexuality is same gender attraction... with sex as one of the expressions of this attraction. As far as I have understood, this attraction to the same gender, is something you are born with. It seems to be something that might be distributed across the population as per that bell curve (standard deviation) and therefore something "built in" into nature.
I personally find it hard to judge someone as sinful or wrong who is just being him/herself. And how can a heterosexual ever understand how, what and why a homosexual person feels the way he or she does? It's not possible! This is why it is very tricky to pass judgement. Allah knows what we don't know. Who are we to judge other people when we clearly don't have to capacity? We can evaluate actions that affect other people, but that's something totally different.

I also wonder why there is so much focus on sex when it comes to homosexuality. Is homosexuality all about sex?? No! But is sure seems like that in much of main stream media. I also wonder why homosexual people define themselves so strongly with this inclination. But I guess this goes for all kinds of minorities... it has much to do with identity. I think this is unnecessary since it creates useless divisions and groupings. We are all human being after all. Why is unity so hard for us?

Peace

(bold added by me)

From a social science standpoint, arbitrary divisions ARE the primary, underlying cause of negative behavior exhibited in minority groups. When the discrimination diminishes so does the negative anti-social behavior. When minority individuals are given the opportunity to identify with the majority social group, the negative aspects of the minority identity fall away and are replaced with the norms of the majority. I feel that this is one of God's Signs that unity, is the only true option, as the standard holds regardless of the characteristics of the group being oppressed.

As for the focus on sex when speaking about gays, I also don't understand it. We don't use that kind of language when discussing hetero couples, so why throw it only on gays? The only explanation I see, is that it's extremely common in human interaction to de-humanize any oppressed group before giving yourself a license to harm them, either psychologically or physically.

You can see this behavior in literature pertaining to the Inquisition. Inquisitors were instructed to never look a "witch" in the eye during torture because she would "cast a spell" on you, preventing you from torturing her further. In modern times, we can look at that and see that no spells were being cast. It's just not possible for most humans (barring severe mental health issues) to cause such extreme pain to other humans while looking them in the eye. Today, we would call that "compassion", not "witchcraft".

You can see the same aspect of human behavior being applied in modern times to gays when homophobes instruct others not to listen to anything being said about gays that doesn't conform to their negative view of them. It's easier to cling to cruelty towards gays, and dismiss valid science about them, when they remain a mere image in your head, instead of actual human beings.

Thank you for bringing up the topic again. I recently read the mentioned verse again and thought that the negation at the beginning of the second sentence might indeed be a negation, that is, negating the first part that says they are (just) approaching men with lust in preference to women. So the issue is not this, but that they are crossing all bounds. Or to put it otherwise the problem with you is not that you are approaching men instead of women, but that you are going beyond any limit.

I hope you understand what I mean.

That's also how I read the verse. The issue was with their use of force (and to a lesser degree, their adultery) not the gender of their victims. To me, to say that the issue was with the gender of the rape victims implies that it would be fine with God if a society decides to condone and engage in the widespread rape of women.

[Abdul-Hadi]

Greetings and Peace, all group

@Abdul-Hadi Thank you for the link, I thought I'd found most of the debates on the topic here, but I guess I overlooked the title of that one. ;D

Also, I think the counter-argument in your post is a much cleaner and concise summary of the issues present. I have a tendency to ramble and go all over the place even when simplicity would be the much better option.

God willing, I hope I learn to get straight to the point with fewer words, too.

Aw shucks...<blush> thanks! sun

The discussion seems to be a good one. I study biology--but sociology is also interesting.

Verbose? Eschew obfuscation! ;D

May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.

peace

~Abdul-Hadi

[Bigmo]

This behavior is not observed in mammals with social structures, a group which humans are part of. So no, it doesn't make sense to look at the behavior of animals that we have very little in common with and try to come up with rules for how we should live. You primarily only see infanticide and cannibalism in non-social, lower life forms that are driven more by instinct and have fewer higher functions. The lower you go on the totem pole of life, the more you see this kind of behavior.

One could then infer that this is something that life forms abandon as they develop higher functioning. There are clear and obvious disadvantages to eating your offspring when the primary focus of lower life is reproduction. The same cannot be said of homosexuality. It's present in many higher species, and has clear benefits in social animal societies. In many social animal species, homosexual animals are used by the group as surrogate parents when heterosexual parents die. Pretty much the same approach that is used by human societies that don't oppress their gay members.

As far as I know, the only people who consider pedophilia and bestiality as acceptable are pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. Using logic, you can easily dismiss their claim that their behavior is acceptable by the glaringly obvious fact that there is a victim in these scenarios. Children cannot consent to sex, so any sexual contact between an adult and a child is automatically rape. There is a mountain of evidence that children prematurely exposed to sex have many, many mental health issues. As for bestiality, it's wrong for partially the same reasons; animals are lower life forms than humans, so they can't consent to anything. Bestiality is just as wrong as other forms of animal cruelty and I don't know anyone who needs a book to tell them that.

Again, the same cannot be said of homosexuality when using logic instead of emotions. You have two sane, consenting adults who say that they love each other and wish to live together in monogomay. All of the credible experts on the subject say that they would both be mentally healthier and happier in life if left alone. There is no victim in this scenario, no one is taking advantage of anyone's lack of mental faculties, and there's proof that their pairing is beneficial to both of them.

I don't understand the tendency some people have to try and lump homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality all into the same cart, when common sense dictates that they have very little in common and science has proven that one of those 3 is a perfectly normal variation of human sexuality.

You and I clearly have different definitions of the words "impartial" and "myth". Instead of dissecting the misinformation in that article point by point, I'll ask you this What is the difference between an oil baron attacking the established fact of climate change with pseudoscience and a religious zealot attacking the established fact that orientation is unchangeable with psuedoscience?

Another question Are YOU, specifically, able to change your orientation, at will? If so, you should clap yourself on the back because you're an exceptional specimen of human. Are you sure even from the planet Earth? Most earthlings can't change their orientation no matter how much they may want to for whatever reason.

Sex with anaimals is done without the consent of animals and constitute rape and abuse and criminality. Homosexuality must be dealt with two issues in mind.

Are we asking whether homosexuality is haram or not? And if its haram what is the level of sin ?

Legally speaking should homosexuality be legalized or should it be made illegal? If to be made illegal that what is the legal punishment that can be adminstered?

If homsexuality is not haram or should ne made illegal can homsexuals be recognized by law as a legally married couple?

Evidence must be brought forth from the Quran using a Quranic legal and ethical understanding.

My take.

Homsexuality may or may not be haram but is not a major sin in any case. It may or may not be made legal but homsexuality can not be persucted by law since this kind of authority is simply not there from a Quranic constitutional understanding.

I found the last part the hardest for many to comprehend. Many simply link what they consider haram to legal pesecution. They make the assumption as Sunni Islam does that an Islamic Quranist state should persecute anything it considers haram or immoral.

[neb87]

Sex with anaimals is done without the consent of animals and constitute rape and abuse and criminality. Homosexuality must be dealt with two issues in mind.

Are we asking whether homosexuality is haram or not? And if its haram what is the level of sin ?

Legally speaking should homosexuality be legalized or should it be made illegal? If to be made illegal that what is the legal punishment that can be adminstered?

If homsexuality is not haram or should ne made illegal can homsexuals be recognized by law as a legally married couple?

Evidence must be brought forth from the Quran using a Quranic legal and ethical understanding.

My take.

Homsexuality may or may not be haram but is not a major sin in any case. It may or may not be made legal but homsexuality can not be persucted by law since this kind of authority is simply not there from a Quranic constitutional understanding.

I found the last part the hardest for many to comprehend. Many simply link what they consider haram to legal pesecution. They make the assumption as Sunni Islam does that an Islamic Quranist state should persecute anything it considers haram or immoral.

I think the fact that it's even debatable whether or not homosexuality is forbidden in the Quran is proof enough that humans were never given the right to persecute gays regardless of their personal opinions on the matter.

As for marriage, it's both a civil and a religious institution. The way I see it, if gays wish to get married either through a civil contract or a religious ceremony, believers have not been given the right to block this. Secular authorities describe homosexuality as normal and non-harmful. The belief that it's wrong is a religious one that can't be backed up with outside sources, so believers can't force this on people who don't believe as they do. Also, there are many gays who wish to marry BECAUSE of their faith. The Quran does not give believers a license to decide which faiths are "valid" and which ones aren't, so freedom of religion trumps all other arguments in that case.

[Emil]

@Abdul-Hadi Thank you for the link, I thought I'd found most of the debates on the topic here, but I guess I overlooked the title of that one. ;D

Also, I think the counter-argument in your post is a much cleaner and concise summary of the issues present. I have a tendency to ramble and go all over the place even when simplicity would be the much better option. P

God willing, I hope I learn to get straight to the point with fewer words, too.

Salam

I applaud your straightforward and very sombersome approach to this. Finally!

I am not a particular fan of homosexuality, I shudder by only the thought of a man being with a man. I was quite happy that islam forbade it.

Until my sister came out of the closet...........I was very angry with her and started to study the Quran as to see what it exactly said, I needed to find guidance. I love my sister, how am I supposed to act now?

To my surprise I could not find any evidence that homosexuality was against God. I found a story about a wicked people that refused to accept one of Allahs prophets. They were warned but they continued with their lewdness.
So they were terminated. An interesting point is that eventhough there was a prophet of Allah present he was not allowed to administer the punishment, instead angels were sent. A very telling evidence that mankind is not allowed to punish. It is only Allah who decides when lewdness becomes so bad the human has given up the right to live.

Since Lot prophets have walked the earth amongst homosexuals and pagans and not once has Allah sent down angels to kill humans because they are lewd. Could one reason be that whatever lewdness the people of Lot were engaged in was eradicated? This kind of lewdness does not exist anymore?

So I came to the conclusion that the people of Lot were punished because
Their lewdness was stopping them from accepting Lot as a prophet of Allah
A gay muslim today does not fall into the same category. He believes in God and the prophets.

And eventhough we do not think homosexuality is part of Islam
Only Allah is allowed to adminster punishment
Not even a prophet is allowed to take the matter into own hands

So nowadays I have come to an understanding between my sister and Islam. I am allowed to dislike her behaviour, but it has nothing to do with the fact that I am a muslim and. I am merely old fashioned.......or maybe it is difficult for me to accept because I am very very very heterosexual.

[Someone]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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, ....

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.

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?

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.

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.

This is only my opinion.

Peace

[neb87]

Salam

I applaud your straightforward and very sombersome approach to this. Finally!

I am not a particular fan of homosexuality, I shudder by only the thought of a man being with a man. I was quite happy that islam forbade it.

Until my sister came out of the closet...........I was very angry with her and started to study the Quran as to see what it exactly said, I needed to find guidance. I love my sister, how am I supposed to act now?

To my surprise I could not find any evidence that homosexuality was against God. I found a story about a wicked people that refused to accept one of Allahs prophets. They were warned but they continued with their lewdness.
So they were terminated. An interesting point is that eventhough there was a prophet of Allah present he was not allowed to administer the punishment, instead angels were sent. A very telling evidence that mankind is not allowed to punish. It is only Allah who decides when lewdness becomes so bad the human has given up the right to live.

Since Lot prophets have walked the earth amongst homosexuals and pagans and not once has Allah sent down angels to kill humans because they are lewd. Could one reason be that whatever lewdness the people of Lot were engaged in was eradicated? This kind of lewdness does not exist anymore?

So I came to the conclusion that the people of Lot were punished because
Their lewdness was stopping them from accepting Lot as a prophet of Allah
A gay muslim today does not fall into the same category. He believes in God and the prophets.

And eventhough we do not think homosexuality is part of Islam
Only Allah is allowed to adminster punishment
Not even a prophet is allowed to take the matter into own hands

So nowadays I have come to an understanding between my sister and Islam. I am allowed to dislike her behaviour, but it has nothing to do with the fact that I am a muslim and. I am merely old fashioned.......or maybe it is difficult for me to accept because I am very very very heterosexual.

rotfl@highlighted

I'm laughing at this part because this was the same exact problem I had the first time I saw 2 women kissing! I am a FLAMING hetero woman so the thought of kissing another woman just icks me out. Thank God, I came to the same conclusion as you; that my dislike was personal and had nothing to do with morality. It also helps to put yourself in their shoes. 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?

On a more serious note, I agree with everything you've said in your post. Most especially, that no punishment is prescribed within the Quran, as this leaves room for those who disagree on the issue of immorality to NOT break into sects over it. I cannot ally myself with people who disagree with me that it isn't immoral AND THEN use their belief as a license to violate human rights. I CAN ally myself with people who disagree and then leave others alone to disagree, as well.

There are many facts that I feel back up the scientific view on the subject, but as a student of human societies, I know all too well that most adults are unwilling to relinquish prejudicial views based on emotion, no matter how much logic is thrown their way. These kinds of things just have to run their course as the younger generations take over. In the meantime, as believers, I feel there's an extra obligation to not purposely block progress with deliberate lies and to not disrupt unity while the matter is being sorted out.

[GODsubmitter]

What if some of the prophets were closeted gays and homosexuals? laugh
Some of them were solitary and no children, wife...

[neb87]

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.

[Emil]

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

[huruf]

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

[neb87]

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.