The Lack of Science in Gay Debates

Someone

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

Reee

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.

neb87

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.

Someone

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?

neb87

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.

hawk99

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

GODsubmitter

IMPORTANT!

When Science is Context Three Questions Show
The Men of the Quranic Lot Story
Are Heterosexual men not Homosexual men

Introduction

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

Yosemite

"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=98

we 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

Yosemite

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?

dawngorgeous

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

bookish

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

dawngorgeous

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.

good_logic

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.

dawngorgeous

Peace Good Logic,

A comforting and apt response.

Dawn.

GODsubmitter

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.

GODsubmitter

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.jpg

PS
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.jpg

PEACE TO ALL

GODsubmitter

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.

Good post, you are right, thanlk you.

Alcaida reads the Qur'an same as Shias and other sects who are disputing and fighting for centuries... what does that prove? That very few understood the messages of the prophets, and therefore, most of the believers will go to hell and very few will enter thru the "narrow door"...

Luke 1322-30

New International Version (NIV)
The Narrow Door

22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, ?Lord, are only a few people going to be saved??

He said to them, 24 ?Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ?Sir, open the door for us.?

?But he will answer, ?I don?t know you or where you come from.?

26 ?Then you will say, ?We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.?

27 ?But he will reply, ?I don?t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!?

28 ?There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.?

God is running everything, and shaitan is a belief in limitation, or incompetence or doubt in God...
"As a man thinketh"... http//www.whoisgregreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/right-arrow-green-small.jpg a very good book to read!

Praise be to God within and without, there is nothing as He, blessed be He!

bookish

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...

Lena

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

dawngorgeous

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.