gay people and islam
-
Peace be upon you Peaceful Muslim,
Lets for a moment imagine a scenario here.
U r heterosexual, right?
Yes.
So u r naturally attracted to the opposite sex.
Yes.
Now lets say, homosexuality was what's considered right & moral
Your scenario is based on opinion, I am not basing my argument on opinion, I am basing it on form and function. But I will follow your test..
and so, u r forced(by ur community) to feel attracted to a man instead of a woman. What would u do? How would u feel?
If someone is trying to force me, that would be foolish, instead they should reason with me to see how life follows a set ORDER and that I should not follow Emotions/sesualism, but instead that should follow.
You see, it boils down to "likes" and "dislikes", attraction! D Your emotions are what "draw you" to things and "repel you" from other things, and guess what? These can be changed. For example, you meet a person and they are very attractive, so you are "attracted" to them, but then you meet them and they are very rude and ignorant, next thing you know, you are NOT "attracted" to them.
There are things you "like" or "dislike" when you were little which has changed now.
This whole issue stems from most of mankinds ignorance of the "Self", so they identify with the personality (host of complexes that change).
-
Peace Elena
The same contradiction when we say perversion - pervert
I do not see the contradiction. Perversion is the act of corrupting or some aberrant behavior. A pervert is one who debases or corrupts.
But not to the extent of turning one into a homosexual against his wishes.
Of course not. I think we have all stated this.
We dont do things just becoz "I can do this, and look, it's okay", do we?
You talk because you can or write to me because you can. If your scruples denounce bad language you do not curse. If you're in doubt about your scruples because of the suggestion that cursing is acceptable and okay you do them, well at least I do.
And 'want to' comes from one's own decission(feelings) and not through tv.
I agree. Again, I think everyone here has agreed that television does not make people do things, but still people are bringing up this point that it does not when it is and has been agreed upon from the fore. What people want can change. I used to want only article 2a in division A, but now I want articles 2a-2e in division A.
I dont see it promoting or suggesting homosexuality to viewers as such.
You have already suggested it is okay, but I'm looking for you to show me where God states that it is okay for a follower of the reading to practice homosexuality. It is clear from your opponents on this issue that people can practice homosexuality, but it is deviant behavior in the reading, therefore a muslim cannot and should not be practicing homosexuality.
If u take all that as suggestions that every human being will act on without analysing it in their heads, then we would be a sorry lot.
I at least am not suggesting this, nor do I think your opponents are. Still, not everyone is forethoughtful.
Joe
-
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
you deleted the last part 'nothing against you though'
there is where I see the contradiction.If you reprimand your child for doing something wrong, are you against your children? If your problem is with the word "pervert", then chose whatever word you like that fits to explain incorrect behavior, but the ISSUE will be the same.
My oldest sister is bi sexual and on drugs, I do not "care" for her any less, nor "love' her any less, but her actions regarding sex and drugs is wrong and that does not prevent me from letting her know that when she tries to tell me some story about it. You see, we have the ability to control our emotions, to take on any personality we need for a certain situation, so when my sister turns back to correct conversation, we talk as normal, laugh and joke, whatever. I will not entertain foolish BEHAVIOR, because thats what it is, and I dont expect anyone to entertain any behavior I have not yet transcended. Thats how we maintain a moral culture, otherwise we sink into hell, like the world is doing now by adopting this western mentality of "freedom to do what you like". That means free to destroy the earth and its inhabitants. One is only truly free when they are restricted by the Universal Laws.
-
Lotetree
PostPosted Fri Feb 10, 2006 103 pm Post subject
ichephren wrote1.I don't know where anyone said that TV will turn a person straight person gay. What I do remember saying is that it in addition to societal acceptance of homosexuality may influence the emotions of young children who don't yet have a concept of their own sexuality. Please rebut that point.
What are you saing here? Sexuality is a learned behaviour?
As for as I know Sexuality is wired in the Brain from Birth. This is what research points to.
Here is a interesting case. An American boy due to a terrible circumcision accident lost his penis completely. The parents decided to raise him as a girl. The doctors gave the boy hormone treatments to make him more feminine. The boy grew up looking like a girl and behaving like a girl. But in his teenage years his masculinity re-asserted itself and he stopped taking hormone treatments and lived the life of man.
So Sexuality is NOT a conditioned response as far as I can see.
The example of the American boy is one of biological sex, not sexuality. For example, the scenario says nothing about who the person has sex with, it just proves that without hormonal treatment, his body readjusted to the hormonal balance that a man should have, thus he would be a man. Now, he could end up being a man who has sex with men or one who has sex with women. This example does not say anything about his sexuality. It only proves that without treatement, the body has a specific hormonal balance that is harwired into our genes.
Homosexaulity have been observed in the Animal world. There seems to be a certain percentage of the population that show homosexual behaviour in all societies in past and now. Why? This question has not been resolved yet. And the comparison between homosexuality and incest is not correct because incest is NOT usually between two consenting adults. And this goes for bestiality too.
Actually homosexuality is not evident in the animal kingdom. Usually what people point to are monkeys who exhibit homosexual behavior. However, animal sexuality is very different from human sexuality. When a male monkey cannot find a suitable female partner, it might release its sexual heat with another male. The sexuality of animals is controlled seasonally, so the monkey must have release before it can go about its normal business. Human beings are the only animals who can have sex anytime they want to and feel the desire all the time.
Also, I have already explained that I am not comparing unconsentual sexual conduct with homosexuality. I have already said that even if incest was consentual, it would still be wrong. I also gace the example of peanut butter on a penis in order to establish consent between the dog and the male. There is consent there, yet it is still wrong, whether or not it is evident in nature.Yes, that is what it is in the Animal World. But we are human beings. We are much more than an animal. Humanity exeptionally is a different Species than the Animal Species. Sex is more pleasureable for us. Procreation follows if we want to. Sexual Pleasure first, procreation second. We have left behind our REPRODUCTION instinct long time ago. So reproduction argument is no longer tenable.
Ok, human beings are different than animals, I think that we can all agree to that. But answer these questions 1)why do two women who are really close often fall into synch with their menstrual cycle? 2) why do women who are close tend to get preganant around the same time? Both occurences have been shown to be true. There is a part of human sexuality that is simply unconscious and animanlistic. It has nothing to do with our level of intelligence and civilization...but a pure biological program.
How do you know that sex is more pleasureable for human beings?
I have not reduced human beings to their reproductory capabilities. It is a vital aspect of human relationships. Ok, we can have orgasms in our sleeps, but the point of having a sexual orgasm is purely to make reproduction more efficient.I disagree. Beauty has it's own standard and is nothing to do with reproduction.
Please give an example of this.
If it is mistake then hey WHAT A GREAT MISTAKE IT IS. Sex is for pleasure now. That's why there are 10,000 different never endings at the tip of the female clitoris!!! and what a thing it is too Wink Baby making is now is a matter of choice.
You seem to rely on the notion of "now" but the purpose of sex must be true now as it was before the advent of condoms and BC pills. The purpose of sex does not change just b/c we invent ways to get around the consequence. For example, the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies. Just b/c food happens to be delicious does not erase the sheer purpose of nourishing our bodies. The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste. So, we are more likely to have sex and procreate if it feels good than if it feels like electric shocks through your genitalia. Now, if you remove the nourishment from food and eat only junk food, your body will suffer and you can't complain if you become diseased since we all know that the point of eating is to feed the body with nourishing food. In the same regard, if you continue to have sex for pleasure, you cannot be surprised if you get pregnant b/c we all realize that the supposed end goal of sex is to procreate.
-
Peace be upon you Icheprhen,
Now I 'm getting emotional, because I wish I could have said this!
You seem to rely on the notion of "now" but the purpose of sex must be true now as it was before the advent of condoms and BC pills. The purpose of sex does not change just b/c we invent ways to get around the consequence. For example, the purpose of food is to nourish our bodies. Just b/c food happens to be delicious does not erase the sheer purpose of nourishing our bodies. The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste. So, we are more likely to have sex and procreate if it feels good than if it feels like electric shocks through your genitalia. Now, if you remove the nourishment from food and eat only junk food, your body will suffer and you can't complain if you become diseased since we all know that the point of eating is to feed the body with nourishing food. In the same regard, if you continue to have sex for pleasure, you cannot be surprised if you get pregnant b/c we all realize that the supposed end goal of sex is to procreate.
Fantastic!
I wanted to add to just one part
The fact that it tastes good only facilitates the nourishment we gain since we are more likely to continue eating if we enjoy the taste.
If we do something we dont like, like drink carrot juice as an example for some, with the understanding that it is good for us, we will soon begin to get "pleasure" from i, it wll soon be "good". So yes, it makes it easier to nourish my body.
I have experienced this first hand.
Again, great post.
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
Well if you were saying %100 of people TAKE PART in either I would say %100 of people being homosexual would not fair well
Why not?
But as for everyone accepting everyone? Well that would be fan****tastic no?
I know the language on this thread has been very graphic, but please do not exceed the boundaries, respectfully.
My question was not about everyone accpeting everyone, it was comparing 100% hetero to 100% homo
If people could live and let live (in this situation) without judgement, fear or hatred, think how nice the village in NYC could be.
Why just that situation?
Acceptance of eachother's differences is not going to be a BAD thing
There is no compulsion, but the right way is clear from the wrong way.
Let's see, if %100 of people were homosexual then the species would last about 80 years or so. but you did not ask what if everyone WAS homosexual. You asked about acceptance. what is wrong with accepting someone else for the choices they make for themself, or for being who they are? It does not mean you have to do it, love it, or even agree with it. It just means accepting someone else for who they are, perceived faults and all. It means not disliking or writing off someone for a singel facet of their person.
As for the situation, that would be the situation of sexuality as opposed to someone who say, enjoys eating human flesh off of live humans.
I apologize for the language I did not intent to offend, just a little funny is all.
Anyway, lets take the most extreme example of this and see how it plays out
100% of people accept heterosexuality
100% of people accept homosexuality
just remember, you question was of acceptance, not practice
-
Peace be upon you Sawtooth,
I think you've misunderstood what Idolfree has been trying to say. He accepts the people for who they are, but if they come to him and ask what his opinion is on Homosexuality he will simply state the reasons he disagrees with it. I hope he doesnt mind me replying on his behalf, I just think you need to take another look at what his view is on this topic.You asked about acceptance. what is wrong with accepting someone else for the choices they make for themself, or for being who they are? It does not mean you have to do it, love it, or even agree with it
Accepting the person has nothing to do with accepting the act. We can disagree with homosexuality and still be accepting of that person. Anything wrong with that?
Peacce -
Peace be upon you Nabi,
Perhaps, that does seem a little contradictory. What I was trying to convey, is that being immoral has many different facets. I don't think if a person is an active homosexual it alone makes them an immoral person, just like I hope others won't consider me immoral for swearing at times, or lying. Maybe you would consider me as such, I don't know. I think being a moral person has a lot of different acts that contribute to it, and one immoral act doesnt make the person immoral. -
Peace be upon you,
But homosexuality is observed in the Animal World. Why? We have no answer yet.
Sure we do. Lust, as with all emotions, are the ANIMAL NATURE within you. Emotion and ANIMATION are the same thing (energy in motion).
So animals LUST after other animals? Kyle Animals only have a REPRODUCTIVE instinct. They don't lust after.
Animals lick each other butts and other kinds of behavior, we cannot take the animals as our guide to correct behavior.
Again Kyle animal have REPRODUCTIVE instinct. Male bulls for example will smell and taste cows urine to check if she had ovoluated. This is all REPRODUCTIVE instinct.
We humans are no longer are DRIVEN BY DARWINIAN REPRODUCTIVE urge.
But the question was homosexuality is obeserved in the Animal World. But we are also have evolved from animals, from the lineage of Apes. But we have become something exceptional. We have become spiritual. The Human Animal is the only Spiritual Creature on this Planet Earth. So the question goes if we have evolved from animals then homosexuality also have originated from there because we can observe homosexaulity in animals too...science has yet to answer these questions yet...
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Idolfree,
Let me add to this, it is blind following of the emotional nature. It is not just that the person is seeking to satisfy an incorrect emotional urge, but the act itself leads to the end of mankind.
The reason I feel people are disagreeing with you, is that they still have yet to see how homosexuality can be catagorized as an incorrect emotional urge. However, I think you answer why you feel this way in the same sentence, the act of homosexuality leads to the end of mankind. So you are deciding what is a moral and immoral act based on its effect upon society as a whole. Other people, unfortunately, perhaps have a different way of defining what's incorrect, and what isn't; that seems to be the main problem.
Riding roller coasters and watching Seinfeld do not prevent the species from continuing. We reason first, if there is no harm in the action, hen we ALLOW pleasure to follow. This is the proper sequence, however, the majority of mankind FOLLOW emotions.
You're correct, however, if you take this to a grand scale like you have with homosexuality, perhaps it does prevent us from continuing. If 100% of people watched seinfeld or fulfilled another seemingly harmless desire, then I think we'd have problems. Just like if everyone was 100% heterosexual and wanted to have 5 kids each, we'd be overpopulated. Does that mean having 5 kids is immoral? Is there harm in the action of 3% of the population being homosexual? Or is there only harm if the action spreads and becomes 50 to 100% of the population.
I agree that the majority of mankind follows emotions, rather than letting emotions yield to them.
Pleasure is an emotional state, just like jealousy, envy, etc. Lets talk for a moment about what happens in the body when we get into an emotional state, our blood leaves teh vital organs and is moved to the organs of "fight or flight", and if this is maintained for too long, we starve our vital organs (brain for example). This is the OBJECTIVITY behind the statement "stress is deadly". So pleasure should not be maintained for long periods eaith, instead we should remain at PEACE, allowing pleasure in the proper amounts. So its not that we should avoid situations that cause pleasure, if the action is healthy and does not effect society, we can allow the pleasure to follow, but should soon get back to peace.
I agree, being led by emotions means we're damaging our body, and not maintaining a state of Peace, like we should be. However, one can make the argument that if 3% of the population was homosexual, and the act is kept behind closed doors, then there should be no grand scale effect on society as a whole. Does this then mean homosexuality is moral? The only way it seems to pose a problem, is if homosexuality can be spread, and more and more of the population becomes homosexual. If this doesn't happen, and the number of homosexuals remains small, how do you find out if its moral or immoral?
One should follow up and look at the statistics of lottery winners and thier death and illness rate.
I'll have to look that up.
Please see my argument above. Also, please refrain from the foul language, respectfully.
My bad, I'll refrain from foul language. Thanks for the reminder.
Universal law clarifies this all for us, but we have to leave emotions out to see it
You'll have to explain how you find out what is a universal law. Btw, I read a bit of metu neter not too long ago, but I started getting lost midway through the book. I'll have to pick it up again when I'm not too busy. I'm diverging from the topic though.
Peace
-
Peace idolfree
If your problem is with the word "pervert", then chose whatever word you like that fits to explain incorrect behavior, but the ISSUE will be the same.
yes, another word, or better, no any other word except 'homosexual', I think that one is enough. Thus, no more disagreement because I think your other points don't provoke intolerance.
-
Salaam peace and all. Your last post had a lot of excellent food for thought. How are we to decide what is harmful to society? This is the subject of ethics.(and i feel traditional religion is not always ethical) Niestczhe said we(humans) should make our own morals(in response to the circumstances),not religion.
Peace. -
Peace be upon you Idolfree,
So animals LUST after other animals? Kyle Animals only have a REPRODUCTIVE instinct. They don't lust after.
Can you prove that Animals only have reproductive instinct, and have no pleasure from mating?
Again Kyle animal have REPRODUCTIVE instinct. Male bulls for example will smell and taste cows urine to check if she had ovoluated. This is all REPRODUCTIVE instinct.
We humans are no longer are DRIVEN BY DARWINIAN REPRODUCTIVE urge.
But the question was homosexuality is obeserved in the Animal World. But we are also have evolved from animals, from the lineage of Apes. But we have become something exceptional. We have become spiritual. The Human Animal is the only Spiritual Creature on this Planet Earth. So the question goes if we have evolved from animals then homosexuality also have originated from there because we can observe homosexaulity in animals too...science has yet to answer these questions yet
Bulls may smell urine, but like someone said, aren't men more attracted to women when they are ovulating? Don't women like men that are financially stable, and protective? Doesn't this all have to do with reproduction?
I thought the whole reason we always wanted to have sex was because of the pleasure, but the primary purpose of sex was to procreate. Thus, the pleasure aspect of sex is what drives us to want to procreate. I didn't know, that in the past we'd think "well, I gotta keep my lineage going so as to fulfill darwinian principles, so I guess I'll have sex now".
Are you sure that humans are the only spiritual animals? How do you know this? I thought the whale song was pretty spiritual. That whole penguin movie, also made penguins seem spiritual. Once agian, if homosexual came from animals, does that make it right?
Peace -
Peace
How are we to decide what is harmful to society?
Listen people, the backbone of this forum is the reading. People seem to be ignoring the reading as far as I can percieve of the situation. God has decided what is what in the reading. So I will ask that one please give me there reasoning in which the institution of marriage according the the reading relates to homosexuality. I'd like to see that first of all.
Joe
-
Peace nabi and all. Whose interpretation of the reading? Mine or yours or abu-hurairahs? Whatever interpretation you come up with there is some subjectivity involved. But i will not hide or drown my conscience behind the quran. Or will i say 'because god says so'. This can be used as an excuse(and has been in history) to justify all kinds of mayhem,illogic and suffering. I thought the forum was based on free-minds,not creating our own hadith out of the quran.
Peace all. -
Peace be upon you Nabi,
I understand that we oughtta be governing our lives using the reading. However, the only way we are going to verify the reading is by analyzing its tenets and trying to figure out the purpose behind them. We can follow them blindly, but we'll never be certain if what we're practicing is correct. We have to use our logic to figure out why it would be moral or immoral. -
Salaam peace. Well said. ! We have to check that what we do is moral or not,not blindly follow.
Peace. -
Peace
Whose interpretation of the reading?
Your's or anyone else's. I was clear on that.
So I will ask that one please give me there <should be their> reasoning in which the institution of marriage according the the reading relates to homosexuality.
Whatever interpretation you come up with there is some subjectivity involved.
How familiar are you with the dictates of correct interpretation concerning the reading?
But i will not hide or drown my conscience behind the quran.
No one is asking you to. This is a quranic forum. Understand?
Or will i say 'because god says so'.
I'm not asking you to be a blind follower. Read my signature.
I thought the forum was based on free-minds,not creating our own hadith out of the quran.
Please do not take the objective of Free-Minds out of context like the objective of freedom of speech is often taken out of context.
Joe