Hi idolfree,

You said

Regarding LOVE, "what Love got to do..got to do with it?" D Lets leave EMOTIONS out of the picture while we use our reasoning faculties. D

No. Let's not. To dissassociate love and sex from the act of making love is to unnaturally dissect the act in and of itself. The two are very much interrelated. When people convene with a sexologist or a couples counsellor, both the physical and the emotional aspect is explored in a scientific manner. To say that emotions and reasoning are at odds is to deny that emotions can be studied scientifically. Therapies exist which are emotion-focused, and are as scientific as any other approach.

You said

This is about SEX, not "love".

Nope. This topic is about Islam and being gay. Two things which can be compatible. Homosexual love can be explored, as it can be a driving factor behind the act of sex with one who is of the same gender.

Anytime a man dresses and talks like a women, that is a mental problem. I dont need any vote to see that.

Hmm. Now you are refering to crossdressing as opposed to homosexuality, which can be independant of being gay. You still have yet to offer arguments presenting your idea in a way which demonstrates mental illness. Just because you seem to think so, and infer an answer without any knowledge to back it up, doesn't make it so. Please bring arguments.

Here is a link that explains crossdressing through various different disciplines

http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cathytg/essays.htm

If anything, crossdressing is a healthy exploration of one's opposite sexual side. As a psychotherapist, if it doesn't harm anyone and is indulged in a healthy way, then I can only see it as being beneficial to those who do it.

You said

Later in life? So you mean they were hiding thier feeling so muc that they accidentally put thier penis into a vagina and had a child or vice versa? I dont buy that.

Accidentally, no. By suppressing their natural feelings, yes. I refer you to my previous arguments regarding a mid-life crisis and society's perjorative view on homosexuality.

You said

Yes, restrictions need to be put on ALL incorrect thoughts that lead to incorrect actions. Thats what "religion" is all about. And thats the problem now, peole are being led to believe that homosexuality is a nautural choice, and thats were the surge of homosexuals come from.

Again, you assume that homosexuality is equivalent to incorrect thoughts. Once more, you demonstrate your behavioristic tendency. And I would advise you to re-evaluate your stance on religion. Religion is there to ease suffering in people seeing as it offers answers to some of life's most difficult questions. Now, those answers serve to bring about a sense of certainty towards the face of uncertainty. And uncertainty can be experienced as anxiety. Thus, to diminish anxiety, one is recommended to put their trust in a "religion". Religion is not there to "correct" a person, as if to chastise them. It exists to help people to grow further. Maybe that is your expressed need. For religion to create boundaries for you. Granted, some people need that. But to say that that is a necessity for everyone is to push your own personal need onto others. And imposed religion creates the opposite effect in people, thus driving them away from religion instead of closer to it.

Secondly, your argument that there are "incorrect thoughts" leads me to believe that you see humans as being fundamentally evil, if they are left to fend for themselves, without proper structure, that they will react in an
"evil" way. That, I probably cannot make you change your mind on. In contrast, I believe humans have both the capacity for good and bad. The experience of both has been seen in many cultures. The muslim world is not anymore free from evil as any other culture. This therefore prooves that religion isn't responsible for inhibiting evil. Rather, this quality is exercised through people, on both an individual and collective basis, and varies from person to person.

You said

The MAJOR change you speak about should not include going agains teh LAWS of the universe which prove that a penis and vagina are created as compliments to each other. Life is not about what you FEEL LIKE DOING, its about fulfilling your role. Its those EMOTIONS (what I FEEL like) that gets you in trouble.

How are homosexuals going against the law of the universe if in this same universe they were created as such? One could turn this argument around and say the exact opposite. Maybe they are in fact going WITH the laws of the universe in acting the way that they were created. You seem to think homosexuality is a behavior that can be stopped, as if it were a hedonistic indulgence. While I'm sure that may be how you feel, people have been known to go about doing what is LEAST painful in life. Following this, a person who voluntarily chose to be homosexual, and to be subjected to ridicule and prejudice would have to be masochistic to do so. And that is not how a sane person would think. If this were the case with homosexuals, then most of them would not live a balanced and well-adjusted life. Statistics have shown that a city flourishes on a cultural level provided its homosexual population is allowed to thrive.

If you stiffle your emotions, they will come out in less functional ways. I've met several people in therapy who thought this way, and have been diagnosed with anxiety disorders. If this is the route you wish to follow, I simply and respectfully hope you will seek therapy before you have a complete breakdown.

You said

However, there is nothing to offer as evidence of being genetically passed down.

I said

As to research towards homosexuality being passed down, you are wrong. Research HAS BEEN DONE. Here's a link to what's been discovered

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_basis_for_homosexuality

You said

I did not say research has not been done, I am saying clearly that homosexuals dont create children, so how does this get "passed down"? One must be part of the NATURAL family structure to continue the family line and homosexuality destroys the family structure.

Indeed, that is what you said. While I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, I would advise you to be careful in choosing your words.

Actually, some homosexuals were married before, and by an honest and open process of introspection, they were able to see their true nature. Thus, this is how the homosexuality gene was passed down.

You said

I am not saying that homosexuals will wipe out mankind, but when we are REASONING if something is correct or not, we have to look at the big picture. Crack smokers are a minority, but you dont want crack smoking to become glamorized, correct?

Crack smokers are usually dynsfunctional, in that they indulge excessively in their habit, and usually create problems in the other parts of their life, just to satisfy their habit. This has rarely been the case for most homosexuals.

You said

More proof of its MENTAL basis, is that although one man may be attracted to another man, why does he still feel the need to walk and talk like a woman?

I said

Oh boy. Here we go. Again with your assumptions.

You said

Assumption? You have never seen a Homosexual man talk and walk and even dress like a woman?

I think this will be my last post on this subject. If you refuse to put aside your stereotype simply because it is easier to equate gay men to crossdressing, then we are not going to have a very insightful discussion. If I were to come out and say that muslims are all dark skinned and have beards, this would discount all the other lighter skinned muslims who shave everyday. People come in all shapes and sizes. Including homosexuals. If you are unable to see this, then I believe we cannot talk about this subject in a meaningful manner anymore.

You said

(Regarding homosexuality) Yeah, its real macho to insert your penis into a man! ?

Where does this obession with anal sex come from? Not all gay men are into anal sex. In fact, some heterosexual couples engage in this act. To equate this with all gays is once again falling into the trap of generalization.

You said

(Regarding bi-sexuals) Mental illness. Need to control thier LUST.

Of course. That would explain everything! roll It may be easy to discount bi-sexuals to simply being lustful, yet if they have a strong homosexual side, they do no harm in exploring it. In fact, to acknowledge all parts of one's self is to honor God. And once again, please bring me proof of it being an illness before calling it what it is obviously not.

You said

(Regarding transexuals) Oh, the Creator gave them the wrong tools? How unprofessional of "god"! Glad they straightened that out! ?

And what of people with physical deformities or handicaps? Are we to simply leave them as they are if God made them that way? If I were to use this argument, then it would against the Law to give hearing aids to people who are partially deaf.

Here's a link which should help you to understand what many of these people need to work with http//www.susans.org/reference/index.html

For more resources, just google "transgender ressources".

You said

They(psychiatrists) should be jailed for taking these ill peoples money.

If religion is about the ease of suffering on an existential basis, as is seen with most of them, then would it not be godly for a psychiatrist to emulate this quality in his professional work? You would rather prolong the suffering of gender dysphoric people as opposed to giving them what they need the most? That's cruelty.

This will be my last post on this subject. I hope some of my points have helped to clarify some misconceptions you have relating to alternative sexual practices. Here's hoping you will invest some time in some of the links which I've provided.

Good night, and be well, friend. I wish you all the best. Peace, harmony, joy and growth.

Cheers.

Shadowspeak*

shadowspeak wrote...
I suppose God could kill himself if he wanted to.

so if it wanted to and it went ahead and killed itself, and i mean extermination, wiped out, without any last wishes before losing all traces of itself, would then god be able to revive itself?

Those are mysteries that may never be answered. If you ever meet God, be sure to ask him that question.

why do some sad cases create problems for people when they know they cannot perceive a solution other than suicide! -S

Because the mind is made to problem-solve. If a problem is not solved, it can look to more drastic solutions. And one of those "drastic" solutions for some, who are suffering immensely, is to take their own life. This isn't seen as a cop out or anything bad in their eyes. It is seen as a means to ease suffering. Suicide isn't done so in a spontaneous or trivial manner. It is often thought out during the course of a long time.

and in anycase, when did i say god would want to kill itself out of lack of solutions (unlike others cry, maybe just to say "heck i can do anything!"

You didn't say it. I did. That was my explanation for one contemplating suicide. A dialogue goes both ways. One brings his perceptions towards another, and in return, is expected to listen to the other's perception in the hopes of pushing the conversation further. That is how an interaction works.

I think it's hard for us to consider omnipotency. When I think of it, I have a tendency to experience an awesome sense of freedom in doing anything I wish. Yet even in thinking so, I know I haven't touched sufficiently upon the reality behind omnipotency. While I'm sure God is capable of much, I wonder if he has "carte blanche" to do anything he wishes, like a spoiled child that's left unrestrained. Is our God even the Original God? If God is everlasting, and everywhere at once, it could be safe to consider that God consciousness is evergrowing. Are our perceptions of God even directed towards the Original conciousness or are we perceiving God's distant cousin, so to speak?

Shadowspeak*

I suppose God could kill himself if he wanted to. If, as many belief systems claim, he is omnipotent, then omnipotency implies a complete control over everything.

But I would wonder why God would kill himself. If, clearly he was omnipotent, and master of all things, then clearly he could get rid of the need to want to extinguish himself completely. Suicide is often seen as a final solution to one's problems because one can't perceive any other solutions. If God were God, he would perceive the many choices that are available to him, and thus consider the less destructive path.

Things to think about.

Shadowspeak*

You said

Natural? Is that why the penis and vagina are formed perfectly to compliment each other?

I fail to see how my comment on homosexuality being natural takes away anything from heterosexuality. Why are you bringing up this argument? If you are alluding to the question of physical compatibility, love can be experienced in many different ways. I'll leave it to your imagination to fill in the rest.

I said

Yes, as some users have mentioned, it was considered a pathology until around 1975 when it was taken out of the Diangnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM). I believe the reasons for its removal were because it didn't harm anyone nor did it affect the proper functioning of a person.

You said

According to who? The same type of person that makes alchohol and cigarettes legal while marijuana is illegal?

Leaving conspiracy theories aside, wikipedia has this to say regarding this decision

"prior to a psychiatric plebescite in 1973, homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder, and it was listed in the pre-1973 DSM as such. Since that vote, homosexuality is no longer seen by psychologists and psychiatrists as a mental illness sexual orientation. (All conditions entered in the ever-expanding DSM-IV are considered to be mental illnesses. Far more conditions are added than are deleted.)"

This decision was not taken lightly. As I have said before, the criteria involved in determining if a behavior is a pathology is if it inhibits the proper functioning of a person or can potentially harm another. Neither is the case with homosexuality.

You said

They are both mental perversions. The proof of mental perversion are the cases of people who have children at one point, then LATER turn homosexual. However, there is nothing to offer as evidence of being genetically passed down.

Hmm. Not really. Again, I fail to see how you suddenly equate people with having a "mental perversion" simply based on the fact that they came out of the closet later in life. I see other explanations. First of all, homosexuality, despite its general acceptance in modern industrialized societies, has and is still seen by some as being "bad". Hence, the hesitation in some people in overtly accepting their natural tendency.

Second, seeing as some people don't cater to their own personal needs, their natural talents, attributes and tendencies can have a way of coming out later in life. This is what we often see happening with people who experience a mid-life crisis. Far from being minor, MAJOR changes are made in one's life because on an existential level, they just can't go on living the way they do because it's simply not representative of who they are now. Thus, this may very well explain why some people come out later in life.

As to research towards homosexuality being passed down, you are wrong. Research HAS BEEN DONE. Here's a link to what's been discovered

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_basis_for_homosexuality

I said

Pedophilia is a disease

You said

So is homosexuality.

Sorry, the DSM says no.

I said

in that a person can do sufficient harm to a child since one is acting towards the seduction of a child, most often against the child's will. In this case, children are at significant risk. Homosexuality, on the other hand, posed no risk whatsoever to those consenting. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a pathology.

You said

It provides a WICKED option to the formible minds of the youth. All minds can be shaped and conditioned to do anything. It is an ACT that promotes the death of the human race.

You have a very behavioristic view on life. I tend to disagree. If I were to follow your logic, then everyone who would be brainwashed into learning something would execute it in the exact same way. I disagree entirely. Again, I fail to see how it is wicked. Please elaborate on how homosexuality is wicked. The death of the human race? You strike me as having an extremist point of view in that by the simple existence of homosexuals, you seem to automatically think the human race is threatened. They are a simple minority. How can this minority threaten the majority. I have a gay friend and nothing is "wicked" nor fatal about him or his behavior.

You said

More proof of its MENTAL basis, is that although one man may be attracted to another man, why does he still feel the need to walk and talk like a woman?

Oh boy. Here we go. Again with your assumptions. What makes you think a gay man is effeminate? I think it's time for a short lesson on alternative sexual orientations (insert annoying little music track).

First of all, there are homosexuals. Homosexuality can be experienced in a variety of forms. Some prefer to be "tops", meaning they enjoy being dominant in the sexual act, whereas others prefer to be "bottoms", being respectfully submissive. Some are effeminate, whilst some are rather macho and butch-like. And still others are situated in the middle. As with heterosexuals, they come in all shapes and sizes. Hence, it's impossible to categorize a gay male or female.

Next, are bi-sexuals, who are seen as having an attraction to both sexes. They are criticized by both sides (hetero/homo) because they are seen as not choosing one or the other. Debates have occured regarding the true existence of bi-sexuality, since sexuality can be represented on a linear line. If, for example, one is close to a 52/48 (Hetero/homo), one could be considered a heterosexual. Yet the 48% doesn't magically go away, so at a point in one's life, a person could feel the need to experience their homosexual side. Thus, this could very well explain the bi-sexual phenomenon.

Following this, we have transexuals. These people have the feeling that they were born in the wrong body, and feel a sense of belonging to the opposite sex. Both males and females can be born with this tendency. Thus, later in life, they feel the need to change themselves into the other sex, be it through hormones or surgery to remove any "unnecessary equipment" and thus replace it with the opposite sex's anatomy. The DSM sees this category as being "gender dysphoric". Usually, tests can be done to determine if a person's brain is of the feminine or masculine persuasion, as other tests, to determine the severity of the dysphoria. Psychiatrists often approve these people for surgery after a long therapeutic process in coming to terms with their inner gender tendency.

After, we have assexual people, who have little or no attraction whatsoever to either sex. These people live normal and productive lives, with the exception of having any sexual excitement. This condition is the lesser known one of the bunch, but cases have been known to occur.

I said

This behavior has been seen in animals, thus the argument that it is "unnatural" simply falls out the window. That said, I would say that SOME incidences of homosexuality seem to be situational. In that some people who were raped or sexually molested in their past have adopted homosexual behavior later on. If this is the case, then some of these people can be "cured", if the root of the psychological problem/wound is healed.

You said

We certainly are not basing our behavior on animals. It is the animal behavior we are here trying to transcend. Will it be natural to eat your childrenas some animals do? Bathe in feces? Wash ourselves with our tounges?

Some therapies have been known to specifically target the hypothalamus, which is our "reptilian brain". Our primitive side. To say that it doesn't affect or influence us on some level is to deny an important part of ourselves.

Have a nice day, friend. Don't forget to become who You Are.

Shadowspeak*

I've only read a few responses here to notice that many have a fundamental view towards homosexuality.

It's frightening to see this in people who claim to be "liberal muslims". You are right, dear friend, in saying that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Yes, as some users have mentioned, it was considered a pathology until around 1975 when it was taken out of the Diangnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM). I believe the reasons for its removal were because it didn't harm anyone nor did it affect the proper functioning of a person.

The latter is a criteria given for a tendency to become a pathology. Now, arguments have been given here as comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, and I have to say, they are completely UNFOUNDED. Pedophilia is a disease in that a person can do sufficient harm to a child since one is acting towards the seduction of a child, most often against the child's will. In this case, children are at significant risk. Homosexuality, on the other hand, posed no risk whatsoever to those consenting. Therefore, it cannot be seen as a pathology.

This behavior has been seen in animals, thus the argument that it is "unnatural" simply falls out the window. That said, I would say that SOME incidences of homosexuality seem to be situational. In that some people who were raped or sexually molested in their past have adopted homosexual behavior later on. If this is the case, then some of these people can be "cured", if the root of the psychological problem/wound is healed.

But if there is no underlying history of abuse, albeit life-defining, one has to acknowledge that somehow, it can be naturally explained, and thus tolerated as a natural act. And being in harmony with nature is all about submission (Islam).

Shadowspeak*

Hi everyone. I'm glad to see there seems to be a movement towards liberal islam. I knew of intellectual authors from France who were leaning in that direction. I live near Ottawa Canada. Anyone from around there? I'd love to talk with other people who feel the need for liberalism.

That said, I'd like to know, based on what I read on this website, why it is that a couple is given an interim period regarding divorce? If there is abuse, or severe negligence, for example, wouldn't it be the right for the female to distance herself from an otherwise toxic relationship?

Living in the same household would only serve to aggravate the situation, especially if the husband is unwilling to listen nor to empathize with what the wife is going through. As a psychotherapist, I can only imagine it would do a world of good to allow for separation in order to put things in perspective for both parties, and to allow them to make an impartial decision outside of an obviously heated environment.

Best regards,

Shadowspeak*