Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[Green Gaia]

Response: Yes, we have. But not between homosexuals.

Why not?

 

[averageJOE]

I belive sins to be nothing but rules that man invented in a futlie attempt to act like they know what their God is thinking.

There is talk about lust and love here. Though they are independent of each other I also believe they can be one in the same. Lust is a natural human desire that we all feel. There is nothing wrong with acting out on our lustful desires, so long as you do not hurt anyone. When I was young and in my 20's I was lusting over almost every woman that was in front of me. Now that I am in my 30's and married I give my entire life and heart to my wife. I love her. But I still lust over her! There are days I come home from 2 weeks away in the military and when I see her my mind is in dirty places. And we act out on our lust for each other!

I think its wrong for someone to tell another who they can and cannot love. It's wrong to tell someone HOW they should love each other. I believe its wrong to tell two people who love each other what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom.

 

[Oberon]

Holy non sequitur, Batman! What in the world did I say that you interpreted as a claim that anyone's morality were somehow proven?

First, frubals for the cultural reference.

Second, I didn't interpret your post as making such a claim, but this whole conversation for some time has taken the track of one code of morals (recently muslim) over anothers and the reasons for them and so on. Every time there is a discussion between people coming from various religious backgrounds or choosing different codes, it often seems to be missed that morality is a socio-cultural construction which, if it exists in any objective sense, is not only unprovable, you can't even have evidence that any particular action is immoral or moral without taking for granted a some sort of basis for your moral code.

In other words, a thread addressed to people whose moral systems differ in this respect which is asking whether it is wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin is doomed to failure because of the basis for moral codes of people like Fatihah. I may have my own code, I may think it is actually objectively right, but I possess no test to evaluate its superiority over Fatihah's. In other words, unless you are dealing with a group of people who take for granted a certain moral precept (from which other morals may be extrapolated) a discussion such as this is doomed.

 

[Mr Cheese]

First, frubals for the cultural reference.

Second, I didn't interpret your post as making such a claim, but this whole conversation for some time has taken the track of one code of morals (recently muslim) over anothers and the reasons for them and so on. Every time there is a discussion between people coming from various religious backgrounds or choosing different codes, it often seems to be missed that morality is a socio-cultural construction which, if it exists in any objective sense, is not only unprovable, you can't even have evidence that any particular action is immoral or moral without taking for granted a some sort of basis for your moral code.

In other words, a thread addressed to people whose moral systems differ in this respect which is asking whether it is wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin is doomed to failure because of the basis for moral codes of people like Fatihah. I may have my own code, I may think it is actually objectively right, but I possess no test to evaluate its superiority over Fatihah's. In other words, unless you are dealing with a group of people who take for granted a certain moral precept (from which other morals may be extrapolated) a discussion such as this is doomed.

Yes, but I am willing to bet Fatihah is a virgin.
Thus his discussion of sex, lust, love, homosexuality
is really like a man discussing menstruation cramps.

He can read about the cramps, have lots of wonderful opnions
But I guess until someone hits him in the stomach with a bowling ball and he begins bleeding from his groin.... he's not really ever going to understand.

Just a thought.

 

[Francis]

Ouch... that sounds unpleasant... anyways, you do make a point, i suppose. Fatihah, sexuality is part of human nature too. However, you think of it the wrong way. Sexuality isn't being attracted to the opposite sex: It's where you are between 100% homo-sexual and 100% hetero-sexual. Very few people are actually 100% straight. Just as very few people happen to be 100% gay. Most probably hover around the 85-95% straight area, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people everywhere else. Peace!

 

[Magic Man]

Response: You spread logic, reason and truth? Not in this lifetime.
Not once in this forum. The fact that you think homosexuality isn't wrong contridicts your statement anyway.


Response: Likewise.

There's the statement. Where's the proof?

 

[Magic Man]

First, frubals for the cultural reference.

Second, I didn't interpret your post as making such a claim, but this whole conversation for some time has taken the track of one code of morals (recently muslim) over anothers and the reasons for them and so on. Every time there is a discussion between people coming from various religious backgrounds or choosing different codes, it often seems to be missed that morality is a socio-cultural construction which, if it exists in any objective sense, is not only unprovable, you can't even have evidence that any particular action is immoral or moral without taking for granted a some sort of basis for your moral code.

In other words, a thread addressed to people whose moral systems differ in this respect which is asking whether it is wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin is doomed to failure because of the basis for moral codes of people like Fatihah. I may have my own code, I may think it is actually objectively right, but I possess no test to evaluate its superiority over Fatihah's. In other words, unless you are dealing with a group of people who take for granted a certain moral precept (from which other morals may be extrapolated) a discussion such as this is doomed.

Our disagreement over the objectivity aside, the reason these discussions get this way is because people like Fatihah and Carico make all kinds of false claims about homosexuality. As I've said to them a couple times in the last few pages, if they were to just say "Homosexuality is wrong because Allah commands it", that would be one thing. The problem is when they start rationalizing it with things like "homosexuality is all about lust" and "think of the negative effects on the children of gay marriages" and silliness like that. That's when these arguments get really heated, because no matter what you believe is right or wrong, homosexuality is not about lust any more than heterosexuality is and there are no negative effects on children (including becoming gay).

 

[Oberon]

and there are no negative effects on children (including becoming gay).

Actually, there are often negative effects on children of gay couples, but that is because of the prejudice of the homophobic crowd, nothing to do with the gay couples themselves.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, there are often negative effects on children of gay couples, but that is because of the prejudice of the homophobic crowd, nothing to do with the gay couples themselves.

Well, yes, but that's no different from any other minority group.

 

[Storm]

That's because the word of God scares the living daylights out of atheists...and for good reason.

 

[monta]

There is only one word that has ever scared me and it is not for the faint hearted so don't look if you are easily upset

Spoiler: the one word that has scared me

BOO!

 

[Autodidact]

Response: The qur'an does mention it.

then why did you say it doesn't? I thought I could rely on you, a Muslim, to at least tell me what the qu'ran says. Please cite the verse where the qu'ran mentions lesbianism, and be more careful next time. Thanks.

The bigger question is why you insist on condoning the idea of using a person intimately.

I don't.

How shameful can a person be? You wouldn't like to be raped would you? A rapist uses a person for their own pleasure, yet here you are as a homosexual doing the same. The only difference is no force.

Kind of a key difference, don't you think? And no, I'm not using anyone for my own pleasure, any more than you are.

You know what you do and you can pretend to portray differently if you want.

Yes, I do know what I do, and I know it's an act of love and sharing.

Then the absurdity of acting like it's natural.

Of course it's natural. What else could it be?

You see, it's one thing to be illogical and absurd but it's another when not only are you extremely absurd but you flaunt it proudly as if you're right.

That would be you.

That's when you've reached a conceit and absurd mindstate so thick that it would take a jackhammer to break it.

Insert picture of Fatihah here.

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE Autodidact]

Well, what does the qur'an say about lesbianism indirectly?(End quote)

Response: I've answered that already and showed you the verses. What part didn't you comprehend?

Oh, that verse that has nothing to do with lesbianism? Alright, so as I was saying, the qu'ran says nothing whatsoever about lesbianism. Apparently it tells men that Allah has provided them with wives, which is nice, but irrelevant to us, women.

(Quote Autodidact)
I's sorry, that post was utter gibberish to me. I literally have no idea what you were trying to say. Could you review exactly how that post proves that lesbianism is lust?(End Quote)

Response: And what simple engish words do you have a problem comprehending in post 816?

Wow, the whole thing made absolutely no sense to me. If that's your argument, you're sunk. It seems circular and retarded, so you must have meant something more coherent than that. Maybe you should just start over.

(Quote Autididact)
So your argument for why all gay love is based on lust is...?(End Quote)

Response: The fact that it's unnatural. Since it's not natural, it's from your own desire, which is lust.

So now you're going to define natural for us? And also, why are unnatural things necessarily of your own desire and therefore lust. Say, for a random example, eye-glasses or synthetic fibers. And btw, thanks for finally stating your argument in coherent English.

(Quote Autididact)
You realize that these two concepts are not connected in any way, right? There is no logical connection between why a woman is a lesbian, and whether lesbianism is moral or immoral. I say it's because it is her nature to be. And therefore...what? (End Quote)

Response: There is a connection. A woman is a lesbian because of lust and a sexual relationship based on lust is wrong and immoral.

So if I follow your argument, it's:

lesbianism is immoral because it's lust.
Lesbianism is lust because it's unnatural.
Lesbianism is unnatural because because it's lust.

Is that right?

Also, why is something unnatural lust?

Also, I remember that your argument depends on asserting that homosexuality is not found in nature, although hundreds of scientists have observed it in most mammals that have been observed. So, for you to be correct, you again need for scientists to be liars, and their lies undetected by peer review.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Likewise.

Slanderer. Please produce a single post of me lying, or withdraw this slur on my integrity. I do not take such an accusation lightly.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: No. Lucky for you.

Oh, weird religion. That must be why you feel free to do it so much. In my moral system, lying is immoral.

 

[Autodidact]

Our disagreement over the objectivity aside, the reason these discussions get this way is because people like Fatihah and Carico make all kinds of false claims about homosexuality. As I've said to them a couple times in the last few pages, if they were to just say "Homosexuality is wrong because Allah commands it", that would be one thing.

Except that He doesn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Except that He doesn't.

I'm with you, but I'm just saying that "my religion says it's wrong" is much different than "it's only about lust" and "it's unnatural".

 

[keithnurse]

Even if homosexuality is unnatural, and I'm not saying it is, that would not make it wrong. We do lots of things that are unnatural that no one calls wrong, for example: dying our hair,wearing makeup, most of modern medicine is unnatural such as surgery, anesthesia, and what about rollerskating, space travel, SCUBA diving, etc etc. Strictly speaking, wearing clothes is unnatural. If it was natural we would be born with clothes on.

 

[sojourner]

the reason these discussions get this way is because people like Fatihah and Carico make all kinds of false claims about homosexuality.

Maybe they do that to cover up their secret identity as The Ambiguously Gay Duo.

 

[Quagmire]

If I were glad that anyone went to hell, I sure wouldn't be here enduring nothing but insults and slander to tell them the truth.

Of course you would, you'd be doing just what you're doing now.

It's atheists who want to go to hell because they can think of nothing better to do in their lives but slander God and those who love him.

I think you should grab a dictionary and look up the word "atheist".

So if even one atheist understands personal responsibility for his behavior,

I've never seen anyone use athiesm as a way of avoiding having to take responsibility for their own behavior. I've seen PLENTY of people use religion that way.

he just might be able to escape the flames. But that appears to be too hard for most of them so I'm not holding my breath.

Your understanding of atheists/atheism is as clouded as your understanding of your own motives.