Moderate Muslims' beliefs about homosexuality

[tarekabdo12]

Hi tarekabdo,

Let me clarify that I don't hate religion. I do find it irrational, but it doesn't bother me. It only bothers me when parents indoctrinate children into religion before they're old enough to understand critical thought; and when religious people try to legislate their taboos onto the rest of society that doesn't agree with their taboos.

I told you before than parents' ideas and principles vary greatly and you can't prevent a parent from inculcating ideas into the minds of their children. However, later on the children will have to take their own decisions. You can see every where children who grow up and take decisions that are different from what they'd been raised upon so it's over this way.

Moreover, I don't find religions irrational "because it frowns on [my] sexual acts." I don't believe or disbelieve in things based on whether I like them or not -- I believe or disbelieve things based on whether or not I can determine them to be true. Whether or not a religion condemns the feelings I have for someone or not has nothing to do with it -- after all, there are some religions that say little to nothing about homosexuality and I still doubt those, too.

Ok, you've the right to think if whatever you find rational. This is not my issue.

I also want to clarify that I don't think religion is a plague. At the end of one of my posts I said something like I don't go around telling people that religion is a plague that needs to be sterilized -- I didn't mean that I actually think that. I was just trying to convey that even if I disapprove of religion and especially the indoctrination of children, I wouldn't publicly put it in terms as if it were a disease out of respect for other people to whom their religion is sacred.

Yes, but we are discussing religion and discussing religions, as well. That's why we can use different words that we use in our personal contact. When i say that something a disease , i don't mean to degrade sb but only to discuss that issue.

 

[Me Myself]

I dont think one from a non religious standpoint can accept homosexuality as moral, and actions like that as immoral at the same time. From a non religious standpoint, the two actions are pretty much similar, and one - to avoid contradiction - would have to either accept both, or reject both.

While I disagree with many angular parts of what you said (homosexuality=wrong for example) your general post shows far more lucidity and creativity that that quoted part.

And I mean that part is creativity lacking if you truly haven´t known any unreligious person to think that homosexuality is okay and same family sex is not okay.

Because it certainly happens a lot. It may be your opinion that it doesn´t happen, but it does

 

[Me Myself]

Have either of you considered that it's extremely inconsiderate to say that someone can be "cured" of their feelings for the people that they love as though it were some sort of disease?

What if someone were to make an inconsiderate post where they spoke of "curing" you of your love for your wife, or husband, or God, as though that were a disease? What if they openly scorned your love for someone as something illegitimate, vile, or insincere -- completely unapologetically?

You may believe that sexual relationships between the same sex is disgusting (and that's fine), you may believe that God frowns on same-sex couples (and that's fine), but that doesn't give you an excuse to use language publicly that treats love between two people like some sort of disease that needs to be "cured." It may not be illegal, and I do indeed support your right to free speech and to express your opinion, but that doesn't make it any less hateful or rude.

I don't think that instilling religion in children is ethical or morally right, for instance; but I don't run around rudely braying that religion is a "disease" that needs to be "cured" no matter how much I disagree with it. I probably find it about as disgusting as you might find homosexual relationships -- but I'm not rude enough to publicly announce that religious people are a plague that should be sterilized.

Now, I've used a lot of strong and fairly harsh language above, but it's only to make a point. Maybe neither of you considered how your choice of words would come across to people, and that's fine. I get that a lot of religions frown on homosexuality and that consequently, it might be difficult to imagine genuine love between two men or two women. If you truly believe that God disapproves of it then you might feel justified in treating it like a disease of some sort. You're entitled to believe that -- I'm a woman, but I'm attracted to other women, and I fully support anyone's right to disagree with homosexuality, even if they vehemently disagree with it.

That doesn't give you the right to be outright rude, though. Disagree with homosexuality all you want -- you can even be vocal about it and say how wrong you think it is, but please do not publicly tell me and those like me that my genuine love for another person is a disease. Because that's exactly what the implication is when you assert there's a "cure." Is there a "cure" for loving God? Is there a "cure" for loving your husband or wife? Let's please just be a little more considerate in how we word things, okay?

(I'm not as angry as that sounded, though! We're all friends here :yes

-----
EDIT: Also, sorry for the redundancy; this post was written while running back and forth making food -- I kept forgetting what I had already typed and what I still felt I needed to say!

The very fact of discussing religion in itself is considered "rude" by many people.

the fact is that he considers it a disease, and if he can´t call it how he thinks it is here, where is he supposed to call it that way?

 

[tarekabdo12]

There are different kinds of feelings you can have towards people. You can have a very deep love between a friend and yourself without having a biological sexual attraction. It's clear that you are not attracted to males sexually, so that isn't a problem for you. That's what I think you're not understanding about this: do you think that homosexuals develop a loving relationship with someone and then just decide to make it sexual?

Do you think people just have a switch they can turn on to say "Ok, I'm going to be sexually aroused by this person now?" If you do think that, then I don't understand such thoughts. I don't know about you, but my body tends to decide who to be aroused by quite without my involvement. Doesn't yours? I'm sure there are some women that, despite being "anatomically compatible" with your male body, simply couldn't sexually arouse you. You might say that it depends on their personality, which can be true, but please don't discount the real point here in that our bodies are simply aroused by some people and not aroused by others.

Hopefully that answers your question of "why SEX?" The answer is simple: if we develop feelings of mutual friendship and love with a consenting adult and each of our bodies react with sexual arousal to one another, then our love for one another is a romantic love -- different than brotherly love or Platonic love. So, we have sex just like any other lovers would.

The sexual acts can have many swerves and abnormalities like those seeking violence during sex, children, buggary, etc... and still you can say it's a biological attraction but we say it's a disease as we know the normal. That normal that our bodies and psychology were built and stabilized upon.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Eating soil is harmful and leads to dangerous infections -- it's not uncommon for people to die from things like e. coli. Wearing dirty clothing is (I'd imagine) equally as dangerous, as well as inconsiderate to people around you.

Homosexual sex, however, is not harmful. I'll spare you the details, but it works just fine: it's nothing like eating dirt or wearing dirty clothes.

You might cite statistics on, say, male homosexual sex and higher transmission rates of STD's. That would be irrelevant, though, because then you're objecting against immature promiscuity. Homosexuals that enter mature and earnest relationships are just as safe from STD's as their mature and responsible heterosexual counterparts. (Just nipping this potential argument in the bud, if you will)

Homosexuality carries harms because the anatomy isn't suited for that. It's so simple. They can use methods to decrease the dangers but still the risk is higher if you discard these methods because the anatomy still not suited. And the question is: Why was the anatomy and psychology suited in that brilliant manner? There must be a reason and an intention. You can argue the way you since it's your right but you can't change the truth that lies inside you and all other humans.

 

[Me Myself]

The sexual acts can have many swerves and abnormalities like those seeking violence during sex, children, buggary, etc... and still you can say it's a biological attraction but we say it's a disease as we know the normal. That normal that our bodies and psychology were built and stabilized upon.

The problem is that different psychis are built and stabilized upon different concepts that can work for them. I´ve met many homosexua l people recently and I can tell you the only suffering they´ve had that is related to their sexuality are the normal problems that arise in couples plus the things that come rom a society that doesn´t accept their ways (and the second would only be wrongufully atributed to homosexuality)

I speak from experience, not inference. I know there are people who suffered their homosexuaity, so what? We men suffer about girls all the time, girls suffer about boys too. If somebody suffers especially because of it´s kind of homosexuality this needs not be because of him being homosexual, it may very well be because of other contextual elements surrounding this alingment.

But from people I know very closely I do can tell you: it just doesn´t need to bring suffering.

Homosexuality carries harms because the anatomy isn't suited for that. It's so simple. They can use methods to decrease the dangers but still the risk is higher if you discard these methods because the anatomy still not suited. And the question is: Why was the anatomy and psychology suited in that brilliant manner? There must be a reason and an intention. You can argue the way you since it's your right but you can't change the truth that lies inside you and all other humans.

And that is exactly why many gays are gays. They don´t care they might get sick, so what? life is full of risks for everyone, love is worth it.

consenting monogamous homosexual relationships rarely have the disadvantages you might be thinking off. SPEcially when this are two women. (they don´t even have to go butt sex that is indeed somewhat more complicated in terms of health)

 

[Photonic]

The sexual acts can have many swerves and abnormalities like those seeking violence during sex, children, buggary, etc... and still you can say it's a biological attraction but we say it's a disease as we know the normal. That normal that our bodies and psychology were built and stabilized upon.

So you have the right to decide what is normal or not?

I would say Humans are very destabilized beings to begin with.

 

[Photonic]

Homosexuality carries harms because the anatomy isn't suited for that. It's so simple. They can use methods to decrease the dangers but still the risk is higher if you discard these methods because the anatomy still not suited. And the question is: Why was the anatomy and psychology suited in that brilliant manner? There must be a reason and an intention. You can argue the way you since it's your right but you can't change the truth that lies inside you and all other humans.

Why must you always assume there was a reason?

 

[Meow Mix]

The sexual acts can have many swerves and abnormalities like those seeking violence during sex, children, buggary, etc... and still you can say it's a biological attraction but we say it's a disease as we know the normal. That normal that our bodies and psychology were built and stabilized upon.

I guess you're entitled to believe as much. We'll probably never agree on this matter, but I'm not sure I ever expected that we would. I'm just thinking that there can be some middle ground. I'm normally not very sensitive about things, but there's nothing in human nature that's more sensitive than matters of love and the heart (figuratively speaking).

I think the point that I've been making is that I respect and support your right to hold any opinion about homosexuality that you like. My personal feelings are obviously involved in this discussion, so I think I've just been trying to say that it hurts in a way to have someone call the love that I share for another person cheap in some way; to call it diseased.

I've been trying to say that I get you might think of it that way. That doesn't mean you have to be unapologetically rude about it though. I'm just asking that you please consider people's feelings before you declare loudly that their love for one another is comparable to dirt and disease.

There's a difference between saying -- with tact and civility -- "I disapprove of homosexuality, I think that it's morally wrong" and saying "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured." Can you see that?

The first statement only expresses your disapproval of something. The second statement cheapens something that someone else finds dear and sacred -- their love for another person. I doubt you would like it very much if anyone made statements that insinuated your love for your wife (for instance) or for Allah was somehow cheap or dirty.

It's possible to feel strongly against something without just being blatantly rude in public about it, that's all that I'm saying. It feels weird for me to complain about this, again, because I'm rarely sensitive over words; but one thing that I doubt very many people could abide is to have the notion of their love spit on by people who don't even feel remorse for it.

There are more tactful ways to disapprove of homosexuality than to call it a disease or to question whether or not the love between homosexuals is genuine or not.

 

[Meow Mix]

Homosexuality carries harms because the anatomy isn't suited for that. It's so simple. They can use methods to decrease the dangers but still the risk is higher if you discard these methods because the anatomy still not suited. And the question is: Why was the anatomy and psychology suited in that brilliant manner? There must be a reason and an intention. You can argue the way you since it's your right but you can't change the truth that lies inside you and all other humans.

As I've already said, I don't think anyone is disputing the obvious nature of the co-dependent sexual organ structures.

It gets a little off topic unfortunately, but the answer to your objection is that body structures that are for some specific function don't always have to be for that function. Ears weren't made for iPod earphones, vocal chords weren't meant for singing, fingers weren't made for plucking guitar strings. I would use more sexual examples, but I'm trying to respect any sort of modesty you might have regarding such subjects.

Essentially, to argue that vaginas are obviously made for penises and that such is their only function, and that thus they should only each be "utilized" that way, is about as silly to me as suggesting that mouths are only for eating and that singing is some silly immoral thing that shouldn't be done (because obviously, our mouths are for eating biologically -- right?)

The point is that obvious survival function of body parts doesn't limit what they're used for by intelligent, sapient, sentient, reasoning beings. I also understand that this line of conversation will simply directly lead into an argument over evolution, so, whether or not you want to engage in such a conversation is up to you.

 

[Me Myself]

I guess you're entitled to believe as much. We'll probably never agree on this matter, but I'm not sure I ever expected that we would. I'm just thinking that there can be some middle ground. I'm normally not very sensitive about things, but there's nothing in human nature that's more sensitive than matters of love and the heart (figuratively speaking).

I think the point that I've been making is that I respect and support your right to hold any opinion about homosexuality that you like. My personal feelings are obviously involved in this discussion, so I think I've just been trying to say that it hurts in a way to have someone call the love that I share for another person cheap in some way; to call it diseased.

I've been trying to say that I get you might think of it that way. That doesn't mean you have to be unapologetically rude about it though. I'm just asking that you please consider people's feelings before you declare loudly that their love for one another is comparable to dirt and disease.

There's a difference between saying -- with tact and civility -- "I disapprove of homosexuality, I think that it's morally wrong" and saying "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured." Can you see that?

The first statement only expresses your disapproval of something. The second statement cheapens something that someone else finds dear and sacred -- their love for another person. I doubt you would like it very much if anyone made statements that insinuated your love for your wife (for instance) or for Allah was somehow cheap or dirty.

It's possible to feel strongly against something without just being blatantly rude in public about it, that's all that I'm saying. It feels weird for me to complain about this, again, because I'm rarely sensitive over words; but one thing that I doubt very many people could abide is to have the notion of their love spit on by people who don't even feel remorse for it.

There are more tactful ways to disapprove of homosexuality than to call it a disease or to question whether or not the love between homosexuals is genuine or not.

The problem is that his specific view says that "disease" is a very appropiate word to describe homosexuality.

I would completely disagree naturaly, and if it took to have a flu to be with my gf right now I wouldn´t dump her because I sneez a little , but the fact that he indeed thinks it is a disease should be enough for him to be "unpolite" enough to say it at least in a place like this where we are meant to talk about our actual beliefs.

 

[Sahar]

There's a difference between saying -- with tact and civility -- "I disapprove of homosexuality, I think that it's morally wrong" and saying "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured." Can you see that?

Yes, there is a difference because they deliver different meanings which can lead to different directions of discussion!! This is a debate about a certain sexual behavior and tendency, and characterizing it as a disease is not new nor surprising in these arguments, not to forget that it was viewed once as a mental illness by the Western schools of psychology and psychiatry. So classifying it as a disorder is expected by its opponents. Just like when you speak about necrophilia or fetishism, etc.
It's not only about disapproval but how Tarek or anyone else may view the issue. Describing any behavior as a disease doesn't necessarily mean that the person has strong feelings against it.

Moreover, when a person discusses his disapproval of something, he might need to express the reasons for his stance. This is what Tarek is doing.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem is that his specific view says that "disease" is a very appropiate word to describe homosexuality.

I would completely disagree naturaly, and if it took to have a flu to be with my gf right now I wouldn´t dump her because I sneez a little , but the fact that he indeed thinks it is a disease should be enough for him to be "unpolite" enough to say it at least in a place like this where we are meant to talk about our actual beliefs.

Yes, there is a difference because they deliver different meanings which can lead to different directions of discussion!! This is a debate about a certain sexual behavior and tendency, and characterizing it as a disease is not new nor surprising in these arguments, not to forget that it was viewed once as a mental illness by the Western schools of psychology and psychiatry. So classifying it as a disorder is expected by its opponents. Just like when you speak about necrophilia or fetishism, etc.
It's not only about disapproval but how Tarek or anyone else may view the issue. Describing any behavior as a disease doesn't necessarily mean that the person has strong feelings against it.

Moreover, when a person discusses his disapproval of something, he might need to express the reasons for his stance. This is what Tarek is doing.

I might have to push my personal reaction aside and agree this is probably the case if I want to be objective. It should be his or anyone's right to say they think it's a psychological disease, I guess. It's just hurtful on the deepest level to have your love for someone or something called into question as something dirty or profane.

I'll concede on my attempts to say someone shouldn't use such harsh language, but only in the context of conversations of the nature that occur on this forum.

I only ask that if you (general you) plan on calling someone's heartfelt love dirty, unclean, or somehow less than genuine, to remember your (general your) love for whatever you love and to consider how it might feel to you if someone called that dirty or inauthentic.

It can generate strong emotions to see or hear someone say that your feelings are less than you know they are.

But I think if I'm to be objective here that I have to concede that given the nature of the forum, I guess it's fair game to say some types of love between people is a disease if that's what a person really believes.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I guess you're entitled to believe as much. We'll probably never agree on this matter, but I'm not sure I ever expected that we would. I'm just thinking that there can be some middle ground. I'm normally not very sensitive about things, but there's nothing in human nature that's more sensitive than matters of love and the heart (figuratively speaking).

I think the point that I've been making is that I respect and support your right to hold any opinion about homosexuality that you like. My personal feelings are obviously involved in this discussion, so I think I've just been trying to say that it hurts in a way to have someone call the love that I share for another person cheap in some way; to call it diseased.

I've been trying to say that I get you might think of it that way. That doesn't mean you have to be unapologetically rude about it though. I'm just asking that you please consider people's feelings before you declare loudly that their love for one another is comparable to dirt and disease.

There's a difference between saying -- with tact and civility -- "I disapprove of homosexuality, I think that it's morally wrong" and saying "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured." Can you see that?

The first statement only expresses your disapproval of something. The second statement cheapens something that someone else finds dear and sacred -- their love for another person. I doubt you would like it very much if anyone made statements that insinuated your love for your wife (for instance) or for Allah was somehow cheap or dirty.

It's possible to feel strongly against something without just being blatantly rude in public about it, that's all that I'm saying. It feels weird for me to complain about this, again, because I'm rarely sensitive over words; but one thing that I doubt very many people could abide is to have the notion of their love spit on by people who don't even feel remorse for it.

There are more tactful ways to disapprove of homosexuality than to call it a disease or to question whether or not the love between homosexuals is genuine or not.

I don't hate your love for a certain person, I only don't agree with the way you express your love towards her. I also don't spit on anything. This is an argument regarding homosexuality and when you indulge into it you should keep your emotions somehow latent. I also indulge in threads that attack Islam and I already adjusted for this even before. I don't like hurting you at all and I know the distressing effect of my words and the words of those who are against your actions. However, all the conversations are distressing here whether we intend or not and we should all put this in our minds.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Yes, there is a difference because they deliver different meanings which can lead to different directions of discussion!! This is a debate about a certain sexual behavior and tendency, and characterizing it as a disease is not new nor surprising in these arguments, not to forget that it was viewed once as a mental illness by the Western schools of psychology and psychiatry. So classifying it as a disorder is expected by its opponents. Just like when you speak about necrophilia or fetishism, etc.
It's not only about disapproval but how Tarek or anyone else may view the issue. Describing any behavior as a disease doesn't necessarily mean that the person has strong feelings against it.

Moreover, when a person discusses his disapproval of something, he might need to express the reasons for his stance. This is what Tarek is doing.

Thaks Sahar, I already asserted before that I don't hate the girl nor her beloved person, I only see their way in expression not acceptable. I tended to described that act generally not personally but the issue was shfited away from its path. That's how things go on here, you choose a certain converstions so you must tolerate what happens.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I might have to push my personal reaction aside and agree this is probably the case if I want to be objective. It should be his or anyone's right to say they think it's a psychological disease, I guess. It's just hurtful on the deepest level to have your love for someone or something called into question as something dirty or profane.

I'll concede on my attempts to say someone shouldn't use such harsh language, but only in the context of conversations of the nature that occur on this forum.

I only ask that if you (general you) plan on calling someone's heartfelt love dirty, unclean, or somehow less than genuine, to remember your (general your) love for whatever you love and to consider how it might feel to you if someone called that dirty or inauthentic.

It can generate strong emotions to see or hear someone say that your feelings are less than you know they are.

But I think if I'm to be objective here that I have to concede that given the nature of the forum, I guess it's fair game to say some types of love between people is a disease if that's what a person really believes.

Sexual organs developed together at the same time and fully developed in a brilliant way and so intricate and complicated.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Sexual organs developed together at the same time and fully developed in a brilliant way and so intricate and complicated.

In addition, complementarity doesn't only occur in sexual organs but also in the whole bodies and psychology.

 

[Sahar]

I might have to push my personal reaction aside and agree this is probably the case if I want to be objective. It should be his or anyone's right to say they think it's a psychological disease, I guess. It's just hurtful on the deepest level to have your love for someone or something called into question as something dirty or profane.

We disagree on a lot of issues that can be emotional to us and touch our personal lives. For example, when we discuss "abortion" it can be emotional, but as long as the idea or the act is the concern of the discussion, then you can't blame your counterpart. I read many awful things about my religion which is my life, and I have many options of how I react to it ranging from replying to such posts to ignoring them, etc. and I realize this is the nature of this place and I can't help it.

As Tarek repeatedly said, we can love people without having sex with them. So again it's about certain sexual tendencies and practices. If love = sex to you, I guess it can't be helped.

 

[Sahar]

Thaks Sahar, I already asserted before that I don't hate the girl nor her beloved person, I only see their way in expression not acceptable. I tended to described that act generally not personally but the issue was shfited away from its path. That's how things go on here, you choose a certain converstions so you must tolerate what happens.

I agree Tarek, there is no place of hatred towards people here whether they were atheists, gays, etc. We might disagree on certain views, values and acts, but the persons are not the concern.

 

[tarekabdo12]

As Tarek repeatedly said, we can love people without having sex with them. So again it's about certain sexual tendencies and practices. If love = sex to you, I guess it can't be helped.

Yes, if biological needs urge sb to practice sex with a child, dead body, menstruating woman, anus, feet , etc....it's still considered abnormal. If sex = love so sex can be favored with any kind of person or non-human creatures.