Why does God care about Homosexuality?

[MoonWater]

I don't think you truly understand my stand, or the Islamic stand, on promiscuity, marriage and homosexuality. Let me explain, as I have done before...

First off, the Islamic Concept:

Men can only marry and have conjugal relations with women. They are not allowed to intermingle freely, as this can lead to pre-marital complications. They are advised to be chaste before marriage, keep their eyes bowed in front of the opposite sex, and generally try not be tempted to commit adultery or fornication. That's it in a nutshell. Now...

Islam's View on Current Affairs of Sexuality

In Western society, Islam condemns ANY KIND of pre-marital relationship with someone of the opposite sex that is based on sexual attraction.

In many societies these days, people routinely have sex outside of marriage, meaning before marriage, with any number of boy/girlfriends. This, in the eyes of Islam, is promiscuity, regardless of whether it is hetero or homosexual in nature. As you can well imagine, having multiple partners increases the chance of contracting STD's and AIDS, as most people do have over their lifetime. So, your view of married couples getting STD's is still from this concept of having partners before marriage; promiscuity in the eyes of Islam. In Islam, this problem does not arise, as premarital sexual relations, even close relations b/w members of the opposite sex who are strangers, is very heavily discouraged and taught against.

The Cure to AIDS and STD's Islam Proposes

Now, this is a sensitive topic. If every newborn or virgin person were to suddenly practice the Islamic concept of relationships b/w men and women, these people would never have to worry about STD's and AIDS if they only married each other. The ideal, or close to it, Islamic solution. the spread of STD's and AIDS would drop very significantly. But that only covers virgins.

About those already infected, this is where I say that more research has to be done. If these people also followed Islamic Law, and settled down, no adultery, no fornication, the level of new infections would also significantly drop. In the meantime, we would focus on a cure for their ailments.

And you don't seem to understand my point. Even if you are a virgin when you get married you can still have or get an STD by getting it from your parents, dirty needles, botched blood transfussion... it's less likely but you can still get it. I believe with AIDS there's about a 50% chance of an infected person passing it on to their child(though I'd have to look it up to be sure). If everyone got married before having sex and remained faithful to their partner then those who had an STD would still pass it on to their partner and it could likely be passed on to any children they had. In fact it is highly likely that the STD would evolve to make itself more likely to be transmitted between mother and child. So marriage might slow the disease down but it would not stop it.

 

[MoonWater]

I answered this previously as well. Since God is not a human, why would he care about us at all? The answer is very simple. God loves us as a mother loves a child. If you see a child trying to put his hand in the fire, would you not try to stop it. Likewise, if you see humanity trying to do something that would harm it, would you not try to stop it?

God only ever does anything, or commands us to do things, that are for our own benefit. In Islam, the teaching given by the Promised Messiah is that of all the attributes of God, one overshadows the rest: Al-Araheem, which is, the Merciful. So, even when God is punishing us, he does it out of his love, just as when a mother punishes a child, she does not do it because she hates the child, but she wants to teach the child something because she loves it. God is the same. Now, divine punishment vs. the natural laws in the universe, namely cause and effect (which are also created by God)...is for another thread.

That does not answer the question because homosexuality doesn't harm people. And just because something can harm people doesn't mean it's immoral. Walking outside can cause you to get hurt, breathing could cause you to get sick. Does that make these things wrong. No. So you have yet to explain why God would be against homosexuality and have yet to prove that he even is against it.

 

[MoonWater]

I respectfully disagree. I know many unmarried couples gay and straight who have no problems being monogamous.

That's why in my original post on this I said "many(not all, probably not even most)". I know that many have no trouble being monogomous. My aunt and uncle have been together for about 30 years and only got married officially a couple years ago.

 

[Autodidact]

I admit, there seems to be very little hard data about the rate of STD's and AIDS in lesbian couples, except the observation that disease seems to be less prevalent among lesbian partners. Therefore, without hard data, your opinion that lesbians have it safest is just that: just an opinion. But like I said, whatever the actual numbers be, they fall short of heterosexual couples who don't practice pre-marital sex.

Well, here's what the CDC says:

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database.
A study of more than 1 million female blood donors found no HIV-infected women whose only risk factor was sex with women.
Studies from HIV serosurveys among women attending sexually transmitted disease clinics and women's health clinics also suggest that HIV infection in lesbian and bisexual women is closely associated with injection drug use or to sexual contact with men at increased risk for HIV infection. These data do not exclude the possibility of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV, but they do indicate that it is rare.

So I think it's a little more than just my opinion. I try to be careful with my factual allegations. Similarly, monogamous lesbian couples are at a lower risk than promiscuous heterosexual couples, but how is that comparison relevant to the discussion?

I don't believe that lesbians overall have a higher number of sexual partners than heterosexuals, will see if I can find any research onit.

 

[Bathsheba]

You seem to be picking at straws here. Argue the claim at hand, which is homosexuality in western society, about which you gave a graph and statistics yourself. Stop trying to move the argument over to other nations about which, I suspect you know, there is little hard data.

Allah on a hot tin roof! You are being perverse. What the heck are you talking about, "move the argument over to other nations"?

You said, "HIV is mainly spread through people who are promiscuous, with the highest concentration being in homosexuals."

WRONG WRONG WRONG

The highest concentration is among heterosexuals. Read the data on African countries where HIV/AIDS has the greatest numbers.

"little hard data"??? wow, you are really something

It is totally impressive how you work and spin so hard to keep your bigotry alive.

 

[goraya15]

And you don't seem to understand my point. Even if you are a virgin when you get married you can still have or get an STD by getting it from your parents, dirty needles, botched blood transfussion... it's less likely but you can still get it. I believe with AIDS there's about a 50% chance of an infected person passing it on to their child(though I'd have to look it up to be sure). If everyone got married before having sex and remained faithful to their partner then those who had an STD would still pass it on to their partner and it could likely be passed on to any children they had. In fact it is highly likely that the STD would evolve to make itself more likely to be transmitted between mother and child. So marriage might slow the disease down but it would not stop it.

If everyone practiced the concept of no premarital sex, and only indulged in sexual behaviour with their spouses, then there is practically ZERO CHANCE of contracting an STD from sexual behaviour. On the other hand, it is still true that you can get an STD from sharing needles, blood fusions, etc. The

The fact of the matter is, I can not think of ANY complete, religious solution to the problem of STD's except in Islam. I don't say this as a Muslim (even though I am one), but genuinely from my heart, based on everything else proposed.
Islam promotes no premarital sex. STD's spreading from promiscuity stopped.
Islam says to abstain from anything that is addicting. STD's from sharing needles stopped.
Islam encourages overall hygiene much more then any other teaching I've come across. Stops birth of viruses and harmful bacterial strains.

Now, about the mother to child transfer...as far as I know, only HIV can be transferred in this way. I can't find stats for this, but I believe the life expectancy of children born with HIV is very low, before they are able to reproduce, especially in poorer countries. So the concept of the virus mutating to exploit the child transference issue is very unlikely. The children would die before they could reproduce, and the virus with them. But this is not the way to "solve the problem" of AIDS in children. A cure should be found, as no child deserves to die for the ignorance of their parents, and the parents themselves should not be condemned as well because they didn't know any better in most cases.

I guess humanity, human compassion and wellness, should be the overall umbrella under which we base all our arguments and debates. Something I think that we should be reminded of every once and again...

 

[goraya15]

That does not answer the question because homosexuality doesn't harm people. And just because something can harm people doesn't mean it's immoral. Walking outside can cause you to get hurt, breathing could cause you to get sick. Does that make these things wrong. No. So you have yet to explain why God would be against homosexuality and have yet to prove that he even is against it.

You have asked me a question that forces me to respond from my religion of Islam. God is against homosexuality for a number of reasons. First of all, he is against it, as proven in the Qur'an, when it says God pretty much destroyed the people of Lot, whose main vice was homosexuality and overall sexual depravity.
Secondly, God is against homosexuality becauase:

1. It is against our biological selves, meaning, it serves no useful purpose biologically, you could say it is against nature. And God tells us to avoid all that is vain.

2. As is the point of this thread, I claim that it promotes/spreads disease. Hotly debated, and one you disagree with, but it is a logical point.

3. The main point of our existence is to establish a relationship with God and attempt to raise ourselves spiritually, eventually taking on some colours of God, meaning we adopt some of his attributes in the limited way we can (merciful, gracious, etc.). Homosexuality takes us away from attaining nearness to God, as God says that communion b/w man and women is a holy thing, meant to bring them closer together and to God, while homosexuality does the opposite.

The last claim hits a sensitive nerve, I would think. But I think that it is a valid claim, as I don't believe that any, or a very a small number, of homosexuals truly believe in God and try to foster a closer relationship with him. Tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[goraya15]

Allah on a hot tin roof! You are being perverse. What the heck are you talking about, "move the argument over to other nations"?

I'm saying you gave statistics about aids in America then accused me of not showing the bigger picture when I did the same in support of my argument. Nothing perverse, just pointing out that if you initiate the argument by using stats about america, don't expect me to show you global statistics in response.

You said, "HIV is mainly spread through people who are promiscuous, with the highest concentration being in homosexuals."

WRONG WRONG WRONG

The highest concentration is among heterosexuals. Read the data on African countries where HIV/AIDS has the greatest numbers.

"little hard data"??? wow, you are really something

OH...so we want to move onto the continent of Africa now do we? Fine by me, if you don't want to mention the America's anymore, which was where all our previous arguments were based on.

I am sorry if I cannot find any hard data about the prevalence of homosexuality and the AIDS virus in relation to that demographic among the continent of Africa. Maybe it's a hit against me research skills, but that's the truth.

Perhaps you, using REAL DATA, could put my research skills to shame. But alas, you merely imperiously say I am wrong and tell me to read the all too prevalent data on this issue. I implore you to point me in the right direction, if you would be so kind.:help:

It is totally impressive how you work and spin so hard to keep your bigotry alive.

Hey hey hey...no need for any personal shots. If you can't defend your view, don't resort to it, it only cheapens both you and your view on the subject.

 

[Bathsheba]

I'm saying you gave statistics about aids in America then accused me of not showing the bigger picture when I did the same in support of my argument. Nothing perverse, just pointing out that if you initiate the argument by using stats about america, don't expect me to show you global statistics in response.

OH...so we want to move onto the continent of Africa now do we? Fine by me, if you don't want to mention the America's anymore, which was where all our previous arguments were based on.

I am sorry if I cannot find any hard data about the prevalence of homosexuality and the AIDS virus in relation to that demographic among the continent of Africa. Maybe it's a hit against me research skills, but that's the truth.

Perhaps you, using REAL DATA, could put my research skills to shame. But alas, you merely imperiously say I am wrong and tell me to read the all too prevalent data on this issue. I implore you to point me in the right direction, if you would be so kind.:help:

Hey hey hey...no need for any personal shots. If you can't defend your view, don't resort to it, it only cheapens both you and your view on the subject.

It seems we continue to just talk past each other. I have from the start been talking about the numbers for the world wide HIV/AIDS pandemic. The first link I put up talked about world wide numbers. I will put it before you AGAIN!

Global Aids Pandemic and Medical Students - HIV Demographics

If you want to continue to believe homosexuals are the largest population transmiting the virus then fine, knock yourself out.

By the way, Islam is not the issue in terms of our discussion. I am challenging you, not Islam. In my opinion, you are responsible for your oppressive views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If homosexuality is a biological and genetic fact, by Darwin's theory of natural selection, then it's a recessive gene that must die out one way or the other. Why? Because you can't procreate naturally, and therefore can't survive.

Incorrect, and I've pointed this out before (though not in this thread, IMO): on average, you share just as much DNA with a sibling as you would with your own child - 50%. Protecting and providing for two of your nieces or nephews gets just as many traits on to the next generation as protecting one of your direct offspring would. Ensuring that blood relatives live to procreate themselves is a strategy that can be used with great success. If it wasn't viable, worker bees (i.e. non-breeding sister bees of a single breeding queen bee) would have died out long ago.

There's a quote attributed to biologist J.D.S. Haldane that's stuck with me: "I would gladly lay down my life for two siblings or eight cousins."

Yes, some individuals do have to have the offspring for the non-breeding individuals to protect and nourish, but as long as enough people are having kids, there's no particular reason why you must have kids yourself to get your genes to the next generation.

 

[Darkness]

1. It is against our biological selves, meaning, it serves no useful purpose biologically, you could say it is against nature. And God tells us to avoid all that is vain.

Wrong... it provides pleasure.

2. As is the point of this thread, I claim that it promotes/spreads disease. Hotly debated, and one you disagree with, but it is a logical point.

Driving cars promotes death.

3. The main point of our existence is to establish a relationship with God and attempt to raise ourselves spiritually, eventually taking on some colours of God, meaning we adopt some of his attributes in the limited way we can (merciful, gracious, etc.). Homosexuality takes us away from attaining nearness to God, as God says that communion b/w man and women is a holy thing, meant to bring them closer together and to God, while homosexuality does the opposite.

Existence Proceeds Essence

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Wow, really long thread. Good job Darkness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Secondly, if lesbians practiced matrimony only sex, then there would be no children for the propogation of the specied, and humanity would die out. Artificial insemination would just cause the social fabric of people as we know it to rip apart. All in all, an unfeasible idea, especially given the fact that I don't think any lesbian to date has ever waited till marriage to "do the deed", so to speak. [/FONT]

Please direct your attention to your statement that I've bolded. This could only possibly be true if every woman was a lesbian. In terms of strict biology alone, all same-sex marriage would do would allow people who are non-breeding now without the benefit of certain protections of law to still be non-breeding with the benefit of certain protections of law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Politically speaking, homosexuals should have equal rights. The issue of Choice is not a proven fact however. I am sure that it is not a choice for some folks, but when I see fathers and mothers leave a straight relationship and enter a gay one, I believe they made a conscious choice somewhere there OK?

Funny... I believe the same thing when I see people find religion, or convert between one religion and another.

This next part isn't specifically addressed to Rev. Rick, but to anyone who feels like responding:

Hypothetically, if it were to be found that homosexuality was a "choice", how do you think that should be reflected in individuals' attitudes and society's laws?

Given that religion is a choice by any way you want to define it, how should this fact be reflected in attitudes and laws as well? What about political affiliation? That's certainly a choice.

If you believe that homosexuality being a choice would mean that, to you, homosexuals should not be free to act as they want, would you also say that people should not be free to exercise freedom of religion or politics? If you draw a distinction between homosexuality and the vast spectrum of other "choices", why?

If sexual orientation is a choice, then why not give it the same latitude that is given to freedom of religion, for example?

 

[Smoke]

The day you receive your full rights and privileges will not be a sad day for me at all. :no:

I hope you can also understand that while I will be glad for you, I just cannot condone or support it because of my religious beliefs.

I understand that. I hope you understand that's the reason I hate your religion -- because it causes people to think they're doing something virtuous by harming others.

It's supposed to be the sex that's a sin, isn't it? You're not preventing that. We had sex even when it was a felony in this state. What you're doing is helping prevent me from making choices about my own life and property. If one of us dies, even if we have wills properly drawn up, it's easier for our relatives to challenge our wills, because they're our next of kin under the law, and we're legal strangers. If one of us is in the hospital, the other doesn't have the right to visit him, and even if we have drawn up legal documents giving the other medical power of attorney and hospital visitation rights, it's a crapshoot whether those documents will be honored by hospital staff or "next of kin." In some states, it's not even certain if it's legal to honor them. If one of us died abroad, the U.S. consulate wouldn't even notify the other one; they'd notify our parents or siblings. I can draw up legal papers designating John to handle the disposition of my remains, and even make prior arrangements, but if my parents or my brother decided they wanted my remains placed in the family plot, that's likely what would happen. When we bought our house, and when we refinanced it, we had to make separate loan applications each time, because we're "single."

I could go on and on; there are around 1400 legal rights that are denied to us because we can't legally marry. None of those could possibly be construed as a "sin" under anybody's religion. Nobody is stopping us from "sinning." What you're doing is saying that because we're sinners in the eyes of your religion, we must be prevented from ordering our personal and financial affairs as we wish and from protecting our assets and the life we've built together. I can't understand for the life of me how your religion can hold that such vindictiveness serves God, but I understand that it does.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I understand that. I hope you understand that's the reason I hate your religion -- because it causes people to think they're doing something virtuous by harming others.

I hate that, too. However, I don't see how that specific post by Rick can be construed as hurting anyone.

 

[Bathsheba]

I hate that, too. However, I don't see how that specific post by Rick can be construed as hurting anyone.

Think of it as a small bone in the body of christ. (that may have been far to cryptic)

I understand why you think Ricks post isn't hurting anyone.

IMO any speech which condones intolerance is part of the problem. We probably differ on the interpretation of that speech.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Think of it as a small bone in the body of christ. (that may have been far to cryptic)

I understand why you think Ricks post isn't hurting anyone.

IMO any speech which condones intolerance is part of the problem. We probably differ on the interpretation of that speech.

I don't see how a person saying that they would tolerate a behavior (by rejoicing that the other person has the freedom to do it) that they personally do not condone can be misrepresented as (a) harm or (b) "condoning" intolerance.

 

[Smoke]

I admit, there seems to be very little hard data about the rate of STD's and AIDS in lesbian couples, except the observation that disease seems to be less prevalent among lesbian partners. Therefore, without hard data, your opinion that lesbians have it safest is just that: just an opinion.

Actually, there are plenty of hard data, and for a woman, it's far safer to have sex with a woman than a man. Some STDs can be transmitted, and fairly easily, from woman to woman, but the risk is usually lower and in the case of many diseases virtually non-existent. On the other hand, there is no STD that can't be transmitted from a man to a woman, and usually quite easily.

But like I said, whatever the actual numbers be, they fall short of heterosexual couples who don't practice pre-marital sex.

However, a majority of American heterosexuals engage in pre-marital sex, so couples who reach their wedding nights with both remaining virgins are relatively few. Even when married, there's no guarantee of protection. No matter how monogamous a heterosexual might be, his or her protection from STDs depends on the conduct of his or her partner. About a quarter of American men and about a seventh of American women admit to having extra-marital sexual relationships, and you can be certain that more have done it than admit to it. For the majority of Americans, heterosexuality doesn't offer the vaunted protection.

If sexual conduct should be decided on the basis of risk of STDs, then obviously the best thing is to remain a virgin your entire life. The best thing to do would be to renounce Islam, convert to Roman Catholicism, and send your daughters to a convent at an early age.

 

[Smoke]

I hate that, too. However, I don't see how that specific post by Rick can be construed as hurting anyone.

It's not the post, it's the attitude that's fostered by Christianity and some other religions, that you can't possibly condone equal rights for homosexuals. It causes otherwise decent Christians to vote for anti-LGBT referenda and against referenda that would give us equality, because they think they owe it to God to approve of our having limited civil rights.