Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Kent856]

The point I was responding to was "Therefore, each human is free to do as he/she wishes," which is incorrect.

Sorry my explanation was flawed hopefully to put it more precisely, I was trying to describe a system. The system has many parts i.e each person. Each person has free will and can choose whatever he or she wants to do. Now, say that for instance 80 people randomly choose to walk to the right, but 20 people randomly choose to walk to the left. (In a confined space ) which direction will the majority go? Most will go to the right. Perhaps some will struggle through the crowd and continue left, but not many. Point being, each person can do anything he or she wants as long as a majority of other people also want to.

Theres no need to argue as im not disagreeing with this system in any way Putting aside the existence of god, I would be part of that system too and probably fine about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know many would prefer that our Creator allow any conduct they choose to indulge in.

Most religions do have some sort of punishment brought upon those that do wrong. Wiccans, for example, believe they will know and endure the pain and suffering they caused others during their life before they pass to the next plane of existence (often called the Summer Lands), and then from there it's back to Earth they go to be reincarnated in another form to learn new experiences. Buddhists believe the "sum" of their Karma will determine their next form of existence, or if they are freed from the cycle of life-death-rebirth. Most people actually do not prefer a deity that allows for any conduct we can think of, but many do not buy into the notion of eternal damnation because we are, afterall, human and subject to a bombardment of variables and factors that lead us to certain lifestyles, world views, and even religious beliefs.

Reason, evidence, critical thinking, rationality, cognition, empathy.

Having Asperger's, I am "empathy impaired," and I don't even need it to know what is right or wrong, or to realize that cooperation and getting along with others promotes a healthy society.

 

[Father Heathen]

If the world we live in is the result of reason, critical thinking, rationality, and empathy, I say they have failed miserably. "wisdom is proved righteous by its works (or its results).” (Matthew 11:19)

Our current world definitely isn't the result of reason, critical thinking, rationality, and empathy. However, it isn't totally devoid of these things like it was during the dark ages, when religion ruled and the world was much worse off.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know many would prefer that our Creator allow any conduct they choose to indulge in. I believe we are accountable to God and that he rightly deserves our obedience and worship. It would be unloving for Jehovah to permit the evil and violence that fills the earth today to continue indefinitely, IMO. God's justice, wisdom, and love will move him to end wickedness and those who cause it, according to the Bible (Psalms 37:10,11)

It doesn't have to come down to nonsensical rules vs. no rules, nor extremely disproportionate consequences vs. no consequences. No one is making that argument. If you thought torturing people to death for littering would be an excessive punishment, does that mean you condone the act of littering? Or let's say that eating apples was made illegal, would it mean that you desire a lawless world if you thought this law was irrational and unjust?

 

[rusra02]

It doesn't have to come down to nonsensical rules vs. no rules, nor extremely disproportionate consequences vs. no consequences. No one is making that argument. If you thought torturing people to death for littering would be an excessive punishment, does that mean you condone the act of littering? Or let's say that eating apples was made illegal, would it mean that you desire a lawless world if you thought this law was irrational and unjust?

Your point is well taken. I believe all of God's laws are for our benefit and lasting happiness. This is what you would expect from a loving God.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your point is well taken. I believe all of God's laws are for our benefit and lasting happiness. This is what you would expect from a loving God.

Explain how stoning someone to death for wearing mixed fabrics is integral to my happiness?

 

[McBell]

I think you will find many professed "Christian" churches do not consider the Bible to be God's inspired Word, and certainly not the authority for conduct and belief.

I think you will find that I will point out when you try to dodge a question.

 

[McBell]

If the world we live in is the result of reason, critical thinking, rationality, and empathy, I say they have failed miserably. "wisdom is proved righteous by its works (or its results).” (Matthew 11:19)

Do you not realize how bad you make your creator god look with the above quoted post?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Your point is well taken. I believe all of God's laws are for our benefit and lasting happiness. This is what you would expect from a loving God.

Explain how forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is integral to lasting happiness.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes, sex is one of the natural needs of humans. Islam and reason acknowledge this fact. Islam also does not prohibit that for Islamic clerics, because they are also human, so that need to sex.

That's a noticeable improvement on the likes of Catholicism. Seriously, celibate clergy? Whose brilliant idea was that?

But, we as rational beings should reply to this need of us in any way?

I believe that there is a rational reply to this inner need, i.e., sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, and as I mentioned, if you think about the nature of the body of men and women, you can understand that men are for women and vise versa.

Again, you're using the 'sex is for reproduction' argument. Yet elsewhere you've already established there are valid reasons besides reproduction to engage in sex.

So, those old people who indulge in sex, are doing a rational manner, which is sexual intercourse between men and women, for other reasons, rather than reproducing. They did it when they were young, for maintaining generation and also other reasons. Then, they are continuing that doing in old ages because of its other reasons.

You've decided that it's rational to engage in sex for, say, pleasure, but only when a man & woman do so. Why is that? Can you give a reason without either repeating yourself or falling back on special pleading i.e. 'because my holy book says so' or circular reasoning?

Using the beliefs of a man who lived thousands of years ago in a world where people understood significantly less about sexuality, psychology & psychiatry than we do now as justification for repressing displays of love and mutual affection is decidedly irrational. Not only that, but to punish people simply for being honest about who they are (i.e. gay, even if they've not engaged in gay sex) is barbaric. It also implies that Allah made mistakes when he created people which would be rather heretical, wouldn't you say? We've learned so much about ourselves as a species since then that it would be foolish not to utilise that knowledge. We've learned that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' as some claim it to be (usually while worshipping a god who exists outside the boundaries of nature, ironically) and is not a mental disorder.

There's no rational basis for assuming your beliefs about sexuality are correct - particularly when they stem from an age when people were less knowledgeable than they are now.

 

[Skwim]

Your point is well taken. I believe all of God's laws are for our benefit and lasting happiness. This is what you would expect from a loving God.

So whose benefit and happiness was god thinking of when he censured homosexual acts? And how would this benefit them? Or to bring it closer to home; how do you benefit and derive lasting happiness from god's law against homosexual acts?


.

 

[SomeRandom]

I honestly don't know another example and way to describe it other than above. Like your cancer example, I have Epilepsy (seizure disorder). Seizures are perfectly nature. When the neurons go off spontaneously, eventually it gets back on it's course. However, it causes unhealthy affects for the brain if one has a seizure too long (from unconsciousness, stroke, or death) or two little but for many many years (eventually deforming the brain-as per my case but I had the big ones too so it was a double wammy). That's what I consider unnatural or maybe unhealthy? not because the neurons go off track but because the body "isn't supposed" to do that.

Likewise with cancer. We develop cancer (if I'm getting my medical info correct) when what is it, the our blood cells or white blood cells stop splitting as usual. It causes ill affects after awhile. It doesn't go on track, unfortunately; and, I'd say it's unnatural for the body because of it's affects that the body (like seizures) are not set or created to make. If that be the case, everyone would have seizures and cancer.

I can't compare to much with male/male actions because it doesn't cause ill affects like cancer and seizures do. Unlike cancer and seizures that may develop without cause or with ill cause say get hit in the head (eventually causes seizures) cant think of a cancer example, male/male actions don't have those motivations (unless someone is getting abused or rapped.)

But its like cancer and seizures that are not made for the body to just automatic do, or else everyone would develop cancer and seizures, likewise with specific actions between two males. It has nothing to do with why (or the cause of the cancer/seizures) nor what's the meaning (love or lust or is it leukemia/is it psychomoto or gram mal seizures), it's just that action, however short or long lived, is not where and how the body is made to perform (like seizures aren't made for the brain to make the healthy neurons go haywire).

Doctors judge seizures and say what's unhealthy (not normal) and what's not all the time. In male/male actions I only see the religious do that. It does't bother me in that way at all. My other example with the toys at Toys R Us-I feel the same way.

Not singling males here and it has nothing to do with homosexuality, just the action.



Weird. Well, regardless of why and what for, my point still applies above. However, I learned something new.

Unhealthy yes unnatural no. Our bodies are flawed and things like "made for this" and "made for that" simply doesn't add up in biology.
I mean look at Downs Syndrome. That is just a side effect of genetics really. One cannot call it unnatural and to suggest that they are because our "bodies aren't supposed to be X" is nothing more than deifying nature and indeed ourselves.
Mother Nature isn't some namby pamby wishy washy flower power princess. She's a cruel mistress. Nature cares not for how we think our bodies should behave. It will do it's thing, either beneficial or detrimental.
Illnesses are completely natural and work exactly how they're supposed to. Exploiting our weaknesses or causing them. Our bodies are "supposed to work like that" because illnesses exist. They wouldn't be able to affect us otherwise.
Do illnesses suck? Oh absolutely! But ill effects or not our body is absolutely "supposed to be like that" That's the unfortunate thing about being a part of nature. We are at it's whims and mercy.
****ty I know. I have seen cancer first hand. But I can't blame it on something "unnatural."

And as I've said the male G Spot is on the inside of the anatomy. It's located just inside the anus, like literally. So your claim that the male body "isn't supposed to support male to male intercourse" actually flies in the face of Biological knowledge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I reas all your post. This got me:

One cannot call it unnatural and to suggest that they are because our "bodies aren't supposed to be X" is nothing more than deifying nature.

Deify nature? I dont understand how that connects.

Its natural that my neurons go haywire sometimes because the brain does silly things. Its unhealthy given the affects causing sezuires. I guess Im using not natural for unhealthy. Then that wouldnt make sense given male/male i tercourse. Cant see how that relates to cancer, down syndrome, and seizures.

And as I've said the male G Spot is on the inside of the anatomy. It's located just inside the anus, like literally. So your claim that the male body "isn't supposed to be like that" flies in the face of Biological knowledge.

It's natural to have the senation from whatever action is performed.

Its unnatural by "some ways" of How that reaction came about.

Not talking about the result (sensation) or meaning of it (doing It because of commitment), just the physical action itself. Not talking about right or wrong. Not ethics.

I can put food in my nustrils because they have holes just as my mouth and ear canal. If it makes me happy to put food in my nostrils and try to sniff it down my throat, I cant say thats wrong just odd. What I can say is that food doesnt get to the right place without ill affects if you are eating food (no pun) that way. Its not natural (or not healthy?). We put food in our mouths (unless feed by IV).

Noy saying its wrong. Not saying that the person who "eats" that way, his happyiness from that action is unhealthy, just saying the action itself.

There are a lot of examples. Male/male i tercourse isnt an exclusion from these examples no more than my going down to the local backstore to buy toys. I dont agree with it. May I should say its unhealthy.

People like it. Its not wrong. The feelings are not unnatura. Talking about the actions

 

[mojtaba]

Yeah, which have nothing to do with a penis in the vagina or reproduction, so you've kind of defeated your own argument.

No. You are not right.

I give you an example,

Think about a person who has a disorder and likes to eat soil and mud(~ homosexuality). But he can not eat meat(~ those who do not enjoy vaginal penetration and who cannot orgasm from it.). Finally, he does not have any problem with vegetables and likes to eat them(~enjoining from other sexual manners with the husband).
According to the reason, he shouldn't eat mud, while he likes to do, and because he can not eat meat, he should eat vegetables to reply to his inner need, i.e., the need to eat.

Have you got the point or it needs to more elaboration?

 

[VioletVortex]

Considering the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, I don't see why it should be wrong for any other beings.

 

[mojtaba]

You've decided that it's rational to engage in sex for, say, pleasure, but only when a man & woman do so. Why is that? Can you give a reason without either repeating yourself or falling back on special pleading i.e. 'because my holy book says so' or circular reasoning?

Using the beliefs of a man who lived thousands of years ago in a world where people understood significantly less about sexuality, psychology & psychiatry than we do now as justification for repressing displays of love and mutual affection is decidedly irrational. Not only that, but to punish people simply for being honest about who they are (i.e. gay, even if they've not engaged in gay sex) is barbaric. It also implies that Allah made mistakes when he created people which would be rather heretical, wouldn't you say? We've learned so much about ourselves as a species since then that it would be foolish not to utilise that knowledge. We've learned that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' as some claim it to be (usually while worshipping a god who exists outside the boundaries of nature, ironically) and is not a mental disorder.

There's no rational basis for assuming your beliefs about sexuality are correct - particularly when they stem from an age when people were less knowledgeable than they are now.

First I should say that I am an educated Muslim and I study molecular cell biology in one of the best Tehran's universities.

Regardless of believing in evolution or not, according to evolution theory, because people needed to reproduce for maintaining their generation and so because the sexual intercourse between men and women had a good benefit, or let us say the most important benefit for the developmental competence, i.e. maintaining the generation, so the sexual pleasure preserved in humans and natural selection did not eliminate it.

Indeed, sexual pleasure is created through evolution to force the creatures to mate and save their generation. So, the base for embedding of sexual pleasure in humans was the saving of the generation of the species. But humans forget this point and think that sexual pleasure is the base and like to use from any ways to make themselves pleasure.

Anyway, mating for sexual pleasure is not prohibited in Islam, but one of the its ways, i.e. homosexuality has been prohibited. Also, it should be said that in Islam, sexual pleasure is not the base. Indeed, it is in one hand for reproducing, and in another hand, for those who do not want or can't reproduce, is for making fresh their minds and having a life with more energy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. You are not right.

I give you an example,

Think about a person who has a disorder and likes to eat soil and mud(~ homosexuality). But he can not eat meat(~ those who do not enjoy vaginal penetration and who cannot orgasm from it.). Finally, he does not have any problem with vegetables and likes to eat them(~enjoining from other sexual manners with the husband).
According to the reason, he shouldn't eat mud, while he likes to do, and because he can not eat meat, he should eat vegetables to reply to his inner need, i.e., the need to eat.

Have you got the point or it needs to more elaboration?

No, that doesn't make a bit of sense and doesn't address what I said at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Think about a person who has a disorder and likes to eat soil and mud(~ homosexuality). But he can not eat meat(~ those who do not enjoy vaginal penetration and who cannot orgasm from it.). Finally, he does not have any problem with vegetables and likes to eat them(~enjoining from other sexual manners with the husband).

That's nothing more than a straw man and a very poor analogy. Small children are known for eating mud and sand (and really just about anything they can grasp and put in their mouths), and that just means they are normal children. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with those who don't like eating meat but like eating vegetables.

 

[mojtaba]

A question,

Are men who love their boy friends and say this to them( say them that I love you ) and when they meet their boy friends kiss and hug them without lustful and ill intentions, called gay?

 

[mojtaba]

That's nothing more than a straw man and a very poor analogy. Small children are known for eating mud and sand (and really just about anything they can grasp and put in their mouths), and that just means they are normal children.

We are talking about adults. Also, according to a theory or hypothesis, childern do that to sense their environment, not to eat mud.
Also, when they eat soil, their parents do not let them continue and prevent them.

There is also absolutely nothing wrong with those who don't like eating meat but like eating vegetables.

I said that, those who can not eat meat..., not those who do not like eating meat.