Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
.InshAllah.

Why homosexuality isn't great

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, abuhaydar said:

that is the purpose of religion. religion is literally a guide to what is right and wrong as set by the creator. 

you don't have a religion so you see nothing wrong.

That second line is not correct - I judge the wrongness of something by the harm it does. Of course there will be cases in which it is hard to weigh benefits against harm but it's a general principle that works most of the time. Saving orphans doesn't harm anyone except maybe someone that wants to abuse orphans. Rape harms.

17 minutes ago, abuhaydar said:

this means there is no justice... a man who raped people will have the same fate as a man who saved orphans... 

that is not the reality.. God is just and everyone will get what he deserved

For me justice has to come in this world if it is to come at all. And many do escape justice and many reap rewards by doing harm, such is our animal nature unfortunately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Klanky said:

- I judge the wrongness of something by the harm it does

actually everything that is haram(forbidden) in islam, is harmful to us. otherwise there would be no reason to forbid it. God didnt just tell us to not eat pork or drink alcohol for no reason. they are both harmful, therefore haram.

the problem with this is that we are limited in knowledge as to what harms us and what doesnt...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Klanky said:

For me justice has to come in this world if it is to come at all. And many do escape justice and many reap rewards by doing harm, such is our animal nature unfortunately. 

who brings it? it actually comes in both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, abuhaydar said:

who brings it? it actually comes in both

Well, we depend on our own capacity for justice

21 minutes ago, abuhaydar said:

actually everything that is haram(forbidden) in islam, is harmful to us. otherwise there would be no reason to forbid it. God didnt just tell us to not eat pork or drink alcohol for no reason. they are both harmful, therefore haram.

the problem with this is that we are limited in knowledge as to what harms us and what doesnt...

 

Yes, this is an unbridgeable difference of opinion between Muslims and non-Muslims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Klanky said:

I'm not really sure because I don't know what makes it immoral and you don't seem to be able to tell me! Is revulsion all that is required to classify something immoral? Is a societal taboo against something enough? I used to find fish revolting but now I eat it all the time. 

For me when it is against religious values this is already immoral. When also these kind of relations lead to dangerous stuff when sex is involved this is even more immoral. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Klanky said:

For me justice has to come in this world if it is to come at all. And many do escape justice and many reap rewards by doing harm, such is our animal nature unfortunately. 

quran 16:30

To the righteous (when) it is said, "What is it that your Lord has revealed?" they say, "All that is good." To those who do good, there is good in this world, and the Home of the Hereafter is even better and excellent indeed is the Home of the righteous

the battle is between your inner human and inner animal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here has made a clear case for why homosexuality, or its existence, are necessarily harmful to say...humanity.

I grew up around homosexuals. Whether it was in grade school or college. Even in post college years as well. But never have they...made life challenging in anyway.

America at large is fine as well. Undmployment is down, the economy is improving. Yes Trump is in office, but gays are not his voting base, so they are not to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iCambrian said:

You said that we would see why, over the next decade. But we have already been in this environment of gays existing in the public eye for a decade already.

What event do you think we should start the 10 year clock to doomsday at?

I believe Klanky is being honest about his confusion with morality. He's not going to get any help from the "democratic" society, and he's not looking for Cuz God said.  

We've been through the 60's and everybody knows at least one love child. Normally they were named Sunshine, Peace, leaf, Skye, Orion, rain, Liberty, sometimes named after their parents favorite pot head, or rock star. Most grew up with a single mom. "Free love" basically meant sex without borders. Next thing ya know you're hearing words like herpes,syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, etc. (No worries, we got pills for all that now, carry on.),Then the acronym, Got Aids Yet?" came about. Diseases are becoming more severe and once the transmutants get going, what's next? 

The family unit was stressed enough by that time, now it's pretty much broken. More people are using the word "step" when referring to family members. More and more, men are living in poverty paying child support and spousal support for a woman that walked out. Incompatibility is a good enough reason. Of course any accusation can also be made, proof doesn't matter, suggestion is enough. 

One of my son's friends got a girl pregnant. He was a bit crazy, but settled down real quick and was ready to take on the responsibility of not only pairing with the mother, but also supporting her three daughters. In Alberta, 3 months shacked up carries the same status as married. When he asked her to marry him, she basically kicked him out, went to court for child and spousal support. Something like 80% of his paycheck went to her for two years following and he's allowed to see his kid every other weekend. Now I've heard she's pregnant and the father is living with her. That's five kids, four fathers. Some would call that immoral, she calls it a living. 

Don't go setting any clocks, I have no idea what's going to happen, something will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I believe Klanky is being honest about his confusion with morality. He's not going to get any help from the "democratic" society, and he's not looking for Cuz God said.  

We've been through the 60's and everybody knows at least one love child. Normally they were named Sunshine, Peace, leaf, Skye, Orion, rain, Liberty, sometimes named after their parents favorite pot head, or rock star. Most grew up with a single mom. "Free love" basically meant sex without borders. Next thing ya know you're hearing words like herpes,syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, etc. (No worries, we got pills for all that now, carry on.),Then the acronym, Got Aids Yet?" came about. Diseases are becoming more severe and once the transmutants get going, what's next? 

The family unit was stressed enough by that time, now it's pretty much broken. More people are using the word "step" when referring to family members. More and more, men are living in poverty paying child support and spousal support for a woman that walked out. Incompatibility is a good enough reason. Of course any accusation can also be made, proof doesn't matter, suggestion is enough. 

One of my son's friends got a girl pregnant. He was a bit crazy, but settled down real quick and was ready to take on the responsibility of not only pairing with the mother, but also supporting her three daughters. In Alberta, 3 months shacked up carries the same status as married. When he asked her to marry him, she basically kicked him out, went to court for child and spousal support. Something like 80% of his paycheck went to her for two years following and he's allowed to see his kid every other weekend. Now I've heard she's pregnant and the father is living with her. That's five kids, four fathers. Some would call that immoral, she calls it a living. 

Don't go setting any clocks, I have no idea what's going to happen, something will.

It's understandable that these things have happened and are a problem. But much of the above statement actually pertains to straight people. This isn't necessarily a product of gay people openly existing, rather gay people openly existing may just pair up with more liberal ideas that may be associated with open sexual relations.

One could also talk about openly gay couples that do not have STDs and are monogamous.  Just as there are straight people without these qualities as well.

 In many ways society has been, arguably improving and advancing as well. At least since the 60s. We now have far more advanced technology, computer communications, satellites, space travel, advanced forms of transportation. Advanced forms of resources recovery, including those that involve renewable energy. Crop yields have advanced 10 fold in the past 50 years using the same acreage as today. And of course gay and even women's rights have been picked up since.

 

Among plenty of other great advances. I guess it may depend on perspective.

The 60s also weren't long after WW2 and all those wild events. Thank goodness we aren't dealing with that. Germany, Japan and italy were far more intimidating than enemies of today's wars. Even with Trump in office, I'd say the world is currently a safer place than in those days.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that, relatively speaking, the open existence of gays seems unthreatening to society, in comparison to...countless other real threats in the world. I have gays living right here in my neighborhood. I've grown up with gays. But they aren't any more or less trouble than any others around here. 

Things like organized crime, murders, political corruption, shootings, and even terrorism ...these are threats. Heck driving my car to work is a real threat to my well being. Far greater than the unthreatening fact that some openly gay while peaceful people in our neighbors. 

Meanwhile, you can go to parts of Africa or the middle East, where there isn't a single openly gay person in sight, and you will get yourself killed based on the color of your skin, or your religion or what tribe you're part of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

One could also talk about openly gay couples that do not have STDs and are monogamous. 

They aren't the problem. They've never been my problem. I've only known a few but knew them to be hard working, law abiding, friendly people. However, Kevin stood in my garage with the door wide open once and yelled. "I'm married to a man, what's wrong with me?" I told him he answered his own question before asking it. He hugged me and cried. I didn't mean it in a bad way, he didn't take it in a bad way. He died a couple months ago from an undisclosed illness at 48.

My brother in law talked me into a pool tournament once, (and only once). I lost to a 6' 3-4" woman named Shauna with hands twice my size and a very open shirt. I know you're not supposed to stare at cleavage but couldn't help myself because there was something very wrong with that cleavage. After the games we sat with a fellow who told us "Shauna's my friend, she used to be a man." With that, Shauna went from a raised eyebrow to a wink. A shiver ran from my butt all the way up my neck and back down. I'm sure it was noticeable.  It wasn't a religious shiver. I could probably be charged for such a reaction these days.

Then there's Bruce/Caitlyn. He had a sex change so he/she could be a proper lesbian...and we celebrate his bravery?  At 68 yrs old things probably stopped working anyway so no problem cutting it off, you'd have to ask his/her 21 yr old girlfriend. His/her straight son marrying a straight woman didn't impress him enough to even attend the wedding. Before I can condone or condemn it, I have to understand it, and that's just not coming to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so here is my final proposition. A summation of my posts.

" I've only known a few but knew them to be hard working, law abiding, friendly people. " ~SOP

I've experienced the same as above. Yes, some gays may be happy, some may be depressed, some may be confused, some may be content and aware. Variation of course exists among gays, and straights alike.

So,

 

Gays and their openness in society are not necessarily a detriment to our lives or society or to humanity at large. There just isn't any clear evidence of such danger from gays. Many of which are just regular everyday people. And there it shouldnt be a crime for two people to kiss in society either, be them straight or gay. Robbing a store is a crime. Shooting someone is a crime. A kiss in public, be it from a straight person or a gay person, is just a show of affection. It does no harm, or perhaps the harm is so negligible that fining or arresting a couple for kissing seems a bit excessive. It would hurt society more, oppressing and financing oppression against such occurrences, than it would allowing them to occur. In my opinion. Not that society doesnt already waste tax money on other irrelevant things, but there are certainly better ways to utilize time and finances than arresting people who kiss.

Now...

In some nations or regions, gays are oppressed, punished, imprisoned, fined or in some cases even killed for being openly gay.

With that,

If a gay person lives in an area where they can freely and openly exist as they are, without the above forms of oppression, gays should be able to have pride in themselves, and to be allowed to be content or even happy with who they are, if they choose to be. And with that, they should also be free to celebrate their existence and freedom as gays, as a form of expression of happiness that they wont be killed. 

Also, because their existence is not a clear threat to our well-being, it shouldn't matter to us if they want to celebrate their life or not. Though we could celebrate with them, if we are happy in the fact that they wont be oppressed in a free area.

And if in other parts of the world, they would be killed for being openly gay in society, there is nothing wrong with anyone celebrating the opposite, which is life, as a gay person, openly in society.

-----------------------------------------------------

Lastly, and i mentioned this earlier, the idea that gays are somehow a detriment to the natural existence of mankind, or any associated concept, I would say is false. Because from a purely naturalistic perspective, a species doesn't evolve at an individual level, species evolve as communities. And the qualities that benefit a species, such as mankind, are vast in number. Reproductive capability is just one facet of a large body of beneficial things that a single individual can do, to benefit the fitness and success of a species.

For example, an openly gay person could hypothetically find a cure for cancer. And then it becomes irrelevant if he has offspring, because he has just allowed for the existance of millions of human offspring that can do countless other things that benefic mankind.

The only way homosexuality could be detrimental to society, is if the vast majority of mankind were to become homosexual. However, this is unlikely to ever happen, as it is an abnormal and a even rare quality among people. From a genetic stance, its rare. And even if some facets of society were to promote homosexuality, men will always be men at large. Our physical existence and thirst for women at large (and vise versa), will always outweigh any homosexual interests, 99% of the time, as it always has throughout the history of all life on earth. The idea that some openly gay person on tv, decorating a house, could somehow manipulate society into overturning hundreds of millions of years worth of sexual reproduction, is just ridiculous.

 

I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth about unwanted arousal | Emily Nagoski 

[Mod Note: This video contains mature content. Viewer discretion is advised. Also, the female speaker has no hijab.]

https://youtu.be/L-q-tSHo9Ho

Edited by ShiaChat Mod
Mod Note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCambrian

 

We need to be honest: the monogamous "normal" adopting-kids gay couple is a gay Potemkin village. This sort of ideal type was introduced through popular entertainment as a means of garnering more sympathy from the public. And it worked. Sympathy for the gay community was very low in the 80s because of the AIDS epidemic. This was after a much more permissive view took root in the 60s and 70s. But the fancy lawyer gays weren't stupid. They planned for the future; they were determined to garner mainstream acceptance and so they launched a massive offensive in the 90s. One of the things they did was try to disassociate AIDS from gays. It was perceived as a "gay disease" up to that point; because the vast majority of cases were from among the gay community (and continue to be). Now you'd be considered a bigot for suggesting some connection between the two.

 

This should be required reading for any American/Canadian/Western European: https://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

 

Brother @Haydar Husayn has summarized and posted pieces of the book on shiachat, if you want a primer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specific part of my above post, do you disagree with @baradar_jackson?

The fact that some gays are law abiding citizens? Or the fact that even though I've lived around gays my whole life, I am doing well for myself? Or do you think people should be punished for kissing in public like the other guy? Or do you think that the gay couples of our neighborhoods are hurting us?

Or do you agree with me?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

 

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 3:17 AM, iCambrian said:

What specific part of my above post, do you disagree with @baradar_jackson?

The fact that some gays are law abiding citizens? Or the fact that even though I've lived around gays my whole life, I am doing well for myself? Or do you think people should be punished for kissing in public like the other guy? Or do you think that the gay couples of our neighborhoods are hurting us?

Or do you agree with me?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

Mate your going around in circles. Sometimes you talk about gay people and then you shift your topic to Islamic punishment for having sex in public which applies to both, gay and straight couples. 

I also don't understand what your trying to get at, once you clearly know that homosexuality is immoral according to Islam and many other religions. Just like homosexuality we also consider adultery, incest, fornication to be immoral. There is no decrimination in Islamic law, as all are sin and should be frowned upon.

Anyway, why are you talking about gay people? Once the title of the post is about homosexuality? The OP gave philosophical reasons why homosexuality is wrong! You don't need to talk about how nice some gay people can be (and yes they are great human beings). People who are proud of committing adultery can be great and won't harm me, but it is our right to speak against the sin itself and prevent people from committing immoral acts.

Therefore, I care little about your personal encounter with gay people. The act itself should always be condemned. 

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laayla said:

@iCambrian

 

Freaks of nature killed 6 children.  You forgot this crime?

How many other children are suffering under the guise of happy gay marriages?

You are also part of the problem for encouraging corruption.  

M3 Salamah, Fe Amin Allah 

 

Anyone can go onto YouTube and lookup videos about happy gay couples, including those with children. 

Also, anyone can go onto YouTube and can find videos of horrible heterosexual couples as well. 

So this isn't really an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Anyone can go onto YouTube and lookup videos about happy gay couples, including those with children. 

Also, anyone can go onto YouTube and can find videos of horrible heterosexual couples as well. 

So this isn't really an argument.

Between them maybe good or bad people but their attitude & behavior make them prone to doing horrible acts & sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point.  This isn't about YT.  This was all over Us national news

You want newspaper articles?

Look him up Devonte Hart

 

KATU News has reported on a number of other incidents involving the Hart family that eventually led to an investigation by Washington State Child Protective Services.

In 2017, one of the Hart children jumped out of a second-story window and begged her neighbors for help. She said her parents were racist, abusive and whipped her.

In the weeks leading up to the crash, Devonte Hart went to his neighbor's house several times asking for food saying his parents were punishing him and not allowing him to eat.

In 2013, a family friend said she 'witnessed what I felt to be controlling emotional abuse and cruel punishment' toward the six children.

Sarah Hart pleaded guilty to a domestic assault charge in Minnesota in 2011. Her plea also led to the dismissal of a charge of malicious punishment of a child.

One of her daughters, who was 6 years old at the time, showed her teacher she had bruising all over her back and torso.

In 2008 in another report claimed Jennifer beat her daughter using a belt. 

When confronted by officials, Jennifer and Sarah Hart said the little girl was misbehaving, and added she likely got her bruises from falling down the stairs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715535/Human-remains-near-spot-SUV-plunged-cliff.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Laayla said:

You missed the point.  This isn't about YT.  This was all over Us national news

You want newspaper articles?

Look him up Devonte Hart

 

KATU News has reported on a number of other incidents involving the Hart family that eventually led to an investigation by Washington State Child Protective Services.

In 2017, one of the Hart children jumped out of a second-story window and begged her neighbors for help. She said her parents were racist, abusive and whipped her.

In the weeks leading up to the crash, Devonte Hart went to his neighbor's house several times asking for food saying his parents were punishing him and not allowing him to eat.

In 2013, a family friend said she 'witnessed what I felt to be controlling emotional abuse and cruel punishment' toward the six children.

Sarah Hart pleaded guilty to a domestic assault charge in Minnesota in 2011. Her plea also led to the dismissal of a charge of malicious punishment of a child.

One of her daughters, who was 6 years old at the time, showed her teacher she had bruising all over her back and torso.

In 2008 in another report claimed Jennifer beat her daughter using a belt. 

When confronted by officials, Jennifer and Sarah Hart said the little girl was misbehaving, and added she likely got her bruises from falling down the stairs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715535/Human-remains-near-spot-SUV-plunged-cliff.html

Google the Islamic State and then tell me kids are safe with Muslims. Are you a troll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Between them maybe good or bad people but their attitude & behavior make them prone to doing horrible acts & sins.

This is the reality of the world, unfortunately. 

At the end of the day, you have to pick your battles. Who's the bugger threat? The law abiding couple down the street or the crime Lord who is smuggling drugs? Or the thief robbing the bank? Or the...the school shooter? Etc.

You have to look at these aspects and pick where you want to focus your interests. And personally, I have no fued against homosexuals here. I haven't seen any clear evidence of them being a danger. But I have seen plenty of evidence of straight people being a danger. Anyone can turn on the news and see that everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Klanky said:

Google the Islamic State and then tell me kids are safe with Muslims. Are you a troll?

Exactly.

If this weren't Shia chat, I would assume this person was a troll, but unfortunately, there are a good number of wild people on this forum. Radical posts are deleted on a regular basis, as matter of fact, just yesterday or the day before, a pretty extremist type post was made and deleted.

So, I suspect this person isn't intentionally trolling. They're probably just troubled or perhaps afraid of gays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Klanky said:

Google the Islamic State and then tell me kids are safe with Muslims. Are you a troll?

What an idiotic comparison!

Do you know who belongs to the Islamic State?  You have no clue, if you did you wouldn't even have commented this way.  Turn off Bill Mahr and go to your local library and read about who is ISIS.

From the local newspaper 

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/04/hart_family_crash_oregon_relea.html

How the freaks of nature abused them.  

@iCambrian

I'm not afraid of gays or troubled.  I'm disgusted of them.  Get it right, bud.  

I don't want them near children.  

Lower than animals.  Tfehhh 

Edited by Laayla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

You have to look at these aspects and pick where you want to focus your interests. And personally, I have no fued against homosexuals here. I haven't seen any clear evidence of them being a danger. But I have seen plenty of evidence of straight people being a danger. Anyone can turn on the news and see that everyday.

We say prevention is better than treatment while it is forbidden by our religion it is better to avoid this .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 5:20 AM, Laayla said:

@iCambrian

Freaks of nature killed 6 children.  You forgot this crime?

How many other children are suffering under the guise of happy gay marriages?

You are also part of the problem for encouraging corruption.  

M3 Salamah, Fe Amin Allah 

Sister can you give some more background on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 11:28 AM, Laayla said:

What an idiotic comparison!

Do you know who belongs to the Islamic State?  You have no clue, if you did you wouldn't even have commented this way.  Turn off Bill Mahr and go to your local library and read about who is ISIS.

From the local newspaper 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/04/hart_family_crash_oregon_relea.html

How the freaks of nature abused them.  

@iCambrian

I'm not afraid of gays or troubled.  I'm disgusted of them.  Get it right, bud.  

I don't want them near children.  

Lower than animals.  Tfehhh 

With posts like this, you will probably give credence to people like bill Maher, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

With posts like this, you will probably give credence to people like bill Maher, unfortunately.

This is a syndrome which we see more & more every day specially in America ,media tries to show American dream as gay couples with a large number of adopted innocent child which this propaganda failed once about showing conservative christians before but they repeat this error again & again & show Islam as their enemy .before that American dream was a 4 person family with a boy & girl child with a dog. Which always shows its fallacy but media just changes the cover .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

 

Sister can you give some more background on this?

Assalam Alikum brother @baradar_jackson
God bless you and keep you for your family.  I'm sure there are many other cases like this, but they keep it local and the media liberal trash doesn't want to bring the issue to light.  Instead they want to focus on homos in a positive, normal way.  Lower than animals.
 
 
 
From NY Times brother 
 
Hart Family, Before Driving Off Cliff, Hid Dark Home Life From View

 

  •  

 

https://www.google.com.lb/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/hart-family-crash.amp.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic that I've been struggling to comprehend especially in USA where such a lifestyle like this not only acceptable, but outright encouraged. To begin with, I have my own issues when it comes to the topic of "Sexuality" and how Human Beings should begin to define "Sexuality" in the first place. If we focus on the definition of "Sexuality" on an objective light then it would shed some stance on where Same Sex Romantic/Sexual Relationships fall under.

 

I found this interesting piece of information from a Christian Catholic discussing the definition of Sexuality and how Homosexuality is not considered Sexuality,

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/homosexuality-is-not-sexuality

By this information, it would imply that neither Pansexual, Asexual, nor Transexual should be considered Sexuality.

 

So the endless debacle continues, Is Sexuality Nature or Nurture? Let's check the definition of Sexuality via Oxford and Merriam Webster Dictionaries,

Quote

OXFORD

Noun

1 Capacity for sexual feelings. E.G. ‘she began to understand the power of her sexuality’

1.1 [count noun] A person's sexual orientation or preference E.G. ‘people with proscribed sexualities’

 

MERRIAM WEBSTER

The quality or state of being sexual:
a : the condition of having sex
b : sexual activity
c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive

So judging by these definitions to define Sexuality where does it really stand? Is Sexuality Nature or Nurture?

I've come across a Quora User named Dave Featherstone who I agree with pretty much with his stance on this complicated subject matter.

https://www.quora.com/Is-sexuality-nature-or-nurture

Quote

Dave Featherstone, Professor of Biology/Neuroscience

There is no real debate about this, except among the scientifically ignorant or people with an agenda. The reason there is not much debate is not because the answer is easy. It's not. The reason there is not much debate is because the question assumes a lot of things that simply are not really true. Hetero/homosexuality and Nature/Nurture are false dichotomies.

Let me explain...

Sexual preferences, like all our preferences, are a product of the brain.

Now let's do a thought experiment: What if some day we could do brain transplants, and we put a female brain into a male body? Or a male brain into a female body? Would those people be homosexual? 

This is essentially what the Drosophila experiments that Ankit mentioned in his answer did. Except the 'brain transplant' was done genetically, by turning off a gene that controlled whether the fly brain developed to be male or female.

Genes control whether humans (and their brains) are male or female too. The Y chromosome includes genes that make you (and your brain) a male. You can have two X chromosomes (which would normally make you a female), but if you have a Y too then you are still a male (XXY is called 'Klinefelter syndrome'; those people are still males).

How does that Y make you (and your brain) male? It does so in lots of different ways, but mainly by causing the development of testes, which secrete hormones that tell your tissues (including brain) to become 'male'. In the absence of these hormones, female tissues develop. 

Y chromosome -> testes -> hormones -> 'maleness'

No Y chromosome -> no testes -> development of female organs -> 'femaleness'

You see where I'm going with this? There is no simple 'switch' that tells human brains to be male or female. It's exposure to hormones during development, where those hormones are produced by tissues that develop under the direction of many different genes.

Depending on the genetics, tissue development, and hormones, it's easy to imagine an entirely male brain, and entirely female brain, and lots of types of brain in between. 

That's why the paper Ankit referred to in his answer suggested that there were genetic contributors to homosexuality, but it obviously wasn't clear what they were or how much they contributed.

But no matter how you slice it, the 'maleness' or 'femaleness' of our brain is due to biology.

So... sexual preference is all nature, right?

Nope. It's not so easy.

When we encounter a potential sex partner, and become aroused (or not), we're not just responding based on gender. Not all males turn females on, and not all females turn males on. Whether or not we become aroused depends on a complex mix of sensory stimuli, some of which have to do with indicators of partner gender, some of which have to do with indications of fertility, some of which have to do with context, some of which have to do with social conventions, and some which have to do with past experience. 

Supposedly perfectly normal heterosexual guys are routinely aroused only by a voice (phone sex), or image (porn). Those are the basis of multi-billion dollar industries. 'Normal' guys are also routinely aroused by sex dolls or even just plastic artificial vaginas. Someone is buying this stuff, right? In some cases, the triggers for arousal are not even representations of people. High-heeled shoes or women's underwear, for example. These are just things, fragments, triggers.

Obviously, there is no 'attraction to high-heeled shoes' gene that is turned on in these guys. The arousal in these circumstances must be due to some past association or experience. 

Things associated with rewards (or punishments) are powerful stimuli. Orgasm is a reward. It's like eating fatty sweet things, or social approval. Does your mouth water when you think of your favorite restaurant? Do you find yourself doing more and more often the things that bring you praise and attention?

Of course, getting excited by shoes and pictures might seem a little artificial. But what about long hair vs short hair? Thin versus muscular/buxom? Light or dark skin? Loud and outgoing or quiet and thoughtful? These things are too variable to be genetically determined. These preferences are things that we all just sort of 'pick up'.

So... OK. It's nurture too. 

But acknowledging that, can we measure how much nature and how much nurture? Can we say that it's (for example) 70% Nature and 30% Nurture?

Unfortunately, I don't think we can even do that, since sexual arousal is so developmental stage-dependent and context-dependent. The stuff that turns you on when you're young isn't necessarily the same stuff that turns you on when you're older. And stuff that turns you on in one situation might not turn you on in another situation. For example, we know that people will do stuff after drinking at wild parties when they're young that they wouldn't do in many other times and places. So when we figure out your 'preferences', do we do it with your beer goggles on or off? Do we measure your inclinations when you're 13 and at summer camp or when you're 60 and have been happily married 40 years? Do we measure it with someone you hate or with someone you love?

And what about in-betweeny situations? How do we separate 'sexual preference' from sexual activity?

What if a heterosexual guy meets a really sexy transexual, and has sex with her? But otherwise he isn't attracted to men. Is the guy gay?

What about a woman who is normally attracted only to men, but finds herself aroused by a really romantic steamy lesbian scene in a movie? Is the woman gay?

Are homosexuals who marry and have kids due to societal pressures heterosexual? Or are they still homosexual? 

Porn producers (and they should know!) believe that images of male ejaculation (the 'money shot') are incredibly important revenue-generating elements of pornography directed at heterosexual men. Why would this be, unless men are sexually aroused by other men (at least in certain contexts)?

Does all this make sense?

Labeling people as heterosexual or homosexual is about as useful as labeling people based on their preference for eating chicken versus fish. It might be worth thinking about if you're going to buy them dinner or a buy them time with a prostitute, because you don't want them to be disappointed. But certainly the preference shouldn't define anyone, and I don't see why it's worth obsessing about. People are people. We're all different, in many different ways.

 

Anyway, my 2 cents is that Homosexuality is a forbidden lifestyle that the Believers of The God of Abraham should not adhere to due to the infamous sexual promiscuity that the Tribes of Sodom and Gomorrah have left behind.

It's just as forbidden in the same light as Pork is a forbidden source of meat for us to eat (including Jews and Orthodox Christians) and Alcoholic Beverages are forbidden drinks for us to drink (not entirely forbidden across Judaism and Christianity though).

Edited by ZethaPonderer
I haven't finished my post originally so I'm completing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 11:28 AM, Laayla said:

I'm not afraid of gays or troubled.  I'm disgusted of them.  Get it right, bud.  

I don't want them near children.  

Lower than animals.  Tfehhh 

@Abu Hadi

Do we condone this sort of language against people who identify as Gay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jewish baker refused to make a wedding cake for gay couple

How wedding cake could define American's free speech

https://youtu.be/GkZNL5PYfas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 9:28 AM, Laayla said:

I'm not afraid of gays or troubled.  I'm disgusted of them.  Get it right, bud.  

I don't want them near children.  

Lower than animals.  Tfehhh 

This is a part of Islam that concerns me.

Christians are taught to love the sinner, hate the sin. I think you've all mistaken ICambrian's acceptance of people for approval of their lifestyle.  

Islam seems to teach disgust for the sinner. Some forms teach that anyone outside their school of thought has no real purpose to live. How long before a position lower than animals can be eradicated?  Does God only allow them to live for target practice?  Many of the God led Islamic battles were against oppression of Islam, but I'm not seeing a lot on what to do about Islamic oppression. It's getting harder to pretend it doesn't exist.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...