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

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

If sexual orientation comes from genetics, then pedophiles and rapists are genetically and naturally incorrigible. (Read that slowly) That's all I wrote. Deciding right and wrong is not up to you and me.

Why is this unrealistic? That some people might be genetically influenced to be violent? (With respect to rapists). I think this is very realistic. Or in a more broad sense, behavior at large, how we act? Why would it be unrealistic to think that our behavior, our sexual behavior for example, might be influenced by our DNA? 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709101117.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,behavior in humans and mice.

Take genetic influence over aggressive behavior, mix it with genetic influence over sexual behavior and orientation, throw this individual into an environment that might promote violence, and there you have it.

 

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right. Even in the article I quoted, it said there were genetic 'factors' to same sex attraction. This is not the same as being 'born gay'. Born gay means you have no choice, and you can only be attra

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 The largest study1 to date on the genetic basis of sexuality has revealed five spots on the human genome that are linked to same-sex sexual beha

سلام We ought to be cautious to not mistreat homosexuals, regardless of the cause behind their homosexuality.  There may not be one gene that makes one gay or not, but there are certainly bi

Posted Images

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Maybe others have already pointed this out, but the article you're citing explicitly states that there is genetic influence. As you noted, not by one gay gene, but by many.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many.

It's literally the first sentence in the conclusions section.

 

"We identified genome-wide significant loci associated with same-sex sexual behavior and found evidence of a broader contribution of common genetic variation. We established that the underlying genetic architecture is highly complex; there is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the “gay gene” in the media). Rather, many loci with individually small effects, spread across the whole genome and partly overlapping in females and males, additively contribute to individual differences in predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior."

I guess you didn't read my post.

I stated, and I stated with an example from my own life, that there are genetic factors to same sex attraction. I also acknowledged 'literally the first sentence' as you sarcastically put it. Genetic factors does not mean that same sex attraction is genetically determined, like biological sex, skin color, eye color, hair color, face shape, etc. When people say 'I was born gay, I had no other choice', that is a statement that is not backed up by any scientific research that I am aware of. That was the point. Guess you missed it, or are unwilling to acknowledge it, despite the evidence. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

So I read your post and the article you linked here, and I hope you realize that the conclusion of the study is that, and I quote, there are "multiple loci implicated in same-sex sexual behavior indicating that, like other behavioral traits, non-heterosexual behavior is polygenic." Polygenic traits are those traits that are controlled by more than one gene gene instead of just one, single gene. Other examples of polygenic traits are your height (there are over 400 genes related to height) and eye colour, where about 13-15 genes play a role in determining what eye colour you will have. So once again, just like your height and eye colour are determined by genetics, so is your sexuality, although there is no one single gene that contributes to it, but rather multiple genes work in tandem to create who you are and how you are. Just as you'd say your height is determined by genetics (although not a single gene), so is your sexuality. 

If you'd like to do your own research, I'd suggest first actually reading the study you are trying to talk about and then realizing what its conclusions are and how they support (or do not support) your theory/beliefs. Second, you should read up on polygenic traits so you can better understand how mistaken your understanding of the study is.

Lastly, and quite ironically, you mentioned in your original post: 

If you took the time to read the study (which I doubt you did), it literally says there are multiple genes that contribute to determine your sexual orientation. As I explained, as your eye colour is a polygenic trait (a trait that is determined by a constellation of different genes), so is your sexuality...the article simply states (accurately from the study) that there is no single gene contributing to your sexuality. So you are, in fact, incorrect because there is credible, scientific evidence, this study being the biggest and largest, to support the hypothesis that genes play a role in determining your sexual orientation, meaning being gay is, in your words "biologically  or genetically determined at birth." LOL 

How many times do I have to respond to this ? Wow. Genetic factors and genetically determined are two, completely different things. Please review your High School (or middle school) Biology textbook for more info

If every human behavior which has genetic factors that contribute to it is ok, then we, as a society, should have no problem with drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. All these behaviors have genetic factors behind them, they are not genetically determined. Most human behaviors and preferences, like what foods you like, what time you like to go to bed, if you like to play sports or not, etc, have genetic factors. Now next time you're late for work, tell your boss 'I couldn't help it, I have genetic factors that predispose me to sleep late and get up late'. See if he accepts that. If he doesn't, then he also knows the difference between genetic factors, and genetically determined. 

So the argument that, 'I was born gay' is a clever attempt to prevent having a social dialogue on whether homosexual sex, marriage, and the promotion of homosexual behavior  and lifestyle is something positive or negative for the society. If this social dialogue actually happened, we could look at the pluses and minuses for society about allowing the propagation and promotion of this behavior, just like we do with all other behaviors. If we did that, we would find that there are more minuses than pluses. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Take genetic influence over aggressive behavior, mix it with genetic influence over sexual behavior and orientation, throw this individual into an environment that might promote violence, and there you have it.

Sure. It could also be a malformed left frontal lobe of the brain. That also causes aggression. PET scans by a famous researcher in California wrote a book and its in it. Sometimes the whole left frontal lobe is missing. And this is a proven, scientific fact, not a theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)

Given the evidence presented, the logical conclusion is as follows,

1. Children, before puberty, do not have sexual attraction (same sex or opposite sex)

2. Noone is 'born gay'

3. That means that identifying as gay or some variant of that (trans, bi,etc) is a decision that someone makes between puberty and x number of years after puberty. This decision is influenced by genetics (factors) as well as the person themselves (their individual personality, likes, dislikes, opinions, etc)  and the prevailing attitudes in society toward this issue. It is also possible that this decision is influenced by some sort of non consensual, abusive sexual relationship with the same sex prior to or at the time of puberty or shortly after. It is well known that someone's first sexual experience has a very large effect on their future sexual behavior. Noone decides to be a man or a women (at birth), black, white, brown, or their place of birth or ethnicity, as noone has control over these things, but being 'gay' is a conscious decision, just like being a member of a motorcycle club, going into a certain profession, or choosing to migrate to another country. 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2021 at 8:50 AM, Abu Hadi said:

I guess you didn't read my post.

I stated, and I stated with an example from my own life, that there are genetic factors to same sex attraction. I also acknowledged 'literally the first sentence' as you sarcastically put it. Genetic factors does not mean that same sex attraction is genetically determined, like biological sex, skin color, eye color, hair color, face shape, etc. When people say 'I was born gay, I had no other choice', that is a statement that is not backed up by any scientific research that I am aware of. That was the point. Guess you missed it, or are unwilling to acknowledge it, despite the evidence. 

Genetic influences are what they are. Even saying "my environment made me gay" would be scientifically unjustified.

My point is that, most people recognize an interplay of genetic and environmental influences. Few people actually do think that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" that if it's turned on then you're automatically gay, or if it's turned off then you're straight. So telling us that there is no gay gene doesn't do us any good but rather just tells us what we already know.

That's all I'm saying. Would you go as far to say that genetics do not influence probability of being gay? No, of course not. 

And whether gay people benefit society, harm society, or fall somewhere in between, is a separate topic.

I've had gay people provide me with medical services that have helped my personal wellbeing and survival, therefore, in my books, gays can certainly be a great deal beneficial to society at large, regardless of if they're gay. Many straight people don't have children either, but still can do great things for the success of our species.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Well, here are a few tidbits about South Korea. The West's assimilated nation in the far East.

- 2.7% of the population is LGTB.

- Age of consent is 14.

- THIS IS HOW GAYS ARE MADE>>>> Dong Chim is the bizarre South Korean game where children are allowed to poke you in the BUM

- LGTB acceptance index 8/10. (10 being perfect for lgtb)

All clicks together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Genetic influences are what they are. Even saying "my environment made me gay" would be scientifically unjustified.

My point is that, most people recognize an interplay of genetic and environmental influences. Few people actually do think that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" that if it's turned on then you're automatically gay, or if it's turned off then you're straight. So telling us that there is no gay gene doesn't do us any good but rather just tells us what we already know.

 

If that were true, then how can we reconcile the fact that most, if not all those who identify as 'gay' believe, and will say openly that they were 'born gay'. They also say that there is scientific evidence for this. I haven't heard a mainstream scientist yet who is well known and respected, in the West, that came out to say, 'Actually this isn't true and there is no scientific evidence for it. 

During the pandemic, I was proud of many members of our American Scientific community who came out and contradicted the President at that time, despite this being a risky career move, to say that Covid was a serious threat. It would not just 'go away with the springtime'. It turns out that they were right, because they based their opinion on scientific data and knowledge of virology, immunology, etc. 

The 'LGBTQ...' lifestyle, and the myth that people are 'born gay' is just as much or more of a threat to the society. It is more of a long term threat, like Climate Change vs Covid which is more of a short term threat. You don't hear much hesitancy on the part of scientist to speak about the threat of Climate Change / Global Warming, but when it comes to this issue, *crickets*. Gay people don't reproduce themselves, which, as this lifestyle becomes more widespread and accepted, is leading to decline in births and a skewing of the population demographic toward those 60 plus. This trend is already well under way. If this trend continues, and you have a society with alot of old people, and fewer young people, what do you think is going to happen ? This will place a gigantic burden on those young people that do exist to take care of all those older people until they get tired of doing it, then society as we know it will collapse. There are other reasons for this trend, such as widespread abortion, etc, but this is a large contributing factor. BTW, I didn't mention anything about religion, halal / haram, etc. This is just strait logic

So if the scientist see an impending social crisis brought on by this lifestyle, and it's main justification being 'I was born gay, I have no choice', and there is no scientific evidence for this (and there isn't) they should speak out against this, like they did with the mythology surrounding Covid that was peddled by Trump and his supporters in order to deflect blame for their misguided policy decisions. If there is nothing in the genetic makeup of a person that determines 'gayness' (i.e. the gay gene, it doesn't have to be a single gene, btw, it could be multiple genes, or combination of loci on multiple genes), then scientists should be talking about this. They're not. That is the point. 

BTW, this is a little off topic, but I think also we should blame many of our muslims brothers and sisters for not taking the threat of Climate Change / Global warming seriously. Personally, I am trying to do whatever I can to reduce my carbon footprint. I have decided that my next car is going to be electric, and I am not buying anymore tools, or anything else with an internal combustion engine. We, as muslims, have to start thinking that we have been given this earth as an amana ( a trust from Allah(s.w.a)). If we fail to fulfill our amana, we, and our children and grandchildren will be the ones to suffer the consequences and they will blame us for not doing more. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I, personally, don't care if people are gay. It's none of my business. I do care about people mistreating other people. We Muslims should always stand up for those who are oppressed or abused, even if we disagree with their lifestyles.

It seems we humans can't decide whether we are more afraid of overpopulation or of depopulation. If you want more humans, consume less and make the world a better place to raise children. Probably increase in homosexual population is a natural response to poor resource access and poor living conditions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, notme said:

I, personally, don't care if people are gay. It's none of my business. I do care about people mistreating other people. We Muslims should always stand up for those who are oppressed or abused, even if we disagree with their lifestyles.

It seems we humans can't decide whether we are more afraid of overpopulation or of depopulation. If you want more humans, consume less and make the world a better place to raise children. Probably increase in homosexual population is a natural response to poor resource access and poor living conditions. 

Overpopulation is not actually a problem. The problem is certain governments which oppress the people by stealing so much of the resources of a country, that there is hardly anything left for the population. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) provides the rizq for everyone, this is a core belief of Islam, or at least Shiism. It is when the rizq is stolen from the people by the oppressors, that is where the problem starts. It is logical, because an increase in population also creates an increase in rizq thru increase in economic activity. There has been many studies done on the issue of overpopulation. The conclusion of these studies (all that I have read) is that overpopulation is not the problem, extremely unequal distribution of resources is the real problem. 

Underpopulation is a problem in itself, because if there are not enough people, you cannot really solve this thru reorganization of the economy / society, stamping out of corruption. You just need more people, which under normal circumstances is pretty easy to do. Lol. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

If that were true, then how can we reconcile the fact that most, if not all those who identify as 'gay' believe, and will say openly that they were 'born gay'. They also say that there is scientific evidence for this. I haven't heard a mainstream scientist yet who is well known and respected, in the West, that came out to say, 'Actually this isn't true and there is no scientific evidence for it. 

During the pandemic, I was proud of many members of our American Scientific community who came out and contradicted the President at that time, despite this being a risky career move, to say that Covid was a serious threat. It would not just 'go away with the springtime'. It turns out that they were right, because they based their opinion on scientific data and knowledge of virology, immunology, etc. 

The 'LGBTQ...' lifestyle, and the myth that people are 'born gay' is just as much or more of a threat to the society. It is more of a long term threat, like Climate Change vs Covid which is more of a short term threat. You don't hear much hesitancy on the part of scientist to speak about the threat of Climate Change / Global Warming, but when it comes to this issue, *crickets*. Gay people don't reproduce themselves, which, as this lifestyle becomes more widespread and accepted, is leading to decline in births and a skewing of the population demographic toward those 60 plus. This trend is already well under way. If this trend continues, and you have a society with alot of old people, and fewer young people, what do you think is going to happen ? This will place a gigantic burden on those young people that do exist to take care of all those older people until they get tired of doing it, then society as we know it will collapse. There are other reasons for this trend, such as widespread abortion, etc, but this is a large contributing factor. BTW, I didn't mention anything about religion, halal / haram, etc. This is just strait logic

So if the scientist see an impending social crisis brought on by this lifestyle, and it's main justification being 'I was born gay, I have no choice', and there is no scientific evidence for this (and there isn't) they should speak out against this, like they did with the mythology surrounding Covid that was peddled by Trump and his supporters in order to deflect blame for their misguided policy decisions. If there is nothing in the genetic makeup of a person that determines 'gayness' (i.e. the gay gene, it doesn't have to be a single gene, btw, it could be multiple genes, or combination of loci on multiple genes), then scientists should be talking about this. They're not. That is the point. 

BTW, this is a little off topic, but I think also we should blame many of our muslims brothers and sisters for not taking the threat of Climate Change / Global warming seriously. Personally, I am trying to do whatever I can to reduce my carbon footprint. I have decided that my next car is going to be electric, and I am not buying anymore tools, or anything else with an internal combustion engine. We, as muslims, have to start thinking that we have been given this earth as an amana ( a trust from Allah(s.w.a)). If we fail to fulfill our amana, we, and our children and grandchildren will be the ones to suffer the consequences and they will blame us for not doing more. 

I don't want this to come off the wrong way, but, and I try to say this in the least offensive possible way that I can, but this post comes off as homophobic. It depicts some kind of, what I would say, is an exaggerated or unrealistic kind of doomsday-esque "fear" of gays.

And I know that's what a lot of people say and the term is often carelessly thrown around, but I sincerely think you're worried too much about something in which there is nothing to worry about. 

Gay people have been around since the dawn of time. Animal species have been around for hundreds of millions of years. And homosexual, or at least bi sexual natured activities have always been around. We survived an asteroid strike from a bolide the size of Texas, we can survive a few guys who happen to have boyfriend's.

And I hate to say it, but in America we already have issues with too many old people, hence why covid caused so much havoc in retirement homes. But that's life. And if younger generations can't take care of their parents, which is often already the case with many families, the elderly die and everyone moves on with their lives. Maybe in eastern cultures where there may be more of a large family oriented practice, maybe gays would have more significant impacts there. But here, families kind of do their own thing. Though we want to help our parents in their retirement, and we do and will continue to do so, there is still a responsibility on the elderly to be self sufficient with retirement funds, 401ks, social security, pensions etc. 

And, as noted above, most people just conclude that gayness is genetically influenced, as well as environmentally influenced. I don't think we need to overcomplicate this. And if someone says that they were born gay, it's fine to be skeptical of that claim, given that environmental factors may also play a role in many peoples choices.

I think that, it's not that scientists are afraid to speak about research around gayness. But rather I think that most people in western societies that are conducting these forms of research, just don't "fear" homosexuality in a way that you appear to be depicting. 

I fear a nuclear middle east and southeast asia. I fear a virus that kills half a million Americans in a single year. I fear cancer or gang violence and drugs being imported by Mexican cartels, I fear Trump's conspiracy theories etc.

There are many things to fear. But some gay man who has a boyfriend that is otherwise just an everyday person in any public space, really just doesn't bother a lot of people, including myself.  And a lot of single people don't have children as well. And this really isn't an issue. Some people have children, some don't. 

Quite frankly, america consumes some absurd percentage of Earth's resources annually already (something vastly unsustainable). I don't think we necessarily even need to keep expanding our population anyway. Same goes for China and India.

Anyway, you're free to disagree but I think that your concerns are out of proportion.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2021 at 3:04 PM, iCenozoic said:

I don't want this to come off the wrong way, but, and I try to say this in the least offensive possible way that I can, but this post comes off as homophobic. It depicts some kind of, what I would say, is an exaggerated or unrealistic kind of doomsday-esque "fear" of gays.

And I know that's what a lot of people say and the term is often carelessly thrown around, but I sincerely think you're worried too much about something in which there is nothing to worry about. 

Gay people have been around since the dawn of time. Animal species have been around for hundreds of millions of years. And homosexual, or at least bi sexual natured activities have always been around. We survived an asteroid strike from a bolide the size of Texas, we can survive a few guys who happen to have boyfriend's.

And I hate to say it, but in America we already have issues with too many old people, hence why covid caused so much havoc in retirement homes. But that's life. And if younger generations can't take care of their parents, which is often already the case with many families, the elderly die and everyone moves on with their lives. Maybe in eastern cultures where there may be more of a large family oriented practice, maybe gays would have more significant impacts there. But here, families kind of do their own thing. Though we want to help our parents in their retirement, and we do and will continue to do so, there is still a responsibility on the elderly to be self sufficient with retirement funds, 401ks, social security, pensions etc. 

And, as noted above, most people just conclude that gayness is genetically influenced, as well as environmentally influenced. I don't think we need to overcomplicate this. And if someone says that they were born gay, it's fine to be skeptical of that claim, given that environmental factors may also play a role in many peoples choices.

I think that, it's not that scientists are afraid to speak about research around gayness. But rather I think that most people in western societies that are conducting these forms of research, just don't "fear" homosexuality in a way that you appear to be depicting. 

I fear a nuclear middle east and southeast asia. I fear a virus that kills half a million Americans in a single year. I fear cancer or gang violence and drugs being imported by Mexican cartels, I fear Trump's conspiracy theories etc.

There are many things to fear. But some gay man who has a boyfriend that is otherwise just an everyday person in any public space, really just doesn't bother a lot of people, including myself.  And a lot of single people don't have children as well. And this really isn't an issue. Some people have children, some don't. 

Quite frankly, america consumes some absurd percentage of Earth's resources annually already (something vastly unsustainable). I don't think we necessarily even need to keep expanding our population anyway. Same goes for China and India.

Anyway, you're free to disagree but I think that your concerns are out of proportion.

Calling me homophobic doesn't offend me, I guess relatively compared to all the other things that have been said about me here. It's not accurate though. Saying I'm homophobic means I'm afraid of homosexuals. I'm not. As a muslim, I have no problem with a person who is a homosexual, and I'm not *afraid* of them. I am simply making a point about their action, because this action leads to the disintegration of the bonds that hold society together. I also have a problem with other trends in American society such as the legalization of drugs, such as marijuana, and the mainstreaming of things like pornography. It is true that homosexual acts were always taking place in society, people have been smoking weed since the time before there were Europeans in North America, and pornographic imagery has existed in some form since the time people could draw on cave walls. Also things like incest, child rape, murder, prostitution have also existed for thousands of years in every human community. 

To say that homosexual sex always existed does not mean that it is a good thing for society just as incest has always existed but we can probably agree that this is not a good thing for society. To say that it has always existed is just a red herring. I have said this before, I have no problem with any aspect of the 'gay' lifestyle besides the aspect of two (or more) people of the same sex acting as though they were a man and a women in marriage and promoting this in society. I have no problem with men who act effeminate,  men who like show tunes, men who wear brightly colored clothing, etc. That doesn't *scare* me. What scares me is a society which makes up it's own morality ad hoc, as it goes along with no guidance from God, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), because this society is headed for destruction, and myself, my children, and my grandchildren have to live in this society.

When you legalize a thing, you are promoting it, and as a consequence more people will do it. If something is socially destructive, and more people are doing it, that means society is headed for destruction, faster and faster. This is not a fearmongering, or a 'doomsday' scenario, it is just a fact. Whether a society survives or becomes destroyed is based on the sum total of all the actions that are done in that society by people. If the majority of the actions done by people in a society are social destructive, the society will be destroyed. If the majority of actions done by the people in the society are socially productive, the society will prosper and survive. 

Since people don't have complete knowledge of all the consequences of their actions, and whether they are ultimately socially productive or destructive, it is necessary that the knower of All, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) communicates to the people and tells them what actions are productive, and which are destructive. That is what Islam is, basically. 

People is America, and other countries, do many things on a daily basis that are socially productive. They do honest work, take care of their parent, take care of their children, give charity, worship God (in the way they were taught), do scientific research, increase their level of education, etc. That is the reason why, despite the fact that there are many socially destructive things happening, the society continues to survive, because most Americans are honest, hard working people who love others and love God(s.w.a). But as socially destructive actions are legalized / promoted, that balance start to shift over to the negative side. Has that shift already happened, I have no idea. But in order to keep it from happening (assuming it has not already happened), we need to do Amr bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar( enjoing the good and forbid the evil) to do our part. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 5/4/2021 at 7:58 AM, The Green Knight said:

I guess World Bank, Science Direct, UN and everybody else are either lying or as I know you did not bother googling and reading their articles

The integration and assimilation of LGBTQ people in society is the result of political fight, not some sort of hidden agenda. Otherwise they wouldn't have been repressed for centuries. Anyway, this may require much more than a quick google search.

On 5/4/2021 at 8:22 AM, The Green Knight said:

And what about the two women who will not have their men because of one homo couple? Can you fathom how devastating and unjust that is to human society?

Sex is NOT a right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

When you legalize a thing, you are promoting it

You realize this can be strongly used against Islam, right?

The bonds of society are constructed by society itself. A Muslim society as we know it would be broken with the acceptance of homosexuality. Not all types of societies. It depends on the society and how it shapes its morality. You can call it ad hoc morality, but the morality of people tolerating and respecting LGBT rights isn't worse than yours. Rather, it seems closer to the golden rule, and acknowledges rights universally.

Believing in a God given religion justifies your discourse, but your point is far from universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

When you legalize a thing, you are promoting it,

The law does not allow, it only restricts. "Legalizing" is not promotion, it is lack of legislation. It is removal of existing laws which, presumably, society no longer wants or needs. 

In my state, Virginia, it was illegal, might still be illegal I haven't checked, for any two people to engage in martial-type relations in any position other than lying down face to face. The law was passed to criminalize homosexuality, but it was (is?) absurdly invasive, and as far as I know it was never enforced. By legalizing a variety of sexual positions, the Virginia government is not (would not be?) promoting or condoning anything, just getting rid of an invasive law. 

 

Secular laws are the same as Islamic laws in that respect: anything not specifically prohibited is permitted.

Edited by notme
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bakir said:

Sex is NOT a right.

Can you explain? This was an answer? Even you exist because of a man and a woman. Normally people grow up in a family.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Also things like incest, child rape, murder, prostitution have also existed for thousands of years in every human community. 

What scares me is a society which makes up it's own morality ad hoc, as it goes along with no guidance from God, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), because this society is headed for destruction, and myself, my children, and my grandchildren have to live in this society.

People is America, and other countries, do many things on a daily basis that are socially productive. They do honest work, take care of their parent, take care of their children, give charity, worship God (in the way they were taught), do scientific research, increase their level of education, etc. That is the reason why, despite the fact that there are many socially destructive things happening, the society continues to survive, because most Americans are honest, hard working people who love others and love God(s.w.a). But as socially destructive actions are legalized / promoted, that balance start to shift over to the negative side. Has that shift already happened, I have no idea. But in order to keep it from happening (assuming it has not already happened), we need to do Amr bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar( enjoing the good and forbid the evil) to do our part. 

I don't view homosexuality as a sin on the level of rape or murder because of course these involve non consensual assault and death. I view incest as common place in many parts of the world where people marry their cousins, but they get along fine. If this incest were of a kind that would cause genetic defects that would lead to death of the individuals children, then I would disagree with it, given that this kind of sexual activity would result in pain and death of children.

Homosexuality doesn't result in the birth of children with genetic defects, nor is it a violent act, nor is it even one that harms our society. It is improper to equate these actions.

And America's success isn't due to things like bans on gay marriage. But rather it's due to things like bans on bans of gay marriage.

It is the opposite of what you believe that has allowed us to thrive.  But you don't have to simply take my word for it. All you have to do is look and directly observe the success of nations with legalized gay marriage in comparison with those that don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Bakir said:

You realize this can be strongly used against Islam, right?

The bonds of society are constructed by society itself. A Muslim society as we know it would be broken with the acceptance of homosexuality. Not all types of societies. It depends on the society and how it shapes its morality. You can call it ad hoc morality, but the morality of people tolerating and respecting LGBT rights isn't worse than yours. Rather, it seems closer to the golden rule, and acknowledges rights universally.

Believing in a God given religion justifies your discourse, but your point is far from universal.

I don't agree with your point about society being broken. If you take the number of muslims that live in countries like US, UK, EU, Australia, Canada, etc, these are that surpass or are close to 100 million. This is a larger number than the population of most Muslims countries. All these countries have legalized gay marriage and are actively promoting the LGBTQ agenda. The muslim communities in all these countries have issues, just like communities do everywhere, but they are far from 'broken'. In fact it is the opposite, the muslims community is the fastest growing religious community in all these countries. If a community is growing by leaps and bounds, it is not broken. So there goes that argument, out the window. 

A true muslim community would never accept a behavior that is not accepted by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The definition of a 'muslim' is someone who defers their will to the will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in cases where there is a difference between the two. So some person, or some community who does not do this, and does not ask for forgiveness, and believes it is ok and perfectly acceptable is not a muslim, and a community that is based on this is not a muslim community. They might be an ethnic community who all come from a country where Islam is the majority religion, but that is different from being a muslim community. 

As for the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), accepting a behavior which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not allow is actually the opposite of the Golden Rule. Any society which makes up it's own morality, ad hoc, depending on the mood of the people at that particular time meets with destruction. That is because human beings, as an individual, or as a collective, don't have ability to make up their own morality. Every human being is biased toward their own likes / dislikes, so they can't see the bigger picture about what is good for the society, in general, only what is good for them. They also don't have the knowledge to know how their behavior will affect all the other moving parts of society over time, because they are temporally limited (limited in lifespan) and also spatially limited (they only know what happens in the place that is directly observable to them). I don't want to be destroyed, and I don't want my society (others) to be destroyed. So speaking out against this behavior is in accordance with the golden rule, and advocating for it is against the golden rule, since it would lead to my destruction and the destruction of my society. 

BTW, I don't hate gay people. Hate is a useless emotion except when it comes to hating the Thalim and Tagut (the oppressors and those who set themselves up as equal to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in worship). I have a ways to go in my spiritual development, but I am hoping to someday get to the point where I can do what Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) did, which was do Dua for them and ask Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to forgive them and guide them to the Sirat Al Mustakeem (Strait path). I am not at that level yet, because I don't want to do this dua until I can do it with sincerity, but I don't hate them, so I am passed that. 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I don't view homosexuality as a sin on the level of rape or murder because of course these involve non consensual assault and death. I view incest as common place in many parts of the world where people marry their cousins, but they get along fine. If this incest were of a kind that would cause genetic defects that would lead to death of the individuals children, then I would disagree with it, given that this kind of sexual activity would result in pain and death of children.

Homosexuality doesn't result in the birth of children with genetic defects, nor is it a violent act, nor is it even one that harms our society. It is improper to equate these actions.

And America's success isn't due to things like bans on gay marriage. But rather it's due to things like bans on bans of gay marriage.

It is the opposite of what you believe that has allowed us to thrive.  But you don't have to simply take my word for it. All you have to do is look and directly observe the success of nations with legalized gay marriage in comparison with those that don't.

What you define as success and what I define as success are two different things. The fact that the US / UK / EU, etc have huge militaries that they can use to bully other countries into submitting to their will is not success, in my definition. It is failure. The fact that the US controls the economies of the world thru the petro dollar scheme and the SWIFT system is not success in my definition. Success in my definition is living in a society where noone is hungry, noone is homeless, noones rights are violated because of the color of their skin or where they live or their economic status. A society where noone is 'above the law' and injustice is rare. A society where noone is 'left out' or made to feel abandoned or worthless because of the above. A society where everyone, regardless of the zip code where they grew up has an equal chance of making a good living and supporting their family with dignified work. American society is far, far from that, and I'm not sure it is even moving in that direction, currently. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

What you define as success and what I define as success are two different things. The fact that the US / UK / EU, etc have huge militaries that they can use to bully other countries into submitting to their will is not success, in my definition. It is failure. The fact that the US controls the economies of the world thru the petro dollar scheme and the SWIFT system is not success in my definition. Success in my definition is living in a society where noone is hungry, noone is homeless, noones rights are violated because of the color of their skin or where they live or their economic status. A society where noone is 'above the law' and injustice is rare. A society where noone is 'left out' or made to feel abandoned or worthless because of the above. A society where everyone, regardless of the zip code where they grew up has an equal chance of making a good living and supporting their family with dignified work. American society is far, far from that, and I'm not sure it is even moving in that direction, currently. 

 

Ok, we can refer to these countries as "socially productive" if you don't like the term "successful".

Anyway, America isn't the only nation that allows gay marriage. 

Regardless, let "social productivity" speak for itself. You don't have to take my word for it. Just sit back and observe. 

Speaking of inequality:

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/08/995053653/bombing-near-kabul-school-kills-at-least-30-many-of-them-girls

Believing that gays ought to have fewer rights than everyone else really is just an extension of the same prejudices that have plagued women and people of color throughout history. And contrary to what people claim in defense of their actions, these prejudices are born out of fear and a view of superiority over those oppressed. 

And to be fair, some of these prejudices are born out of overly conservative religious dogma, as observed in the above article. 

Some of us have gotten passed these barriers and are moving forward with socially productive equality. Others are just stuck in their ways.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

so you are citing an attack on hazara shias in afghanistan as an argument against abu hadi who is shia?

 

Ah yeah afghanistan another broken nation because of foreign intervention from countries like good america

 

The persecution of hazaras in afghanistan isnt based on religion either. Sectarian difference just fueled it after it began.

Edited by Khurasani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

Can you explain? This was an answer? Even you exist because of a man and a woman. Normally people grow up in a family.

Wow, what a spin... We are talking about sex, not about family structure and child's rights, which is an entirely different topic.

By "sex is not a right" I was referring to the maths you were doing when saying that a couple of two men would deprive two women of having a man for them. Nobody has the right to be with a man or a woman, there is freedom of choice. If, for whatever reason, no one wants to be with you, either because there are no available partners or because no one wants you, you have to cope with it. You don't have the right to be with a person, because that would affect other people's freedom. So, depriving someone from having a partner of the opposite sex available isn't a point against homosexuality. It is as if you criminalize being single merely because a person of the opposite sex isn't going to have a partner. That is what I was implying when I said that "sex is not a right".

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The muslim communities in all these countries have issues, just like communities do everywhere, but they are far from 'broken'. In fact it is the opposite, the muslims community is the fastest growing religious community in all these countries. If a community is growing by leaps and bounds, it is not broken. So there goes that argument, out the window

And I acknowledge our point. In fact, I celebrate it more than you can imagine. Because if the existence of homosexuality in society doesn't break Muslim communities, it means there is room for tolerance without the need for acceptance. I personally know it doesn't, but I sometimes read here the damage it does to the "social fabric" (you have said this in more than one ocassion yourself) and I honestly don't see Muslims dying because of the existence of LGBTQ people. Rather, what may be killing Muslims in the West is racism and islamophobia. And as incoherent as it may sound, the people who actively fight against these also fight against LGBTIphobia. By the way, regardless of its etimological construction, this word doesn't relate as much to "fear" as it related to hate, prejudices, prosecution, and support for unjust legal and social structures against the LGBT community. Homophobic people don't fear gays, I wish they feared us.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The definition of a 'muslim' is someone who defers their will to the will of Allah

In this case, it is much more than their will. It is their very own moral judgement. As a former Muslim, I had no problem in surrendering my will to Allah. But I couldn't look the other way when it came to the moral judgement. The amounts of moral crimes that can be done in the name of Islam and be legal from a religious perspective is astonishing, and I won't support any ideology or religion this far. Moreover, one shall understand that regardless of our beliefs, we live in a diverse (and secular) society, and our freedom ends where others' start. Individual freedom must be respected, otherwise, if you expect to impose a repressive law on society (such as the prohibition of homosexuality), don't expect to do so with words, but with weapons (as they do in Muslim countries where prosecution and murdering is rather common, both from the State -police, and citizens or militia). Guess Islam supports that too (at least their "representatives" do).

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), accepting a behavior which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does not allow is actually the opposite of the Golden Rule. Any society which makes up it's own morality, ad hoc, depending on the mood of the people at that particular time meets with destruction. That is because human beings, as an individual, or as a collective, don't have ability to make up their own morality. Every human being is biased toward their own likes / dislikes, so they can't see the bigger picture about what is good for the society, in general, only what is good for them. They also don't have the knowledge to know how their behavior will affect all the other moving parts of society over time, because they are temporally limited (limited in lifespan) and also spatially limited (they only know what happens in the place that is directly observable to them). I don't want to be destroyed, and I don't want my society (others) to be destroyed. So speaking out against this behavior is in accordance with the golden rule, and advocating for it is against the golden rule, since it would lead to my destruction and the destruction of my society

This whole paragraph is a bit messy. Human beings and society can make their own morality. This is a fact, as we have in history different non abrahamic moralities, before and after. Moralities are socially built within the creation of societies. And as societies change, moralities may also change. The appearance of religions themselves supposed a social moral change which made sense to their respective societies. Or do you think Muhammad or Jesus made magic and turned everyone into believers? They convinced their respective societies, acknowledging their respective problems, impressing them in their respective cultures. The poetry of Islam and the universality of its concepts isn't the result of a coincidence, but a crucial social factor that was genuinely taken into consideration. If the content of Islam didn't made sense at a moral and political level in early Arabia, it wouldn't have had support. We can say that Allah chose the right moment to send Islam, but lets not be naive to think that we were animals before Islam and Muhammad made magic to turn Arabs into believers. Islam itself acknowledges the human moral agency you seem to criticize. However, it says that one shall surrender and have faith in Allah, regardless of the doubts this moral agency may arise (I always point at the story of Moses and al Khidr regarding this dichotomy). It is also, as I said previously, the reason I left Islam. To recognize and preserve my moral agency.

As what is good for society, it depends. It depends on each society and its conditions. That's the thing. It is relative. I understand that selfishness is there and it puts in risk the rest of society. We have seen that in this pandemic in many countries. But the moral discourse is intact. People can have a secular morality that speaks against their own selfish desires, and can obey that morality and its principles for reasons that go beyond their selfishness.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

BTW, I don't hate gay people.

I know you don't. Most Muslims I have met don't. They just reject homosexuality for religious and spiritual reasons, and that's perfectly ok.

I currently work with the local government in a study group for LGBTQphobia here, and there isn't any link with Islam to be honest. Muslim communities in the West just tend to have problems with queer people when it is within their own ranks (kids, basically).

I don't really like to link LGBTQphobia with Islam in general, even in Muslim countries, but certain discourses shall really change in favour of peace and tolerance to avoid legitimazing death squads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
59 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Wow, what a spin... We are talking about sex, not about family structure and child's rights, which is an entirely different topic.

By "sex is not a right" I was referring to the maths you were doing when saying that a couple of two men would deprive two women of having a man for them. Nobody has the right to be with a man or a woman, there is freedom of choice.

Ok for instance, lgtb people are at least not going to pioneer a colony on mars. Since you won't reproduce the colony will fail. Imagine, if you can, this insanity existed when the American continents were discovered. There would be native still living there. Imagine Elon Musk takes lgtb to mars with his first flock (I know its all a fantasy but just imagine). The lgtb do their thing on mars, turn men into gays, women into lesbians, while some take sex change surgeries. Voila. Failure.

Same thing is harmful for the society on earth. And what is harmful to society is defined as "insanity":

Quote

Insanity, madness, and craziness are terms that describe a spectrum of individual and group behaviors that are characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity can be manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person or persons becoming a danger to themselves or to other people.

Source

(I didn't write this.)

1 hour ago, Bakir said:

you have to cope with it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

turn men into gays, women into lesbians

Pretty sure it's not contagious. I had a lesbian housemate when I was at university, and I'm still straight, never seriously considered homosexuality, even when I had no religion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, notme said:

I was at university,

University age is too late. It doesn't work later. Look at the Millennials and the Gen Z and see how they have incomparably more gays compared to the previous generations? Only one explanation. Its done during early youth. Secondly, how do you think he is suggesting straight people "cope with it"? Whatever that method is is also not good at all for the person nor the society.

The official explanation for increased gays in latest generations is that they found the freedom to do so. But its illogical because from the previous generations almost none availed that freedom? What happened to their genes? Did they evolve? Or is it as Freud said, a mental illness. Either way from the statistics of previous generations not taking the new found "freedom" one thing is for certain that the "gay gene" can be cured.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

The lgtb do their thing on mars, turn men into gays, women into lesbians, while some take sex change surgeries. Voila. Failure.

You think they will send children to Mars? 

What actually makes the most sense would be to send only women. Women are smaller and consume less food and oxygen and produce less waste. Women tend to be better at getting along with each other, and are as capable as men at science and technology. Robots could be used for any heavy lifting or opening of jars. :einstein:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, notme said:

You think they will send children to Mars? 

What actually makes the most sense would be to send only women. Women are smaller and consume less food and oxygen and produce less waste. Women tend to be better at getting along with each other, and are as capable as men at science and technology. Robots could be used for any heavy lifting or opening of jars. :einstein:

Hello? A colony has to grow in numbers through reproduction. Without reproduction it will die. After a year there will be martians born. If its a robot colony we want then robots are allegedly already there. Musk says he wants human beings to exist on at least another planet. (Not robots)

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
25 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

Without reproduction it will die. After a year there will be martians born.

They don't even know if humans can reproduce off Earth. As far as anyone knows, it has never been attempted. Musk wants people to live on Mars, but he's probably perfectly content to keep sending them. Sending is much more of a spectacle. 

But first thing: there are technologies that make it possible for homosexual people to reproduce without ever touching the opposite sex. 

Second thing: does homosexuality really seem so appealing that you think all the Mars colonist children will turn gay? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2021 at 10:41 AM, Khurasani said:

so you are citing an attack on hazara shias in afghanistan as an argument against abu hadi who is shia?

 

Ah yeah afghanistan another broken nation because of foreign intervention from countries like good america

 

The persecution of hazaras in afghanistan isnt based on religion either. Sectarian difference just fueled it after it began.

What I'm pointing out is that there is a broader philosophy at play here.

Who were the victims of the attack in the article? They were women.

Prejudices of gays are an extension of prejudices of women and of people of color and of people of other religions or cultures etc.

Ever hear of one Shia who can't get approval from a parent to marry another Shia due to these kinds of prejudices? Maybe because their skin color is slightly different or maybe one is of a more pious or well-known family than another. It's the same thing.

It's an extension of a philosophical view that one person is of more value than another. Women are of less value to men so let's attack the women in their schools. Blacks are of less value than whites so let's prevent blacks from marrying whites. Gays are of less value than straight people so let's ban their marriage and prevent them from displaying any public affection with their partner by imprisoning them.

These are all fruits of the same tree. And these are exactly what prevents societal success. 

And the banning of bans on gay marriage, is an extension of the opposing philosophical view that all man shall be treated equally. A gay man can own a piece of property just like a straight man, A black man can run a business just like a white man. A woman can get an education just like a man. Etc.

Gay people should have the right to marry. And if straight can hug or kiss in public, gays should be able to as well. 

And this isn't some sinful position that will lead to the destruction of planet Earth. Quite the opposite it is the elimination of prejudices that people before us have held for generations. Let that shia marry the other Shia. Let that woman drive a car, let that black man make equal pay as that white man, and let that gay man hold hands with his boyfriend in public. It isn't sin. It's freedom.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

What I'm pointing out is that there is a broader philosophy at play here.

Who were the victims of the attack in the article? They were women.

Prejudices of gays are an extension of prejudices of women and of people of color and of people of other religions or cultures etc.

Ever hear of one Shia who can't get approval from a parent to marry another Shia due to these kinds of prejudices? Maybe because their skin color is slightly different or maybe one is of a more pious or well-known family than another. It's the same thing.

It's an extension of a philosophical view that one person is of more value than another. Women are of less value to men so let's attack the women in their schools. Blacks are of less value than whites so let's prevent blacks from marrying whites. Gays are of less value than straight people so let's ban their marriage and prevent them from displaying any public affection with their partner by imprisoning them.

These are all fruits of the same tree. And these are exactly what prevents societal success. 

And the banning of bans on gay marriage, is an extension of the opposing philosophical view that all man shall be treated equally. A gay man can own a piece of property just like a straight man, A black man can run a business just like a white man. A woman can get an education just like a man. Etc.

Gay people should have the right to marry. And if straight can hug or kiss in public, gays should be able to as well. 

And this isn't some sinful position that will lead to the destruction of planet Earth. Quite the opposite it is the elimination of prejudices that people before us have held for generations. Let that shia marry the other Shia. Let that woman drive a car, let that black man make equal pay as that white man, and let that gay man hold hands with his boyfriend in public. It isn't sin. It's freedom.

the victims in this article are my people i am hazara i know many people who have faced discrimination for being hazara. Being born a certain race or ethnicity isnt a choice and you may say being gay isnt either but where the line is when it comes to action. You cannot compare the struggles either. When you look at a black, mexican, arab, hazara whatever you can tell they are what they are (most of the times) and then you can discriminate. You can never know a person is gay untill they say they are gay so they are very much more safe. The attraction itself isnt the problem either its the actions they take that we are against. I dont like that you use the struggle my people face daily to promote some lgbtq+ motives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, notme said:

Second thing: does homosexuality really seem so appealing that you think all the Mars colonist children will turn gay? 

They all don't have to be gay in order for the population to decrease. But the gay thing will make its impact on it. Already, nations like Japan for instance don't need gayism as their population is going down. So certainly the pioneers are not going to have gays as they would want the colony to multiply asap. There will also be the big disease and contamination problem coming from dangerous vast varieties of fecal matter pathogens which cover gays and preverts.

1 hour ago, notme said:

But first thing: there are technologies that make it possible for homosexual people to reproduce without ever touching the opposite sex. 

Cloning?! Lol. What technologies btw?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, notme said:

does homosexuality really seem so appealing

As for its appeal, how do you explain Gen Z and Millennials' "gay boom"? Up to 20% of Gen Z is misguided about gender and/or orientations. Granted its not a particularly bright generation but I wouldn't mind explanations or theories. (Few of which I have already posted in previous posts)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, notme said:

Artificial insemination. 

How can gays have that? I mean in order to reproduce? Might work for lesbians but i can't imagine them ever having taken one. Its still going to come from a man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, Khurasani said:

the victims in this article are my people i am hazara i know many people who have faced discrimination for being hazara. Being born a certain race or ethnicity isnt a choice and you may say being gay isnt either but where the line is when it comes to action. You cannot compare the struggles either. When you look at a black, mexican, arab, hazara whatever you can tell they are what they are (most of the times) and then you can discriminate. You can never know a person is gay untill they say they are gay so they are very much more safe. The attraction itself isnt the problem either its the actions they take that we are against. I dont like that you use the struggle my people face daily to promote some lgbtq+ motives.

I wish I could say that gays are more safe, but in some places in the world, they could be killed for being gay.

What you're saying, this idea that gays don't face discrimination? Isn't true.

And it's not about promoting lgbtq anything. It's about promoting liberty. 

And I'm sorry if you can't see this. I'm sorry that your people are oppressed too. Perhaps if the oppressors viewed all people as equal, then perhaps we wouldn't have these issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...